Mr. Conor O'Kelly:

I reiterate that I welcome the Comptroller and Auditor General doing as much work as possible to prove value for money on historic projects. He said at the time that he was not resourced appropriately to do so and he would like to do so himself. We have all agreed that it is a good thing to do. We would all like to see it done. That is an issue for the Comptroller and Auditor General, not for me.

Let us talk about PPPs for a second. I am not saying that one is exclusive of the other. Channels have to be kept open. Infrastructure has to be built. Not all projects are suitable for PPPs. Larger projects tend to be more suitable for PPPs. What is the cost? What is being paid? We can currently borrow money in the market directly at just over 2% for the period of a 25-year project, which is the length of most PPPs. Approximately 4% to 5% in total in debt and equity is going to be paid in an all-in cost to the State for PPPs. That is what it will pay in private capital. It is 2% to 3% higher than what we could get over that 25-year period.

What are we getting for that money? Is that good value? We are getting the infrastructure built, managed and retained over that 25-year period, and returned to the State in a state that gives it a 20-year life-cycle from that point. The committee has to decide whether that is good or bad value. I think it is time to have more PPPs when rates are this low, the requirements are so great and the balance sheet restrictions are so significant. I am not saying we should have entirely PPPs, but maybe 20%, 10% or 15%. That is more than we normally do. They are circumstances which make that an environment where more might be done.