Averil Power (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I will be brief as other members have teased out already the deficiencies in the process thus far at the various levels. I appreciate Mr. Keegan is a new city manager and did not preside over the incinerator plans in that position in the past. I find it shocking that so much was spent and that the figure for consultancy rose from €8 million to more than €30 million. I acknowledge Mr. Keegan has stated that in hindsight, he believes it would have been better to break the contract in 2005 when issues then arose. Is this because there was a legal problem that meant it should have been re-tendered? Alternatively, is it because he thinks that expenditure of money on that scale does not constitute value for money over which one could stand? I query whether much of that work could have been carried out by Dublin City Council. It is a phenomenal amount of money and I do not understand how the council got it so badly wrong whereby nearly four times as much as predicted was spent on client services, public relations and things like that. It is an incredible amount of public money. The city manager stated at the outset that this entire debacle has been too complicated and has gone on for too long, which I consider to be an understatement, given the current position ten years later. My biggest concern is whether at this point, good money simply is being thrown after bad. I accept the amount that already has been spent although I would query the wisdom of it but note Mr. Keegan has told the committee that were he considering the project today in the present day context of the current waste management environment, he would not sign off on it. While €100 million already has been spent on it, a further €500 million is coming down the track. I am not confident that a case has been made to the effect that now is not the time to shout "stop". If Mr. Keegan is stating that the entire context has changed, is this a situation similar to that in respect of electronic voting, whereby a Department and agency decide that as so much has been spent thus far, they cannot admit to having been wrong and stop? Alternatively, is there a rational argument at this point for proceeding with a project of this scale at that location?