Professor Eoin Reeves:

In the context of getting the best value from the specialist PPP procurement agency, which is the NDFA, that time has passed unfortunately. I would have recommended that the NDFA be involved in the appraisal, especially the financial appraisal, but instead KPMG was contracted to do it. I would also have suggested that the NDFA should have been involved to a large degree in the procurement of the project. Again, it is too late for that now.

In general, it is a good idea for the governance of infrastructure projects to see separation between the agencies that take care of the different stages of procurement. It does not always happen, even internationally. We are witnessing the fact that the Department does not want to let go of this project. It has invested so much time and so many resources - internally and in hiring outside consultants - and the project has run on for years. There is a huge reluctance, institutionally and at a particular level, to change tack. Unfortunately, this appears to be where matters stand. If I had a blank page and I was to suggest how to improve governance going forward, a good way of doing it would be to separate the roles of the agency that sponsors the project, which is the Department, with the agency that conducts the appraisal, which is the cost-benefit analysis and the financial analyses such as value-for-money assessments. That role would need to be separated again between the agency that procures the project and a separate agency to manage it thereafter. This would avoid the kind of rut the project has gotten into now. This is just a suggestion.

I mentioned the resources that have been expended on this project and I expect it has been a lot of resources. PricewaterhouseCoopers, PwC, made reference to a figure at the committee's meeting last week. A lot of resources were spent on the cost-benefit analysis but, unfortunately, we do not have the details in the public domain in order that we might interrogate that analysis. I find it very difficult to understand how the bottom-line figures have changed so much. It is good that the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform has scrutinised this and held the consultants to account on the assumptions that underpinned some of the cost-benefit analyses. After the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform had consulted, the benefits were reduced in the region of €1 billion, but suddenly the costs went down due to an error that had been recurring throughout the whole process but had not been spotted. When I learned of this, I found it very difficult to understand. It calls into question how, generally speaking, we govern different stages of big procurement projects like this and who we rely on to do so. Not relying on State agencies such as the NDFA with its built up expertise is hard to fathom.