And while Im at it... The confusion over 60K versus 200K is annoying me as the two figures do not relate specifically to each over. Or to put it another way; If the ED DC committed a contigency fund would they still be expected to provide an annual figure in addition? If the contigency figure is the sticking point then in the last few years the grant from ED DC must already have gone part way to covering a contigency. The only way the argumants make sense is if Mrs casey want the funding to continue AND they want a contigency fund in addition in which case it is not a simple case of rasing the annual amount of grant.