Mr. Joe O'Flynn:

I am happy to clarify the matter and I understand the reason for the Chairman's question. We did not commission the Grant Thornton report. In fact, we had nothing to do with it and could have taken the view that we did not want to see it. Our position, however, was that we had two trustees, supported by a financial adviser, who were asked to inquire into all the assertions relating to SIPTU in this matter. On the basis of several interviews with the administrator, bank statements and so on, the trustees compiled a report dated 25 March 2011. That report was compiled in the absence of any records. Being aware that a forensic report had been commissioned by the administrator from Grant Thornton and its legal people, we took the view that it was better to get sight of that report before our trustees completed their report, in order to verify the figures in terms of income, expenditure and so forth.

There is a very important reason we did that and why - despite the fact it was a great deal of money - it gave us some degree of comfort. The HSE was actually claiming that there were other amounts involved which were greater than those that were identified in the trustees' report. It was really important for us that the integrity of our trustees' report would stand up to scrutiny. As it has happened, the integrity of our trustees' report has stood up to scrutiny because the Comptroller and Auditor General, having spent over a year inquiring into all of the detail available, has effectively confirmed almost identical expenditure and income figures as those contained in the report. From our perspective, there was value in securing sight of the Grant Thornton report. It might have been an expensive decision but, nevertheless, I think it was the right one and I stand over it.