Mr. Robert Watt:

The Attorney General has set out the position on this. Clearly, from 1983 to 1996, the State, at the time, relied on regulations - secondary legislation - in relation to the permanent legislation in the 1970 Act. It transpired that was ultra vires, so that was incorrect. Therefore, they did not have a lawful basis to withdraw those payments from 1983 to 1996. The advice on this evolved over time. The original advice said that the State had a poor case – I do not know exactly how it was described and what descriptor was used. However, it was not a strong case. Subsequent advice on foot of further Supreme Court cases that are related to exactly this matter - analogous cases - suggested that the State may have a stronger case. Different legal advice has been given and the Attorney General set that out in his note. This matter has now been examined by the Department. We will work with it and we provide it-----