Mr. Owen Keegan:

Following the Panda judgment and effectively our loss of control of waste arisings, obviously, we could not stand over a contract with a put-or-pay clause because we were not in a position to deliver the waste. The put-or-pay clause was originally conceived when we did have control of the waste. A similar set of circumstances would apply to the wastewater treatment plant in that we are required to deliver a certain quantity of wastewater to it. Put-or-pay clauses are quite usual in these kinds of civil engineering project. In this case, with our loss of control of waste, not just because of the increased penetration of private operators but also because of an expectation that the Government would move towards competition in the market such that we would still control the market and waste but put service provision out to tender, it did not come about. Obviously, we could not continue with a project agreement with a put-or-pay clause as we were not in a position to meet the provisions. Its nature has now been changed. There is a contingent revenue guarantee, which is something with which we can live. However, the ultimate arbiter will be the NDFA.