Mr. Paul Maloney:

When we raised the issue at the board meeting of the 24th, Mr. Mulcahy made it clear that he put it in because it was the current formal independent evaluation for the authority. The error I noticed - it was obvious that Ms Moylan also saw it as an error - was that the words "in the region of" should not have been used. The word "excess" was used earlier in the letter and it should have been used in this context. It was construed as an error because it simply used the book value. It was also construed that it was in no way meant to be misleading to the Department because the e-mails are clear. The e-mail that immediately came from the departmental official, which is not mentioned in the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, referred to the process but did not mention the figure. The e-mail was not sent to me because the official knew I was not involved. The assistant secretary, who is a woman of the highest integrity and experience, has confirmed that she was not making a case to the Department or the Minister; she was looking for a borrowing requirement and the sanction to get involved with a joint venture. This is her evidence. Clearly I was not privy at the time but having read her evidence I am now privy to the matter. That is the reason nobody corrected the letter between the 12th and the 24th, when Mr. Mulcahy and I raised it in order to draw her attention to it before ministerial sanction was issued.

This is a critical factor. It was not mentioned in the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General. If the Deputy will indulge me, I will explain why I am so exercised by the matter. For three years, the media claimed that I wrote a letter. There were suggestions of a lack of integrity or attempts to mislead. There is no more formal legal record in any semi-State or State body than the minutes of the executive board's meetings. One can have all the reports one wants but the minutes are the formal legal record and I draw the attention of the Comptroller and Auditor General to them. I do not want to cast aspersions against him but I have to pull this together. The minutes state that we informed the highest official in the Department that the figure was wrong in advance of receiving ministerial sanction.

I must also emphasise a second issue. Ms Moylan has been very honourable and honest in this regard. She was not only representing the Department on the board; she was also the person in the Department who was responsible for getting ministerial sanction. I am here to correct any suggestion that I did not recognise I was informing the highest official formally and legally that the figure was wrong and must be corrected immediately. The probity and integrity of everybody involved was never such that there was an intention to mislead. This was a highly experienced team on both sides. Ms Moylan clearly stated to the committee that she never saw it as a conflict. She also said - and this is minuted - that she was the same official who was responsible for seeking that sanction. She construed it as building a borrowing case rather than a business case. I apologise for spending time on this issue but I had to make these comments.