Mr. Alan O'Connell:

Mr. Fitzgerald is correct. Initially, before Covid, the plan was to refurbish a section of the building to provide a day centre whose entrance would be separate from that of the residents' living space. It was the case that the day centre had to be accessed through areas where residents were living. The provision of privacy at this level was regarded as involving interim works. After Covid, when the projects were being reviewed in the context of the fire risk assessment works that were required, part of those works involved the replacement of a significant number of ceilings, amounting to approximately 80% to 85% of the total throughout the centre. Because of the amount of refurbishment required, the building itself would have had to have been decanted of residents. The work required on the ceilings, considered in the context of the Mental Health Commission's observation that patients' bedrooms were too small, not en suite etc., would trigger a number of works that would have to be reviewed in order to provide a centre of the standard required by the building regulations. The knock-on effect of starting a chain of refurbishment works means the investment required quickly adds up in a building whose infrastructure is such that those works cannot be done in a cost-effective manner.