Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

The figures were for 2014 and 2015. There was a note in the financial statements outlining the expenses charged to the fund. There was also a note stating Caranua was occupying premises given to it by the OPW. It did not pay rent in 2014 and 2015. In 2016 the OPW decided that it would surrender the lease on the building, a much bigger building than the one occupied by Caranua. As it did not have alternative accommodation, it negotiated with the landlord an extension of the lease for a further year. At that point, it decided to ask Caranua to pay rent. That is where the confusion arose. The figures seem to refer to the second half of 2016 and the first half of 2017. There is a possibility that it will extend the lease further because it appears, from what has been written, the alternative accommodation and the new lease have not yet been put in place. The agreement has not been finalised.

When it is finalised, the occupiers will pay the OPW the rental amount. That will be the figure of €270,000 or whatever it is for Caranua.