Mr. Peter Walsh:

The Vice Chairman said that we went to Government for approval to enter into the contract, but we did not do so for stage 1. The reason we did not, and were not required to, is that stage 1 of a two-stage contract is more accurately considered the design stage. Under normal circumstances, we would bring the contract through to a higher level of detail. The Vice Chairman is quite right in that. We would figure out what risks we might meet with our design and engineering contractors. In this case, it was judged that the construction, the management of traffic and the management of the poor ground would be key. The people best placed to untangle those issues and fully assess the risks are contractors. It would be better and more helpful for everyone to view stage 1 as a continuation of the design process. It is at the end of that stage that we know what the risks are. We then have much greater confidence in assessing the likely cost to the taxpayer of delivering the project. I do not know if that is helpful but it is certainly how I have come to see it. I know we were hiring a contractor, which always gives the impression that one is starting construction, but that is not the case; it is a continuation of the design process.

A number of other questions were asked. I do not know if the Vice Chairman would like me to go back over them. They were about the number of contractors involved.