Mr. Hamilton Goulding:

It was not. The Deputy will ask why Mr. Kiely was not pushed a little harder. In the discussions I had with him it was clear to me that the priority in his mind, as it is with people approaching their 60s, above all things was that having worked for such a very long time in the CRC to protect his pension. One possible solution was a pay reduction, but the reduction in this case would have had to have been so enormous that it would have decimated his pension value which was dependent on his final years of salary. That is why it did not work. He was determined to defend his pension. I had thought I had found the boundary of what he would find acceptable. I thought he had the easy option of staying in position for another six and a half years and be paid the €2.1 million. I have since been advised by a very distinguished lawyer that I could not have told him the pay level was very uncomfortable and would not do him or the clinic any good because it would have led to a constructive dismissal case. I was advised to tread carefully. I felt the boundary had been reached where I felt there was no slack and it was take it or leave it and that if he left it, he would stay.