Mr. Aebhric McGibney:

The history of PPPs has evolved in the past 20 years. Ireland has become quite good at using PPPs and they are used as an exemplar for some of the projects in terms of how a good PPP project is worked. The argument used against PPPs generally is that Government financing is cheaper but that misses the point that with regard to private finance, which might have a slightly higher rate, there is a full transfer of risk if it is done correctly. It will then be off balance sheet, which is the possible solution to Ireland's desperate need to invest heavily in capital infrastructure. There is a good deal of public debate about whether projects have worked very well and whether the investment is worth it. There is then scope change and things happen but if we lock down a project and say, "We would like you to build this and the risk and all the challenges are transferred to the private sector", there is a huge benefit to that.

We are very conscious of the work done by the European Investment Bank, EIB. A group involving the EIB and the Government is looking at a range of private finance options and getting the EIB involved in supporting projects here. There is a particular window of opportunity arising from the proposed exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union in that there are many officials with expertise in that area. The EIB, once it comes into a project, would certainly ensure that it was very much above board and of a very high standard. PPPs have improved as projects and the expertise of the EIB in bringing that on board is an opportunity we should not miss.

In terms of value for money, we face a real challenge. I cannot have a meaningful debate with any of the members without value for money or cost benefit analysis of any capital project because any project over €5 million is assessed by the Departments of Finance and Public Expenditure and Reform, given a cost benefit analysis and then the analysis is redacted. We cannot see the cost or the benefit, so we cannot have a meaningful discussion. It is beholden on the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform to produce something more meaningful with which we can engage. There is a challenge regarding commercial issues. If I tell the members I have €100 in my pocket, the risk is that any supplier will try to charge me up to €100. If there is competition in the market among people bidding for projects, one would think it would be less than the €100 in my pocket. Even allowing for that, there must be a way of ranking projects according to benefit. DART underground was given, in one of the less redacted papers, a benefit to cost ratio of 2:4. Could we see an assessment of all the range of projects that come out of the medium-term capital spending review assessed in that fashion? That would be very helpful. If there are better ways we would welcome the Department's expertise in trying to provide a framework where we can have that kind of meaningful discussion about how we can get good value for money from projects.

I think I am covering the points. With regard to the question of financing, it is a critical issue. We certainly believe that there is scope to query the Stability and Growth Pact, the "six pack" and the various rules. Under the latest revision of those rules this year there is an opportunity to invest in productive capital spending if it can be shown to increase the growth rate of the economy on a once-off basis; we are allowed do it once. We believe there is a pressing need to jump start the huge capital deficit the economy faces. That higher growth rate will in turn generate revenues. There are any number of self-sufficient arguments made to the Department of Finance.

Every scheme always pays for itself in some way, but we believe if projects are properly evaluated, and the returns to the Exchequer and the economy are properly assessed, they will provide their own returns. If the Deputy recalls, when we had the big national debt problem in the 1980s, the amount we owed did not fall. It was still £120 billion or £130 million. The economy grew and that is how our debt to GDP ratio fell. Some consideration should be given to this also.