Mr. Greg Ennis:

Mr. Carlyle needs to read the document again. I refer to four brief extracts. The actuary in his report recommended that the board's contribution should be 4.6 times the members' contributions in the salaried scheme and 3.3 in the wages scheme. This is an increase from 2.8 and 2.3 respectively. To date, there is no record of the board having rejected any previous recommendations in respect of contribution rates by the actuary. Bearing in mind the board's responsibility is set out in the statutory-based rules, independent legal advice would suggest that it would be difficult for the board to ignore the advice recommended by the actuary unless there was some compelling reason to believe the actuary's recommendation was flawed.

It continues by saying that even if the legal advice is not as robust as stated, it is difficult to envisage how the board could renege on the requirements to at least pay contributions of up to 3.6 for the salary scheme and 2.6 for the wages scheme and hope that the members alone would pay the balance of 4.6 and 3.3. The final line refers to the recommendation and that the first year cash cost saving of adopting option C over the actuary's report would be in the order of €25 million.

Ten years later, do the mathematics. We have a massive abyss in these schemes. I am not even sure this document went to the board. However, I hear what is being said. If it has gone to the board, it has gone to the board. I did not believe that was the case. If it has gone to the board, I think that makes it worse. Where did it stop?