Mr. Paul Maloney:

Correct and that is why I said to the Comptroller and Auditor General that this was our business case. We had that done. When it came to the two years interest - the Comptroller and Auditor General is absolutely correct on this - we set a two year limit on paying that interest. We did and we stopped because after the two years when planning would come, we would then create value or release equity. There are two ways to do that. The bank would accrue the interest and we would not pay until the final development was in place or the second method, which was discussed many times, was to start divesting ourselves of parcels because it was a huge 26-acre site. That is why we set two years.

It was never intended - and that is why we did not break that cap - that after two years, we would stop paying and someone else would pay our 26% of the interest because if that was the case, our two partners would have turned around and said: "We're paying 74% of our proportion. You have a liability for your 26%." We never divested ourselves of the ultimate liability although I totally acknowledge that the Comptroller and Auditor General has correctly written that is there but the other paragraphs have to be taken into account.

I refer to a third paragraph in the shareholders agreement. The reason the cap was put in is that any development costs - it costs several hundred million to develop a site of this magnitude - would only come from our partners. The DDDA was setting a cap that would not involve itself in that, to which we also clearly adhered. Deputy Murphy asked why we extended that for another two years. Our liability was always there; we decided not to pay any further. The Comptroller and Auditor General mentioned correctly that we increased the liability over those two years to €8.5 million. We did not pay it. I totally accept it is a liability based on the actual facts that we were always liable for 26% of our interest. That is where that comes from.