Enda Kenny
Ceist:1 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the total projected costs to date of the communications unit in his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24228/05]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Departmental Bodies.
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:2 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the projected cost of the communications unit within his Department for 2005; the number of staff employed in the unit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26557/05]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:3 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the costs since 2002 of the communications unit within his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27306/05]
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:4 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the costs to date in 2005 of the communications unit in his Department; the projected costs for 2005; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28639/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, together.
The total projected cost of the communications unit to date in 2005 is €239,951. The sum of €96,938 is a direct cost to my Department, with on average €32,475 being borne by the five other Departments with staff seconded to the unit. The total projected cost of the unit for 2005 is €319,934, with €129,250 being a direct cost to my Department. The total cost of the communications unit since 2002, which includes a projected cost for 2005, is €1,085,300.
The unit provides a media information service to Ministers and their Departments. It furnishes news updates and transcripts which ensure Departments are kept informed in a quick and efficient manner of any relevant news developments. In this way, Departments are able to provide a better service to the public.
The communications unit works an 18-hour day based on a flexible rota of three working shifts. The unit is staffed by six established civil servants, five of whom are seconded from other Departments. The work of the unit means Departments have greatly reduced their use of external companies and ensure they no longer duplicate work such as transcripts and tapes. The communications unit is estimated to save Departments in excess of €200,000 per annum.
It is a long day to be giving bad news. The Taoiseach's normal defence of the unit is that it replaces use by Departments of commercial transcript-providing companies. Is the Taoiseach satisfied that no Department continues to get transcripts of media programmes and interviews on a commercial basis?
Last May the Taoiseach said it was estimated the communications unit saved Departments in excess of €200,000 per annum, yet it will cost €319,000 to run the unit this year. Does the Taoiseach consider that to be good value?
The last time we discussed this matter the Taoiseach extended an invitation to Deputy Rabbitte and me to see the communications unit for ourselves. If there is a possibility that we might have to examine the unit, is the invitation still open?
I am always happy to show Deputies the good services provided by my Department. If other Departments are using transcripts for programmes available from the communications unit, they should not be. I am not certain that none of them is but there is no reason they should, although the unit does not cover local programmes. Of the staff in the unit, 90% are from other Departments so they know transcripts are available.
The figure for savings has been used for the past seven or eight years since the service started. If it were to be estimated now, it would be much higher. The unit gives a good service and good value. It is not just a service to Ministers but to several hundred people who get updates every hour of every day. It is a useful service provided by a small number of people and produces savings equal to the salaries and allowances paid to staff it. It is a Civil Service unit, not a political one.
Is the Taoiseach satisfied with the performance of this unit? He says its central purpose is to keep Ministers informed. A pattern has emerged in recent times whereby if anything controversial is discussed in this House, the only thing one can be certain of is that Ministers will claim not to have been informed. Might this unit fill the vacuum in the memories and knowledge of line Ministers who should be aware of things going awry in their Department and who, even when information appears in the press, still do not know about it?
The Deputy knows the unit deals with issues of the day that are in the public domain. It cannot do any more than that. It is not a political unit and cannot forewarn or advise Ministers or their officials in advance.
Given that the communications unit is staffed by established civil servants and provides a news monitoring service to a range of Ministers and Departments other than the Taoiseach's, will he not accede to the repeated requests of Deputies that the service be made available in the Oireachtas Library so that all Members of this House can have access to the information provided? Given that it is paid for by taxpayers, does he not believe that the media summaries and updates of news reports should also be put on the internal Oireachtas website as a resource for Members?
Failing that, does the Taoiseach agree that the information should be made available on request from the communications unit? If the answer to any or all of these questions is "No", will he explain why?
Data prepared by civil servants in their normal course of work are not made available to Members of the House and this case is no different. The information provide by the communications unit is a summary of daily news bulletins. Members may access this information themselves. The advantage of this is that transcripts and other information are available; that is the service that is provided to Departments rather than having them deal with commercial organisations.
It is interesting to note how much Civil Service time, energy and resources have been invested in the communications unit, yet freedom of information legislation has been amended to frustrate the accessing of information that may otherwise be — and should be — available. Is there not merit in the opinion that this is less of a communications unit and more of a propaganda unit which is doing the business of Government, instead of providing an objective service available to all sides of the House and the Oireachtas in general?
From a legal point of view I would argue that there is an obligation on the communications unit to be available more widely than just to the Government and to the people working on its behalf who were mentioned by the Taoiseach. Has the Taoiseach had any discussions with the Attorney General on this issue and does a case have to be answered on the availability of information from the communications unit?
If the Deputy is suggesting that a summary of what is contained in the morning newspapers and on radio equates to propaganda, I am not sure who benefits from this propaganda. That is a point of view worth debating. This unit points out what is in the newspaper and radio headlines.
Ministerial Staff.
Enda Kenny
Ceist:5 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the duties and responsibilities of the special political advisers appointed by him; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24229/05]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:6 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the number of special political advisers appointed by him; their roles and responsibilities; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27307/05]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:7 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the responsibilities of the political advisers in his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27681/05]
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:8 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the responsibilities of the special political advisers appointed by him; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28640/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 to 8, inclusive, together.
There are six special advisers appointed by me and there has been no increase in their number since I took office. Under the direction of the programme manager, the primary function of the advisers is to monitor, facilitate and help secure the achievement of Government objectives and to ensure effective co-ordination in the implementation of the programme for Government. They are also tasked with giving me advice and keeping me informed on a wide range of issues, including business, financial, economic, political, administrative and media matters and performing other such functions as may be directed by me from time to time.
Each of the advisers liaises with a number of Departments and acts as a point of contact in my office for Ministers and their advisers. My advisers attend meetings of Cabinet committees and cross-departmental teams relevant to their responsibilities. They also liaise, on my behalf, with organisations and interest groups outside of Government. In addition, a number of my advisers have specific responsibilities with regard to speech drafting. My programme manager meets other ministerial advisers on a weekly basis. He monitors and reports to me on progress in implementing the programme for Government.
Are there guidelines for the work of the six special advisers in the Taoiseach's Department and, if so, do such guidelines apply to other Departments? When a special adviser is appointed, does he or she get a list of regulations or conditions that he or she must abide by? How is the monitoring function of the special advisers implemented? Do the advisers visit other Departments to see if the programme for Government is being put in place?
On advisers liaising with special interest groups, does one of the six advisers liaise with the group of Independent Deputies in the House, just in case the Taoiseach needs them at some time in the future?
The advisers are governed by the Public Services Management (Recruitment and Appointments) Act 2004. They are governed by ethics legislation from 1995 and 2004 and they also have written contracts. Difficulties occurred some years ago and procedure was tightened as a result. Advisers in other Departments are also governed by these measures. Each year these people must fill in a full range of forms declaring any interests and send them to the ethics commission. They do not tend to go to meetings in other Departments when meetings are held in Government buildings, but they meet on a weekly basis with the advisers from other Departments. None of those mentioned is involved with the independents. An official from the Whip's office meets them from time to time, but that was more relevant to the last Government.
Are individual political advisers assigned particular policy areas? Do any of the Taoiseach's political advisers have a sole, focused responsibility for health, or for the peace process, or for international affairs? Does the Taoiseach agree that it would be better if such a focused approach existed? In that way, attention to key areas that reflect poorly on this Government would help to ensure that matters moved forward expeditiously in the interests not only of the Government, but more importantly, of the wider electorate.
What system of accountability exists for these advisers? How are they assessed in their stewardship or in their value for public money, other than for the project of the next general election?
The advisers are focused on individual areas. They do not duplicate effort and are designated to individual Departments because that is the sensible way to do things. Some work on foreign affairs issues, on Northern Ireland issues or on health or education issues and they liaise with people in those Departments. The Deputy's view is that some of these areas are not well run. I am glad to see, however, that the IMF stated today that the country is doing well because of the success of Government policies. The Deputy obviously disagrees, but he is entitled to that view.
I note that there are 13 employees in the Taoiseach's private office and eight in his constituency office, under the general term of advisers or staff. Can the Taoiseach clarify the breakdown, if it exists, between Civil Service positions and appointees from outside the Civil Service in that number? What pay scale is being followed for these staff? Is it totally separate from anything in the Civil Service? I have seen salaries of €192,784 and €144,064. Is that scale benchmarked against any other performance, or is it unique to the Taoiseach's Department?
I listed the individuals and their salary scales in the answer to the original question. The special advisers are linked to Civil Service grades. The Department of Finance set these scales when the advisers are taken on. My programme manager is allowed a top-up, but all the salaries are linked to Civil Service or Department of Finance scales, such as assistant principal and principal officer.
What about the breakdown between appointees and civil servants?
None of the six appointees is a civil servant. They all must leave when I leave.
I read that one of the Taoiseach's people concerned was recently decorated by the French Government. If that is true, I extend my congratulations.
He clearly thinks this policy brings a valuable dimension to governance. The way things are going, I agree with him. It brings a valuable dimension and I am happy we are agreed on that. However, does he think the idea should be extended? For example, what is his view about recruiting senior managers in the private sector for certain jobs, not just in his own Department but in the Civil Service generally?
The Secretary General in my Department made a speech about that over the weekend. He put forward the circumstances and the case as to how it could be done on the basis of public service reform. I had a chance to read half of his speech. As far as bringing in expertise from the private sector is concerned, he made the point that while it has been carried out in a limited way for many years and a small number of people have been recruited, it has not been done in any major way. As many recent reports from the Comptroller and Auditor General have revealed, expertise is lacking in many areas of the public service. There have been many arguments about consultants and advisers but he made the case that the public service does not have the expertise. The Secretary General argued that in some cases, there are areas to which outside expertise should perhaps be introduced.
My view is that one could do so and it might be even argued that in certain areas, it might be cheaper than hiring outside companies. However, I do not believe that top class experts in some areas could be secured cheaply. There are always arguments about benchmarking between the public and private sectors, when one considers the various grades. However, one should examine the salaries of financial specialists working in Dublin and compare their earnings to the salary of an Accounting Officer. Deputy Rabbitte is aware that people working in the top stock market houses or who manage funds in the IFSC earn salaries that seem extraordinary to the Deputy, to myself or to anyone else in this House. I am well remunerated for my job, but none of these people would do my job for the salary I receive and the best of luck to them.
Therefore, I do not believe it would be easy to recruit top class experts. One could recruit people into the middle ranks, but it would not be easy. How would ten high level people arriving with enormously large salaries fit in with others in the public service? Nevertheless, an argument exists and it is an argument against the costs of consultants. Public servants feel aggrieved from time to time, much as they admire the expertise of consultants, when they see the rates being charged, possibly not to the individuals but to the companies. This area also requires some examination. The Secretary General of my Department, who has been an eminent public servant for many decades, has made the point that there are arguments to be considered as part of strategic management and public performance management. I do not discount his view that there are areas which should be examined. He has not come to this view recently but has been articulating it for the last decade or more.
When the time comes for Members to pay tribute to the Taoiseach, undoubtedly Members from all sides of the House will have to compliment him on his unremitting courtesy to the House, even in the face of provocation. Hence, I do not mean to be rude by stating that I know what his Secretary General's view is as I have read the speech. I am asking the Taoiseach for his view. Does he agree with the recruitment of outside people to managerial posts in the Civil Service, or may I draw the inference that the question of salary is the only obstacle? It has been a pattern and we cannot have it both ways. The Taoiseach's Ministers continually run away from any decisions that go wrong. They have a quango, an organisation, a civil servant or something else to blame. They seem to take the attitude that such problems were caused by operational decisions that should have been taken by civil servants. Perhaps we need more skilled managers. I am trying to establish the Taoiseach's view of this matter as I know the Secretary General's view.
I was trying to balance my comments. There are many morale and industrial relations issues throughout the public service. Deputy Rabbitte and I have both spent much time dealing with the service in one way or another. I know the system and how its members other than the top 1% think.
It would be difficult to implement what the Deputy suggests. Exchanges take place at present, in which people come into the system from a commercial company for a period, which is not the same as advertising the number two post in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment to outsiders, for example. For those who work hard in the system and do their best at executive officer, higher executive officer, staff officer, assistant principal officer and principal officer levels, what happens to their morale when they reach 52 or 53 years of age after serving committees of the Oireachtas and the public service and undertaking evening degrees, which many do, only to have someone from outside come in? It is a significant dilemma.
To get a person comparable to someone who, by that stage, has 25 years of public service experience and a large amount of knowledge in dealing with Brussels, Luxembourg and so on, would not be cheap for the system. If this person entered at a very high level, what would happen vis-à-vis other levels and assistant secretaries in other Departments? My honest opinion is that this seems a grandiose proposal to table but I do not know how it could work. I have spent many years working with civil servants on the old relativity claims, equity claims and others and can foresee a nightmare of arguments against this move. On the other side of the argument is the cost because we do not have the expertise.
I have answered in writing a number of parliamentary questions on a certain issue. If one were to take my Department, which is relatively small, as an example, there are eight people doing postgraduate studies and a total of 33 at university level who get some assistance from the State's taxpayers this year. I welcome this activity as we should help them in their training and knowledge. This is a fair way of achieving something. It is not simply a case of advertising and bringing people in at the top levels. The Deputy has asked for my view as Taoiseach and someone who has watched the system. This proposal is easily put forward but I have difficulty believing it would work in the public service.
I am interested in what the Taoiseach has said. However, is it not reasonable to draw the conclusion that the reason we have such frequent resort to outside consultants is that we do not have the in-house capacity or knowledge? The Comptroller and Auditor General carried out a report on this matter four to six years ago or longer in which he examined the service. There have been some very stark examples in recent times. Is this because we do not have the in-house capacity or is there a fear in the modern Civil Service in that, owing to the nature of public affairs today or whatever reason, civil servants are afraid to make decisions on certain matters without the cover of a consultant's report, so that even a relatively straightforward matter will not go up the line or reach the Minister's desk unless it instances one of the top five consultants claiming the idea put forward is good? I draw from the Taoiseach's answer — he can tell me whether I am correct — that he has thought about this and has concluded the implications for IR and staff morale are such that he does not see how we can easily do it. A crying need exists for this type of expertise and resorting to consultants is an extremely expensive way of achieving it.
I do not disagree with Deputy Rabbitte's analysis. It is a fact that we do not have the expertise in certain areas, sectors and disciplines. That is undoubtedly true. We saw recently that in IT we do not have the type of expertise that can design a system afresh. I am sure Members of the House are aware that in the private sector, developing and enhancing the quality and content of what a system will deliver is an enormously well-resourced job.
We use consultants in these areas because expecting existing members of staff to do their regular jobs and then do a little work on enhancing a system would not be possible. While they are capable of designing complicated systems, the resources are not available. For many years the Comptroller and Auditor General has stated that we do not have the expertise in many areas. I have no doubt he would consider this one such area. It is not easy to introduce that expertise. One could create specialist appointments, which has been done before. A grade could be created whereby if a person entered in that grade he or she could not move out of it. Ringfencing the position would avoid some of the IR problems. A person would enter as an expert in a particular area and that would save some money on some consultancy fees.
Regarding the point on whether public servants are afraid to act or make a decision, we are lucky to have honest, efficient public servants who are able to carry out their roles. This House has changed dramatically during the past decade, as has the country. Public servants are now subject to the rigours of parliamentary democracy, accountability and scrutiny and are answerable for the enormous amount of money, approximately €42 billion, being spent.
It is in people's nature to make the best possible decisions. As we have seen during the past few years, when things go wrong they and the Government get it in the neck. However, while it is a fact that people are more careful and cautious, that is not the primary reason for it. Decisions have become far more complex. In many situations involving State contracts, public servants deal with outside agencies and sophisticated companies with vast resources, expertise and specialists. They deal with experienced professional people on matters such as procurement and cost structures and they must be careful. In terms of contracts for roads and rail, for example, public servants have to deal with professionals from companies which have vast resources and expertise and specialists.
Most of the Irish professional procurement agencies are linked to international offices. Increasingly when I chair the cross-departmental team on infrastructure, I see companies bringing with them gurus who have completed megabuck contracts from Spain, France or Germany. Our public servants must deal with these people and it is not easy. To ensure they get it right they seek whatever advice they can. That is in the ethos of people trying to do their best. They do it to protect not themselves, but the Departments and finances, and they do it in as sophisticated a way as possible. Their attitude is not that they will not make a decision in order to avoid making a mistake.
What lessons would the Taoiseach draw, for example, from the apparent success of the National Treasury Management Agency?
The Deputy should please confine himself to the question.
The Taoiseach asked me what I was referring to. I was just explaining that it was the National Treasury Management Agency, which was established initially to manage the national debt. It has acquired a number of very important areas since then. Even insurance was added when we got into difficulties in that area. Now, the new development finance agency involving certain dimensions of infrastructural projects for the future is included and so on. Is it because the NTMA is free to employ top-flight personnel at the market rate and, therefore, we can entrust tasks to it that could not be done within the Civil Service any longer? If that is the conclusion, it seems to me to have certain implications for this debate.
The National Treasury Management Agency commenced its operations when I was Minister for Finance, when the national debt/GNP ratio was frightening to say the least. The resources of the State were being gobbled up, as the Deputy knows, and matters had to be managed in another way. What the Deputy said is correct. We were able to use top-class people who not only had previous experience but had reached the top commercially as regards the management of debt, re-financing, the gilts markets etc. These were people with long experience in those areas who were able to build a significant team.
One of the major problems when the economy improved in the last decade was how to hold on to people. Even though the NTMA was paying significantly more than the normal Civil Service rates, it was not able to match market rates and some of its best and brightest young people — many of them from the public service and the Department of Finance — were attracted to the private sector.
Nonetheless, the NTMA had the flexibility to cope, as it did with the new claims agency, public private partnerships and the new roles created for it by the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen. It was able to bring in expertise, to get legal, insurance and other professional advice on a buy-in basis and have access to actuarial and process maintenance consultants in a way that a Government Department could not. Because it possessed such a degree of flexibility and streamlining, the NTMA was given these responsibilities. It is not subject to the same strictures as Departments in the Civil Service, which has given it the necessary freedom to do the job it does.
Public-Private Partnerships.
Enda Kenny
Ceist:9 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach when the interdepartmental team on infrastructure and public-private partnerships will next meet; the number of meetings of the team planned for the remainder of 2005; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24231/05]
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:10 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the current work of the interdepartmental team on infrastructure and public-private partnerships; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24376/05]
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:11 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the interdepartmental team on infrastructure and public-private partnerships; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25208/05]
Joe Higgins
Ceist:12 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the progress made by the interdepartmental team on infrastructure and public-private partnerships; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25342/05]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:13 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the number of times the interdepartmental team on housing, infrastructure and public-private partnerships met in 2005; the planned meetings for the remainder of 2005; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27682/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 9 to 13, inclusive, together.
The interdepartmental team on housing, infrastructure and PPPs has met eight times this year and is scheduled to meet again on Wednesday, 9 November. The team generally meets on a monthly basis and is scheduled to have one more meeting in the remainder of 2005. While the agenda for the November meeting has yet to be finalised, it will include updates on wider energy policy issues and on the national spatial strategy gateways study.
As Deputies are aware, the team monitors progress and reviews priorities under the various NDP infrastructure headings. It looks at options to secure better value for money outcomes and assesses the scope for the speedier delivery of outputs. The team produces an annual report which is laid before the House. This report provides an overview of progress during the previous year within the main policy frameworks and in the physical delivery of projects.
As I have told the House previously, the team serves a valuable role in progressing and resolving issues related to infrastructure planning and delivery and will continue to make an important contribution.
There are only a few minutes left, so I will ask these questions directly. Last year in the budget the exemption threshold for stamp duty was set at €315,000. Recent statistics indicate that the average cost of a new house in Dublin is €346,000 and nationally, the price of a second-hand house is €332,000, both of which are above the stamp duty threshold. Is it the Taoiseach's belief that this should be adjusted?
The Minister for Education and Science recently announced a new raft of primary and post-primary schools to be built under the public private partnership system. Did the cross-departmental team on infrastructure and public private partnerships consider the further use of PPPs before the Minister's announcement, which was welcome for the schools in question? The Comptroller and Auditor General in his report stated the projected cost of final PPP deals was 8% to 13% higher than the projected cost of building and running schools using the conventional approach. Did the team consider this statement?
Does the Government share the Taoiseach's view in respect of supertrucks?
They should be kept out.
Forty-two people have been killed by articulated trucks on the roads this year.
The Deputy is moving beyond the scope of the questions.
Dublin Port tunnel is a major piece of infrastructure.
I accept that but the Deputy's question is well outside the scope of the questions.
The problem is that the trucks cannot get inside, never mind outside, the tunnel.
The Deputy will have to find another way of raising the matter.
Is it the view of the Government that supertrucks should not be allowed here?
The matter does not arise on this group of questions.
Does the Taoiseach take into account comments by the chief of the Irish Road Haulage Association in respect of additional trucks, increased pollution, more costs and so forth? Is it true that €4.6 million has been spent solely on Luas smart cards which cannot be used under any other system?
The Deputy's questions do not arise on this group of questions and should be addressed directly to the line Minister.
The cross-departmental team on infrastructure and public-private partnerships, which was involved in the Luas project, should have taken into account a fundamental issue, namely, the use of smart cards on the Luas system on which a sum of €4.6 million of our money was spent. I want to know whether the cross-departmental team ever considered this issue.
The Deputy is taking up the time of the House in moving beyond the scope of the questions. I ask the Taoiseach to reply to the relevant questions.
I am not sure what point the Ceann Comhairle is coming from but these issues are directly related to the cross-departmental team function.
The point I am coming from is that the Taoiseach is taking five questions together and the supplementary questions——
I am not responsible for that.
Yes, but the Deputy is responsible for his supplementary questions which should be specifically related to the questions in the group.
I am more entitled to ask questions than any other party leader who has tabled questions. I have asked five questions and will probably not get answers to any of them.
Questions on Departments should be addressed directly to the relevant line Minister.
The thrust of my questions related to cross-departmental teams on infrastructure and public-private partnerships.
I will try to answer the Deputy's questions quickly. On the last issue, it is policy to try to have interchangeability in transport. The aim is to move to having one card which can be used on everything. That is what we are trying to do.
In relation to stamp duty, thankfully this year the attractions of the stamp duty exemption, particularly for new house owners, has led to more young people, particularly first-time mortgagees, choosing to buy second-hand houses. This has had the corresponding effect that in some areas second-hand house prices have gone up because demand for them has gone up. The question as to whether any changes will be introduced is a matter for the Minister for Finance every year. He made significant changes last year so I do not think it will be a priority this year. We have not had any discussion on the issue.
On the issue of infrastructure for trucks and so on, many countries ban the trucks to which the Deputy referred. They are part of an effort by hauliers in these countries to have fewer people working for them and bigger trucks. That is what this is about and the state of the roads will get a hammering if they can have their supertrucks. Supertrucks are not necessary in this country and there is no pressure to bring them in other than from people who want to improve their own profitability on the roads. The Deputy asked another specific question.
Did the cross-departmental team consider the new public-private partnerships for schools in the context of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report?
Yes, we had a lot of discussion on this issue. The new initiative is aimed at accelerating delivery of PPPs for key infrastructural projects in central Government areas. The new centre of expertise will be located in the National Development Finance Agency. Its role will be expanded to include the procurement function on behalf of Departments in addition to its existing role as adviser to Departments on PPPs. The agency has commenced this new activity on an interim basis pending the introduction of enabling legislation.
The centre will provide the skills and capacity to support the procurement of key infrastructure in Departments. It will concentrate initially on three: the Departments of Education and Science, Health and Children, and Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
The recent example Deputy Kenny mentioned is the 23 new post-primary schools and the four primary schools under public-private partnership. There are many issues in this. They will be taken in bundles of five or six and can be done speedily. There are issues of maintenance and efficiencies. In many of these cases the schools are for 800 or 1,000 pupils in growing new areas. The PPP system is seen as being speedy and efficient and giving value.
There is an added cost. I have stated on many occasions there is no doubt that in the normal course of events the cheapest way to borrow money is for the State to do it. That will always be the way, except where the State is not in a position to borrow money at all. However, there are several areas, particularly with big projects where private sector involvement enables us to get them done efficiently and one can get quality of design and procurement procedures. The private sector has taken a number of these projects and is building them. There is not an argument for doing this everywhere but in projects like these there is an argument.