Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I apologise for being late. I was following most of the debate on the monitor. I have just a few questions, the first of which picks up on the Deputy Connolly's final point. In a recent response to a parliamentary question, I was informed the proportion of the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund's investment in fossil fuel industries had been reduced very significantly, from 25% at the end of 2014 to 11% at the end of 2015. Is there a plan to phase it out completely? Over what period will it be phased out? In reply to Deputy Connolly's final question, the delegates spoke about ethical and social responsibility policy. We would welcome sight of that. Could the delegates outline the plan for phasing out investments in the areas that the NTMA does not regard as ethical?

My second question relates to the comments made earlier about the leveraging of EIB funds for the DCU development. That is a very welcome development. It represents very good use of the strategic investment fund. What is the potential for using that same kind of approach in terms of leveraging European funds for general house-building? What is the NTMA proposing in this regard? There is a strong sense that access to funds is possible but that we are not maximising the potential in that regard. Could the NTMA enter a similar arrangement with either local authorities or approved housing bodies?

My third question picks up on points made earlier by Deputy Cullinane on public private partnerships. We have received some correspondence on this. Members of this committee have asked, on an ongoing basis for a number of years, for evidence that public private partnerships actually represent value for money. While we are told there is a public sector benchmark, we have yet to get sight of one. Unfortunately, as we have learned on many occasions at this committee, initial costings for major infrastructural projects often run over budget and what may look like good value at the start may not turn out to be such good value. Certainly, it may turn out to be very poor value afterwards. A good example is the M3 project. It appeared that value for money was being obtained. The actual project was more or less on budget but afterwards there was not sufficient traffic to support the tolling system. Therefore, the State and taxpayer ended up making compensation payments. Presumably, these were not factored in to the original benchmark. Many of us remain to be convinced that public private partnerships are the right way to go. I would welcome the delegates' comments on that.