Minutes of Evidence and Reports

Year 2015 ¦ 2014 ¦ 2013 ¦ 2012 ¦ 2011 ¦ 2010 ¦ 2009 ¦ 2008 ¦ 2007 ¦ 2006 ¦ 2005 ¦ 2004 ¦ 2003 ¦ 2002 ¦ 2001 ¦ 2000 ¦ 1999 ¦ 1998 ¦ 1997 ¦ 1996 ¦ 1995 ¦ 1994

November 2001
27 November 2001
Mini-CTC Inquiry 20011127 Doc 1 of 1
Chairman: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Since the last adjournment of these inquiry proceedings the High Court has delivered, on 23 November 2001, a judgment in the judicial review case entitled Maguire and Others v Ardagh and Others. This sub-committee was not a party to that court case, but it appears from the judgment in that case that the first order made by the High Court was a declaration that the conduct of the public inquiry, with the aid of power of the State and conducted by Members of the Oireachtas under the aegis of the Houses of the Oireachtas and with the authority thereof, liable to result in findings of fact or expressions of opinion adverse to the good name, reputation and/or the livelihoods of persons not Members of such Houses, is ultra vires the powers of such Houses. The use of the word "liable" in the order appears to lower the threshold of objection to the jurisdiction of the Oireachtas to inquire to such an extent that it does not, in reality, exist. The remaining orders recited in the judgment appear to relate to the specific circumstances of the sub-committee on the Abbeylara incident established by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights. While the High Court in its judgment, at page 88, makes reference to this sub-committee and to our proceedings outstanding in the High Court, the sub-committee was unaware that an order affecting this inquiry was being made by the High Court in the Abbeylara case and as yet we have been unable to obtain a copy of the court order in that case.
[view more]

21 November 2001
Mini-CTC Inquiry 20011121 Doc 2 of 2
Chairman: I call Mr. Rowan. Mr. Rowan: I think, Mr. Carroll, just before we adjourned, I was putting to you a general situation with regard to Dr. Ray Byrne and whether it was consultancy or a contract of employment. And I think you were saying, and it is something with which I do not disagree, that it was a technical or -- I'll put it to you -- do you regard it as a technical contract of employment? Mr. Carroll: Most certainly not. And I don't see how you could have formed the view that I had agreed with anything of the sort. The document is quite clearly a contract of employment -- every line of it is a contract of employment. Ray Byrne read through it and he signed it. So if you're suggesting it was other than a contract of employment that Ray Byrne entered into, then what you're saying is he signed a document that had no relevance to the relationship he intended to put in place, and it follows as night follows day that he signed a bogus document. Now where I'm coming from, as the CIE group solicitor, I would have absolutely nothing to do at any time in any context with a bogus legal document. So you may rest assured, Mr. Rowan, that the contrary is emphatically the position. Mr. Rowan: I put it to you that in the letter of 3 June 1999 in which the late chief executive wrote to Dr. Ray Byrne was to deal with a matter of consultancy. Isn't that correct? Mr. Carroll: That's what the letter says, yes. What I'm suggesting is that between June and September, and perhaps or indeed...we...I would not ascribe any ill motive to the late chief executive but, without his being aware of it, Ray Byrne agreed to a different form of arrangement. Mr. Rowan: Was..
[view more]

21 November 2001
Mini-CTC Inquiry 20011121 Doc 1 of 2
Chairman: Good morning everybody. The Sub-Committee on the Mini-CTC Signalling Project is now in public session. Our first witness this morning is Mrs. Tras Honan. Mr. Rowan: Good morning, Chairman. Good morning, Senator. Mrs. Honan: Good morning, Chairman and former colleagues. Good morning, Mr. Rowan. Mr. Rowan: Can I ask you when you were appointed to the board of CIE - for what periods and on what occasions? Mrs. Honan: Over six years ago I was appointed and the Government was gone, I think, six weeks later. Then the board that I was a member of were sacked or not appointed over an upset and I was out. Then I was reappointed to the next board by Mr. Michael Lowry and his Government. When my three year term was over I was reappointed by the present Government - Minister Mary O'Rourke and the Government that she is a member of - and I am here today.
[view more]

20 November 2001
Mini-CTC Inquiry 20011120 Doc 1 of 2
Chairman: Good morning. This meeting of the sub-committee on the mini-CTC signalling project is now in public session and the following witness should be seated: Mr. Padraig Ó hUigín. Mr. Ó hUigín: Good morning, Chairman. Chairman: Good morning, Mr. Ó hUigín. I understand you wish to give supplementary evidence. Mr. Ó hUigín: That's right and thank you very much for giving me the opportunity. If Deputy Higgins will remember when I was last here, he asked me if Mr. Hamilton in the Attorney General's office was the person I had spoken to and I said I wasn't sure. You asked me if I had thought of contacting Mr. Hamilton and I said I hadn't, but in fact Mr. Hamilton has contacted me since, in the sense that he has sent me a copy of a letter which he sent to the committee, which explains fully the representations I made and, with your permission, I will read out the letter. This is to you, Chairman. Chairman: Is this the letter from Mr. Hamilton? Mr. Ó hUigín: From Mr. Hamilton, yes.
[view more]

20 November 2001
Mini-CTC Inquiry 20011120 Doc 2 of 2
Chairman: Do you wish to say something, Minister? Deputy O'Rourke: Yes, please, before we commence, if I may with your permission, of course, and with the permission of the members. I was at Cabinet this morning so I didn't hear any of the proceedings but I was back in my office and heard the one o'clock news in which, on the third item on RTE, it was said that the previous Chairman of CIE, Mr. Brian Joyce, alleged that either I or somebody close to me... well, in fact, he said first of all it was I because I got the transcript and then, I think, you asked him to be more specific or somebody asked him to be more specific. Chairman: I asked him if he had any evidence----- Deputy O'Rourke: Any evidence of that. Chairman: -----to support what he was saying.
[view more]

19 November 2001
Mini-CTC Inquiry 20011119 Doc 1 of 1
The following witness was sworn in by the Clerk to the sub-committee: Mr. Philip Lee. Chairman: Good morning, Mr. Lee. Mr. Lee: Good morning. Chairman: You might tell the sub-committee what your qualifications and expertise are. Mr. Lee: I am a solicitor and a senior partner in my own law firm, a ten-man law firm, which specialises principally in European law, in particular, public procurement. I hold a law degree from UCD and a law degree from the College of Europe in Bruges, Belgium, with a masters in European law. I have also got a degree from the University of Leiden. I am a member of the Irish Institute of Purchasing Materials and Management and a lecturer - a fellow of UCD - in international law. We have been involved in probably 200 projects, procurement projects, large infrastructural projects over the last ten years. I am the author of the first book that explained and analyses the public procurement directive that was ever published in Europe. In fact we, our firm or my firm, took the very first case anywhere in Europe under the procurement directive against the Department of Education here about ten years ago.
[view more]

19 November 2001
Sub-Committee on the Mini-CTC Signalling Project Minutes of Evidence 2001
Joint Committee on Public Enterprise and Transport - Sub-Committee on Mini-CTC Signalling Project 2001 OFFICIAL REPORT-Unrevised Verbatim Transcript
[view more]

12 November 2001
Mini-CTC Inquiry 20011012 Doc 2 of 2
Chairman: I call Deputy Dukes. The following witness was sworn in by the Clerk to the sub-committee: Deputy Alan Dukes. Chairman: Deputy Dukes, thank you for being here. We regret that you spent the whole morning waiting. We thought that we might get to you sooner. Deputy Dukes: They also serve who only sit and wait. Chairman: That is true. Deputy Martin Brady. Deputy M. Brady: Thank you, Chairman. What was the period of your ministerial term covering the portfolio of transport, energy and communications? Deputy Dukes: From the end of November 1996 to the third week in June 1997, a little over seven months. Deputy M. Brady: Seven months. What was your experience of the relationship between CIE and the Department? Deputy Dukes: Did I have any difficulties with it?
[view more]

12 November 2001
Mini-CTC Inquiry 20011112 Doc 1 of 2
I call on Mr. David Doyle of the Department of Finance to be seated. You were to be here on an earlier occasion and we had to make appropriate adjustments so I hope you understand. Mr. Doyle: Yes. No problem. Chairman: Mr. Doyle, can I ask you about the concept of Oireachtas inquiries as against tribunals of inquiry, what distinctions you make, how you view them and what purposes you perceive that they serve? Mr. Doyle: On the tribunals first, the tribunals that we have had experience of so far have been asked by the Oireachtas to examine very serious issues affecting more the political forum than the arms of the State, as it were. I suppose one of the big issues that have arisen there is the very significant costs associated with the tribunals and the very lengthy process that's been involved. That's not to be in any way critical of the tribunals. They have been asked to do a particular job by the Oireachtas and they are discharging it appropriately. In relation to the committee hearings here, the committee has been charged by the Dáil with the task of investigating actions by the various parts of the State machinery, notably in this case CIÉ and its subsidiaries and the relationship between that and the Departments, the Ministers. In terms of the way the process has been operating, I think, as my predecessor, Bob Curran, said about the PAC review on DIRT, the efficiency with which the committee conducts its affairs has been remarkable. The manner in which it has been conducting the affairs has been equally excellent and efficient and, as in the DIRT case, it seems to be hitting all the sweet spots in relation to the responsibilities of all those concerned.
[view more]

09 November 2001
Mini-CTC Inquiry 20011109 Doc 2 of 3
Mr. Powell: I would, but there may well be an explanation for it. The documentation you have at your disposal, Chairman, is clear. It tells you how much MNL is paid to install a kilometre of cable and it also tells you how much Iarnród Éireann can claim from Esat for the installation of a kilometre of cable. There will be costs associated on the Iarnród Éireann side, I suppose, but it's not for me to explain that to you. I don't know. Chairman: Was there a formal written contract between CIE, Iarnród Éireann and MNL for the Esat cable? Mr. Powell: No, I don't think there was a formal, written contract document for the installation of the Esat cable. Chairman: How much of the cable, in respect of both mini-CTC and Esat, was installed simultaneously? Mr. Powell: How much of the cable-----
[view more]

09 November 2001
Mini-CTC Inquiry 20011109 Doc 3 of 3
Deputy O'Flynn: Dr. Lynch, are there two conflicting views regarding your evidence and Mr. Cullen's evidence to the sub-committee? For example, on Tuesday, on page 165, Mr. Cullen was talking about a 30 year old accounting system. He was saying it was like a 30 year old motor car and that the systems were not as fast or as accurate as they should be because of that and that this accounted for the slowness of early warning signs in relation to cost overruns. Your evidence seems to be different, that there was a breakdown in the whole accounting system. Is that my understanding? Dr. Lynch: Not really. I think that Jim Cullen is correct when he states that there was an old system and they had to put in what is called SAP. SAP and me could be like ballistic missiles. All I know is that it's a very high quality system. Where I think we disagree ... I stated that "disagree" is too strong a word, but where I think there may be a slight divergence is that I said that probably one of the problems here was the information that was flowing from the project manager to the finance department was inadequate. Therefore, it was difficult for the finance department to pick it up. Jim didn't agree with that at the particular time----- Deputy O'Flynn: Can I just stop you for a second? Dr. Lynch: Sure. Deputy O'Flynn: What are we conducting this inquiry for, could you answer me? Dr. Lynch: To see if there is a cost overrun on the mini-CTC and if the organisation of CIE was adequate to do it.
[view more]

09 November 2001
Mini-CTC Inquiry 20011109 Doc 1 of 3
The first witness to be heard today is Mr. Brian Powell, who should come forward and take his seat. You are very welcome, Mr. Powell. I call Deputy Higgins. Deputy Higgins (Mayo): Mr. Powell, you were employed by CIE as group contracts manager in 1990 and appointed as procurements and materials manager in Iarnród Éireann in 1996. Is that correct? Mr. Powell: That's right. Deputy Higgins (Mayo): I refer you to your statement which has been published as Powell 002.00.012. Referring to the second page you appear to have held many roles in CIE and Ianród Éireann, including one of three trusteeships, that is, the CIE Group Pensions Trust. Is that right? Mr. Powell: I was one of the three. That's right. Deputy Higgins (Mayo): You also had responsibility for procurement for the Dublin light rail project, the Luas, is that correct? Mr. Powell: That's right.
[view more]

07 November 2001
Mini-CTC Inquiry 20011107 Doc 2 of 2
Chairman: The meeting of the sub-committee is now resumed. Deputy Currie, you are in possession. Deputy Currie: Mr. Cullen, picking up from where we left off in this morning's session, I asked you whether there was any provision in the CIE-Esat agreement for CIE to receive any payment whatsoever arising from the sale of Esat or any part of it which would utilise the CIE wayleaves to any other party, for example, BT? Mr. Cullen: No. Deputy Currie: Do you not think, on reflection, it would have been useful to do that? Mr. Cullen: At the time? Well, everything is useful to be done. Maybe it is useful, maybe it is not, I do not know. At the end of the day we were selling a certain product. The product we were selling was the wayleave. We were putting a value on our wayleave. Depending who had it, irrespective who had it, Esat were the ones that had it, so we felt that the deal we got on that end was appropriate. We did not take into consideration the sale. However, if anybody wants to come to us and say we do not like your agreement, your wayleave agreement, and buy us out we have no problem with that. And I think, actually, our wayleave agreement still stands up, it does not matter who owns the company, who owns Esat. If BT want to come to us and say we do not like the agreement and want to buy us out well then we will talk about it. That is the normal situation that would happen with any agreement. I would say the same situation if you owned a garage, you would not have a special arrangement in there that if some franchise people were dealing with it they'd change it and you could do what you like... you want to change with them too, that would not happen. Deputy Currie: It would depend on the negotiators, would it not?
[view more]

07 November 2001
Mini-CTC Inquiry 20011107 Doc 1 of 2
Ms Finlay SC: Chairman, I am here for Mr. Niall Norton. He was in the building this morning because I spoke with him. My solicitor has just gone to look for him. I apologise for this but I am sure he will be here in a moment. Chairman: Thank you for notifying the Chairman and the sub-committee. We can deal with him in a few moments when he returns. The Clerk to the sub-committee will now administer the oath to Mr. Richard Cooke and Mr. James J. Murray. The following witnesses were sworn in by the Clerk to the sub-committee: Mr. Richard Cooke, Mr. James J. Murray.
[view more]

06 November 2001
Mini-CTC Inquiry 20011106 Doc 3 of 3
Mr. Higgins (Mayo): This is a note for file with your name and signature dated 12 August 1997. You were aware that CIE proposed a licence agreement with Esat. Is that not correct? Ms de Brún: Yes. Mr. Higgins (Mayo): On 15 August you added a footnote at the bottom in your own handwriting that Mr. Carroll, the CIE solicitor, would not pursue the deal with Esat. Primary legislation was required. Remind us again why this was so. Ms de Brún: I can't see the note at the bottom. Is it in my handwriting?
[view more]

06 November 2001
Mini-CTC Inquiry 20011106 Doc 2 of 3
Deputy O'Flynn: Thank you, Chairman. Ms de Brún, you are welcome to the sub-committee and thank you for attending. Could you just tell us what position you hold in the Department and what positions you held in 1997-98? Ms de Brún: In 1997-98 I was the HEO in the public transport division. Do you mean subsequent to that as well? Deputy O'Flynn: Yes. Ms de Brún: I was briefly a HEO in the electricity regulation division and then I worked as an AP on the Telecom Éireann IPO and then I worked on gas regulation. At the moment I work on North-South planning for the Department for the three areas. Deputy O'Flynn: Right. Who are your immediate superiors in the Department? Ms de Brún: For North-South planning my PO is David Hanley.
[view more]

06 November 2001
Mini-CTC Inquiry 20011106 Doc 1 of 3
Chairman: Good morning. The sub-committee on the mini-CTC signalling project is now in public session. I have a short opening statement that I would just like to read to you. As I have said, you are all very welcome to our resumed public hearings of this inquiry. First of all, I should express our appreciation for your patience and continued co-operation with the sub-committee during the last few weeks. I wish also to use this opportunity to outline briefly to you our current intentions for the next few days. We intend to sit tomorrow from 11.15 a.m. We shall not be sitting on Thursday and the hearings will resume on Friday at 10 a.m. On Monday, which at present is scheduled to be the concluding day of the taking of formal evidence, we propose to take former Ministers and the current Minister for Public Enterprise. It is proposed to commence Monday's public hearings at 10 a.m. The proceedings will be televised. The morning sessions will be carried live by TG4 and the afternoon proceedings will be broadcast by RTE on RTE 1 in the late evenings by way of delayed transmission. On the conclusion of the examination of the Ministers it is our intention to then adjourn for some days in preparation for any cross-examination. On the question of cross-examination, all relevant parties have been or are currently being informed in writing of the procedures that we propose to follow for cross-examination. The matter is dealt with in the procedures of the sub-committee, in particular, paragraph 1, page 4, of the procedures. The sub-committee will entertain applications for any interested party who seeks to cross-examine a witness on the basis of having an interest in the resolution of a conflict of evidence. The sub-committee will also permit cross-examination where it is satisfied that such cross-examination is necessary in the interests of justice. Application may also be made to the sub-committee to have any witness recalled to elaborate further on any matters. Such recall will also be granted where it is satisfied that the interests of justice so require. The sub-committee shall rule on all applications to cross-examine, taking into account submissions of parties and, where relevant, the submissions of relevant witnesses and the legitimate interests which the party seeks to protect by such cross-examination. While there is no restriction, in principle, on the right to cross-examine, cross-examination may be limited, if necessary, in the interests of justice to the conflicts of evidence and the interests of the parties seeking to cross-examine. It is proposed at present to commence any cross-examination on Monday, 19 November.
[view more]

October 2001
18 October 2001
Mini-CTC Inquiry 20010918 Doc 1 of 1
The following witnesses were sworn in by the Clerk to the sub-committee: Mr. Nick Field; Dr. Gary Walker; Mr. Charles Burch; Mr. Chris Fossey; Mr. Colin Fraas, Mr. Pier Prina Mello and Ms Loredana Cappia. Chairman: Mr. Brian Powell is our first witness this morning. Mr. Rowan: I represent the McDonnell family and I had written to this committee yesterday morning seeking liberty to address the committee on certain submissions. Now, my question to you is, am I being given the liberty to make these submissions and to address the committee?
[view more]

03 October 2001
Mini-CTC Inquiry 20011003 Doc 1 of 1
Mr. Buckley: If I could just refer to evidence that I gave the sub-committee yesterday on two issues that Deputy Currie raised. One was in relation to the statutory instrument and the other was the idea of carrying out trials. If I could just deal with the Statutory Instrument. Having reflected on that, certainly there appeared as if there was some debate between lawyers some time in May-June, but from my point of view and from a commercial aspect it really didn't become an issue until the latter part of July, so whilst lawyers may be debating the need or not for a Statutory Instrument, it didn't become an issue in my mind until the latter part of July. Chairman: July of what year, Mr. Buckley? Mr. Buckley: Of '97.
[view more]

02 October 2001
Mini-CTC Inquiry 20011002 Doc 2 of 2
Deputy Rabbitte: Mr. Cullen, in respect of the Dr. Byrne 'phone call - we might put it on the screen again if necessary - the persons mentioned on it are Mr. Joyce, the late Mr. McDonnell, Dr. Byrne himself and yourself. Am I to take it from your evidence, Mr. Cullen that, Mr. Brian Joyce has made clear that he wasn't present and didn't authorise this decision, he may have got a 'phone call or he may not from Mr. McDonnell, you are now ruling yourself out. Mr. McDonnell is deceased. Is that the position we have arrived at in terms in terms of this 'phone call? Mr. Cullen: I was not asked for my opinions on the 75-25% or the agreement. Deputy Rabbitte: Suppose you read it slightly differently and we focused on the phrase "the matter with Esat has largely been agreed". Would that be a fair reflection of your view? Mr. Cullen: I have no recollection; I wasn't involved, Deputy, at that stage. I had no input to it
[view more]

02 October 2001
Mini-CTC Inquiry 20011002 Doc 1 of 2
At the outset of today's proceedings the sub-committee would like to take the opportunity to make a statement for the benefit of all persons interested in the course of this inquiry. The first matter concerns the interventions by legal representatives on behalf of the interested persons in the proceedings of the inquiry. The sub-committee has had a number of legal representatives suggest that the only way to conduct a parliamentary inquiry is to adopt the adversarial procedures and practices of civil or criminal court cases. The sub-committee does not consider that this approach is either warranted or appropriate to the parliamentary inquiry. The procedure of this inquiry is inquisitorial in nature and not adversarial. This is not a court of law and the adversarial practices of advocates are not appropriate to this form of inquiry. The interruption of the proceedings of this inquiry by legal representatives of interested persons should only occur in circumstances where the previously indicated procedures for raising and resolving matters of legal concern have been exhausted. In most instances written submissions and/or prompt contacts with the legal advisers of the sub-committee can and have in these proceedings resolved matters of concern. I acknowledge the co-operation of counsel in this regard. In the situations where interruption of the proceedings is properly warranted by the legal representatives of an interested person, such situation is not to be used in an attempt to question in an adversarial way the sub-committee, nor is it appropriate to attempt to prolong a submission when the sub-committee has ruled on a particular matter.
[view more]

01 October 2001
Mini-CTC Inquiry 20011001 Doc 1 of 2
Chairman: The sub-committee on the mini-CTC signalling project is now in public session. The following witnesses should now come forward and take their seats, Mr. Michael Carroll, Mr. James Gahan and Mr. Niall Grogan. Good morning gentlemen. The sub-committee has received a communication from Mr. William Fry on behalf of Mr. Denis O'Brien in which the following is stated: Mr. O'Brien has had an opportunity to consider the matter and we now wish to advise that the letter of intent referred to in the said prospectus is the heads of agreement signed on 16 June 2001."
[view more]

September 2001
28 September 2001
Mini-CTC Inquiry 20010928 Doc 1 of 1
Chairman: Good morning everybody. The sub-committee on mini-CTC signalling project is now in public session. The following witnesses should now come forward and take their seats - Mr. Gerry Dalton, Mr. Ronan Finlayson and Mr. Niall Grogan. I call Deputy Currie. Deputy Currie: Good morning, gentlemen. I am not sure which of the three of you will answer the many questions I have which I will try to get through as quickly as I can. Who was on the CIE negotiating team with parties other than Esat? Mr. Dalton: With parties other than Esat. The same group were basically together right through the negotiations. They would consist of Jim Gahan, myself, Ronan, Niall, Joe Ross and Greg Allen when he was head of IT. It happened obviously because of the number of meetings that took place that not all of us were present at every meeting but all of us kept, if you like, strategically involved. Deputy Currie: So it was basically the same team that was involved in the negotiations after 31 January 1997.
[view more]

27 September 2001
Mini-CTC Inquiry 20010927 Doc 2 of 2
Chairman: Deputy O'Flynn to resume. Deputy O'Flynn: Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Gahan, could I just go back to 21 March 1997, document, file reference, M3F. 8-072. You were present at that meeting, were you not? Mr. Gahan: Sorry, I haven't seen the document. Yes. Deputy O'Flynn: "CIE are broadly disappointed with the proposal but appreciate that considerable time and effort had been put into it". Why was this? Why were you disappointed with the proposal at that point in time? Mr. Gahan: I can't specifically say why. Just give me a moment to----- Deputy O'Flynn: While you are thinking of that could be put up the other document, file reference M3F. 8-071? Mr. Gahan: They probably did not give us what we were looking for at the starting point.
[view more]

27 September 2001
Mini-CTC Inquiry 20010927 Doc 1 of 2
Joint Committee on Public Enterprise and TransportSub-Committee on the Mini-CTC Signalling ProjectDé Déardaoin, 27 Mean Fómhair 2001.Thursday, 27 September 2001.The Sub-Committee met at 10 a.m.MEMBERS PRESENT: Deputy M. Brady, Deputy N. O'Flynn, " A. Currie, " P. Rabbitte. " J. Higgins (Mayo),   DEPUTY S. DOHERTY IN THE CHAIR.Chairman:
[view more]

26 September 2001
Mini-CTC Inquiry 20010926 Doc 1 of 1
The following witnesses were sworn in by the Clerk to the sub-committee: Mr. Denis O'Brien and Ms Sinead Ó Marcaigh. Chairman: The following witnesses should also take their seats, Dr. Ray Byrne, Mr. Brian Joyce, Mr. Thomas Cunningham, Mr. James Gahan and Mr. Leslie Buckley. Before we proceed to hear evidence, I understand that a second written statement has been received from Mr. Brian Joyce. For the record, Mr. Joyce, will you confirm on oath that the contents of that statement are correct? Mr. Joyce: I confirm. Chairman: The reference number of Mr. Joyce's second statement is Joyce 003/001-004. Is it agreed that this additional statement be published? Agreed. I would also like to get the agreement of the sub-committee to publish a document which was referred to in the course of yesterday's proceedings. The document emanates from the Department of Public Enterprise - note for the information of management committee. The reference numbers are DOPE 040.113-116. Is it agreed that these be published? Agreed. Finally, I would like to acknowledge that the sub-committee has received an affidavit and associated documents from Mr. O'Brien. On foot of direction of the sub-committee I wish to thank Mr. O'Brien for his co-operation in this regard. I also understand that one has been discovered from Mr. Cunningham and I also thank him for his co-operation in this regard.
[view more]

25 September 2001
Mini-CTC inquiry 20010925 Doc 1 of 1
The following witnesses were sworn in by the Clerk to the sub-committee: Mr. Andrew Smith and Mr. James Gahan. Chairman: Mr. Gahan has already furnished a statement of evidence to the sub-committee. For the record, Mr. Gahan, will you confirm on oath that the contents of that statement are correct? Mr. Gahan: They are, yes, Chairman.
[view more]

24 September 2001
Mini-CTC Inquiry 20010924 Doc 2 of 2
Chairman: The hearing is resumed. Mr. McCullough: I have a concern, Chairman, that I want to raise about some of the evidence given by Mr. McCamley this morning. With respect, Chairman, it seemed to me that some of that evidence was irrelevant to the matters that concern the committee, two matters in particular. Firstly, Mr. McCamley talked about his suspicions which my clients say are groundless but in any event the fact that somebody has suspicions is neither here nor there. He secondly mentioned a particular contract, the McHugh contract, and Mr. Powell in that context. Mr. Powell is in a position to answer any complaint in relation to the McHugh contract. Chairman: I do not wish to interrupt you but I did comment at the time that the McHugh matter is not relevant to our inquiry. I asked that it be noted by my colleagues that account is not to be taken of it. Mr. McCullough: Thank you, Chairman.
[view more]

24 September 2001
Mini-CTC Inquiry 20010924 Doc 1 of 2
The following witnesses were sworn in by the Clerk to the sub-committee: Ms Geraldine Filnucane, Company Secretary, CIE, Mr. Peter Lacey, Audit Partner, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Mr. Brian Joyse, former Chairman, CIE, and Mr. Bill McCamley, CIE board member. Chairman: Ms Finucane, you have already furnished a statement of evidence to the sub-committee. For the record would you confirm, on oath, that the contents of that statement are correct? Ms Finucane: I confirm that they are correct. 
[view more]

21 September 2001
Mini-CTC Inquiry 20010921 Doc 1 of 1
The following witnesses were sworn in by the Clerk to the sub-committee: Mr. Derry O'Donnell, Mr. Vincent Brennan. Chairman: The following witnesses are to be heard today: Mr. Tony Dermody, Mr. Michael Downes, Mr. John Fearon, Mr. David Doyle, Mr. Michael Scanlon, Mr. Jim O'Brien, Mr. Aidan Dunning, Mr. Bernard Kernan, Mr. Brian Powell, Mr. Thomas Cunningham, Ms Mary Hand, Mr. Jim Cullen and Mr. Joseph Meaghar. I ask my colleagues to agree to the publication of document CIE.293.001. Is that agreed? Agreed. I call Deputy Rabbitte. Deputy Rabbitte: Good morning. Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Dermody, will you tell the sub-committee what your job in CIÉ is? Mr. Dermody: I work in the programmes and projects department of CIÉ. I report to the manager of programmes and projects, Mr. Michael Reidy. My job is mainly to make reports on European and Exchequer grant funded projects to the Department of Public Enterprise and to the monitoring committees for the various European funded programmes. There is the Operational Programme on Transport and there's the Cohesion Fund - the mini-CTC being funded from the Cohesion Fund.
[view more]

20 September 2001
Mini-CTC Inquiry 20010920 Doc 1 of 2
The following witnesses were sworn in by the Clerk to the sub-committee: Mr. Michael Downes, Mr. John Fearon, Mr. David Doyle, Mr. Michael Scanlon, Mr. Jim O'Brien, Mr. Aidan Dunning, Mr. John Welsby, Ms Mary Molloy, Mr. David Reid, Mr. Ted Corcoran, Mr. Jean Louis Trovo, Mr. David McKeever.
[view more]

20 September 2001
Mini-CTC Inquiry 20010920 Doc 2 of 2
Chairman: The hearing is resumed. I thank the chairman, Mr. John Lynch, for making available to us at short notice the advertisement that you replied to, Dr. Byrne, and I ask that it be published. Is that agreed? Agreed. The advertisement had a number of words in it describing the position as offered. You have a copy of it in front of you, have you? Dr. Ray Byrne: I do. Chairman: Key tasks will include dealing and liaising with the European Commission, Government Departments and other public bodies on policy, funding and related issues the evaluation, implementation and management of large infrastructural investment programmes. I read that to you because that is what you contested this morning and there is clearly now the evidence that that was what was described as being contained in the job that was offered. Would you like to make a comment on that? Dr. Ray Byrne: No, Chairman. Obviously it's a long time since I've seen this ad.
[view more]

19 September 2001
Mini-CTC Inquiry 20010919 Doc 1 of 1
Chairman: The sub-committee on the Iarnród Éireann mini-CTC signalling project is now in public session. Witnesses' attention is drawn to the fact that, as and from 2 August 1998, section 10 of the Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Compellability, Privileges and Immunities of Witnesses) Act, 1997, grants certain rights to the persons identified in the course of the sub-committee's proceedings. These rights include the right to give evidence; the right to produce or send documents to the sub-committee; the right to appear before the sub-committee, either in person or through a representative; the right to make a written and oral submission; the right to request the sub-committee to direct the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents, and the right to cross-examine witnesses. For the most part these rights may only be exercised with the consent of the sub-committee. The Clerk of the sub-committee will now administer the oath to those witnesses to be heard today who have not been sworn in. The following witnesses were sworn in by the Clerk to the sub-committee: Mr. Pat Judge, Ms Helen Baxter, Mr. Noel McKiernan, Mr. Barry Bird, Mr. Richard O'Farrell, Mr. Rory Byrne, Mr. Thomas Bermingham, Mr. Ray Byrne, and Mr. Tony Dermody.
[view more]

17 September 2001
Mini CTC Inquiry 20010917 Doc 2 of 2
Chairman: The sub-committee is now in session. Deputy Currie: In the morning I was promised by Mr. Buckley a list of directorships at the time he first entered into an involvement with CIE and another list of his current directorships. Are those lists available?
[view more]

13 September 2001
Mini CTC Inquiry 20010913 Doc 2 of 2
Chairman: The sub-committee on the Iarnród Éireann mini-CTC signalling project is now in public session. Witnesses' attention is drawn to the fact that, as and from 2 August 1998, section 10 of the Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Compellability, Privileges and Immunities of Witnesses) Act, 1997, grants certain rights to persons who are identified in the course of the sub-committee's proceedings. These rights include the right to give evidence; the right to produce or send documents to the committee; the right to appear before the committee, either in person or through a representative; the right to make a written statement and oral submission; the right to request the committee to direct the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents, and the right to cross-examine witnesses. For the most part these rights may only be exercised with the consent of the sub-committee. We now move to the next witnesses, Mr. Cunningham and Mr. Harding. I call on Deputy Martin Brady.
[view more]

13 September 2001
Mini-CTC Inquiry 20010913 Doc 1 of 2
Chairman: The sub-committee considered whether or not to entertain or consider the application made on Tuesday. While, the sub-committee is therefore willing to consider applications for immediate cross-examinations, I should point out that it is only when the sub-committee is satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of justice and fairness that such applications will be allowed. In reaching a conclusion on this question the sub-committee takes into account the fact that the relevant Alstom witnesses and the persons represented by Mr. McCullough will be giving their own evidence over the next few days, and, in that context, will have the opportunity to make a brief opening statement and to have published more detailed written positions and statements. While the sub-committee accepts that cross-examination may be necessary to resolve any remaining differences after each witness has given evidence, it feels that all parties will have an early opportunity to have their own positions placed before the sub-committee and on the public record. The sub-committee has also taken into account that the procedures need to be fair to all parties, including PwC. In all the circumstances, the sub-committee is not persuaded that it is necessary in the interests of justice to allow immediate cross-examination. The applications of both Mr. Shipsey and Mr. McCullough will be treated in due course by the sub-committee in accordance with its procedures as will other similar applications.
[view more]

12 September 2001
Mini-CTC 20010912 Doc 1 of 1
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. The sub-committee has decided in the appalling circumstances of yesterday's terrorist attacks on the United States to adjourn the hearings planned for today. I am sure that all in this room this morning are shocked by and condemn these dreadful acts of terrorism. On behalf of the Houses of the Oireachtas and the people of Ireland we have taken this decision as a mark of respect and sympathy for the innocent victims, their families, the people of the United States and the world. We extend our sympathy to the family of Mrs. Ruth Clifford McCourt and her three-year old daughter, who were on one of the hijacked planes. Before I formally announce the decision to adjourn, we realise that this impacts upon our schedule and your schedule and we are endeavouring this morning to find a reasonable and satisfactory solution to that.
[view more]

11 September 2001
Mini-CTC 20010911 Doc 1 of 1
Chairman: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. The sub-committee on the Iarnród Éireann mini-CTC signalling project, the Esat cable laying and telecommunications project and related matters is now in public session. I understand Mr. Dalton wants to clarify an aspect that arose in the context of yesterday's hearing and he is welcome to proceed. Mr. Dalton: Thank you, chairman. Just an issue arose there yesterday in connection with shoehorning and the word "shoehorning" and I just wanted to attribute that comment to myself. I'll tell you the context in which it arose. The executive summary report from Pricewaterhouse of 28 March was sent out to a number of executives in Irish Rail for comments and in the commentary to the first paragraph, which was the invitation to contract in their initial draft, I made some comments, some of which were adopted in the second draft of that document of 10 July. I know Deputy Rabbitte was mentioning there about shoehorning yesterday when he was interrogating Mr. Cullen and rather than interrupt the proceedings, because I understood you were trying to finish and I didn't want to belabour the point or certainly lead to any confusion. The situation, the word "shoehorning" got into the Pricewaterhouse second draft through a comment that I made. It was subsequently picked up by Iarnród Éireann when they were summarising the second draft of the Pricewaterhouse report. So, if you come to press to me subsequently, at some other point, I can go through the context in which I made that particular point, but just rather than---
[view more]

10 September 2001
Mini-CTC Inquiry 20010910 Doc 1 of 2
Chairman: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. You are all very welcome to the commencement of the public hearings of this inquiry. The sub-committee on the Iarnród Éireann mini-CTC signalling project, the Esat cable laying and telecommunications project and related matters is now in public session. Witnesses' attention is drawn to the fact that, as and from 2 August 1998, section 10 of the Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Compellability, Privileges and Immunities of Witnesses) Act, 1997, grants certain rights to persons who are identified in the course of the sub-committee's proceedings. These rights include the right to give evidence; the right to produce or send documents to the committee; the right to appear before the committee, either in person or through a representative; the right to make a written and oral submission; the right to request the committee to direct the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents, and the right to cross-examine witnesses. For the most part these rights may only be exercised with the consent of the sub-committee.
[view more]

09 September 2001
Mini-CTC Inquiry 20010910 Doc 2 of 2
Chairman: The sub-committee is in resumed public session. I wish to deal with a couple of housekeeping matters. Mr. Loughrey and Mr. Tuohy, we can release you temporarily if you wish to leave. If you wish to stay, you are welcome to do so. I am sure you expect to be present for more than today's proceedings. Perhaps you might like to relax in some less obvious location in the room. Mr. Loughrey: Thank you, Chairman. Chairman: You are very welcome. The witnesses before us at present can move up a little closer to the front of the room. We have Mr. O'Neill and Mr. O'Riordan, partner and director at PWC. I want to convey to you that we regret that we omitted to include you this morning in our acknowledgement this morning to all of the parties that had made discovery and presentation to us. We regret that act of omission and I am sure you will accept our regrets in the circumstances. We will resume our questioning. I call again on Deputy Currie.
[view more]

Page 1 ¦ 2 next page

Popular Documents in this category:
26 June 2014 This page will include minutes of evidence and reports of more ...
24 April 2001 Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights Sub-Committee on more ...
29 July 1999 Dáil Committee of Public Accounts, Sub-Committee on Certain more ...
18 July 2001 Mini CTC Inquiry 2000 - 2002, Joint Committee on Public more ...
22 August 2014 Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Privilege and more ...