Dr. Fergal Lynch:

We identified the risks associated with each element of the scheme, which we always do when we are working out a scheme of this kind, such as what could go well and what could go badly. We identified a number of specific items we felt were potentially problematic. The first of these was insurance, and so it proved to be. Second - this emerged later - was the concern raised by individual providers about rest breaks and arrangements of that kind. In each instance, it is fair to say that we identified what the risks were. As Ms McNally said earlier, we identified those risks but at no stage did we think that the scheme was "bonkers", which was the term used by Deputy Carthy. We never believed that the scheme was bonkers. Neither did we believe it was doomed to failure. There were issues that needed to be overcome, and we were very much influenced by the fact, as referred to earlier, that there was an informal scheme then functioning - organised in an informal way - which got over all of these issues. Insurance did not become an issue and the question of supervision did not become an issue. Neither did any of the other concerns that were raised in the course of the process. At no stage did we believe that the scheme was doomed to failure. At no stage did we believe it was bonkers. We had identified correctly a number of specific risks. We mitigated all the risks we possibly could but there were a couple that were outside our control, including that relating to insurance. That is the way we moved forward.