Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

There were actually two projects. The M3, as the Deputy mentioned, and the Limerick tunnel was the other one. Although it is some years since I examined it and reported on it, my recollection is that the demand risk for the use of the road was carried by the developer, except that a floor was put under it. What happened was that the traffic went below that floor and it triggered these payments. It was always conceived that this was a possibility and that made the project more bankable for the special purpose vehicle.

They could get funding because the floor was there and they were not carrying all of the demand risk. My recollection is that the National Roads Authority no longer seeks to put those kinds of floor in. As such, there was a learning point there and subsequent projects have not seen that risk being left with the State party. I spoke earlier about the importance of doing the look-back exercise and seeing that the value that was expected was actually achieved and where the value came from. How is it that the thing was able to deliver value? If there is some kind of innovation in the development of building schools, why would the State sector not learn from that point as well where it is doing direct build? Why would it not incorporate the same money-saving technology and design? There is a lot of value in those look-back exercises but I am not aware of any being carried out or, if they were, of them having been published. If there are learning points there, it would be good practice to do it. Deputy Connolly mentioned earlier a concern that look-backs are not being done despite a statutory obligation to carry them out. It is not a statutory obligation but it is a clear obligation in the guidance from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform on capital projects that there should always be a look-back exercise.