Mr. Ian Tegerdine:

If contractually we could reverse the payments or stop them - that has happened in some areas - we would. Where there is an absolute, solid contractual arrangement, it will require the individual to give up the payment voluntarily. We cannot force him or her to do so. If he or she does not wish to do so, the best we can do is to say we will respect these conditions until such point as there is a change in the post-holder.

The next question was about the Department of Health's process for dealing with business cases. I am afraid that I do not have a timeline for when it will be concluded. The business cases are under consideration between the Department of Health and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, but I am afraid I do not have a deadline.

The next question was whether there were consequences for other organisations in terms of roles and top-ups. In this regard, we are focusing on section 38 providers under the Health Act. That is the boundary of our work and I would not want to speculate outside it.

As regards seeking a different relationship with organisations that continue to be non-compliant, it would start with a change in the contractual relationship we have already explored. There would be a future discussion on whether one would continue. For example, if we had some new and different work to do and had a choice in to whom we could give it, would we choose to give it to a non-compliant or a compliant provider? Where we had a choice, we would probably choose to go with the compliant provider. That is the type of thing we might see in terms of a change of relationship. The key difference would be the legal sanction imposed.

The total number of organisations and the total budget represented were explored at the last committee meeting. As I do not have the figures in front of me, I do not know the size of the sector or the numbers involved. I am sorry, but I do not have the numbers.