Mr. Ian Drennan:

Irrespective of whether an organisation is an office or an agency, the net effect is the same. The mechanism is somewhat different. As an office we are a subhead of the Department so at the end of the year we give back what we have not spent. At the agency I was involved in previously, at the end of the year if it had cash in the bank it did not hand it back but it was offset against the following year's budget. The cash movement is not really an issue. When we get to mid-year we begin to budget for the following year and we approach the Department and state whether we have an issue with inspectors or that we are likely to have legal costs or digital forensic expenditure. It is all factored into the routine early. The irony of one of the functions of the underspend that leaps off the page is there is a significant amount for contingency because, by definition, a contingency fund is not normally used. What we do has peaks and troughs. When we get to a particular point where we hit superior court litigation, the costs ramp up very quickly but we might not have another such case for two years.