John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

From a budgetary oversight point of view, there are at least two risks involved. I am concerned about the disparity between the view of the Secretary General and the Minister. Earlier the Minister stated, "No other projects will be delayed or rescheduled and no other changes will be made to the capital allocations for other projects, such as those set out in the [NDP]" and that "the decision to approve the appointment of the preferred bidder will have no repercussions for other planned projects within the national development plan". However, the advice of his Department to the Minister runs completely counter to that and talks about being unable to recommend the project to proceed for reasons of cost, the impact it would have on the national development plan, the affordability of what has been proposed, the fact that there was a lack of competition; the reputational damage it would do to the country; and the risks for the State, including emerging technologies. I suppose, most importantly for the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, his Secretary General pointed out that there is a risk to the perception of the economic competence of the country and the Government. In essence, he went on to say that for the current national broadband plan to proceed, a number of other key projects within the national development plan would have to be delayed or deferred and the list ranges from primary schools to the Dunkettle interchange to primary care centres. I am referring to the advice that the Secretary General of the Department for Public Expenditure and Reform gave to the Minister. I ask the Minister to explain the gap between his advice and the Minister's decision? I ask because the Minister took responsibility for the decision today when he said that he recommended this option. The Minister recommended this option against the advice of his Secretary General and, therefore, it is reasonable to ask why is the Secretary General still a Secretary General if the Minister went against such significant advice on such a significant project?