Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their presentations and answers. A cost benefit analysis is quite difficult to perform in respect of some issues because of the subjective nature of the benefits. The costs are always clear but the benefits are somewhat subjective, notwithstanding the public spending quota. This is an example in that we are looking at the potential for the future. Sometimes it is difficult to apply a mathematical equation that covers the future potential and, therefore, this is probably not a great example of the best use of a CBA, regardless of the fact that it is required by the State. Both the need and the potential are obvious, and trying to apply a mathematical equation to support that is not always easy when one is at the early stages of such future potential. Notwithstanding that, a lot has been made of it. Some of the documents that were released, particularly the one from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, noted that some benefits were identified at a later stage, and that corresponded with additional costs. The witnesses will have read some of the comments so I will give them an opportunity to provide us with some more information on that. Could they elaborate on that?

I want to move on from that to the issue of ownership and the gap funding model, which does not fall under the witnesses' areas of expertise, but PwC did a report at some point on the ownership model. If the witnesses could answer the first question, we will then move on to the ownership issue.