Mr. Cormac O'Rourke:

In the case of the M17-M18 project, it could not have been done because there was no fiscal space and we were in the midst of serious expenditure cuts. The cost-benefit analysis of the project was a multiple of four, in other words, the benefits equated to four times the cost. It was a very important project which was completed using a public private partnership and which could not have been undertaken at the time.

While the cost of funding under public private partnerships is clearly more expensive, they sometimes allow projects to proceed which would not otherwise be possible to do. They also include maintenance, which means that at the end of the 25 or 26 year operating period, the road is delivered as good as new. Roads in public ownership have not always been properly maintained and this must also be taken into account. The evidence from the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada is that in terms of cost overruns and delays, PPP projects have a better record than conventionally procured projects.

To answer the questions on value for money, it depends because there is no free lunch. If one is paying for something from the Government's budget for 25 years, it had better be a good project. That is what it comes down to. I quoted the IMF study of what good quality infrastructure delivers in terms of a return to the State. In those circumstances, it makes a great deal of sense to use PPPs if one cannot complete a project in another way. However, one must always strike a balance.

It is another issue which is primarily one of policy. We do not decide to do something under a PPP, it is decided by the Minister and the Department. It is used across Europe as well as Australia and Canada, which are the other big users. It is a balance and I am not sure if we have landed on whether or not it represents good value for money.