Mr. Diarmuid Collins:

In the papers we have given the committee, there are appendices that set out the transaction pension issues and so forth. There are also some supporting documents. Included in those is document A5, which is a schedule of the planned capital investment refurbishment programme in the IMI. The €1.8 million will be spent on exterior works on the car park, lighting, access - I am not going to go through all of it - classroom upgrades, interior upgrades, WiFi upgrades that are needed, online learning platforms, ceiling tiles, bathrooms and roofing. The IMI has a planned programme of investment by which to spend that post-acquisition.

To go back to the point of how the IMI settled and discharged the two charges over the campus, as the Deputy mentioned, UCC paid €20 million. Therefore, the IMI had that €20 million. If we look at the IMI's 2015 accounts, the IMI itself had its own cash. As an entity, by the time the transaction was completed, the IMI had about €1.7 million to €1.8 million of its own cash itself. Between the IMI's own cash resources and the €20 million it got from UCC, it was able to discharge the two liabilities or charges - the AIB one the Deputy mentioned and the charge that was given to the pension trustees, as well as the €400,000 that was for professional fees. That did include an element of contingency and not all of it was needed in the end. The money we gave and the IMI's own cash resources were able to pay those monies. The investment is set out in document A5. It was also the intention and view of UCC, once we required the asset - remember that it is our asset as we bought it and are leasing it back - that it was probably a bit tired and needed investment. The IMI would not have had the resources to invest in it over the years. It was always our intention to refresh that asset. The planned investment is €2.5 million over two years, €1.8 million in year one-----