John Perry (Sligo-North Leitrim, Fine Gael)

The State is a major purchaser of goods and services. Over the years, there have been many complaints about the public sector procurement system. An endless series of reports has pointed out the failures in the system. New procedures for public procurement have been recommended many times. Quite simply, the enforcement of the existing common sense regulations is badly needed. A simple solution would be to extend the remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General to include a special procurement assessment unit. If the Comptroller and Auditor General had the power to conduct evaluations across the public sector, it would ensure that the minimum procurement standards and procedures are observed. The absence of real accountability and transparency in controlling the manner in which vast sums of taxpayers' money are spent is a problem not just for the two State organisations mentioned in my party's motion, but for the entire range of Government agencies and authorities.

According to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, local authorities spent €10 billion in 2007, approximately 55% of which related to capital expenditure. Given that this capital spend of over €5 billion represents a large amount of money, it is quite extraordinary that local authorities are not under the control of the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. They should be under the control of that office. A recent freedom of information request to a Dublin local authority, in relation to proposed capital expenditure, revealed that no cost-benefit analysis of the project had been conducted by the authority. The proposed expenditure could prove to be a waste of public money. A review of the project documentation showed that data on the benefits of the project were requested from its initiators, but it was not forthcoming.

We have an opportunity to provide for the carrying out of cost-benefit assessments, in which costs can be estimated with some degree of accuracy. The current system, whereby benefits are recorded by means of general statements, does not meet the minimum requirement for a proper cost-benefit analysis. The real shortcomings are evident in such an analysis. The introduction of a proper system of parliamentary oversight for CIE, the NRA and the other agencies and semi-State bodies which receive billions of taxpayers' funds will be facilitated by the system of cost-benefit analysis I am advocating. I appreciate that the NRA comes under the remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General. However, it does not conduct cost-benefit analyses of its projects. It has sanctioned cost over-runs and massive over-spends. It should be possible to compare the actual outcome, across a range of costs and services and under approved headings, to the planned outcomes.

I accept that value for money is not a new concept. It has always been an important element of Fine Gael policy. In the future, there must be a renewed emphasis on better value for money in the various national capital expenditure programmes. We are in difficult times, in which less money is available. People are looking for cost-benefit analyses with a clear emphasis on value for money. The powers of the Comptroller and Auditor General should be extended to local government. We need to examine the special cost-benefit reports that are carried out. Over the past 12 years, when there was plenty of money, no cost-benefit analyses were carried out in certain areas. Money was turfed out. Projects were defined by how many millions of euro were being spent on them, rather than on the out-turn. It is important that we examine the out-turn. The building and construction sectors are exerting considerable pressure for additional capital expenditure to take place during the current economic downturn. In that context, it is even more critical for formal cost-benefit studies to be conducted before projects are approved. The expenditure of hard-earned and scarce taxpayers' money on new capital projects without proper cost-benefit analysis is no more than another form of corporate welfare. This is inappropriate at a time when social welfare payments to the most disadvantaged people in society are being cut.

I believe this is an important motion. It is important that appointments to boards are scrutinised. Under the US model, people who are proposed for appointment are brought before a committee so that their suitability can be cross-examined. Such a system gives the appointee an understanding of his or her remit. He or she will have an exact understanding of the benefits and responsibilities attached to the job. He or she will have a genuine belief in the responsibilities ensuing for that. The time has come to protect taxpayers' money. We have a massive deficit. Billions of euro are being curtailed. It is appropriate for us to get value for money. The suitability of political appointees for such positions should be scrutinised by the House. I believe such a procedure of appointment would greatly facilitate accountability and transparency. Ultimately, it would ensure the right people are in the right place.

See this speech in context