Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

This will be my concluding question or comment. Given the number of unknowns and variables, including the vagueness, which is reasonable in some respects, around the asset's value after 25 years, the likely uptake, and whether the asset will be stress tested or worn out by the company, is it not too emphatic for Professor Reeves to say that "the procurement approach adopted has not satisfied the criteria necessary to ensure that the key objective of value for money"? How did he reach that conclusion, given the level of unknowns? It is theoretically possible that Professor Reeves could be correct, but there is no evidence to suggest he is. Given that he does not know the detail of many elements, were the comments he put into the public domain not too emphatic?