Dáil debates

Wednesday, 14 June 2006

Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill 2006 [Seanad]: Second Stage (Resumed).

 

6:00 pm

Paul McGrath (Westmeath, Fine Gael)

I am glad the Minister has clarified that offices are not covered as they are not considered to be strategic infrastructure. Therefore, decentralisation projects could not be considered in that way either. That is good because decisions on such matters must be made at local level. Councillors must continue to be involved in what is happening in their areas.

Toll roads are obviously infrastructural developments that would fall under the remit of this legislation. I urge the Minister to have a study conducted on the toll road on the N4 between Kilcock and Kinnegad and the costs involved.

Let us imagine that I approach the Acting Chairman and invite him to go into business with me. He agrees and I outline the business plan. I explain that I will put up 35% of the money required for the project and he will put up the remaining 65%. He agrees, assuming that he will get a good return. I then explain that even though he invests 65% of the money initially, over the next 30 years he will also have to pay a further €600 million, at least, for the project while I keep all the profits. I will look after the project and at the end of 30 years, we will review the situation again. That is exactly what has happened with the N4 project. The State, through the taxpayer, put in €268 million. The private developer put in €40 million up front and took a loan of €150 million. The taxpayer and the users of the road will pay, at present-day usage and costs, at least €600 million over the next 30 years on that road. All of the profits that accrue from the road will go to the developer, the company who put up the money. At the end of 30 years, the developer might give the road back to the State. However, given what happened with the M50 toll bridge, it is likely that just before the 30 years are up, the developer will add another lane and renew the contract for a further 30 years.

If that project was re-examined in terms of annual returns on investment it would be clear that it should have been kept in-house. Failing that, at the very least, money from the National Treasury Management Agency, which sets aside money to invest in public private partnerships, should have been used because the return the agency would have received would have made it worthwhile.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.