Vol. 538 No. 4
29 Mr. Higgins (Mayo) asked the Minister for Public Enterprise if she was consulted by the chairman of CIE regarding the decision by the board to cancel the mini-CTC signalling contract; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [18320/01]
I was not consulted by the chairman of CIE prior to the decision by the CIE board to terminate the Alstrom signalling contract. This was a decision taken by the board in its own right. Therefore, I have no function in the matter. However, the chairman did subsequently advise my Department of the decision.
(Mayo): Will the Minister acknowledge that a mini-CTC contract which was supposed to cost £15 million and will now cost £50 million, and for which the clock is still ticking, will be investigated by a sub-committee at her behest? She asked the joint committee to carry out the investigation and it was recommended in the House. That sub-committee is operational and has brought in advisers as well as very senior legal advice. For the board of CIE to deliberately decide to cancel the contract was almost a deliberate attempt to cut across the work of a sub-committee established to investigate this at the Minister's request. By cancelling the contract one is almost immediately inviting a legal challenge. On that basis, the work of the committee, which the Minister requested to undertake this very important work, could be terminated.
I know that may be the interpretation of many members of the committee. I was at a meeting of the Council of Transport Ministers on the day the board took that decision. When it was taken, the chairman of CIE telephoned the office of Deputy Doherty, the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Public Enterprise and Transport, for an appointment. They met in the morning and later that day the chairman told the Department. On the following morning, Thursday morning, Deputy Doherty asked me to meet him, which I did. I think he reported back to the committee saying I would contact him after the weekend. That was a bank holiday weekend and I contacted him on the Tuesday. In the interim, I had spoken to the chairman of CIE and told him the feelings of the chair, which, I am sure, were representative of the committee and he reiterated to me that the decision had been taken by the board.
(Mayo): In her capacity of custodian of most of the shares in CIE, and with a certain number of nominees on the board, would the Minister not agree that there was little logic in the decision to terminate the contract by virtue of the fact that the work has already been suspended? The work is not ongoing. The work on the 28 stations that were to be connected under the mini-CTC probably represents the most costly overrun in the history of the State. There was nothing to be gained by terminating the contract because the work is now at a standstill and cannot proceed until the sub-committee has completed its work and the Minister gives formal approval for it to proceed again. There was nothing to be gained and everything to be lost by the board taking a unilateral decision particularly given that the Minister has nominees on the board.
The board took a decision, as it is entitled, and neither my Department nor I had any prior knowledge of it. I do not telephone people before they go to a board meeting. It was after the board meeting that the chairman informed the Department and met Deputy Doherty who in turn met with me as quickly as he could. I discussed it with the chairman over the weekend, on the Saturday evening, and he said the board had taken its decision. I want all of that fully sorted out in public, as Deputy Higgins knows. Many members of that committee are clear what they want and I share that view. Equally, I know that the board had every right to take the decision that it did.
