Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

As Mr. McGarry said, I am satisfied that the accounting treatment in 2012 is correct. The impairment exercise was carried out in 2013 and when we were completing the audit of the financial statements for 2012, we recognised it as a post-balance sheet adjustment that needed to be made. That is why, even though the exercise was carried out in the latter part of 2013, it had an adjusting effect on the 2012 financial statements. When I saw the impairment and the loss that was recognised in 2012, I did have a concern that a going concern issue might be arising. We looked in great detail at the impairment exercise. On the other hand, we were aware of the upside for other properties that was not being recognised. To a certain extent, it somewhat assuaged our concerns that there was a serious loss that could not be sustained by the company.

I will not be auditing the 2014 accounts for the new company and do not, therefore, have particular detail on them. The concern I have for a new company setting up is that it should fully recognise all of the resources being put into it. I would be more concerned if Shannon Development were not recognising the upside at this stage because that is the base on which one would expect to see a return being calculated. If the assets were simply taken across without adjusting and revaluing everything, one would not have a sense of their economic potential and what capital should be remunerated. The treatment, as I understand it from what is being presented, is actually the correct reflection of the economic reality in the company.