Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

I wish to respond to points raised by Mr. Bradshaw in his opening statement. In respect of the reference to the need to correct the report on the matter of the recommendation of the executive to the board about proceeding, the phrase I used in my opening statement was that while it pointed to an overheated market, it recommended that the project should proceed for strategic reasons. That is a summarisation of the way the recommendation was presented when it was presented to the board. In paragraph 3.14, we quote exactly what the recommendation was, namely, that "the Executive recommended that the Authority should, if possible, get involved with a partner or partners to develop the site if the DDDA was to achieve its objectives under the Master Plan for the Poolbeg area". That is the way it was phrased in the minutes. I interpreted that in my opening statement as recommending that it go ahead for strategic reasons even though it was in an overheated market. I think that is an accurate representation of the recommendation so I do not feel I need to correct the report in that regard. I do not want to be particularly combative about it but I would like to make that point.

Another point related to my estimation of a 17% loss to Dublin Port. That is the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport's view. My predecessor and I do not take the view that it was a 17% loss. The failure to close the loophole in the law meant that property the State had full ownership of was sold and the State in the person of Dublin Port only received one third of that value. It is a two thirds loss rather than a 17% loss.

Ms Moylan and the situation in which she found herself was discussed at a previous meeting. We do refer to the situation she was in where she had fiduciary duties to the board and there was the potential for conflict where she had information as a board member which she was not at liberty to transmit back to the Department. That is something that needs to be addressed. The Department has addressed it in an practical way by separating the representational aspect for the Department from the line responsibilities so that should not arise in the future.

The next point probably touches on some of the points made by Mr. Bradshaw at the end. Overall, we had a very significant concern around the quality of the analysis of a very substantial investment. The expectation would be that a public body would not just keep within the control parameters set in terms of borrowing limits but would ensure that there is a very thorough business case commensurate with the scale of the investment. Reference was made earlier to trying to tease out the sequence of events in 2005 and into 2006. Overall, there is a problem with the quality of the records relating to this joint venture. I take the point that individuals can be interviewed but the public record must be comprehensive. It should include everything. It should include complete records of who met who and what decisions were taken and there should be no scope for dispute around them. I realise that this is in an ideal world. Records will be fallible but we must certainly strive for a good quality of record to be kept of all matters pertaining to investment decisions.