Mr. Michael Fitzgerald:

Yes, they were. I suppose in reality the building itself, and it is important that I outline this, was not necessarily coming up in lights, for want of a better phrase, in terms of having significant issues. As there is in any of these particular buildings, there is an ongoing minor capital spend and an ongoing maintenance programme to pick up on specifics.

At the same time, the condition of the fabric of the building and its layout are of concern and have always been of concern. It does not have large room sizes and it can be quite a cramped space, especially for people with a significant level of dependency.

Our estates department sought an external review from external professionals with regard to same. The Deputy earlier referenced those reports, that really centred on the prevalence of asbestos and fire-related issues. It then reached the conclusion, which we absolutely accept, with regard to doing works on the building even on a phased basis, given what would be required to bring it to modern design requirements that should be expected by those who would reside there, that the building itself is just not fit for this particular purpose.

Earlier, the Deputy pointed to various ongoing issues. There has been an ongoing issue with privacy and dignity. This is a design issue with the building. The building has been there since the early 1970s. We are speaking about a building that was of its time 50 years ago. Any renovation we try to do, whether a new build or refurbishment, is done to bring a building up to a standard at which we are protecting people's privacy and dignity, creating adequate space for circulation and privacy and creating a modern build. It was in this context that we looked at significant refurbishment of the building so we could deal with these issues and the expectations of the residents.