Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)

I disagree. The price of these projects included the cost of acquiring the land which was an issue and subsequent negotiations put a much higher figure on the cost than would have been the case in the original appraisal. It is a fact that construction inflation occurred because we did not have the capacity in the economy. Construction inflation in 2000 amounted to 12% and 9% in 2001 but it is only 3% to 4% in the recent past. We now have the benefit of fixed price contracts, improved procurement procedures, revised capital guidelines and increased expertise in the agencies. We are achieving results such as project cost equalling tender price. There has been more heat than light shed in the many arguments about project costs and the basis for the initial pricing and original tender price. The test is whether the job is completed for the tender price when the tender is approved. For example, the cost of building a house today will cost more than it did six years ago. If a bigger extension is put on the house and the final result is a different design from the original then it will cost more than what it would have cost six years ago and it is a nonsense to argue otherwise. Such a discussion undermines confidence. The Deputy has acknowledged the much greater degree of confidence in our capital programmes because we are delivering them in the way that taxpayers are entitled to expect.

The Deputy's ultimate point is whether they will ever be published. It may be that in some exceptional circumstances — on the basis that it will not compromise a future tender or contract — it will be possible to show that the work was done in accordance with procedures. However, the easiest way to find out whether there has been value for money is to test whether the job was done for the tender price, within time and on budget. If a contract is given for the construction of a road and it costs €200 million, then that is the cost of the project. When it was designed by a local authority 20 years ago and the cost was estimated at €20 million, it is a nonsense argument to suggest it could be done for that price of €20 million which would only supply a tenth of the road now. The tender price is the issue and the bottom line is that all of these projects, almost without exception, are now coming in on time and within budget. I believe we all recognise this fact. It is good for the taxpayer and it reflects well not just on Government but on the implementing agencies and on the level of expertise and competence with which they are delivering projects.

The Government's job is to ensure that funds are available to proceed with those projects in the way that they wish to do it. There has been some re-profiling of expenditure on Transport 21 and the national development plan on the basis that the NRA had the capacity to do more work than three years ago when Transport 21 was introduced. This level of flexibility with such a framework and being able to respond in a way that does not cause construction inflation but gets the job done more speedily makes eminent sense and proves both the robustness and the appropriateness of the framework we are setting out.

See this speech in context