Mr. Paul O'Neill:

As per the terms of the contract, we met regularly with the project company. Because we have a project management team in house, it was on site regularly to monitor construction progress.

Clearly, when that came out, we recognised its seriousness. As such, we escalated our engagement with Carillion significantly up to managing director level of the Carillion private finance entity responsible for putting the money into the project. We continued to meet the company regularly over the next seven or eight months until the liquidation date. From our point of view, we looked at our contract and the provisions within it. It is important to recognise that even after the profit warning, there was no termination event or event of default under the terms of our contract. It was a profit warning. We recognised that Carillion was providing equity, the construction, albeit through a subcontractor, and the ongoing facilities management services. We tracked the equity to ensure it went into the project and it was committed fully by the end of December last. We relied on the fact that Sammon was the incumbent subcontractor providing boots on the ground to do the works. As such, we thought it was reasonably well safeguarded and that we would only have to worry about the long-term facilities management contract. We knew at that point that it could be retendered as is currently happening.