Kate O'Connell (Dublin Bay South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank all the witnesses for coming in. Dr. Rhodes, who left when I was out of the room, made the comment that the funding was going towards a charitable asset, whereas with the HAP scheme it is for a private gain. Following on from that, we hear that private funds have been invested. What I heard an hour ago is slightly different from what is being said now. On the one hand, we have a charity and, on the other hand, we have billions being invested in it. We have headroom in terms of accounts and cash assets. I had not intended speaking on this but I had a problem with this recently when I noticed an approved housing agency has an office in a very expensive part of Dublin and I wondered who was paying for it. In terms of auditing, I know we cannot have full insight but I always get concerned when I hear the description "not-for-profit" mentioned because I find no profits will be made if people are paid enough to get rid of them. On one hand, we have this charitable asset and, on the other hand, we have this private gain, but when we drill down into this, private people will gain from this in terms of investment. In terms of security of investment, if there is a reduction in the interest rate, this is a good place to invest money because it is, excuse the pun, as safe as houses. I do not like speaking about a witness who has left but it would have been helpful if Dr. Rhodes had stayed in order that we could have teased out this issue of a charitable asset versus private gain. To my mind, there are many private hands in the bucket here. Mr. Hannigan might comment on that.