Mr. Conor O'Kelly:

I think we were sitting in the room at the same time, with the Comptroller and General sitting to my right, when we discussed value for money. I would welcome more value-for-money exercises around looking back at PPPs. There has not been a huge amount of historic data in respect of being able to measure direct procurement versus the PPP model but there is enough now. I would welcome it with regard to any of the PPP projects. I am quite comfortable that value for money exists. The public sector benchmark is set quite stringently with the sponsoring Department at the outset. Any PPP must meet that benchmark in the first instance so it must be cheaper. When the first procurement is done, the figures must be below that public sector benchmark which has been set by the sponsoring Department. At the financial close, which is normally 18 months later, it must be retested to ensure that it meets the public sector benchmark. In my opinion, PPPs have more stringent public sector benchmark accountability than direct procurement. That is my personal view. It is not our role, but I would welcome the Comptroller and Auditor General or somebody else looking back to demonstrate that value for money for was obtained. I would be very confident it would be discovered that value for money exists in PPPs. There are times when PPPs are good value and worth pursuing and times when they are less good value. They are not always good or bad.

I am not an apologist for public private partnerships, PPPs, in any way. I am as interested as is the committee in how to procure and get infrastructure built in the optimum way for the taxpayer. When is it worth turning up the volume on PPPs and doing more of them? When is it worth doing fewer? An environment where balance sheet restrictions exist, infrastructure requirements are significant and interest rates and the cost of PPPs in nominal terms and even in relative terms are low, is an environment where PPPs should be looked at as something we could do more of.