Mr. Paul Carty:

I would like to add to Mr. Corrigan's point. On the point the Vice Chairman raised, as chairman of the commission, that point struck us. The NTMA was managing the fund. It was a matter of major concern that something so serious was happening - so much so that, in fairness to the management, the commission said to go and make sure we get the top person from State Street to come over here and explain this situation. Hindsight is a great thing, as we all know, but the facts the Vice Chairman has raised were the same issues that concerned me. Having a professional background as an accountant, it is always better to make sure one has all the facts before one jumps in and does something. We did not have all the facts at that time. The more important aspect was that, in monitoring this and in talking to the NTMA, there were other issues taking place on the sideline where the certain people who were the culprits here - the staff - were taking cases to a tribunal for unfair dismissal. One did not know exactly what was going on and whether those people had a case. The other question was how high up this went within the organisation of State Street and how could one get a balanced judgment without having all the facts on the table.

The second point is that in terms of what happens now, the commission still has to consider what detriment was suffered here and what other detriment could have been suffered by the NTMA and the pension fund in this regard. Therefore, that requires some more input from the NTMA to the commission to ascertain what detriment was suffered and if there is there any further action that has to be considered. That is still a work in progress. It still has to be dealt with, but the points that, quite correctly, have come to Vice Chairman's mind have come to the commission and we made a balanced judgment at the time to wait until we had all the facts. That was made known to State Street.