Jonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

One of the aspects of PPPs we all need to get to grips with is looking at post-project reviews and whether PPPs are more economically viable or better than public procurement. Many experts state that comprehensive post-project reviews cannot be carried out for a number of years. In some cases they cannot be carried out until 20 or 25 years have passed. That obviously poses a challenge when deciding whether PPPs offer the State better value for money than other options, such as public procurement.

I have never come across any evidence, and none has ever been presented to me, to show that PPPs offer better value for money. That evidence does not exist. The Committee of Public Accounts have been looking at the issue, and a number of weeks ago the Department of Education and Skills and Transport Infrastructure Ireland were before that committee to discuss a number of PPP projects. We sought some information on post-project reviews, and at that stage no information was made available. I am sure the Minister is aware of that. We could not analyse the post-project reviews; the Minister told us that to publish those reviews could compromise commercial sensitivity. One analysis exists that PPPs offer us great value for money, but no evidence is being offered to support that. However, since that meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts we have been inundated with information about PPPs. We now have paperwork coming out of our ears about post-project reviews. Why could we not get that information before? We have it now.

In looking at the costs we need to focus on a number of areas. Deputy Michael McGrath touched on one of the areas when he mentioned companies that go into receivership. The State incurs indirect costs when that happens. The Secretary General of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform has stated that any costs associated with a company going into liquidation can be recouped, but there is no evidence to back up that claim. We do not carry out any review of the indirect costs to the State when a company goes into liquidation. For example, if there was a PPP bungle in the education sector and a company goes into liquidation, with the result that the completion of a project is delayed, there is obviously an indirect cost to the State. Such an incident occurred in the case of a company that was named earlier, Carillion. If classrooms are in prefabs or if buildings are being leased to provide classrooms and there is a delay in completing the project, that will involve an indirect cost to the State. Those indirect costs are not compiled by the Department. We do not know what are the indirect costs to this State. How can it be said on one hand that we get value for money and on the other that we do not have all the information on the costs involved?

Legal costs are another issue when it comes to PPPs. A huge amount of money is spent on legal costs. There is growing evidence that PPPs are more likely to end up in court because of the tendering process in place. Only this morning we received information on a number of projects where one of the tendering parties took a court case, as was its right. The level of legal costs associated with PPPs is significantly higher than would be the case if we took the normal route. Those issues need to be factored into this debate. No evidence has been presented. In fact, the Committee on Public Accounts made a decision this morning that it would set aside two or three days to look at PPPs and settle, once and for all, the question of whether we actually are getting value for money. No evidence has been presented that PPPs offer us greater value for money. There are many gaps in information. Anyone standing up in this Chamber to say that PPPs offer us better value for money is very naive.

See this speech in context