This morning, we will engage with Children's Health Ireland to examine its financial statements for 2024 and with the National Paediatric Hospital Development Board to examine its financial statements for 2024.

On behalf of the committee, I welcome the officials from Children's Health Ireland: Professor Lucy Nugent, chief executive officer, Ms Paula Kelly, clinical director, Ms Julia Lewis, transformation director, Ms Sharon Gaffney, chief financial officer, and Mr. Adrian Carroll, programme director.

From the National Paediatric Hospital Development Board we have: Mr. David Gunning, chief officer, and Mr. Phelim Devine, project director.

We are also joined by officials from the Department of Health who are: Ms Tracey Conroy, assistant secretary, and Mr. Eamonn Quinn, principal officer.

From the Health Service Executive we have: Mr. Patrick Lynch, national director of planning and performance, and Mr. Trevor O'Callaghan, integrated healthcare area manager for Dublin south city and west, who are attending in a representative capacity.

Finally, we are joined by officials from the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Mr. Ciaran Kellett, audit manager, and Mr. Seamus McCarthy, Comptroller and Auditor General, who is a permanent witness to the committee. Everyone is very welcome.

Before I begin I will read a note on privilege. I will explain some limitations to parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses as regards references witnesses may make to other persons in their evidence. The evidence of witnesses physically present or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected, pursuant both to the Constitution and statute, by absolute privilege.

This means they have an absolute defence against any defamation action for anything they say at the meeting. Witnesses are, however, expected not to abuse this privilege and it is my duty as Cathaoirleach to ensure that this privilege is not abused. Therefore, if witnesses' statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Witnesses are also reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity.

I call on the Comptroller and Auditor General to make his opening statement.

Children’s Health Ireland was established as a statutory public body on 1 January 2019 through an amalgamation of the existing children’s hospitals located at Crumlin, Temple Street and Tallaght. It operates as one of the section 38 agencies supported by grant funding from the HSE.

CHI’s financial statements for 2024 recognise income totalling just over €676 million. Within this, HSE recurrent and capital grant funding amounted to €633 million, representing a year-on-year increase of 17% or €91 million. Retained staff pension-related contributions amounted to a further €20.6 million. Income from patient charges amounted to €11.9 million, down from €14.4 million in 2023. Other income, including donations and fundraising, totalled €11.3 million. Recurrent expenditure in 2024 was €664 million, an increase of 14% year-on-year, or €83 million. This comprised €462 million spent on pay and pensions, and €202 million on non-pay categories of spending. After transfers of a net €20 million to capital reserves, the financial statements indicate there was a deficit for the year of €8 million.

The 2024 financial statements were certified by me on 4 December 2025. My opinion on the financial statements was qualified on the basis that, in complying with the direction of the Minister for Health, Children's Health Ireland accounts for pensions only as they become payable. This is a standard accounting direction for many health sector bodies. Otherwise, in my view, the financial statements present a true and fair view in accordance with financial reporting standard 102.

In presenting my opinion, I drew attention to disclosures made about the governance of the hospital. These included the turnover of board membership in 2024 and 2025, which resulted in an almost completely new board, and the commissioning of formal independent reviews of certain clinical matters. I also drew attention to a disclosure in the statement on internal control about CHI's acceptance in 2022 of a financial contribution of €30,000 from a concession holder. The contribution was not recognised as income in the 2022 financial statements and the expense was not disclosed in the governance statement as staff hospitality, as it should have been. When the deferred income of €30,000 was queried during the 2024 audit, CHI decided to repay the full amount to the concession holder.

CHI continued in 2024 to incur a material level of non-compliant procurement. The value of the non-compliant procurement identified was of the order of €4.2 million. Finally, I drew attention to claims to the value of €200,000 which were submitted to private insurers which were not collectable because the hospital had not finalised the claims within the required timeframe.

As members are aware, the National Paediatric Hospital Development Board, NPHDB, is responsible for the planning, design, construction and fit-out of the new national children's hospital facilities. In addition to the main hospital at the St. James’s campus in Dublin, where construction is ongoing, two satellite paediatric outpatient and urgent care centres located at Tallaght and Connolly Hospitals have been completed and are now functioning under the management of Children’s Health Ireland. Parallel programmes, outside the remit of the development board, are required to integrate and transfer staff, equipment and services into the new hospital, to bring it into operation. These are being progressed by Children's Health Ireland, which will manage and deliver care in the new hospital into the future.

The development board is funded by Oireachtas grants, provided via the HSE. In 2024, the grant funding amounted to €131 million. This matched the expenditure incurred by the board in 2024, and so the financial statements record a break-even situation. As outlined in Note 2, total accumulated capital development costs incurred by the board to the end of 2024 amounted to €1.527 billion. These costs included payments to the main contractor, as well as the board’s own costs in respect of administration, project design and project oversight. Note 8 indicates that the value of the board’s capital commitments outstanding at the end of 2024 stood at €139.5 million. Combined with the costs incurred to the reporting date, this indicates a projected overall development cost of a minimum of €1.67 billion.

The board’s governance statement discloses that the aggregate value of contractor claims where supporting information has been provided was €856 million. Most of the claims are low value, and some have been settled. The board disputes the validity of many of the claims, including a small number of high-value claims. Notes 3 and 6 disclose a number of bonded payments totalling €164.7 million related to four high-value claims. These are payments the board was obliged to make arising from court proceedings taken by the contractor. On the basis that these were not certified payments against the contract, they have not been treated as operational expenditure. Funding was provided to the board by the HSE to allow it to make the payments, and any amounts not ultimately certified for payment that are recouped will be repayable to the HSE. Note 11 explains that, in February 2024, the approved budget available to the board was €1.88 billion.

The 2024 financial statements were certified by me on 18 August 2025. As in the case of CHI, my opinion was qualified on the basis that, compliant with the directions of the Minister for Health, the board’s financial statements account for pensions only as they become payable. Otherwise, I am satisfied that they present a true and fair view of the board’s affairs in accordance with financial reporting standard 102.

I thank the Comptroller and Auditor General. I now ask Ms Nugent, the chief executive, to deliver the opening statement on behalf of Children's Health Ireland, CHI. As set out in the letter of invitation, Ms Nugent has five minutes to make her opening statement.

I thank the committee for the opportunity to appear before it today. CHI exists to provide safe, high-quality and compassionate care to children and young people, and their families, across Ireland. Each year, our services across 40 specialties support hundreds of thousands of patient interactions. Behind every one of these interactions are a child and a family, and a team of professionals working to achieve the best possible outcome. We are a team of over 4,600 staff and each one of us cares deeply about the children and young people we care for.

There is a significant body of clinical integration and commissioning work happening to ensure we are ready to move to the new hospital, in parallel with the delivery of day-to-day operations across our four clinical sites. Since December, CHI has progressively taken phased early access to clinical and operational areas of the hospital, allowing teams to accelerate preparation work ahead of full handover. So far, level 6 is now fully fitted out, with all planned equipment installed. This floor, consisting of four wards, is completely finished and ready to accommodate patients. This floor also temporarily holds equipment being prepared for other levels as access is phased.

In February, CHI received early access to the lower ground floor, which includes laboratories, kitchen areas, health technology management spaces and key support infrastructure.

In March, early access was extended to areas on the ground floor, home to some of the hospital’s largest and most complex clinical areas, including the emergency department and radiology imaging. Significant progress has been made on equipment installation across the building. Some 15% of medical equipment is now installed and 14% of non-medical equipment is in place. Some 21% of laboratory equipment has been deployed and 16% of ICT infrastructure has been installed.

Commissioning extends beyond fitting out physical spaces. CHI continues to finalise plans for crucial commissioning activities, such as staff training, trial runs, loading consumables and patient migration. This progress reflects the sustained effort of multidisciplinary teams across all of CHI. Each month brings visible and meaningful progress as we move closer to welcoming patients, families and staff. CHI is ready to do our part in making the building a functioning and welcoming hospital, and as previously stated, this commissioning period will take approximately seven months following handover of the completed building at substantial completion.

Turning to our 2024 financial statements, CHI returned a deficit of just over €8 million for statutory reporting purposes. The deficits are a combination of pay and income loss against our final budget allocation. We saw a significant increase in our pay spend due to the growth of our headcount. In 2023, the HSE issued a memo pausing recruitment. CHI adhered strictly to this pause up to mid-2024. In 2024, CHI had to fill critical clinical posts based on patient safety requirements, which did increase our pay spend. Non-pay spending saw a significant increase in 2024 versus 2023, but with the additional supplementary funding received at the end of 2024 our non-pay spending came in on budget. The additional supplementary funding related to international outsourcing for spinal surgery and drug spend. In 2024, we saw a significant drop in income, mainly due to the introduction of the public-only consultant contract. However, over recent years private patient income has reduced, year on year.

There are a number of areas in the accounts that I want to be transparent about. These include the continued reliance on State funding to meet operational costs, the presence of a year-end deficit and the need for improved controls and consistency in some areas. We also recognise the challenges posed by legacy systems following the integration of multiple hospitals. These are not issues we shy away from. They are clearly identified and we are actively addressing them.

We share the committee's concerns about issues raised within our financial statements. We provided a briefing, as requested, which we hope was helpful, and we will endeavour to alleviate any remaining concerns in relation to all matters identified in our financial statements and to provide context and assurances that all matters are being proactively managed. We have put in additional controls in relation to private insurance claims, which has seen our loss decrease from 201,000 in 2024 to 123,000 in 2025. We are focused on working with our clinical teams to reduce this further. We are continuing to build a more unified organisation with consistent systems and ways of working. These changes are already improving how we manage risk, resources and performance. They will continue to be a priority, but ultimately, we need our new hospital to align all systems.

It is important to acknowledge that challenges and public scrutiny in recent years have impacted trust in CHI. We recognise that trust must be earned and re-earned through transparency, accountability and consistent delivery. We are committed to that work. We are being open about our shortcomings and proactively addressing them by strengthening how we operate and by continuing to focus on what matters most, that is, the children and young people in our care. We have many examples of excellence across our services, with innovation ever present in our work. For example, our dental colleagues have developed new phototherapy treatments that significantly improve the experience of children undergoing cancer care, reducing the pain and impact of treatment-related mouth ulcers which previously made simply eating extremely challenging.

We recognise that our communication with children, young people and their families has not always met the standard of care they deserve, and it is an area we are actively working to improve. This work is being shaped directly by the voices of families through our family advisory network and our youth advisory council, ensuring that improvements are informed by lived experience and focus on what matters most to patients and their families.

While we recognise the challenges we face, we are confident in the direction of travel. We are building a stronger, more accountable organisation and remain focused on delivering the highest standard of care for children and families across the island of Ireland. I thank the committee. We are happy to answer any questions members may have.

I thank the committee for inviting the NPHDB to discuss the 2024 financial statements and provide an update on the construction of the national children’s hospital Ireland, NCHI. I am chief officer at the NPHDB and I am accompanied by my colleague, Mr. Phelim Devine. The NPHDB was appointed by the Minister for Health in 2013 to design, build and equip the NCHI. Planning permission was granted in 2016 to build the hospital on the 12-acre site of the campus shared with St. James’s Hospital in Dublin 8, a paediatric outpatient and urgent care centre at Connolly Hospital Blanchardstown and a paediatric outpatient and emergency care centre at Tallaght University Hospital. The latter two facilities were handed over to CHI in 2019 and 2021, respectively, and are fully operational. Also within the remit of the NPHDB is the construction of the new Ronald McDonald House family accommodation unit. Construction commenced in February 2024 and the completed building was handed over to the HSE and Ronald McDonald House Charities Ireland in December 2025. The unit is located directly across from the main entrance. It provides accommodation for 52 families each night, which is more than double the accommodation available at the current Ronald McDonald House in Crumlin.

The NPHDB's 2024 accounts have been audited and approved by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The expenditure as of 31 December 2024 for that year was €131 million, including accruals and VAT. The Comptroller and Auditor General is due to commence the audit of 2025 accounts in the second quarter of this year. The opening statement submitted to the committee contains a table of the expenditure, for the benefit of the committee members.

The original construction contract value is €910 million, excluding VAT, which was part of an overall capital budget of €1.433 billion for the design, build and equipping of the three buildings. In February 2024, the Government approved enhanced capital and current budget sanctions, bringing the total approved capital budget to €1.88 billion. To date, the total cost incurred by the NPHDB, as of end of March 2026, is €1.64 billion, including VAT.

The Government-approved budget increase included provisions to address areas not originally included in the 2018 budget, a number of which were clearly set out in the independent review carried out by PwC in 2019. The PwC report, which noted that the NCHI was unique in scope, scale and complexity, also noted the number of project risks that had the potential to place further cost pressures on the approved capital budget. These risks included legitimate contractor entitlements under the contract, the outturn of provisional sums, recovery of construction inflation above 4% and the contractor's right to claim for additional costs in line with public works contract provisions.

The report also noted the need for additional capacity and capability within the NPHDB executive team. The size of the NPHDB inspectorate team had to be significantly increased in order to provide the necessary oversight and assurance. Ordinarily, compliance inspections usually check circa 10% of rooms in detail, using sampling for repeat spaces and expanding only if issues are found. On this project, 100% of the rooms are being inspected to ensure the right clinical and regulatory standards, which is more time- and resource-intensive, but necessary to protect both CHI and the State's interests.

Since late 2019, the NPHDB has been reporting to our key stakeholders through the established governance structures, with membership from the Department of Health, the HSE and CHI, that the project is behind schedule. Updates on these timeline challenges and the associated impact on cost have been shared with all key stakeholders.

The new Ronald McDonald House is complete. This project was delivered on time and on budget with our construction partners, Clancy Construction. Construction of the NCHI is now in its final stages, with significant progress achieved across all areas. As outlined in Appendix A, BAM has already granted early access to level 6, level 0, and the lower ground floor, enabling further fit-out and operational readiness. Planned installation of medical, non-medical and ICT equipment is fully complete on level 6, the lower ground floor and level 0. The works completed on these three levels by the NPHDB comprise the delivery of circa 12,500 pieces of medical and non-medical equipment, of which circa 7,500 have been installed, commissioned and asset tagged.

The overall procurement of the equipment is close to completion, with only a small number of items intentionally deferred to ensure access to the most up-to-date and innovative technologies.

All specialist in-built equipment, including MRIs, CT scanners, X-ray units, C-arms and dental suites, has been successfully installed. The automated guided vehicles system is also fully installed, with final testing and simulation phases scheduled to commence following substantial completion. The warranties on the equipment already procured commence at the point of first patient use.

Technical commissioning and snagging activities are nearing completion, with remaining works focused on final system commissioning, including ventilation, cause-and-effect testing and system integration, all of which are progressing towards achieving stable environmental conditions in full accordance with the contract. In addition, public realm works and external landscaping have been completed to a high standard.

On 24 March 2026, BAM Ireland confirmed to the NPHDB that it would not deliver on its commitment to reach substantial completion of the NCHI by today, which is approximately 40 months later than the revised contract date of 2 December 2022. Instead, it said it would complete a large majority of the building, but crucially not all of it. This will be the 19th time BAM has changed its own substantial completion date; this is set out in Appendix B. The employer's representative, ER, the independent third party responsible for administering the contract, wrote to BAM on 27 March 2026 to formally request an updated contract programme. At the point in time when we provided this opening statement to the committee, this programme update had not been provided by BAM Ireland to the ER.

In the meantime, the NPHDB's focus is on continuing to seek opportunities for early access to the areas that BAM committed to offer, once they have reached the completion standard. NPHDB and CHI are primarily focused on an area within the building known in hospital planning and design terms as the hot block. The hot block includes the emergency department, imaging and diagnostics, laboratories, clinical engineering at levels LG and 0, and the critical care and operating theatres at levels 1 and 2. While we were advised to expect levels 1 and 2 in early March, we now expect BAM to hand over level 1 and level 2 in the coming weeks. Once these areas are in place, the NPHDB and CHI can continue progressing with additional fit-out and equipping activities. These areas are close to completion standard, but the contractor is continuing to resolve commissioning issues and rework areas that were not correct the first time. One of the main issues is dust in the ventilation ducts. I think members will all appreciate that we cannot accept critical areas such as theatres where the contractor has not removed the dust and dirt in these ducts.

The NPHDB is exercising all rights and remedies available under the contract to compel BAM to achieve substantial completion. The NPHDB has, on multiple occasions, withheld 15% of payments due to BAM when BAM's programme was deemed non-compliant by the ER.

As the ER has not certified that the works have reached substantial completion on the contractual date, the NPHDB has previously issued an employer's claim under the contract to deduct liquidated damages. Based on BAM's previous forecasted completion date of 30 April 2026, the NPHDB estimated potential liquidated damages for the works to be approximately €40 million. In addition, the NPHDB has pursued alternative dispute resolution options outside the contractual framework, including a moratorium on disputes, during which the parties actively engaged with the objective of achieving programme and cost certainty.

In March and April 2026, the Minister for Health, the HSE, the Department of Health and the NPHDB met with senior representatives of the Royal BAM Group, including the CEO and chairman of the executive board, Mr. Ruud Joosten, to receive assurance that BAM Ireland will meet its committed substantial completion date of 30 April. One focus of the meeting was securing the balance of early access to the NCHI's levels 1 and 2, comprising critical care rooms and operating theatres, and ensuring all clinical rooms and patient areas are completed to the required standard. During the meeting, BAM committed to provide a resource-loaded close-out plan to achieve substantial completion by 30 April 2026. As I mentioned, on 24 March, BAM reported it would not achieve this date.

BAM has missed its stated substantial completion dates. This is primarily due to its failure to deploy sufficient skilled labour and competent management resources to properly supervise the site and maintain effective quality assurance processes. As a result, there has been no consistent right-first-time approach to delivery. BAM has also failed to properly programme, co-ordinate and sequence the works in a logical and efficient manner. This has led directly to disruptions, inefficiencies and significant on-site rework. In addition, appropriate prioritisation has not been applied and performance has not been aligned with critical milestones or the overall programme for project completion. Finally, BAM has failed to adequately assess the scope of the works, resource requirements and the level of effort required to achieve completion of the NCHI in full compliance with the contract standard and its stated programmes.

To date, 4,313 of 5,728 rooms have been offered at the completion standard, of which 3,159 have been validated by the design team. BAM's room offer rate declined in recent months, with a current four-week average of 117. There are currently 12,414 defects remaining, of which 4,463 have been offered to the design team for validation. The overall defect close-out rate has slowed as the remaining defects become more complex and increasingly time-consuming to resolve.

The ER and the NPHDB will not accept the NCHI if it is not in compliance with statutory regulations and standards. Over the past 15 months, significant rework has impacted BAM’s progress. The design team has raised and BAM has closed an unprecedented 106,500 defects in the 5,728 rooms. The NPHDB and CHI have undertaken due diligence studies and considered lessons learned from other large international and complex hospitals. These reviews have evidenced that unresolved compliance issues can cause operational disruptions and safety risks to patients. Acceptance by the ER of substantial completion is dependent on all statutory and contractual requirements being fully satisfied.

The NPHDB also remains focused on achieving NCHI's overall substantial completion, which is the key enabler for day one opening. Once substantial completion is achieved, the NCHI will be handed over to CHI for operational commissioning before the hospital can be opened.

This is a landmark project for Ireland and a world-class hospital for the children of Ireland. The NPHDB is committed to doing everything in its power to compel BAM to conclude its work and fulfil its contractual responsibilities, so that the NCHI is completed to the standard set out in the contract as soon as possible and handed over to CHI for operational commissioning.

I might ask Mr. Gunning one question to give him adequate time to respond and so that it does not eat into members' question time. The last time he appeared, he indicated that BAM had informed him of a substantial completion date of today, 30 April. I understand from his opening statement that he has no updated completion date from BAM. The question that this committee has and that the children who want to use this hospital have is when he expects the hospital to reach substantial completion.

I cannot answer that question, but I can let the Chairman know that I have become aware that BAM has indicated to the employer's representative that it intends to provide a programme tomorrow, 1 May, to the employer's representative. Once we see that programme and once it is reviewed for compliance and assessed - we have had to do this every time we have got a programme - we will be in a position, assuming it is compliant, to provide an update to the committee in relation to the date of substantial completion. That is the information.

Speaking on behalf of the committee, I think it is deeply unsatisfactory that that programme will only be provided to Mr. Gunning tomorrow, after today's meeting.

As I do not want to eat into members' time, I will proceed to call our first speaker, Deputy James Geoghegan, who has 15 minutes. All subsequent speakers will have ten minutes.

I thank all the witnesses for being here. My first question is for Ms Nugent. In the letter she sent to the committee about the Christmas party in CHI Crumlin, she stated that funding of €30,000 was received from a concession holder in CHI Crumlin in respect of the 2022 Children's Health Ireland Christmas party. That obviously predated her time as CEO. How did she discover that the purpose of that money was for a Christmas party?

The C and AG highlighted this amount of money was in deferred income in our accounts. To put it into context, in 2022 this Christmas party was for all CHI sites, not just for Crumlin. The idea-----

I am just interested. This obviously predated Ms Nugent. Was there a document? Who did she talk to? Did she talk to the concession holder?

The new chief financial officer, Ms Gaffney, and I conducted an internal review. We established that CHI asked for this donation in an attempt to keep the ticket price reduced for our staff. It was wrong. CHI asked for it and that was wrong.

CHI asked the concession holder for moneys for the Christmas party.

Correct, and it was wrong.

Is that documented in emails? How is it documented?

I will let Ms Gaffney speak on how it was reported and so on. We also spoke to people who were involved at the time and they advised that they had asked for it.

Was it the then CFO of CHI Crumlin that Ms Nugent and Ms Gaffney spoke to?

That is correct.

The then CFO of CHI orally communicated that to Ms Nugent and Ms Gaffney and they relied on what was said to them in that regard.

We also looked through the accounts. I might hand over to Ms Gaffney to explain.

I am only interested in the documents that exist that evidence or support what the former CFO said. Are there such documents?

There are emails.

There are limited emails but those emails clearly state that sponsorship would be asked for in respect of a Christmas party in CHI.

Will the witnesses provide a copy of those emails to this committee?

That is no problem.

While it is not the witnesses' fault and I do not know if they are aware of it, Aramark, the concession holder, issued a statement last night that was published in The Irish Times literally as the witnesses sat down at this committee. I will read it to them. It says:

Aramark held a concession for the running of a retail outlet in CHI. Retail revenues fell due to visitor restrictions during Covid. The payment was made as final reconciliation of concessions which was required arising from service interruptions caused by Covid restrictions

We met with the CEO of Aramark earlier this week. We are unaware of that statement. This is the first we have heard about it. However, I can categorically say, regrettably, that CHI asked for that donation.

While I acknowledge that this is the first time both Ms Nugent and Ms Gaffney have heard this statement, do they accept that what Aramark is now saying contradicts what they told the Comptroller and Auditor General?

Absolutely. As I said, when we met with the CEO of Aramark, we established that the fault is with CHI. We own and accept that. That is why we returned the money when we became aware of the ask.

Aramark's position in the statement it issued to The Irish Times is that it was for a different purpose. It is making clear that it related to revenues that fell, and that it was essentially moneys that were owed to CHI. That is what Aramark is saying. When the witnesses met him earlier this week, did the CEO of Aramark contradict what they had told the Comptroller and Auditor General as to the purpose of the money?

We need to look at what Aramark is saying. We can review our own invoices to validate or otherwise what it is purporting to say.

It seems pretty clear that Aramark is not accepting that the moneys were for a Christmas party, yet Ms Nugent has an email that says they were for a Christmas party and the former CFO told her that was the case.

Yes.

We have a very significant contradiction here. At the time CHI was being audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General, did Ms Nugent verify with the concession holder, Aramark, what she was saying to the Comptroller and Auditor General as to the purposes of the moneys? Did she double-check with it?

My understanding is that attempts were made to contact Aramark. However, as I said, Ms Gaffney was not there at the time and the previous interim CFO is no longer with us.

When CHI told its auditor that it was for a Christmas party, had Ms Nugent talked with Aramark about that? She had no discussions with the concession holder.

No, because-----

When CHI paid the concession holder the €30,000 back, was there any communication with Aramark? Was the money literally just sent back by way of bank transfer or were there discussions at the time?

I would have to verify that.

Does Ms Gaffney remember?

She was not here at the time.

I was not here.

Even at that moment, there was another person-----

Yes. However, I can say that a credit note was raised. It was not a bank transfer.

Either way, the moneys went back. I would have assumed there was some engagement at that point in time. Does it come as a big surprise this morning that Aramark has issued this statement flatly contradicting what the witnesses told their auditor, especially given that they met with the CEO earlier this week?

As I said, we have evidence that, regrettably, we asked for it.

I have a question for Mr. Gunning. The hospital was supposed to be handed over today. You could rinse and repeat his statements to this committee and previous committees. I am the parent of three young children myself. In the case of one of my children, I spent more time in Crumlin and Temple Street than I would care to remember. Ultimately, the children and parents of Ireland just want to know when the contractor is going to hand this building over to the people of Ireland. What can we say to them?

It is important to know that we are very close to the completion of this project. Members will have seen the "Prime Time" programme. It was an excellent piece. You could see just how close we are to completion. It is really important to understand that we are nearly there. Our job now is to make sure that, as the Minister said on "Prime Time", when this hospital is completed, we will not accept anything that is not at the appropriate clinical standard.

Yet, the board is still saying that the contractor does not have enough boots on the ground in the hospital after all of this and after the years this has gone on. Mr. Gunning says we are very close but the board is still not satisfied that the contractor has enough staff on site. What is wrong with this contractor? Has the State ever had an engagement of such a hostile nature with a contractor? Mr. Gunning has been around a long time. I certainly cannot think of a comparable situation.

I have never experienced anything to this extent. I want to talk about what is delaying completion right now and what the issues are. There are a number of completion-of-works items. We mentioned acoustic issues with the ventilation system in our statement. There is also the reworking of items. We have a number of issues with doors, including manual doors and sliding doors. We also have a number of issues with floors. These were discussed again on Monday night. We have had issues with floors in the past. We have 15 operating theatre floors that need to be replaced. We have issues with leaks, both water coming in from the outside and leaks within the building from some of the plumbing and other systems. An issue with duct cleaning has also developed over the last number of weeks. These are all issues that rest entirely with the contractor. These delays and this programme are an issue. We are waiting for the programme. However, with regard to early access, it is important to say that CHI and the NPHDB have made tremendous positive use of early access.

Can I just-----

If I may say-----

My time is limited.

We are ready. When the contractor is finished, we are ready to deploy this hospital.

I will illustrate some of the points Mr. Gunning is making. Am I right in saying there was a minor fire - I do not know when it was-----

It was last week.

There was a fire a week ago in the hospital that caused a level of damage. The cause of that fire was obviously unintentional. It was an accident of some form or another. In major construction projects, things go wrong. We all recognise that. When that fire happened, it caused damage. How quickly is the damage repaired when an incident like that happens?

I will ask Mr. Devine to deal with that question.

Following that particular incident, BAM sought to repair the damage immediately. Even though it was unfortunate that we had a fire within the operating theatre corridor - it was not in a theatre but in a corridor - the positive is that the fire alarm and sprinklers activated straight away. It was a good test of the quality of the systems in the hospital.

I am not trying to draw this out but what caused the fire? I just want to illustrate the point.

It was an accident. An operative was repairing a piece of flooring in the corridor with a heat gun and the heat gun came into contact with an aerosol can, which exploded and went on fire.

Again, I am not trying to pin this on anybody but that is obviously not something that should happen in a construction project. Presumably there are supervisors that should be----

There are supervisors, hot work permits, and health and safety requirements but this was just a freak accident. Perhaps more health and safety training or supervision would have helped prevent it.

The good thing about that, while it has happened, is that it is not going to cause any delay. It is the other issues that Mr. Gunning talked about that are causing the delays.

In that example, there was a fire and BAM came in and fixed the stuff quickly. That is what Mr. Devine is saying.

It is still in progress. They dried all the water up. They took the ceiling away because the ceiling was damaged. They have taken part of the wall away. It will be replaced. We have to do a due diligence survey to make sure there is no smoke in the ducts.

If an incident like that happens, BAM has boots on the ground. We throw everybody in and solve the problem. With regard to all the other outstanding issues in the hospital, why can BAM not fan the flames of those metaphorical fires and throw people at the solution to deliver the hospital? Why can BAM not replicate its rapid response to a fire incident to all of the other things that are outstanding?

We have maintained many times in these that insufficient resources are being deployed by the contractor to deliver to the timeline it is committing to. Some 18 or 19 changes in the substantial completion date is all the evidence the Deputy needs to prove that. It just has not happened. A fire like that will mean that resources are coming from other important work areas to deal with that rather than progressing the issues I have mentioned, namely, the doors, floors, leaks and other things that should be being progressed in order to get to substantial completion. In our view, this is primarily a lack of resources and a lack of supervision of those resources to get proper progress in relation to them.

As Mr. Gunning knows, the contractor is not here, but what it keeps saying is that it is none of that, it is all of the design changes that the NPHDB is demanding of it. Where is the grey? Where is the middle in this? Are these drawing changes? What are the things that BAM says the board is imposing on them versus what BAM says it is doing?

What is stopping us getting to substantial completion? There are no design issues between us and substantial completion. This is all about rework of doors and floors that need to be reworked, leaks that need to be addressed and issues like the cleaning of the ducts. It is not a design issue to clean ducts; it is a work issue. It is an allocation of resources to do it. On the design change, Mr. Devine will briefly comment on that.

I would like to dispel this statement by BAM that there are design changes. There has not been one design change on this project in 2026. Over the past nine months, that is the first time that BAM actually offered a clinical room at the right standard. It was signed off and validated by the design team nine months ago. In that nine-month period, changes were identified in 58 rooms out of 5,728 rooms. In that same period, BAM has closed 60,000 defects and snags in the building. There were 58 issues - I will tell the committee what they were - versus 60,000 defects. I do not think you need to be a brain surgeon to understand what is causing the delay in this project. It is rework and closing out defects. On the defects, with our team in place, BAM is closing these defects to the correct standard. It is taking more time than it should. It should not be there in the first place.

I raise the pace of handover. There was a consistent pace in how many rooms were being provided to NPHDB. That pace has declined in the past week or so. What is going on there?

It is like anything else when you get to the last 5% of any project. If you build a house extension, for example, the final bit of snagging is the most difficult. It has dropped off from about 160 rooms per week to about 117. That is the latest four-week average.

The curtain is going to be opened when the new date, the 19th date that BAM gives to this independent group. What does Mr. Gunning think? In some respects, who cares, because it has no credibility? For our benefit, what date is going to be in that document based on what he sees?

We have made a practice of not putting dates out that could be overruled or disagreed with by BAM. We will wait until we get that. In the Minister's letter to Royal BAM recently, it was that we needs absolute certainty, assurance and complete confidence in this programme. This has got to be the one that they deliver. We cannot have another cycle around or a 20th missed date. We do not have any tolerance for that. They have to deliver. This has to happen. We are close. That is the point. It is months we are talking about.

I thank everyone for being here today. Did anyone receive external training in advance of today's visit?

Yes, we did. We have a company that acts as our PR adviser. Part of that contract is preparation for committees such as this. We want to be able to-----

What company?

Q4PR.

How much was paid for this visit?

In 2024, it was €2,900 per month.

How about for this visit?

No, it is part of that contract and part of a monthly fee.

CHI pays a PR company a monthly fee.

Yes.

We use the same company, but we would have tendered from this service a number of years ago from the same company CHI uses. We have an annual arrangement. There is no additional cost to this, but it is included in the broad set of services that they provide, namely, press, public relations and community outreach. We have a local residents monitoring committee. A whole range of different activities are comprehended in this scheme that we tendered for.

Mr. Devine noted a contradiction in yesterday's statement from BAM with regard to designs where it has said the design of the hospital is still not fully finalised. Mr. Devine has contradicted that in some way, shape or form. In the entirety of this project, how many redesigns have there been in total right down to the minutiae? How many redesigns have there been?

I said it at the previous committee meeting. There has been no material change to the design and functionality of this building since 2019. We are no different from the public works contract. Under the public works contract and EU directives, design teams cannot specify products or materials. Basically, you put in specifications and the contractor then comes back with its products and systems, which are going to be slightly different. They all have to be brought together. That is called co-ordination and the contractor is responsible for that.

How many redesigns have there been over the duration of this project?

I do not have the exact total. I can tell the Deputy how many drawings have been reissued. Since 2009, there have been 23,500 reissues of drawings. There are 6,000 drawings on the project, so they have gone through a cycle of revisions, but they have done that because of inputs from the contractor. There has been some design change. We have that in our statement. The contractor has been paid 6.5% of the contract sum in the design change to date-----

What is the monetary value?

A total of €53 million determined, a total of €60 million including adjudications and conciliations.

A total of €60 million of the overall-----

A total of €60 million of the €910 million has been paid in addition to the contractor to date, which is 6.5%. Broken down, half goes to an increase in provisional sums and about half in extra money for measured in the billable quantities.

Does Mr. Gunning expect there to be any further revisions from his side of things?

There will be some as we continue to go toward the end, but it tapers off because we are pretty much done. Members will have the claims table, but the determination process that this typifies, and this is giving to the Deputy as the end of March, that lags somewhat what is happening on the ground. We would expect these numbers to increase somewhat but we are still in the €59 million or €60 million territory here. We are not close to the €1 billion that the contractor is claiming.

Would Mr. Devine suggest then that the statement from BAM yesterday is misrepresentative of the current situation?

As I said, this is factual information. I am here as a witness. There has been no design change this year that has impacted any physical works on-site. If you go back nine months, it is 58 issues in 58 rooms. If you go back 18 months, I think it is 200 issues in about 200 rooms. I will give the Deputy an idea of what they are.

I am sorry, but I am running out of time. If Mr. Devine could forward them to the committee, that would be great.

I know, but they are very simple issues. It is moving a socket in a room or adding an emergency light. We have a massive hospital with lots of cameras, escape signs in the ceilings and that. Sometimes you need a minimum of five looks over a break-glass unit or something like that so you get shadowing. We have put in additional lights. They are basically plug and play. You drill a hole, put the light in and a cable 5 m long is plugged into the modular wiring system.

That is the majority of the changes in the last 18 months. Design is not delaying this project. It is rework and closing out defects.

That is very clear. On 8 April the Minister wrote to Royal BAM, as Mr. Gunning said, seeking an update on when early access to the hot block would be provided. In response to my parliamentary question last week the Minister said she still had not received a response. Has anyone from the Department seen that response and is it possible to furnish this committee with the letter the Minister sent and the response received from BAM?

We will of course share that letter with the committee. As of last night a response was furnished to the Minister, which is typical of this contractor in terms of submitting material at the last minute in order to egg up the situation from the PAC today. We will review that letter in time but what I can say is that it mirrors a lot of the accusations that have been suggested in the press as of late. It is in direct response to the Minister's interview on "Prime Time". We are going to review that letter and will share that with the committee as appropriate.

Has Mr. Gunning seen that letter?

Yes, I have.

What does it entail?

It is as Mr. Quinn summarised. I do not see anything I have not heard before, if I was to put it that way. There was no new information that I in any sense feel I need to go off and do a major bunch of research on. We understand. The BAM narrative is very clear. It is all about change and that the cost of these extensions of time is all the employer's fault. We rebut that in its entirety.

In the letter BAM essentially says, "We are very good at delivering projects; look at the projects we have delivered." To me, that is like the schoolchild saying they did not do their homework today but look at all the other homework they have done. We are concerned about the tangible project in front of us today. We are not getting any traction on that.

To Ms Nugent, if go back to the €30,000, we now see a complete difference of opinion from Aramark regarding that. I am conscious that Ms Nugent and Ms Gaffney were not in position at the time. What was the attempt to reduce ticket prices for the Christmas party? Can Ms Nugent give me the context for what that was?

There was a Christmas party to be held for all sites to come together as part of integrating the three entities.

Where was that going to be?

In the Guinness Storehouse. Staff pay for their own tickets but at the time there was an attempt to reduce the cost for staff and the donation was to offset against the cost of the event.

According to the subsequent enquiries, why was not one cent of that €30,000 put towards that Christmas party?

The money was received into the bank in January 2023, and because the expenses had not been received in full for the Christmas party and the funds regarding the contribution from staff had not been received, it was put into a deferred income account, which is not a bank account but a general ledger account in our management accounts. It sat there until all moneys and all expenses were received. It should have been reconciled in 2023.

Was it?

No, it was not and, unfortunately, it carried forward into 2024. It was during the 2024 audit that the C and AG pointed it out.

Did staff end up getting a discount on their Christmas party tickets?

They only paid a certain amount, yes.

Was this event sponsored by Aramark? Is that what was sought? It was sponsorship?

A donation towards the cost was sought.

Ms Nugent mentioned sponsorship in her previous contribution.

It was not that there was-----

It was not publicised that-----

No, it was a donation toward the cost. It was not as if the company's name was over the entrance to the event or anything like that, which sponsorship normally is. If I used the wrong language before-----

That is fine. If CHI did not use the €30,000, I am going to assume that CHI found money elsewhere to cover the difference between what staff paid and what Aramark did not pay. Is that correct? How did that manifest or crystalise in the accounts? Where did that come from?

Obviously, we have different income sources. It would have come from one of those income sources we have that are not related to day-to-day activities.

In the opening statement Ms Nugent said there are no other cases where this was happening, where vendors were approached asking for a donation. However, I imagine the foundation would quite often seek donations. Why does Ms Nugent think that €30,000 would have been resting in a CHI account as opposed to encouraging Aramark to donate this to the Children's Health Foundation, where this would have had a much greater impact than sitting in an account for an endless period of time?

I cannot speak for what happened in 2022 or 2023; it predates me. However, the Children's Health Foundation, which is a separate legal entity to CHI, raises money for the purposes of children, not for staff parties.

Deputy Farrelly might have got away with one extra question. Deputy Bennett might continue in the vein.

I am going to get back to the nitty-gritty. At the start, Mr. Gunning mentioned €1.64 billion that has been spent so far on the national children's hospital. Is that correct?

That is correct.

Then why, in 2024, was €2.24 billion the figure pushed around? Did that figure include something else?

That is the overall cost, which is both the NPHDB and CHI costs. If I just-----

What was the additional cost then in between the build and the-----

My purview is the €1.88 billion, which is the current budget for the NPHDB cost. That is the cost of the design, build, equip, commission and handover. It is our intention and we are confident we will deliver the project within that. What has been spent to date is €1.648 billion.

Mr. Gunning is saying €1.88 billion will be the total cost-----

I am saying €1.88 billion is the NPHDB element of it. CHI has other elements and its representatives can speak to those.

Maybe Ms Nugent can explain to me the additional money.

It relates largely to our electronic healthcare record, EHR. I will hand it over to our transformation director to explain it in more detail.

How much is that for?

We have an approved budget for commissioning which includes the EHR and the commissioning of the hospital of €361.6 million.

It still does not add up, does it? What is the total Ms Lewis said?

It was €361.6 million, of which, €41 million is sitting in contingency.

What is that for again?

That is for commissioning the hospital and putting in the electronic healthcare records. We also are responsible for the ICT equipment and the laboratory equipment.

CHI is saying that will all be commissioned within nine months, is that correct? How long before we will have-----

Seven months from the date of substantial completion.

It will be open in which month?

When we get a substantial completion date, it will be seven months after that.

At this stage then we will be into 2027.

Similar to Mr. Gunning, I do not want to speculate on a date because I am very conscious of disappointing-----

We were told last year it was definitely going to happen in 2026 but it is not going to happen in 2026 now.

It is unlikely.

It is going to be 2027. However, CHI is confident of the activation period. It previously said nine months but now is saying seven months.

Our commission team has worked extremely hard to reduce that time.

How was that time reduced to seven months?

It was originally one year within the definitive business case and it came down to nine months. We then moved it down to seven months. We have done that because of early access. The early access period, when we talk about floor 6, the lower ground floor, ground floor, floor 1 and floor 2, allows us access into the building before substantial completion and to be able to put in a significant amount of equipment. That helps us take off and get us down to seven months. We will not be able to go down further than seven months because if we were doing an electronic healthcare record by itself, that is a six-month programme, and we actually have to load the building before we start that.

Is there staff already employed in the hospital?

For the new hospital we have commenced the day 1 numbers recruitment. The first tranche are due to start on 1 July. Even with the prolongation, those staff will be put to good use.

How many staff?

In the first tranche it is 117 staff.

There are no patients.

Part of that staffing is actually to address safer staffing for existing sites. There is a tool which says how many nurses you should have across your entities, depending on the acuity. CHI was the last hospital to use the safer staffing tool because the national safer staffing tool does not apply to paediatrics because the ratios are different. The majority of those staff will correct the safer staffing issue in the first instance.

Okay. There will be 117 staff from July and a wage bill every month. How much will that cost every month, going forward until people are actually in the hospital? How much will we have to pay monthly for staffing?

I do not have that broken down but we can supply it to the committee.

Could I be given it before the end of the meeting? There will be 117 staff from the start of July but there will not actually be any patients on site, is that right?

As I say, part of it is for safer staffing-----

I am just thinking of the additional money it is costing.

However, those staff will allow our existing staff, who, first of all, have to be trained in the building and the electronic healthcare record, etc., to be trained-----

Where are the existing staff at the moment? Are they in the other hospitals?

We have 4,600 staff at the moment.

There will be 117 additional staff.

That is for phase 0. In total, we are getting 576.6 additional staff. That is for safer staffing and the additionality of the building. For example, we are going from 15 theatres to 22 theatres, eventually. We are increasing our critical care path capacity-----

Could I get a cost estimate of how much it will cost for staff while there are no patients in the hospital? In terms of claims and disputes between the board that have been adjudicated and resolved, how many claims have been adjudicated and resolved to date?

In terms of adjudications, I will open my adjudications table.

I thank Mr. Gunning.

Adjudications happen in parallel to the contract under the Construction Contracts Act. There have been 16 adjudications to date carried out.

Were they resolved? They are all done?

It is a process with a beginning and end. These are done.

They are finished, okay.

I will give some details. I will not go through them but in aggregate terms, BAM sought an amount through adjudication of €72.8 million. In terms of what was awarded at the end, the value of the adjudications decision was €4.9 million. It is approximately 7% and very similar to the number Mr. Devine mentioned earlier about what the ER has awarded. It is a similar percentage of 7% of what has been sought.

BAM looked for €72.8 million but it got €4.9 million. That is on top of the money it has been paid as well. Somebody just asked me in relation to abortive fees for professional services. Has the board paid out anything for those services? No? No professional services have been aborted while on the project?

No.

No, that is okay. I got the total value from the witnesses. How does Mr. Gunning feel about BAM? Does he regret that BAM was the project contractor on site?

This is a facts-based committee rather than a feelings committee. We are beyond frustrated. A month ago, the contractor informed us it would not hit today's date for substantial completion. A month before that, it was giving us assurance it would hit the target of 30 April 2026. We meet regularly with BAM and, as the Deputy has said, the Minister has been involved in these meetings. BAM has come to our board and given assurance time and again at these large set pieces of when we are going to get things. It has not happened. Our view is that this is entirely a resourcing problem. BAM just is not resourcing it sufficiently to deliver to the timeline. It is not managing its resources on the ground sufficiently to get the return it needs. This is leading to delay after delay on top of the rework. It is all very well to do something, but what about if you have to go back and do it again? It is a cost for BAM but for the children of Ireland, it is a delay. It is unacceptable.

It is a cost to the taxpayer is what it is.

Well, it is a cost but it is a delay in treatment for the children of Ireland. Obviously, that is a significant issue.

Earlier, Mr. Gunning said there were four High Court claims worth €164.7 million, is that correct?

That includes the taxation element. The number we work with is if you take the VAT or RCT from that, it is €145 million. That is the number the development board under the contract has paid in bonded payments to the contractor. Just to be clear on what this is, through the conciliation process, if the conciliator makes a recommendation, and we have issued a notice of dissatisfaction on those, under the contract, we are still required to pay over that money. That money has been paid over to BAM but it is bonded. The C and AG mentioned it is a bonded payment. We have a bond and it is an on-demand bond we can call if we want to get that money back in certain circumstances.

Very good. What worries me is the State continues to use BAM as a contractor after all of this. Have we not learned from our mistakes? I want to put that on the record. Could I get an answer on that?

We are bound by public procurement rules for public procurement-----

Obviously, the public procurement rules are not working because BAM came in at a set price on this and the price of this hospital has gone from €650 million initially up to €1.64 billion now. Where does procurement come into that? How can somebody go in with a procurement price and, at the end of the package, it costs €1.88 billion? I do not think the procurement rules are working too well.

To be fair, they are the public procurement rules. It is not my-----

I know, but it is not working.

I agree with some of the context there. We have very clearly set that out in terms of the Department of public expenditure's review of Accelerating Infrastructure. In the Department's submission to that, we are very clear that we are concerned about the European procurement rules and the high bar that is set for us to try to disallow future contractors for past performance. Under public procurement rules, and they are there for good reason, we are not allowed to take account of poor behaviour on a past project. We are not allowed to take that on board.

BAM is not the only poor contractor the State has suffered from, I am sure, but I will also call out the fact that we have many good contractors around this country. There are indigenous contractors in tier 1, tier 2 and tier 3.

Are they contractors that come with an initial price that ends up three times the price? I would not call that good value for money.

If we could get further information on it, I imagine it would be valuable to the committee. In some ways, there are two stories being covered here. There was the very small amount of money of €30,000 and a very large amount of money of €1.6 billion. I want to keep those two things in context as I ask about both of them. My concern about the €30,000 was its impact in terms of procurement and good practice for procurement. I will ask a number of questions about the process of the €30,000. Ms Nugent said CHI asked for the money. Does she have an email that shows CHI asked that?

Individuals were spoken to.

Okay. Does Ms Nugent know at what level that request was made?

At an executive level.

Okay. Would it have been somebody from the senior management team?

Yes.

Okay. It was not made on behalf of a staff representative or anything like that. This is somebody at a very senior level in the hospital. Was it somebody within procurement or who had responsibility for procurement?

They were not in the procurement department but that would have sat in their sphere of responsibility. I am very conscious of individuals and not-----

I am very conscious of that, too. That is why I have not asked Ms Nugent for the name. What policies were in place to ensure people who have responsibility for procurement are aware that a payment of this nature may be a breach of a procurement policy?

There are policies in place. The intent was to try to support staff, but as I have said, it was wrong. It falls below the standards of an organisation, which is why we returned it when we became aware of it.

Does Ms Nugent think it compromised the procurement process with Aramark?

No, because-----.

Does Ms Nugent think it could compromise future procurement processes?

To clarify, the contract which was tendered for and which Aramark won was before this period. The only other new contract since then would have been for the new hospital, which it was not successful in winning. To be fair, I do not think it compromised any of those processes.

Did it compete in a subsequent procurement process?

Yes.

When the payment of €30,000 became known to CHI-----

At the end of last year, yes.

Obviously, it was received by CHI in 2023.

Correct.

Was it known what the payment was for when it was received?

As I say, I was not there, and neither was Ms Gaffney. In that respect-----

When the €30,000 was received in the relevant account, were there queries about it?

It was put into deferred income.

Why was that done?

Staff used Eventbrite to pay for their tickets, so all the costs have not been reconciled yet. It was put in the deferred income account.

So the moneys paid by staff were paid into an Eventbrite account, which was transferred to-----

CHI.

So that was transferred into a CHI account, but not the same location as the €30,000 from the sponsor, for want of a better word.

I would have to defer to my colleague.

It would have gone to the same location, but not until 2023. The invoice was raised in 2022 and paid in January 2023. The Eventbrite money was not received until later on.

The staff contribution and the sponsorship amount were both deposited together, but a reconciliation was never done.

That is correct.

If the €30,000 has been returned, what was the cost to CHI of the event?

In 2022, it was €27,000.

So there was €27,000 that was not recouped as a result of the repayment to CHI.

That is correct.

Had the Comptroller and Auditor General not pointed out his concern regarding the payments, that €27,000 would still be a loss for CHI because the payment should never have been received in the first place. How can Ms Gaffney stand over the finances of a staff party on the basis of a payment that she now knows to be incorrect? Does she see the point I am making? At some stage, the budget for an event had to be signed off on. The €30,000 was included in that budget, but Ms Gaffney said it was wrong. I think anybody on this committee would have been concerned that somebody engaged in procurement would give an amount of money of that magnitude. It could compromise any future procurement, or that pressure could be contained. How could somebody sign off on a budget which contained that payment?

Unfortunately, and I am not being evasive, we were not there, so we cannot explain the thinking at the time. To reassure the committee, we did not use any public funds in respect of that €27,000 payment. That came out of alternative income.

Is Ms Gaffney aware of other contributions from other suppliers to CHI?

No.

So there are no other contributions from suppliers to CHI for staff events?

Not that I am aware of.

Has Ms Gaffney audited that? Has she contacted contractors?

We have not contacted contractors, but we have done an internal audit and review and have not found any payments since then.

I appreciate that. At a previous meeting, Ms Nugent gave evidence about the review of surgeries that may have been unnecessary. I corresponded with her office about a particular constituent in February. I would appreciate if I could get a response on that matter.

Absolutely. If the Leas-Chathaoirleach gives me the details, I would be happy to follow up on it this week.

That is fine. I do not have time to go into it, but I think it is an important issue.

I want to talk to Mr. Gunning about the claimed bonds. My understanding is that, as a result of High Court proceedings, these bonds were required as opposed to the other increased cost claims. Is that correct?

That is correct.

The bond claims I have before me include a frame claim bond, a level 7 steel claim bond, a critical delay claim bond, an inflation bond and a bond relating to VAT. Will Mr. Gunning take us through each of those claims and tell us what they are for?

I will ask my engineer to go through it, but, if I may, I will outline what the process is. When the conciliator makes a recommendation, either party can disagree with it and issue a notice of dissatisfaction. We have disagreed with some, BAM has disagreed with some, and both have disagreed with others. When that happens, if BAM refers the dispute to the High Court and issues proceedings, then there is a responsibility on the development board to pay the money, but BAM has to provide a bond.

This money may be returned in full.

With interest. At the moment, the interest on that would be-----

Equally, it may not.

That is a litigation question.

Could Mr. Gunning take us through it?

These are primarily technical and there is the steel issue.

BAM put in a claim for the first year or two of building the framed structure of the building. It went through new work determination, and BAM was not awarded anything by the employer's representative, ER. The matter was referred to conciliation. I think it claimed for 90 days.

Was it for additional steel required, additional-----

No. It was all about the cost of the delay. No additional steel was required. That was done as part of the remeasure of the contract. This was just for BAM's establishment on site, its tower cranes and its people. That is what it calls-----

And the level 7 frame claim?

That is a delay claim. Some additional steel was built, but there was a provisional sum for special steel to hang all the mechanical and electrical services. We agreed with BAM that we would redesign the primary steel to incorporate that, even though that was a BAM responsibility to design with the mechanical and electrical subcontractor, then we got a huge claim for delays.

Was it a critical delay claim?

That was BAM taking a number of claims together and applying, over a period of two years, for 730 working days, for myriad issues. It said this was the critical path and the longest-----

I imagine the inflation claim is-----

It is associated with the global claim in that it said it should get inflation of top of what it claimed.

I refer to one other thing that I noted. There was talk of €360 million for commissioning from CHI. There is also talk of a similar fund, in the amount of €360 million, for fit-out and commissioning by the National Paediatric Hospital Development Board. Is that the same figure or are they two different figures?

That figure does not match the NPHDB's.

Is Mr. Gunning responsible for commissioning and fit-out?

We are responsible for technical commissioning. We need to make sure the heat works, the light works, and all that. We then hand over to CHI, which is responsible for operational commissioning, turning a working building into a hospital, which is a significant responsibility. That is CHI's responsibility. It is very different, but we will be supporting CHI through that process.