Ms Clare McGrath:

The Deputy raised a question earlier with me. We had sought in good faith to give effect to vacant possession at the end of 2008, notwithstanding the concerns we had raised. Our concerns were in the context that we were building a divisional headquarters for other purposes elsewhere and we saw Harcourt Terrace being satisfied in that requirement. That was very complicated and complex, and there was issues around that site.

In relation to the other parts of the Vote, we are constantly in the situation of having to surrender or take advantage of lease breaks, where we rehouse the occupiers. We are constantly doing this. It is a thing we are doing all of the time. This is, in a sense, what that was too. However, it was a more substantial transaction. We would have been giving effect to that but when we realised we were not going to be in a position to give vacant possession we engaged with all stakeholders, including the developer, to put in place a lease arrangement. He was genuinely working to give effect to that - everybody, all things. There were legal issues that came up as part of that and I think the judgment acknowledged that these issues could have been raised. Dealing with them took time. The accounting officer at the Chief State's Solicitor's office has said these are complex matters and they do take time. Everybody was working to that. However, the developer then was unwilling and that is now why we found ourselves in the situation that we found ourselves in.