Mr. Jimmy Martin:

As I said, we did not see any discrepancy. The Government had specifically considered this issue and decided not to include the institutions.

We did not see any discrepancy there at all. On reflection, the Deputy is quite correct, maybe we should have gone back to Government and sought clarification on that very issue at that time but the legal advice we got is that our position was perfectly legal and that there was no problem with it. Why we lost in that case is that the procedures we followed were not correct because we did not give enough information to the person who was refused. We accepted that was a mistake and the Ombudsman has drawn attention to that as well. We were remiss there and it is a mistake on our part, but there was no decision by the court that there should be double payment or that the two schemes were different and that redress should be paid. That was not in the judgment.