Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

5. To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the way in which he plans to strengthen, by legislation or statutory instrument, the procurement oversight role of his Department in view of the lacuna in his powers of oversight identified recently by the IMF and in view of the projected costs overrun for the national children's hospital; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18004/19]

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Government said it is clear there are lessons to be learned from the overrun on the children's hospital and other projects, but are we going to find out what went wrong? Who made the decision to get accountants to check what went wrong with a construction project and its procurement process instead of a construction and procurement firm and quantity surveyor team from, for example, outside the State? According to PricewaterhouseCoopers, PwC, we should not retender, but can we have the analysis and proof of same? Mr. Robert Watt told the Committee on Public Accounts that commitments were given regarding the approximate bill of quantities underpinning the contract and how accurate it was. He said that it did not turn out to be accurate, but who gave those commitments? Many answers are required.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy was present for the Dáil debate on this matter last night. We explained why we had commissioned the PwC report and what work PwC could do to help us understand what went wrong with this project. The Deputy disagreed with us, but I pointed out to him that the PwC report went through the various elements that went wrong and what we could learn from it. The report made the point that the level of complexity involved was very significant and that, in light of the various options that were open to the Government at the time that this issue developed, there was no assurance that we could have done this any more cheaply or quickly. The Deputy and I differ on both views. He said so last night and I respect his expertise in and knowledge of this area, but I assure him that, based on the work we did across that period, I have formed the view that, had we made the decision to retender or stop the project, the difficulties we would be facing now would be even greater.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If we do not get the answers, we will not learn the lessons. We are not getting the answers and do not seem to understand what happened. The PwC report reads: "The understanding of the risk profile associated with the procurement and contracting strategy was poor at all levels of the governance structure." Understanding the risk profile of a capital project is the first step. Who did not understand it and why?

The report also reads: "The strategy identified that a lack of interest from the market was a 'primary potential risk' to the procurement and mitigation strategies were put in place to address this." Why was a different form of contract not considered? Why was an International Federation of Consulting Engineers, FIDIC, contract not used? That would have attracted European interest.

The Tánaiste stated that there was a gross underestimate that should have been flagged earlier, but a public benchmarking exercise provides an advance estimation of what a project will cost. Why was one not done? Who decided not to undertake one? Why was phase A a stand-alone contract? Who made that decision? Was it the advisers, McCann Fitzgerald, the executive or the board? The bill of quantities was only based on a preliminary design. Why was it not based on a detailed design? Who made that decision? If McCann Fitzgerald did not ask the right questions or give the right advice, will its public indemnity insurance be called in? How much has McCann Fitzgerald been paid for its work?

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy has asked a series of questions regarding who was involved in particular decisions. Many of the decisions that the Deputy mentioned were made by the National Paediatric Hospital Development Board, NPHDB. A board and an executive were in place. Recommendations were made to the board, which then made decisions. In the debate on this matter, I have tried to point out that, while there was a board in place, there has been a change in that board since. The Minister for Health, Deputy Harris, has stated that he will seek to strengthen it further.

I have always acknowledged that, as the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, I have responsibility for how the country's money is spent, in particular on capital projects. The PwC report made a number of recommendations that are particular to me. I will ensure that they are implemented.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister is saying that the board carried all of the responsibility. Do we know whether it was well advised? Was the executive put in place to control the information going to the board on behalf of the HSE? Did the HSE have too much influence over the project? The procurement strategy used was sure to lead to an unmanageable increase in price. As a result, we will not know where the price will end up. Who is responsible for that? Is it the board or others?

We should not standardise construction project contracts. The capital works management framework, CWMF, is not fit for purpose and is problematic, yet the Government is wedded to it. The Government should change its strategy in that regard. We need flexibility to match the bespoke requirements of particular construction projects. The CWMF does not provide that flexibility.

Is it possible for me to see the contract, please? It would be beneficial and I could learn from it.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy put the final question to the Minister, Deputy Harris, last night. He will check to see whether it is possible for the Deputy to see the contract. I am afraid that I am not in a position to answer the question and I do not know whether there is any legal issue.

Regarding responsibility, the board and representatives of the national paediatric hospital appeared before the health committee and answered many questions on this issue. They had responsibility for certain elements and the Minister had responsibility for particular matters. So did I.

I have appeared before a committee and the House on two occasions, most recently last night, to answer questions about my role in the project. It is clear where responsibility lies, as was laid out in the report we debated last night. As the Minister for Health, Deputy Harris, indicated, he will examine what he needs to do to strengthen the board further. The PwC report outlined specific recommendations in respect of me and I will implement them.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the Minister satisfied the consultants have enough experience in hospitals-----

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy's opportunity to respond has passed.