Mr. Robert Watt:

I thank the Deputy. I know more about Blanchardstown than I want to know, to be honest. I hear a lot of talk about Blanchardstown and other matters in Dublin West, as it turns out, funnily enough. I am familiar with the issues relating to the section 38 and 39 organisations. There is a broader question there relating to their status and how their capital is funded because they have to do more fundraising and they do not benefit from Exchequer funding for projects in the same way as other bodies in the health system.

They do not benefit from the same Exchequer funding for projects as other bodies classified differently within the health system, but that is a wider policy question which I am not mandated to discuss.

On the small number of contractors, there is an issue with the depth of contractors in Ireland, particularly for larger projects. It is definitely the case and we have debated and discussed whether we can get more international players involved and more people considering these projects. Part of what we have tried to do with Project Ireland 2040 is set out a pipeline of projects and try to attract home some of the consulting and construction teams which left for the Middle East, Australia or Canada during the crash, which is something we have debated. Nevertheless, I agree with the Deputy that there is an issue, although I would not describe it as a cartel, given that such behaviour would be a legal offence. I am not covered by privilege at the committee and, therefore, I will not comment in that regard. It is certainly the case that a small number of contractors bid for these projects, which would have implications for the competitive nature of any competition. It is not fair in any way to suggest I am belittling the additional costs associated with this project. I am not and we have been very serious about it since we realised there was an issue. The sum of €100 million, however, needs to be considered in the overall context. We should not give the impression to taxpayers and citizens that no projects are delivered on time or on budget.

In fact, as members will know better than I, the vast majority of projects such as primary schools, secondary schools, primary care centres, motorways and other roads are delivered through lump sum tender contracts where the price comes below, at or slightly above where we tendered. It is not fair, therefore, to characterise the case of the national children's hospital as a fair representation of the generality of product delivery in the State. Rather, it is fair to learn lessons from the project, particularly the circumstances of dealing with large bespoke projects, and the merits of different options. Our focus is on trying to ensure that the public spending code is reinforced, that procurement policy is reinforced and that we do all we can to ensure that we get value for money for future projects. While it is not meant as an excuse, there has been some debate or chat that Dermot Bannon's kitchen extension would not be dealt with in this way but that comparison is utterly facile and is of no relevance to the discussion whatsoever.