Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

I might just observe because I agree with the line of questioning that the public spending code requires that on completion of a project a project review be carried out. It is a bit anomalous here in that the original project was not completed but the write-off is very significant. It is appropriate that the write-off is explained from an accounting perspective. In line with the principle of the public spending code that a review be carried out of the project, it is appropriate for the Deputy to raise questions as to the reason it failed.

In undertaking a capital project of this kind a business case analysis is required. Again, this is set out in the public spending code which was issued by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. The purpose of pre-appraisal of a project is to identify the critical project risks, one of which in this situation would be where the obvious requirement for planning such that a project would not get into the detailed design phase until the major risks had been analysed. I would imagine that there would have been an analysis in terms of the height of the building in relation to the footprint available and how that would get through the planning process. One would expect to see that kind of analysis being done. I am the sure the board has done that since in relation to the St. James's site but if it was not done previously then that may be where the fault lies.