The Taoiseach made reference to the decision on Carrickmines. Will he comment on the different conclusion over the weekend which also affects the holding up of the M50 motorway and the added punishment for the hard-pressed motorist? I refer to the decision by a group of individuals to go to court to delay the M50 while they asserted ownership to lands adjacent to the motorway. They claimed €118 million in compensation. After various revelations at Dublin Castle they reduced this to €48 million. In the event, they were awarded €13 million of our money. This is a company called Jackson Way, through which three prominent individuals, an arcade owner, Mr. Jim Kennedy, a solicitor, Mr. John Caldwell and a former Fianna Fáil Deputy and chairman of the Fianna Fáil ethics committee, Liam Lawlor, asserted ownership to this land and were awarded €13 million.

The tribunal has established that this company has no legal title to the lands in question, yet these people who asserted a claim for €118 million were awarded €13 million of our money. One would not find this situation in the Yukon in the 19th century. There, one would not find someone mounting a claim jump such as this. Will the Taoiseach confirm that no money will be paid out? Will he say what action the State proposes to take to seize the lands in question? Will any prosecution be mounted against those who falsely asserted ownership, obstructed the building of the road, cost the taxpayer millions of pounds and had the cheek to press it to the point where they were awarded €13 million of taxpayer's money?

My answer to this must necessarily be short. The matters have been fought out in the courts. As Deputy Rabbitte said there is a question of ownership and the proving of the case they put. The courts have made the decision on it. The Government will have to examine the judgment of the court. That examination is under way. As in all cases, I cannot see how the Government will be able to take any position other than that found in a court of law. We will have to examine that to see what rights of redress or what other protections we have. We do not own the land and that is the difficulty for us. If the courts have made a determination on this, we may well have to pay. We will examine the judgment and then make a decision on it.

I am a bit surprised that the Taoiseach is not better briefed on this. This was not a decision of the court but of the arbitrator. It was not a decision of the court to award €13 million of our money to these people. The Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Hanafin, for example, announced after the first Flood report that the Government would introduce a corruption assets bureau. That seems to have fallen off the legislative schedule. That corruption assets bureau, as announced by Deputy Hanafin, would have enabled us now to seize these lands.

The Taoiseach appears to be saying that there is still a question mark over whether we will go ahead and pay out the money. People watching this will react with disbelief that when people who assert ownership of land they did not have and con the arbitrator into getting €13 million of our money, it would be paid out. We can adjourn for the Cabinet to discuss this, a Cheann Comhairle, but with all due respect I would have thought it was such a grave matter that it ought to have been discussed before I raised it this morning.

My information, and I have just consulted with colleagues, is that the ownership case was before the courts. That is either right or not. Deputy Rabbitte says the ownership case was not before the courts. My colleagues believe it was. The arbitrator made his judgment based on what happened in the courts. The matter is also before the tribunals but that is not the issue. The Government will not pay out money lightly. We will base it on our legal opinion and on the judgment of what happened in the court where it was an effort to find ownership or on what the arbitrator said. The matter is also before the tribunal and perhaps we may deal with the issue. The point of disagreement between us seems to be whether or not the decision on the land was decided in the courts. I will have to check that. As I understand it, that decision was made in the courts and the arbitrator made a judgment. The issue for us now is to decide whether to pay out. If the issue of ownership is not proved, the Government will not pay out.