Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:

"commends the Government on:

—making available unprecedented levels of investment to urgently tackle infrastructural priorities, including investment of €36.3 billion planned for the period 2005-09;

—the steps which they have taken to promote more efficient and effective management of public capital programmes and projects and to optimise value for money from public capital investment;

—the major advances already made in bridging the infrastructural and social deficits resulting from underspending in earlier periods; and

in this regard acknowledges:

—the trebling of public capital investment since 1997;

—the steps taken by Departments and agencies such as the NRA to improve their management of capital programmes and projects;

—the introduction in 2004 of rolling multi-annual capital envelopes for better management and control of public capital programmes and projects;

—the publication this year of new guidelines for the appraisal and management of capital expenditure proposals in the public sector; and

—the Minister for Finance's plans to introduce targeted reforms to the procurement of public construction contracts and reform and modernisation of the system for employing construction-related consultants."

In my address I will focus on the issue of value for money for the vast amount of funds provided each year by taxpayers. I will outline what the Government has done to address some of the issues in the public contract area. I will also point to the real improvement in public services that has occurred across the board over the lifetime of the Government and its predecessor.

The Government has managed the resources of the country well. The country has been transformed since 1997. Our record is one of success, one that stands up and that is regarded as an example for the European economy. This is true whether the measure used is economic growth, jobs created, the level of unemployment or the burden of debt. This economic success has generated resources to massively expand our public infrastructure and our public services against a background where there was historic underinvestment by successive Governments for a range of reasons over decades. The idea that one Administration can sort that out overnight is ridiculous.

There have, however, been instances over the years that could have been managed better. Some of my ministerial colleagues will deal with their own particular areas in this debate and I do not intend to comment on specific areas. My colleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, addressed criticisms on the accommodation of asylum seekers and the proposed prison site at Thornton during Question Time today. The Minister for Transport will address criticisms of the roads programme, indicating the steps taken by his Department and the NRA to improve the management and cost effectiveness of the roads programme.

As investment projects proceed from initial concept to final tender price, the estimates change as more information comes to light and changes in the scope and specifications are made. Often it can be many years before a project moves from concept to tender stage and it is ridiculous to compare estimates at both these stages. The key benchmark for comparison purposes of cost overruns is the tender price. When a person is in a position to do the job, is it done for the price in the tender? That is the issue. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that costing can be based on doing everything the same day in the same way. It is ridiculous. If we are to have an intelligent discussion that does not suggest everything is all right or is a waste of time, we must have an honest debate about the issues before us.

The Comptroller and Auditor General's report of April 2004 detailed the reasons for the increase in the cost of the NDP roads programme. He identified construction and land inflation as contributing 40% of the cost increase. He further said that less than 20% was due to initial cost underestimation, which he put down to a systematic failure to cost certain elements of the schemes at the planning stage.

The recent report by the Committee of Public Accounts on foot of the Comptroller and Auditor General's examination noted that the cost of the roads programme in the early years of the NDP had increased sharply. However, it attributed the increase to a considerable expansion in the scope and the number of projects involved, a high rate of construction inflation and an earlier deficiency in the cost estimation prior to 2000.

The committee acknowledged that the NRA had advanced significantly on its situation four or five years ago and had made improvements incrementally. That is the fair and accurate picture of the situation.

See this speech in context