Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I know we have had a little tension this morning. I will try to calm things down a bit. It is probably the first time I have attempted to do that at this forum. Transparency is part of the issue with which we are dealing. To be fair to the witnesses, some of the things we are analysing here predate their appointment to their current positions. The economic circumstances in this country have gone all over the place since many of these PPPs were signed. A great deal of decision-making needs to be contextualised. It should also be remembered that political pressure on decision-making does not help sometimes. There is some frustration about the process of getting information out there. I accept that commitments have been given by the Secretary General in the context of writing to Departments. I am sure everyone will get the information out there. That will be co-ordinated. We will take that at face value.

I have some valuable and useful information about the change in the PPP review and the mechanism for limiting exposure to PPPs to 10% of aggregate Exchequer value. I think there is a need for a peer-to-peer review of PPP projects that compares such projects with directly-funded projects. I agree that Exchequer-funded projects do not represent value for money. This is not always evident, however, when such projects are subjected to line-by-line comparisons with PPP projects. When value is being assessed, consideration must be given to whether something was a priority for spending in the first instance. At a future date, I will, along with TII officials, review the analyses and algorithms used when decisions were made on some of the projects that were selected for inclusion in the 2040 plan, with a particular focus on those which may or may not have changed in the weeks before the launch.

We certainly need to conduct a peer-to-peer examination that compares Exchequer-funded projects and PPP projects. There needs to be a breakdown by sector within that equation. There is no one present from the Department of Health, but I would like to mention as an example the bundles that were drawn up for PPP primary care centres. When I see the centres that are progressing, including the one in Carrick-on-Suir in my constituency, I look at the other options which have been set out in competitions for the construction of primary care centres. Some of those who win contracts essentially flip them by selling them on. It is speculation, basically. Again, there is exposure here. When we are doing comparisons, we should think about getting down to the unit basis. It would be helpful if we were to look not just at roads, but also at the decisions made within that realm.

I want to focus on a couple of direct issues. I had the pleasure of travelling through the Limerick tunnel going to and from a certain match last weekend. I would like to go through the costs relating to this famous road, as set out on pages 67 and 68 of the report.

I am particularly interested in the total exposure as regards the traffic risk sharing component on pages 67 and 68 of the report. I want to get into the real figures, if possible. These questions are for TII. No. 2 is a design, build, operate, fund and maintain, DBOFM, classification and the total project cost is €281 million. Note F reads: "Includes payments required under the traffic guarantee contract mechanism. The nominal value of remaining payments does not include any amounts for future payments under this mechanism". It costs €4.6 million because of the traffic flows and there are low and medium traffic growth projections. What has it cost as part of the traffic risk sharing component to date and what is the projected cost based on current levels?