Jack Chambers (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)

I make the point that it is all too slow and that is the basis of the reform process happening in parallel with the work of the review of the national development plan. That is why additionality by itself will not move the dial and why the report on the barriers to infrastructure delivery will be finalised in July. That will work in parallel with the updated review of the national development plan, whether they are published on the same day or not is something we have to sequence. However, the plan is to have both prepared to set out the issues in the area of reforms. As I have said, the acid test will be how we forensically examine the project life cycle. There are countless examples that everyone in this House is aware of, where it is simply taking too long. We are systematically examining all aspects of the project life cycle to try to truncate timelines and do that on a systematic basis to accelerate delivery. As part of the international metric, we are looking at best practice in terms of the World Bank, the IMF and the OECD. We are also interested in looking at common law jurisdictions where there is a lot of commonality on infrastructure delivery, like New Zealand, Australia and the UK. What is also really interesting are the different timelines that exist in many US states that have taken different approaches to infrastructure delivery, many of which are confined by constraints and cannot get things done, and others which have unlocked delivery. Providing that international comparison with the evidence base from published research will help complement the systematic exercise happening domestically around the project life cycle.

See this speech in context