Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

It is a very long-standing position of the Department of Health. Obviously, Ministers for Health need to issue the directions. If they were accounting for the retirement benefits as everybody else does, they would be identifying the accrued liability and they would have a matching asset, and so it would not have any effect on the bottom line. That can be seen in most of the State bodies. I cannot technically give a true and fair opinion or the body is not giving a true and fair opinion if it is not fully compliant. That is why it is an "except for" qualification in this case. Most of the State bodies would be presenting their financial statements under FRS 102 and so we would expect to see a full and fair opinion. For a number of bodies that are not preparing their accounts on an FRS 102 basis, what I would be stating and what a clear audit opinion means is that they are properly presented in line with whatever framework for accounting has been directed by the Minister, usually with the approval of the Minister for public expenditure. In many cases, I state I am satisfied that this statement gives a true and fair view, but in other cases and particularly with voted appropriation accounts, I will be stating that I am satisfied that they are properly presented in conformance with-----