Vol. 456 No. 8
1 Mr. S. Brennan asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications the proposals, if any, he has to introduce guidelines to deal with the handling of anonymous letters to his Department, particularly in the matter of allegations of surveillance. [14749/95]
2 Mr. S. Brennan asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications if he will circulate details of his proposed commission to advise the Government on appointments to semi-State companies; and if he has Government approval for this proposal. [14750/95]
3 Mr. Molloy asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications the changes, if any, he has implemented in the guidelines to semi-State companies on the procedures to be followed when procuring goods and services; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14677/95]
4 Mr. S. Brennan asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications if he will give full details of the firms in receipt of State contracts which did not professionally and legally win those contracts; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14751/95]
5 Mr. S. Brennan asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications his views on the remarks made by the General Secretary of SIPTU criticising him on the handling of semi-State company policy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14752/95]
31 Mr. D. Ahern asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications the facts regarding the alleged surveillance of him; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14292/95]
36 Mr. S. Brennan asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications when his attention was first drawn to the allegations of surveillance of the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications and two senior executives in a semi-State company; the way in which he became aware of these allegations; if he has satisfied himself that the allegations were well-founded; if he has undertaken any investigations into the allegations; and if he will make a statement on this matter and on the Minister's allegations regarding semi-State companies generally. [14433/95]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1, to 5, inclusive, 31 and 36 together.
On a point of order, I wish to make it clear that my party objects to grouping these questions together and asks the Government to answer them individually. They deal with separate subjects and we ask that they be answered separately in the House.
We are dealing with priority questions to which a time limit of 20 minutes applies. It is not unusual to group questions; that has always been the prerogative of the Minister concerned. I have no power to direct the Minister otherwise and must accept what he has advised in respect of the grouping of the questions.
On a point of order——
I advise Deputies not to waste this precious time.
I will not waste the time. The Minister played cat and mouse with us last week and is doing so again today. It is obvious that he is trying to stifle the debate on this matter.
Let us proceed with the questions.
The Deputies opposite were the mice on Tuesday.
I have never come across a situation where five priority questions were grouped together.
This is a common occurrence in the House.
The Minister can run but he cannot hide.
The grouping of questions is perfectly normal and the procedures I am following have been cleared by the Ceann Comhairle's office. This is not a new precedent, it regularly happens.
Duck and dodge.
This is abnormal.
I have grouped the questions to facilitate the Opposition.
It runs contrary to what the Minister said on television the other day, that he would come into the House and answer questions. He cannot get out of that one.
Let us hear the Minister's reply. Will the Minister repeat the grouping of questions?
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, 31 and 36 together.
I have dealt comprehensively with the issues raised in the questions during the course of my statement to the House and the replies to subsequent questions on Tuesday last, 10 October. Since then a number of issues have arisen which I would now like to address.
Since I came into the Dáil on Tuesday we have been subjected to a series of misrepresentations and inaccuracies in relation to a number of aspects of my statement to the House. I want to outline the accurate position in relation to the role of Ambrose Kelly in the Horgan's Quay negotiations.
The Minister is not answering the questions.
I also want to deal with the international travel undertaken at public expense by Mr. Kelly and his friend the former chairman of CIE, Mr. Dermot O'Leary.
This is not relevant to the questions.
To what question does this relate?
Let us hear the Minister's reply.
I wish to deal first with Mr. Kelly. There are two issues to be addressed in relation to him — his role in the O'Callaghan property deal——
On a point of order, to which question is the Minister replying?
I am replying to Questions Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, 31 and 36.
The Minister is not answering the questions.
Do the Deputies want the facts?
Yes.
If they listen they will get them.
We are interested in the facts.
Let Question Time proceed without interruption.
There are two issues to be addressed in relation to Mr. Kelly — his role in the O'Callaghan property deal and his trip from New York to Florida with Mr. O'Leary. I will deal first with the Horgan's Quay negotiations, in which Mr. Kelly said he did not participate. The CIE records, authenticated by three sources, flatly contradict him and I will give Deputies the information as authenticated by CIE to me.
According to CIE's former acting chief executive, Noel Kennedy, in a memorandum to my Department dated 11 November 1994: "CIE met in September, 1994, with O'Callaghan Properties in conjunction with Ambrose Kelly and agreed a deal for the site". This is the same Mr. Kennedy who spoke on radio and television yesterday. This memorandum was written by Mr. Kennedy who has already resurfaced in this story on television news in support of Mr. Kelly. However, he was quite firm in his memorandum about Mr. Kelly and that meeting. That is my first source of information.
My second source is CIE's auditors Craig Gardner who conducted an independent inquiry into the Horgan's Quay site. In their report they say that on 15 September 1994 CIE's property manager met Eoin O'Callaghan and Ambrose Kelly and reached preliminary agreement on the disposal of the Horgan's Quay site. That report is quite specific and unequivocal about the facts.
My third source is the CIE group property manager who is adamant that Ambrose Kelly accompanied Eoin O'Callaghan to the meeting on 15 September 1994 and his official notes of that meeting confirm his attendance. I am not prepared to accept for one minute the arguments of Mr. Kelly that he did not attend the meetings, arguments which I suggest are based on hearsay.
Against the background of three independent witness sources of confirmation of Mr. Kelly's attendance at the meeting, I say to Deputies — prove to me he did not attend the meeting which negotiated what I have already called a sweetheart deal.
The Minister should prove he was under surveillance.
I wish to turn to Mr. Kelly's travel. Mr. Kennedy has said he authorised a contra deal for the New York-Florida trip of Mr. Kelly which was undertaken with his friend the former chairman. Deputies will have seen on television news, internal memos from the Ambrose Kelly Group — I ask them to note that these were from the Ambrose Kelly Group and there was nothing from CIE — suggesting an agreement on a contra deal for work on Heuston Station to be discounted to cover the trip to Florida. Nobody disputes that CIE paid for the trip to Florida in November 1994. The total was £2,766 of taxpayers' money and it was charged to the chairman's budget, the chairman then being Mr. O'Leary who was picking up the tab at public expense.
Mr. Kelly says his costs in the Florida trip were paid back through an invoice he submitted to CIE for Heuston Station. This was suggested in his internal memo of January 1995 when he suggested a figure of £3,000 would not be charged for this work. I want to examine the invoice dated 2 March 1995 which Mr. Kelly submitted for his work on Heuston Station. No deduction for the trip has been made and the invoice offers no indication whatsoever that it should be made. The Bill was for a total of £17,282.50 plus VAT at £3,629.
This is not the reply to the questions asked.
Now that the Deputies are being given the answers they do not want to hear them.
The Minister is filibustering.
Let us hear the Minister's reply.
The Deputy has been on a butter box for the past 24 hours asking for these answers and he is now getting them.
Iarnród Éireann's chief architect, in discussions with Ambrose Kelly and Partners, negotiated a reduction in the bill to £15,000 which was made up of fees of £11,600 and expenses of £3,340 plus VAT. In the chief architect's opinion the revised amount better reflected the value of the work carried out. He was not aware of any visit to Florida by Mr. Kelly and the question of a reduction in fees as a set-off against the cost of his visit did not arise.
Regardless of any internal memos that Mr. Kelly might produce conveniently for the media, CIE has told me categorically that Ambrose Kelly and Partners did not pay for the Florida trip. Even if Mr. Kelly had been correct and he had some special cosy little relationship with Noel Kennedy I find it astonishing that a State company strapped for cash, with some of its staff working in conditions no better than Calcutta, would contemplate such a deal. If anything smells of a golden circle this does.
This is outrageous.
The Minister should answer the questions.
So much for openness and transparency.
I want to turn to Mr. O'Leary who made a number of trips to the United States——
This is an abuse of time.
The Deputy should not make a fool of himself.
Bully boy tactics will not work.
Let us listen to the reply, questions can be asked later.
I want to refer to Mr. O'Leary who made a number of trips to the United States, South Africa and Australia during the ten months he was chairman of CIE, trips CIE has told us categorically were of absolutely no value to the company. CIE Tours International has told the company that the trips came as a request from Mr. Kennedy and not from it, were not revenue trips and were totally unproductive. Those are its words, not mine.
He was the chief executive.
As one who was very much involved in the appointment of this individual I want to give Deputy Cowen a flavour of his extravagance.
Since when did the chief executive have to get the permission of a subordinate?
I want to give the Deputy a flavour of the extravagant lifestyle of Mr. O'Leary as chairman of a State board spending taxpayers' money at Deputy Cowen's request. First, let us look at the background to these trips. The October trip was set up as a chairman's trip and a memorandum of 10 August 1994 deals with the itinerary of what it describes as the chairman's visit to New York.
Mr. O'Leary has denied having participated in the United States visit of 5 to 10 October 1994. My statement in this regard was based on information provided by CIE and used by me in good faith.
So the Minister did mislead the House.
Having rechecked the matter with CIE, I am now informed that he did not travel on that trip, that it went ahead without him.
The Minister did mislead the House.
According to Mr. O'Leary he did not go because a certain party political function had been postponed.
The Minister did mislead the House. He had three months in which to check it out.
Apparently that was the only business sufficiently important to warrant the presence of the chairman of CIE in New York at that time. However, the itinerary planned for the trip resembles that for South Africa——
So the Minister told an untruth in the House.
——long and strong on lunches, dinners, leisure, golf and Broadway musical theatre.
He did not go.
Two visits to CIE offices were fitted in by way of business content. I regret that an inaccuracy in part of the information provided to me by CIE——
Blame someone else.
——resulted in the House being misinformed on this particular issue.
Who is getting the sack for that?
This does not reduce the seriousness or importance of the matters I have raised nor does it excuse the wholesale misuse and abuse of his position as chairman in terms of his extensive foreign travel at the expense of public funds.
The Minister is changing his ground again; this is nonsense.
Deputies opposite must remember that this was categorised by the chairman as an important business trip for CIE.
On a point of information, is the Minister being allowed to usurp the full 20 minutes allocated to questions nominated for priority reading his reply? What is the relevant procedure?
The Chair has no control over Minister's replies.
Answering six questions together does not allow all Members fair play.
Regard should be had, on both sides of the House, to the time factor involved for dealing with questions nominated for priority.
The fact is the Minister misled the House.
This trip was cancelled at the last minute. Why? It was because a certain Fianna Fáil party political function had been cancelled. The chairman then decided that important trip was not worth going on after all.
Did he go or not?
What all this reveals is something far more serious than I first thought and there are a number of significant questions that must be answered. For example, since when has a State company visit been built around a party political fund-raising occasion? If the chairman decided it was not worth his while going, why should anyone have gone?
The Minister misled the House.
All arrangements for the October visit were made for Mr. Dermot O'Leary as chairman. Why did CIE up to today believe that the chairman had actually been there?
The Minister is here to answer questions, not ask them.
Why did all the bills and invoices come with Mr. Dermot O'Leary's name written on them? Why were the luxury suites and luxury lifestyle allowed by a company strapped for cash?
The Minister should tell the House.
This matter arose in July. Why had we to wait such a long time for Mr. O'Leary to refresh his memory?
The Minister should tell the truth.
I ask the House: what kind of controls exist in a company within which nobody seems to know precisely who goes where and for what reason? I want to ask Fianna Fáil again today — which failed to answer the allegations made in respect of the Horgan's Quay site, which failed to dissociate itself from them — whether it endorses this type of extravagance on the part of the chairman of a State company at taxpayers' expense.
Why did the Minister tell an untruth?
Let me turn to the trips in question. From 3 to 7 November 1994 Mr. O'Leary and Mr. Kennedy, then chairman and chief executive, respectively, of CIE visited the United States at a cost to CIE of £62,214 which excluded Mr. O'Leary's flight costs.
This is pathetic.
The itinerary for this trip included dinner on the evening of 3 November for Mr. O'Leary and a number of his guests, including Mr. Ambrose Kelly.
This is degenerating into pure farce — so much for closed cartels.
On 4 November 1994 official business — a visit to CIE Tours International office — was disposed of between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. The party then moved on to the Sky Club for lunch. Following that, and a brief encounter with the then Taoiseach, Deputy Albert Reynolds——
We read that in the Sunday Independent.
——the chief executive departed for Portugal but not before presenting the then Taoiseach with a gift to the value of $322 paid for by CIE at taxpayer's expense. The chairman was scheduled to attend cocktails and dinner at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel which, unfortunately, had to be cancelled.
Was the Tánaiste there? Did he meet Dick?
From 5 to 7 November 1994 Mr. O'Leary and Mr. Ambrose Kelly travelled between New York and Florida at the expense of CIE——
Limerick East): The Deputy should let Deputy Seamus Brennan handle it.
——while there are records of limousine hire, accommodation and entertainment expenses, there is nothing to show that any CIE business was done.
No wonder the semi-State bodies are in their present sorry mess.
What about the other five questions?
I want to read the following into the record from a letter from the group secretary of CIE, dated today:
1. With reference to the claims of Mr. Ambrose Kelly and Mr. Eoin O'Callaghan that Ambrose Kelly did not negotiate on the Horgan's Quay development, I have interviewed the CIE Group Property Manager and inspected his files. He has again confirmed that, at a meeting held on 15 September 1994 in the offices of the Ambrose Kelly Group, attended by Mr. Ambrose Kelly and Mr. Eoin O'Callaghan, he commenced negotiations with Eoin O'Callaghan for the development of the site. The Group Property Manager's official diary and notes of the meeting confirm this.
That is in direct contradiction of what has been said on radio today. The letter from CIE continues as follows:
2. I have this morning interviewed the Chief Architect of Iarnród Éireann. He confirms that the Ambrose Kelly Group was retained by Iarnród Éireann. Their brief was to advise on the retail aspects of the planned Heuston Station development. He confirms that all dealings in relation to the work, and payment for same, were exclusively handled by him.
Again, that is in direct contradiction of what was said on radio and television yesterday.
Is this the same letter the Minister received about the New York trip?
The letter continues:
The Chief Architect is not aware, nor do his records give any indication, of any involvement by Mr. Noel Kennedy, former Acting Group Chief Executive, in this project with the Ambrose Kelly Group. He again confirms that no reduction of fees was negotiated between the Chief Architect and Ambrose Kelly to compensate for the cost of the visit to Florida.
The invoice from the Ambrose Kelly Group was finalised at a meeting between Mr. Michael Kenny of the Ambrose Kelly Group and the Chief Architect of CIE. The Chief Architect at this meeting questioned the original bill and agreed with Mr. Kenny that the amount of £15,000 ... reflected the value of the work carried out.
A Cheann Comhairle, can we ask any questions? We do not need these answers.
I think the Minister is coming to finality.
A Cheann Comhairle, how much time is allowed for questions nominated for priority?
The letter continues:
Mr. Kenny made no reference to any offset for a trip to Florida for Mr. Kelly. The final invoice subsequently submitted by the Ambrose Kelly Group also did not refer to any offset.
A Cheann Comhairle, this is a charade.
The letter goes on to say:
Mr. Noel Kennedy's assertions on RTE news that there was an agreed offset is not confirmed by any official documentation in CIE. Neither his Secretary nor Personal Assistant is aware of any such agreement.
Furthermore, the Chief Architect states that Mr. Kennedy did not communicate any such arrangement to him, nor is he aware of any other communication to his office. This would have been normal practice if such an arrangement existed.
3. With reference to Mr. Dermot O'Leary's visit to the USA
He did not go.
The letter goes on to say:
——between the 5th and 10th October 1994, we wish to confirm that we stated and reconfirmed that Mr. O'Leary was a participant on the trip.
He did not go; we are not interested.
Deputies opposite should listen.
The letter continues as follows.
We did so on the following basis:
The visit to the USA was requested by the former Acting Group Chief Executive, Mr. Noel Kennedy, and it was specifically arranged for the purpose of opening the new offices of CIE Tours International. A CIE board meeting, planned for 5 October 1994, was postponed until 13 October 1994 to facilitate Mr. O'Leary's intended visit to America. Official records at CIE Tours International head office and at group head office show a detailed itinerary from CIE Tours International for the chairman's visit.
He did not go.
The letter continues as follows:
As will be seen from this itinerary reservations for accommodation were made for Mr. O'Leary, Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Grace in the Waldorf Astoria between 5 and 10 October 1994.
The letter ends as follows:
The documentation supplied by the New York official of CIE Tours International ... shows a charge of $3,097.57 in respect of five nights accommodation——
But he did not go.
The Minister is joking.
It continues:
We are at present seeking to locate the original hotel bill. We have now ascertained from our New York Office that Mr. O'Leary cancelled his trip at short notice and did not stay at the Waldorf Astoria.
On behalf of CIE, I apologise unreservedly to the Minister for the wrong information supplied to him for use in Dáil Éireann.
Mr. O'Leary misled CIE.
I appreciate the Minister's reply was inordinately long especially having regard to the time factor involved in dealing with priority questions, for which 20 minutes are allowed.
The reply dealt with several questions.
In the interest of fairness and equity the Chair will hear a reasonable number of supplementaries from Deputies who tabled priority questions.
I tabled a question and object to the length of the Minister's reply.
I will try to facilitate the Deputy in another way. Fairness and equity must be seen to prevail. I propose to call the Deputies who tabled priority questions in the order in which their questions appear on the Order Paper. I now call Deputy Seamus Brennan.
On a point of order, how much of the 20 minutes did the Minister use before the Chair made its ruling?
Almost the entire 20 minutes.
That is nothing new.
That is disgraceful.
We sat on the opposite side for eight years and listened to long replies.
The truth is bitter.
Members can observe the clock in this Chamber the same as the Chair.
Time will deal with the information in the Minister's speech today. This issue is now one of misleading the Dáil.
The Deputy wrote that speech yesterday.
I wish to ask the Minister a number of questions. Regarding surveillance, what did the gardaí tell him in response to his request that they investigate the matter and did he hear further from them? Why did he not furnish the gardaí with the full additional information that his spokesman promised in public comment? What did he tell the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Minister for Social Welfare in July that convinced those members of Government that the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications was under surveillance and will he state those reasons to the House?
I put it to the Minister that he misled the House in another very serious aspect of the matter, relating to when he knew about the Horgan's Quay site. He told me on 20 September in reply to a parliamentary question that he knew about it in May 1995. He said in response to questions on Tuesday that he gave instructions to the new chairman of CIE about the Horgan's Quay site being a priority, and he did that in April 1995. He said in his speech that he first knew of the matter in June.
The Deputy should bring his questions to finality.
Ask Mr. O'Leary to investigate it?
Why did the Minister give the House three separate dates as to when he knew about the Horgan's Quay site. I put it to him that he knew all about the site since the by-election, he had many opportunities to deal with it and has many questions to answer in that regard. Why did the Minister mislead this House in regard to the Killarney site the third area in which he misled it? In reply to a parliamentary question on 3 October he told us he had no function in regard to individual property and said on 10 April that he had written to CIE directing it to dispose of the property.
The Deputy has had wide discretion on questions.
I thank the Ceann Comhairle for his latitude. My party wants to put all those questions to the Minister. Does he realise that not only has he blackened the reputations of individuals outside this House, but that he has also placed professional journalists in an invidious position?
How?
The Deputy's concern for journalists is touching. I took seven questions as priority, I believe I had to deal with them adequately in the time available. I am happy to answer questions and comply with the ruling of the Chair in that regard.
The Deputy's first question related to what I said to the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Minister for Social Welfare.
That was the second question, the first one related to the issue of surveillance.
Let us hear the Minister without interruption.
Regarding communication with the gardaí, I will deal with the matter in chronological order. When I received communications — letters — the last letter contained an allegation that I had been placed under surveillance. During a policy discussion with the Taoiseach I told him I had received those letters. He advised me that I should hand them over to the gardaí. On that evening I rang the Minister for Justice and asked her to make arrangements for an official of the Garda to visit my office so that I could hand over the documentation. I did that on the following day, but when I spoke to the Minister that evening she confirmed that the Department of Justice was aware of an allegation that I and a senior executive in CIE had been placed under surveillance and that the chief executive of CIE had visited the Department of Justice to communicate his concern. My discussions with the Taoiseach were simply to inform him, as I felt he should be informed. My discussions with the Minister for Social Welfare and the Tánaiste were a matter of courtesy to them to let them know that this action had been taken. There was no further discussion about the matter.
Regarding the Deputy's other question concerning the gardaí, I handed the material over to them but gave no specific instructions.
The Minister called them.
I simply said that this information was available to me, that I was concerned about it and asked them to follow whatever procedures were appropriate as they were the relevant people to decide what action should be taken.
Did the Minister get a report back?
Since then the gardaí have communicated with my office. They have requested additional information to assist in furthering their inquiries. They have also written to other Departments throughout the State system. Their reason for doing so was that many of the allegations contained in the letters are not relevant or within the ambit of my Department. It had a broader reach and for that reason I am aware that the gardaí have written to the Department of Justice and it has conveyed a request to various other Departments to provide whatever information is available to them. The position with the gardaí is that the inquiries in respect of the allegations in these letters are ongoing.
Deputy Brennan is well aware of the position regarding the Horgan's Quay site because he was involved in it. I understand he was sitting inside the door of the Imperial Hotel——
I was canvassing.
——holding court and telling his troops to get out and canvass but he was not seen on the doorsteps which probably partly accounts for his party doing so badly in Cork.
That is sick.
There was a strong rumour in Cork at the time——
Another rumour.
——that these were by-election jobs and The Cork Examiner ran banner headlines to that effect. At the time I know that all the political parties involved in that campaign considered that announcement, which coincided with the by-election, dubious. During the run-up to the by-election a number of people told me that they thought it outrageous that this property should be sold so quickly and without an opportunity for others to purchase it.
Ask Denis Murphy about it.
I heard on the radio today that Mr. O'Callaghan said that nobody would be interested in the site at the time and that he believed that nobody would match his price. A half an hour after he made that statement, and I have a letter in writing——
They usually are.
How opportune.
The property department of CIE received a faxed letter from P.J. Hegarty and Company in Cork stating it would be delighted to offer at least the same money for that same site if it had an opportunity to purchase it.
And they tried to buy it three years ago.
I have the letter.
A cosy cartel.
A Fine Gael plant.
The letter clearly states that one of the companies which has been declared publicly by others not to have been interested in the site has already declared its intention to purchase it for the same amount if not more, if it becomes available again.
For what? A technology park?
When I became Minister I found this transaction had already been approved by the board. It was my understanding at that stage that if it was so approved the deal must have been in order. The date on which I received hard information that it was not in order was the date I gave in the Dáil on Tuesday. There is a difference between being told something and getting hard information.
An anonymous letter.
The moment I received hard evidence that there may have been something wrong I asked the new chairman of CIE — I was hardly expected to ask the outgoing one — to conduct an assessment of the procedures involved in the disposal of this State asset.
That was last April. The Minister's reply to a parliamentary question misled the House.
I gave the date in my speech — 21 June. The chairman brought in Craig Gardner to assist him in the task and the information given to the House on this assessment has been drawn from a number of sources, including the Craig Gardner report.
I express my sincere appreciation to the Chair for agreeing to extend the time beyond the 20 minutes which the Minister sought to occupy totally and during which he tried to shunt the Opposition up a cul-de-sac so that we would not be in a position to ask questions.
The information he gave could easily have been handed out in a statement beforehand. The House knows that Fine Gael vindictiveness over what happened to Deputy Coveney is the main reason for this controversy. The Minister has only himself to blame for the allegations he made about cosy cartels. He is responsible for the waste of time and effort which has occurred by seeking to justify an allegation. We are seeking the truth. I am interested in the Minister's veracity with regard to his statements because it might say something about other things he has been doing.
It is clear he is seeking to hang his whole case about a cosy cartel on the hook of the site in Horgan's Quay. He said he did not know anything about it until 21 June. In reply to supplementary questions on Tuesday and today, he stated he knew about it at the time of the Cork by-election, which was held in November last year. In his statement he said that neither he nor the Government knew at the time of the dismissal of Mr. Dermot O'Leary of any irregularities in CIE. Mr. O'Leary was dismissed in April 1995.
Did the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Deputy Allen, inform the Minister in December 1994 of concerns in Cork about the sale? On the RTE television programme "Prime Time" on 26 September Deputy Allen said——
I must dissuade the Deputy from quoting. It is not in order.
Is the Minister aware that the Minister of State was asked on "Prime Time" why nothing happened with regard to the Horgan's Quay site between November 1994 and June 1995? His answer was that things certainly happened, that as soon as his party came into Government he had discussion with the Minister relating to the sale and that the Minister acted on some of the advice he gave him. We have seen what subsequently happened in CIE. The Minister knew all about this when he came into office. Is this not true?
I want to assist the Deputy in eliciting information but he must proceed by way of questions and must avoid making statements or entering into argument.
He knows all about this from various sources. I hope the Minister will answer this because there is a direct contradiction on the record of the House.
There is no contradiction.
There is.
The record will show it.
Does the Minister agree that in the interests of natural justice it would have been appropriate for him to have put these allegations to the persons involved prior to making formal allegations and accusations against them under the protection of the House? Is it not true that when awkward questions were being asked of the Minister himself about alleged surveillance, he sought to seek protection under the ancient sub judice rule?
The Deputy has been given a great deal of latitude by the Chair.
Does the Minister agree that it would have been more proper and correct in the interests of natural justice and fair play to put the issues to the people involved rather than dragging the issues through the media without any substantiation?
Who demanded a debate?
They and people in semi-State bodies have reputations. Everybody from senior management lies under a heavy cloud of accusation.
I ask the Deputy to desist from making statements.
I am concerned about the facts. The Minister should have checked his facts more carefully before making personal allegations in the House.
How much time has the Deputy taken up in filibustering?
Not as much as the Minister.
I need the opportunity to respond.
We are dealing with questions today in an abnormal fashion and, despite anything contained in Standing Orders, I must make sure fair play reigns here. The Members who tabled priority questions shall have an opportunity to put them.
Deputy Molloy contradicted himself twice. He stated on a television programme last Tuesday that the behaviour with regard to the Horgan's Quay site was scandalous and should not be stood over.
I did. That is not the point.
He is now changing his mind and attempting to justify the scurrilous and scandalous abuse of the disposal of a State asset and misuse of taxpayers' money. He is attempting to justify it.
The Minister was involved in the most scurrilous——
I, like Deputy Molloy and other Deputies, was aware during the Cork by-election of the rumours about the handling of the sale of the Horgan's Quay site. It was common knowledge that people felt there was something wrong. There was certainly a perception and a strong sense that this deal had been pushed through and was politically motivated.
That is the Minister's sixth sense.
On coming into office it was perfectly reasonable of me to assume that the agreement was satisfactory, considering it had been approved by the board of CIE.
The Minister did not check it out. He was negligent.
I was not aware at the time, nor could I have been aware, that the board had given approval not knowing that the property subcommittee had not assessed the deal and had unilaterally been disbanded by the chairman, Mr. O'Leary. The Deputy hardly expected Mr. O'Leary to tell me this.
Who makes the ultimate decision?
As I informed the House last Tuesday, the first time I had detailed information about what happened with regard to Horgan's Quay was on 21 June. This information was so disturbing that it warranted further investigation. I then asked the executive chairman of CIE to establish the facts of this case.
A reply to a parliamentary question states the Minister knew about it in May.
He is now saying he did not know about it until June.
The company subsequently instructed its auditors, Craig Gardner, to examine the disposal of the property.
In reply to Parliamentary Question No. 398 of 20 September 1995 the Minister told the House he knew all about this in May 1995. He is now telling the House it was the end of June. That is misleading the House. Will the Minister reply to my question regarding the Killarney site issue as to why he intervened when he told the House he would not? Why did he not give the Garda the extra material for which he was asked?
The Garda indicated that if we could be of any further assistance in providing information they would be happy to receive it. They made a similar request of various other Departments because the allegations in the letters involve many other Departments.
Did the Minister give them the information?
The Deputy is well aware of all the facts involved in the Killarney site. He has no question down to me for today. When the Deputy puts down a question he will get a full reply. Normal procedure was followed and it was the subject of consultation and discussion. It was as simple as that.
With whom? Was it with Mr. Matson?
Let us hear the Minister.
Who is Mr. Matson?
Does the Minister not know him?
Is the Minister saying he does not know him?
He knows of him.
Let us not bandy names about in this House.
Did the Minister act on those recommendations?
What was the Deputy's third question?
Did the Minister receive recommendations and, if so, did he act on them?
In view of the Deputy's role as Minister in all of this, he is the last one who should say anything.
I have nothing to hide. The Minister trawled every file and he could find nothing.
The Deputy's stewardship in all of this leaves much to be desired.
This is a disgrace. The Minister is scurrilous.
Let us try to avoid personalities.
Deputy Cowen has suffered a lapse of memory and did not disclose——
The Minister needs Mr. Matson's intercom.
May I ask the Minister——
The Minister checked every file and could not find anything.
In view of all we have heard here this afternoon where the Minister has admitted that he has effectively misled the House about a trip of an individual——
The remark made by the Deputy about the Minister misleading the House is disorderly.
But he said——
Deputy, please. It is disorderly to state that a Minister or a Member deliberately misled the House.
I did not say anything other than that the House has been misled on two central issues: the issue concerning a trip of an individual and the important issue of all these dates on which the Minister has contradicted himself in replies to parliamentary questions.
A question Deputy please.
The contradictions here amount to misleading the House.
Any statements made in this House by me are based on information provided for me.
It is either right or it is wrong.
I am treating certain of these questions in ordinary time, as is quite obvious. There was no avoiding that today. I call Deputy Dermot Ahern whose Question No. 31 refers.
We all know that when the Minister comes before the House he has absolute privilege. He has been indemnified in every allegation he has made in the House about individuals outside the House. Will the Minister confirm that he will indemnify any journalist who has had legal proceedings served on him as a result of information that either he or his agents gave in private briefings? Will he also confirm that he will, in effect, release any journalist from his obligation to divulge sources in relation to any issue that either he or his agents raised with them in private briefings?
As the Deputy will be aware a number of people, other than me have been extremely busy in respect of litigation proceedings. A number of high court writs have been served, some of which have been served on me. It is my responsibility and my function to defend those writs. I can assure the Deputy, and he can convey this to whoever he wishes, that I will defend those writs vigorously. I will defend my integrity in respect of this matter. I have absolutely no doubt that any journalist or any individuals, either within the House or outside, will do likewise through the proper channels, which are the courts.
Will the Minister indemnify them?
I put it to the Minister that at this stage he is reduced to quoting as facts, briefings which he gave privately to journalists. The Minister is now using absolute privilege in regard to the defence of his cases against him.
I outlined in detail, last Tuesday and today, the chronology of events and the sequence of events. I acted reasonably, fair and in a proper fashion in all of this debate and in all of this issue.
This side totally disagrees.
If this issue has to be addressed in any other forum the facts and the information available to me will be put at the disposal of that forum, justice will take its course and I will be totally justified in any comments I have made in this affair at any time.
In the meantime the Minister has smeared all these people.
Will the Minister inform the House — since he is good at naming other people — of the names of the people who brought the events at Horgan's Quay to his attention on 21 June, which resulted in his finally taking some action? Will he inform the House also of the names of the people who indicated to him — as he said on Tuesday last — that they believed a cosy cartel operates in the State sector? Who were those people?
It is irrelevant who brought that matter to my attention.
It is not.
Only one thing matters; there is only one thing that any democratically elected Member should be concerned about, that is proper stewardship and ownership of State assets and funds. When the information was made available to me I acted responsibly. I asked the chairman of CIE to conduct an in-depth analyses and study of it and, my God, what has been thrown up.
Stop lecturing.
It is an absolute disgrace that any Member of this House could even contemplate trying to justify that type of behaviour in a State company.
The Minister is in no position to lecture anyone; he has some cheek.
I put it to the Minister that the Minister for Finance informed this House that his Department was not aware of any breaches in relation to tendering in the semi-State sector and that the Minister for Justice is on the record of this House as stating that she was not aware of any allegations of fraud in the semi-State sector. The Minister has now dragged the Minister for Justice into this story which becomes more incredible than a Jeffrey Archer blockbuster with eash passing minute. Did the Minister for Justice inform the Minister as to where the information came from that he was under surveillance? Can the Minister say whether he saw anybody following him who might be a detective? Will the Minister now accept that the only reason he is standing over the issue of surveillance at this time is because he knows quite well that it would undermine the charade of an accusation regarding cosy cartels.
Not at all.
I have already outlined the reasons and on Tuesday I gave four solid reasons for believing I was under surveillance——
Solid, is that what you call it?
Four anonymous letters——
I believed then and I believe now that I was——
It was so good you could not see them——
That is the nature of surveillance, they are not very good at their job if you can see them.
The very nature of surveillance is that if it is to be effective it cannot be noticed. If surveillance is detected, it is botched. There are a great many companies in this country and particularly in Dublin doing extensive business in surveillance but the fact is it is difficult to prove. The facts are that I had sufficient and reasonable grounds to believe that I was under surveillance and I made nothing other than a request to the Garda Síochána to take the file and examine it.
The Deputy asked a question in respect of the guidelines and the task force.
I did not ask for that.
It refers to that. The task force was set up to examine the procedures and practices that operate in the semi-State sector. The Deputy will be aware that the semi-State sector expends £7 million of hard earned taxpayers' money daily. It is my responsibility and entitlement as Minister to ensure that the guidelines and procedures are sufficiently strong to ensure that we get value for money and that the common interest as well as the consumer is looked after. The task force has made 31 recommendations as to how that can be achieved. Those recommendations will bring about a situation where greater efficiencies will exist in the semi-State sector——
Learned off by heart.
——giving savings in each and every semi-State company. The task force has reported and if Deputies read the report they will see it was very useful and worth while and an appropriate exercise to carry out at this time.
Sir, on a point of order——
I am on my feet and you may not put a point of order. I think it is high time the Chair now proceeded to deal with other questions. I am proceeding, therefore, to Question No. 6.
I asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications what information the Minister for Justice had communicated to him which would indicate that he was under surveillance but the Minister did not answer that question.
I have no control over these things.
The question is in many ways irrelevant. My contact with the Minister for Justice was simply in her capacity as Minister and I asked her to ensure that an official of the Garda Síochána would be available to receive from me all the documentation in my possession in respect of irregularities right across the State administration. She did that and I have outlined the sequence of events since that.
On a point of order, the Minister in his 20 minute dissertation on a series of questions read from a CIE letter, part of an extra document. The Chair has always ruled that this is not proper in Question Time and I think every Member of the House should be given a copy of that document.
Since the document has been adverted to I am sure the Minister would have no difficulty in laying it on the table of the House.
I have made arrangements already for the CIE letter to me and supporting documentation to be placed in the Library. I suggest that every Member reads it.
Did the Minister ever in his personal capacity hire a private investigation firm?
In any capacity either private, commercial or during my life as a public representative I have never had any contact either verbally, written or otherwise with any security company in this State or outside it.
Maybe Deputy Davern has a white Hiace van.
I do not own a white Hiace van.
No. 6 to the same Minister.
I have already taken No. 6.
No. 7 then in the name of Deputy Jimmy Leonard.
My officials advise me that on page nine of my answer there is a typing error where I inadvertently referred to 62 instead of 6.
On a point of order, Sir, the Minister did not include Question No. 6 so may we have a reply to Question No. 6?
May I have an assurance that we will not have a repeat of all the answers we had earlier? If Question No. 6 can be replied to discreetly by all means do so.
6 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications the aspects, if any, of the unacceptable behaviour in the semi-State sector that he has found to be illegal; and if so, when he will initiate legal proceedings against the offending parties. [14715/95]
I refer the Deputy to what I said in the House on Tuesday last, 10 October 1995 when I dealt with the task force report in detail. The task force did not investigate individual contracts but looked at procedures in the company. They reported to me that the control ethos in the semi-State sector was strong and this gives me assurance that the State's interests as shareholder is safeguarded and I welcome that. With regard to the specific area of procurement, the task force has concluded that the controls operating in this area are basically strong. In relation to compliance with legal requirements the task force in section 531 of the report states:
The European Union directives in relation to procurement have been complied with. I wish to point out that the Government guidelines do not have the force of law but the European Union directives do. Notwithstanding that statement the control ethos in the companies are strong.
The consultants to the task force identified deficiencies in various companies as follows. In certain instances in An Post, Aer Lingus and CIE it has not been the practice to obtain formal board approval for contracts in excess of £100,000 for goods and £25,000 for services where competitive tendering was not employed. There is also a significant degree of variance in the application of certain procurement procedures, receipt, custody and opening of tenders — an issue that was raised with both An Post and CIE; establishment of tender evaluation criteria prior to opening tenders needed to be established in BGE. An Post, BGE and the Irish Aviation Authority will be receiving communication in respect of the updating of suppliers' lists. Tax clearance certificates were not always sought from suppliers by Bord na Móna, BGE, IMPC, Team Aer Lingus and Airmotive. The consultants also made a number of other recommendations which are specific to certain companies and these deficiencies will be addressed directly by my Department with the companies involved.
When the Minister was asked earlier about the reaction of the Garda Síochána after they had taken from him his original letter alleging surveillance——
What has that to do with Question No. 6?
It is directly related to it. The Minister stated that the Garda came back to him for further information and was this further information related to surveillance? What precisely did the gardaí say to him on surveillance after his initial meeting with them? Is it not true that the gardaí came back to the Minister in relation to other allegations in the letter apart from surveillance and that the Minister has tried to mislead this House by giving the impression that the Garda are still investigating the allegation of surveillance. What precisely did the gardaí state in relation to the original allegation of surveillance? Did they not tell the Minister that there was no evidence whatsoever for it and did they not state that publicly?
This has nothing to do with Question Nos. 4 and 6 but I am happy to answer it. Obviously the Deputy has not been listening or if he has been listening he has difficulty understanding. I listed the sequence of events in respect of the Garda: I handed over the information that was at my disposal to the Garda. I asked them, as the appropriate authority, to conduct inquiries. They came back to my Department, as they did to other Departments, to ascertain if there was any further information available in any Department which might assist them in respect of the allegations within the letters.
Are they investigating the surveillance?
The Garda Síochána said that as far as it is concerned there was no criminality involved in the surveillance mounted on me, that it was within the law and that a number of companies within this country operate on that basis.
Did it find there was surveillance?
I did not ask. The Garda Síochána got no specific instruction or request from me.
Why did you bring them in?
I simply handed over the information available to me. Since then the Garda have pursued it and the allegations.
There was no surveillance.
As far as I am concerned there was surveillance and, as far as the Deputy is concerned, he cannot say there was or there was not. That is the reality.
Does the Minister recall stating on Tuesday, during his statement here, that directors of semi-State companies should not be chosen for reasons of political patronage? Is it true that he recently appointed a Minister's programme manager as deputy chairperson of CIE? Is it also true the task force recommended that the system of selection and remuneration of directors should be reviewed and that the Minister, in his statement to the House, indicated he accepts that recommendation in principle and will take action along the lines indicated? Will the Minister indicate to the House what new system of selection of directors of semi-State companies he proposes? What is the task force's justification for recommending that in the area of threshold levels above which competitive tendering is required, the task force has recommended a doubling of existing levels? I think the Minister endorsed that recommendation. Is this not in contradiction of his best practice principles which he enunciated here on Tuesday, the first of which was to get best possible value and the second to allow all qualified contenders to compete for business?
The question is getting overlong.
How does the Minister equate these statements with what happened?
Any appointments which have been made by me as Minister on behalf of the Government have stood one test, that the people appointed are competent and capable of making a valuable contribution to the boards on which they have been asked to serve.
And they belong to a particular political party.
Secondly, I accept the recommendations of the task force in principle. I am at present drawing up proposals which will be discussed with my Cabinet colleagues and, as soon as we make a decision, those proposals will be made known to the Oireachtas and publicly.
Regarding unacceptable behaviour in the semi-State sector, can the Minister confirm that he received representations from a Mr. Matson regarding the Killarney site and that he acted on them? Can he confirm he directed that correspondence be forwarded to Coras Iompair Éireann formally confirming the Minister's direction that Bus Éireann was to transfer its operations? Is that confirmation in writing from the Minister's Department not also a contradiction of the reply to a parliamentary question when the Minister said that under Transport Acts the board could dispose of any property which, in the opinion of the board, was not required by it for the discharge of its duties, and that he, the Minister, had no function in relation to individual property disposals by the CIE board? Does this letter not confirm that the Minister had indeed a function in relation to individual property disposals, and that he directed that company to make that decision. Is that not the case, and is that not unacceptable behaviour, in the Minister's own terms?
(Limerick East): More allegations.
Let us hear the Minister without interruption from either side of the House.
I will be happy to give a detailed response to Deputy Cowen when he tables a question, as is normal procedure in the House.
I would like a reply now, please.
On Tuesday evening when the Dáil met, and Fianna Fáil were not in a position to proceed — one of their own members said that the proceedings of the day were an embarrassment to them — they began running around with paperwork on the Killarney site to every journalist in sight, drawing inferences which they cannot substantiate.
Answer the question.
I will be quite happy to answer any questions the Deputy wishes to ask about the Killarney site.
I asked three questions.
The full details of the Killarney site are already in the public domain.
The Minister has no script here. What he is saying is the truth or not.
On a point of order, I have asked three questions, with the permission of the Chair, as supplementary questions to Question No. 6 relating to what constitutes unacceptable behaviour in the semi-State sector. The Minister is open, frank and honest. Did he receive representations from Mr. Matson, a property developer, and did he act on them?
If the Deputy tables a question he will get a full response.
That is sufficient, Deputy Cowen. Deputy Cowen will now resume his seat.
Let the record show that the Minister has lost his composure. He does not have a scriptwriter to tell him how to answer the question. Where are his handlers now? Does the Minister know Mr. Matson?
Does the Deputy know him?
Let the record show that the Minister refuses to answer any question relating to the Killarney site. He grimaces. There is the honest man. He gave them a site for nothing. It is disgraceful.
Deputy Cowen will resume his seat and he will not disregard the Chair.
It is all over for you, Mick.
(Limerick East): That is spleen and jealousy.
Will the Minister explain again why, just eight days before a major Dáil debate on this issue, the Horgan's Quay contract in Cork suddenly popped up? The Minister told us yesterday he did not know it had gone out.
What has that to do with this?
Does the Minister really believe that any public official in CIE or in a Department would issue such a controversial document eight days before a Dáil debate when this had been going on for nearly ten years? The Minister said that firms had the use of public funds for almost a year. Is it not the reality that, according to the investigations of Craig Gardner, the chairman and the Department, the Minister held up the contract on that site and then came into the House and blamed a private company for holding it up?
That is absolute, total rubbish and nonsense, and the Deputy knows it.
It is my understanding that Priority Questions Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, together with Questions Nos. 31 and 36 were dealt with and concluded. We are now dealing with Question No. 6 and the Minister indicated that he was also including an answer to Question No. 4. That is the relevant business before us now.
Would the Minister condone ministerial intervention in relation to individual property disposals by semi-State bodies? Did any of the Minister's Cabinet colleagues or their special advisers, programme managers etc., make representations to the Minister regarding the Killarney site?
That is a separate question.
For the umpteenth time, no question has been tabled in respect of this matter, and I have already issued a public statement outlining clearly and precisely everything to do with the Killarney site. I have no worries or concerns about the Killarney site.
The Minister has no answers.
The Deputy is going down a cul-de-sac.
With due respect to the Minister, our five priority questions had been tabled prior to the latest revelations. The Minister covered the recent revelations but did not address the questions.
There are no revelations.
I am asking about the Killarney site and the Minister is refusing to answer. Let me ask the Minister——
He does not know the answer.
——to which statement he is referring in relation to the Killarney site. Is he referring to the one he issued last night or the night before or to the one he issued two weeks prior to this "bully boy" letter the Minister had sent on his behalf?
I am glad the Deputy has seen that the line of questioning on the other areas has been futile and has not made an impression.
The Minister should answer the question.
The Deputy is now trundling down to Killarney.
The Minister should answer the question.
The Deputy can read all the statements I made on Killarney and deduce what he likes from them.
(Limerick East): Why did the Deputy not put down a question?
That is a non-issue because it has been dealt with appropriately.
Does the Minister have an answer?
The Deputy should table a question and he will get the details.
The Minister does not have a scriptwriter to back him up. Where are the handlers?
I call Deputy O'Donoghue.
Yet again, the Minister has refused to answer.
The Deputy should put down a Private Notice Question.
In the light of earlier replies regarding surveillance and the Garda connection with same——
That has nothing to do with the question.
It is connected with illegal activities in the semi-State sector. It is a genuine question.
(Limerick East): On a point of order——
The coach is on his feet.
(Limerick East): On a point of order——
Deputy O'Donoghue should read the rule book.
(Limerick East): I acknowledge that you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, took over the Chair when priority questions were concluded, but I must point out to you that the questions being asked by way of supplementary having nothing to do with Question No. 6.
The Deputy should read the question.
I will be happy to answer the Minister. Question No. 6 refers to unacceptable behaviour and, in that context, I deem that the Killarney site is relevant. I call Deputy O'Donoghue.
(Limerick East): That is uncalled for.
Impartiality and fairness is part and parcel of my behaviour.
(Limerick East): You are not showing it.
Deputy Noonan should withdraw that remark. There were five priority questions tabled today and the Minister, rightly or wrongly, spoke about matters that did not relate to any of them. The Chair is being very fair and it is not acceptable for Ministers to make such allegations. The Minister should withdraw the remark.
I call Deputy John O'Donoghue.
In the light of earlier replies, is the Minister seriously asking us to believe that the Garda could, or would, ignore surveillance of a Minister by people who were allegedly involved in a cosy cartel and trying to defraud the semi-State sector?
That has nothing to do with the question.
The Deputy appears to be trawling over ground that was covered earlier.
I ask the Minister to come clean——
(Limerick East): Will you rule, Sir?
——and state categorically that the Garda never accepted one word of this and that the Minister was not under surveillance at any stage by anybody connected with the semi-State sector.
This is disgraceful.
On a point of order——
I am asking the Minister——
Thank you, Deputy O'Donoghue.
I already outlined in detail the role of the gardaí. This question has been asked so often——
But never answered.
——that I can answer it well. The type of information Deputy O'Donoghue would like to hear is not available to him. I outlined clearly and precisely the role of the gardaí and any further questions the Deputy wishes to ask in that regard should be tabled to the Minister for Justice, who I am sure will give detailed answers.
Will the Minister clarify another matter?
In regard to the Minister's comments last Tuesday about unacceptable behaviour in semi-State companies, when did he ask Bord Gáis to review the transactions relating to Little Island-Albert Road Properties and the continuation of the architect's contract and to report to him? Has he received that report? Has he instructed Bord Gáis to alter any of the transactions into which it entered? The Minister also stated last Tuesday that a key forum for accountability for commercial State companies must be their board of directors. How does he equate that statement with his interference in the negotiations on the sale of the CIE property in Killarney, referred to extensively in Phoenix on 13 October, or does he propose to take Phoenix to court for making false allegations?
Is the Deputy resorting to Phoenix now?
I am merely giving the Minister an opportunity to answer a question, something he did not afford the three or four people whom he accused of doing certain things, although he could not justify those accusations.
Who were the three or four people?
Those questions are relevant to Question No. 6.
In regard to Bord Gáis, shortly after it came to the Department's attention that property had been disposed of without going to tender, that contracts had been set without giving others an option to participate in the process and that when the contracts were set they related to a different project in terms of scale, size and location, the Minister of State, Deputy Stagg, and I met the chairman of Bord Gáis and conveyed to him our view that while under the rules at that time it was entitled to apply that level of discretion, we believed it was not normal and that such a level of flexibility should no longer be available. We asked the chairman to assess the board's procedures and guidelines with a view to ensuring that such a level of flexibility would no longer be available. Since then I have been advised that Bord Gáis has undertaken an indepth study of its rules and regulations and made a number of changes. We were told at the time that the reason for selling the property was that an adjacent owner wanted to purchase it speedily. We were told that agreement to the sale had to be reached within two months but a much longer period has elapsed since then. Therefore, the issue of speed is no longer relevant. In the light of that information I have asked Bord Gáis to review the sale of the property and the contracts it set for the new headquarters.
I did not receive a reply to my question. I asked the Minister if he had received the report, when he requested it and if he has given instructions to Bord Gáis arising from it.
BGE has communicated with my Department. As a specific question in this regard was not tabled I do not have the precise date of that communication, but I will communicate the information to the Deputy this evening.
I note the Minister failed to reply on the Killarney issue.
It is not the first time he failed to reply to a question.
As the Minister stated in response to three questions I tabled on 3 October that he has no function in relation to individual property disposals by the CIE board, he misled the House by getting directly involved in the Killarney deal. Does he agree that he also gave inaccurate and incomplete information on Tuesday last when dealing with the Horgan's Quay site? Does he further agree that when he claimed the developer had use of the property for 12 months, he failed to mention that "subject to contract" and "subject to board approval" was written at the top of the heads of agreement? Does the Minister agree——
The Deputy's lengthy questioning is not helping me to facilitate other Deputies.
The Minister gave information to the House which was not accurate and it is important that it should be rectified today. The Minister said that O'Callaghan Properties had use of the property for 12 months and that it could not have paid money on the basis that a contract was not presented to that developer until last Friday. It is very difficult for a Member on this side to understand——
The question is over-long, Deputy. I call on the Minister to reply.
The Minister indicated that there was an open document with regard to that particular head——
The Deputy has been allowed much latitude.
The Deputy inferred that the Department and I held up the contracts for the Horgan's Quay site in Cork. It did not play any role. It was strictly a matter between CIE and the property developer.
The Deputy has had his own problems in Cork and has been trying to justify the sale of this site for a number of weeks, but it must be abundantly clear to him, as it is to me, that the manner in which this transaction was carried out is disturbing. Each of the elements I have outlined runs counter to the basic requirements I am determined to see instilled in the semi-State sector — openness, fair competition and verifiable value for money. They are the criteria that will be used.
The series of events, ranging from the rapid disposal of the site which had lain dormant for years through a process under which the open market was avoided like the plague to the overnight abolition of the CIE property board by the diktat or unilateral decision of the then chairman, is exceptionally disturbing. I am amazed that, in the time since I announced the details of this transaction, not one person on the other side of the House has distanced himself from such activity in the semi-State sector. It is an absolute disgrace——
I would not believe one word from the Minister.
——that they would condone this shameful abuse of public funds. They should hang their heads in shame. The old-style Fianna Fáil has returned, it has not changed one iota.
That is scurrilous.
I am well aware of the dedication and commitment of the staff at all levels in CIE who have to work in difficult circumstances and conditions. It is the employees and management who have been let down. The difficulties and problems were caused by the actions of one particular individual close to and appointed by the party opposite.
That concludes Question Time for today.
