Ms Amy Ball:

I will address the first question. When we are looking at a CBA of this nature, in the context of a 25-year programme of spend and benefits, it certainly relies on detailed empirical evidence and strong assessments of any of the underlying economic assumptions that would drive benefit delivery. With that in mind, and looking at the composition of the team, we have had very strong expertise across it, including on economics, corporate finance, accounting, and international expertise in thought leadership. We have liaised extensively with the network and we have examined extensive literature and research. Our methodology and process have been very robust. There has also been robust governance of each component of the CBA.

The CBA is split into three parts: the costs model, which was tendered separately by a separate group of advisers who prepared the cost under strict protocols; the technical solution, which was also tendered under a separate tender and again prepared under strict protocols; and the benefits, which were done and delivered by us. It is at the CBA point that each of those three constructs come together into one formula. We are happy with our methodology as part of that. However, when we examined the public spending code, PSC, some of the directions were not always clear or specific in the context of, for example, certain economic drivers. In that case, we took our knowledge of international precedents and applied our assessment to domestic data.

As we were running through the CBA, which started back in 2015, we ran a collaborative process with the Irish Government Economic and Evaluation Service, IGEES, which is the economic unit of Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. At that time, we underwent an extensive review of the CBA, which has not changed essentially in terms of its format or content. There may have been some changes to data and certain costs along the way, but the construct was essentially the same from 2015 on. We had a very positive interaction with IGEES in 2015. Any queries were addressed quickly and no outstanding issues or concerns needed to be remedied. Following that, there were other iterations of the CBA because it was a working document or a working model. We then met with IGEES officials again in June of 2018 and went through another review of the CBA. At that point, we shared the CBA report and the detailed model along with all of the assumptions underpinning the model. We then had a back-and-forth engagement with IGEES, probably for another seven months. During that period, additional queries and points of clarification were raised, which we again addressed. This culminated in a final meeting with IGEES and the Secretary General of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform in December 2018.

During that meeting, a new member of IGEES who had just joined raised fresh concerns or challenges in respect of the formulation of the CBA. Given the lengthy duration of this as a 25-year forecast for the future and predicated on taking an economic interpretation of some of the guidelines in the PSC, we had a good debate. Particular areas of concern were raised by IGEES officials during the meeting. One was about the inclusion of e-health, for which we had included both costs and benefits, as we believed there was a robust case to do so. Its view was that under the PSC it was probably more conservative to remove it on the basis that a separate investment case would be required for that. We accepted that and reverted.

The other main issues related to the gross value added, GVA, and displacement factors we applied to the CBA. We took those away. As I said, we relied upon international evidence and our assessment of domestic data to align on certain elements that would support our GVA and displacement factors applications within the CBA. I will ask Dr. Redmond to reflect on this a little more, given that he is the economist in the room. However, we met with IGEES at a later point in January where we debated those issues. We accepted some of the challenge but we aligned on specific numbers that we would include in the CBA, which ultimately reduced the net benefits. Following this, we did not receive any formal communication from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. Typically, that communication would have gone to the Department, but we did not hear anything to reflect any issues or concerns that might have arisen.

To return to the Deputy's point relating to the costs and the benefits, there were very separated work streams working in silos. Both were working to different timelines so the benefits would have been adjusted in February 2019 and the costs would have been changed in March 2019 once the final bidder costs were through. I hope that answers his question.