COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS díospóireacht

Chapter 11.3 — Performance Audit of State Port Companies.

Ms J. O’Neill (Secretary General, Department of Transport), Mr. J. Meagher (Chief Executive, Dublin Bus) and Mr. F. Allen (Chief Executive, Railway Procurement Agency) called and examined.

Chairman

We will discuss the 2005 annual report of the Comptroller and Auditor General and Appropriation Accounts: Vote 32 — Department of Transport; chapter 11.1 — integrated ticketing system; chapter 11.2 — Dundalk Port Company — corporate governance issues, and chapter 11.3 — performance audit of State port companies.

Witnesses should be aware that they do not enjoy absolute privilege. Their attention and that of members 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 identified in the course of the 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 be exercised only with the consent of the committee. Persons invited to appear before the committee are made aware of these rights and any persons identified in the course of proceedings who are not present may have to be made aware of them and provided with a transcript of the relevant part of the committee's proceedings if the committee considers this appropriate in the interests of justice.

Notwithstanding this provision in the legislation, I remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Members are also reminded of the provisions in Standing Order 156 that the committee shall refrain from inquiring into the merits of a policy or policies of the Government or a Minister of the Government or the merits of the objectives of such policy or policies.

There are several pieces of relevant correspondence relating to the minute of the Minister for Finance regarding the committee's interim report on Transport 2002; documentation on a tragic car crash in County Mayo, and a proposed quality bus corridor in south Dublin.

Will Ms O'Neill introduce her officials?

Ms Julie O’Neill

I am accompanied by Mr. Dan Commane who is the principal officer in the Department's finance unit; Mr. Eddie Burke who is the principal officer in the road transport operating licensing, ITS and motor insurance division; Ms Denise Keoghan, an administrative officer in the finance unit; Mr. James Caffrey, a technology specialist in the ITS division; and Ms Ann Walsh, assistant principal officer in the finance unit who is here in an observer capacity.

Chairman

Will Mr. Meagher introduce his delegation?

Mr. Joe Meagher

I am accompanied by Mr. Paddy Doherty, business development manager of Dublin Bus. Mr. Frank Allen is chief executive of the Railway Procurement Agency.

Chairman

I welcome Mr. Allen.

Mr. Meagher

There are also officials present from the Department of Finance.

Mr. Colm Gallagher

My colleague is Mr. Ronan Gallagher.

Chairman

I now invite Mr. Purcell to introduce Vote 32 — Chapters 11.1 to 11.3, inclusive.

Paragraphs 11.1 to 11.3, inclusive, of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General read as follows:

11.1 Integrated Ticketing System

Background

The Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act, 2001 provided for the establishment of the Railway Procurement Agency (RPA). This agency's original remit was to secure the provision of, or to provide, such light railway and metro infrastructure as might be determined from time to time by the Minister for Transport. In March 2002 its remit was extended, by Statutory Instrument 84/2002, to give it a mandate for the delivery of a multi-operator system of integrated public transport ticketing using smart card technology, with initial deployment in the Dublin area. Pending the establishment of a transport regulatory body, the RPA was given responsibility for procuring the integrated ticketing system as, in the view of the Department of Transport (the Department), it had no direct responsibility for providing transport services and, thus, any concerns about the project being captured by an existing operator and causing difficulties as regards competition issues would be avoided.

Project Outline and Budget

In 2002, the RPA prepared a budget and a four year plan – 2002 to 2005 – with 4 distinct phases for delivery of the project. The original budget was set at €29.6m. In late 2004, the RPA indicated that the delivery date had been revised to 2006 and that costs could still be met from the agreed budget of €29.6m. In January 2006, the RPA submitted proposals for a revised budget with an upper limit of €42.7m, the final amount to be determined on the basis of the amount of Exchequer contributions to be made towards operators' capital costs. The key reasons given for the increase in the budget were the longer implementation period, the consequential need for retention of the project team and management for an additional two years, along with the proposals in relation to the amount of the capital contributions to be paid to operators. A revised budget has yet to be agreed and in this regard the Minister awaits the forthcoming report of the integrated ticketing project board on the agreed scope, timelines and budget for the phased completion of the integrated ticketing project.

The 4 phases of the plan were

Establishment including appraisal

Design/specification including public consultation

Procurement

Implementation augmented at strategic intervals by a number of important processes — public consultation, public awareness campaign and proof of concept.

The RPA put together a dedicated expert in-house team for the delivery of the project.

Overseeing the Project

Two committees were established to oversee its implementation. A monitoring committee, led by the Department, consisted of Department and RPA officials and a steering committee, led by the RPA and including representatives of transport organisations, was made up of the Department, and RPA and representatives of transport operators as well as other interested State aagencies.

Implementing the Project

Phases 1 and 2 were completed broadly in line with the original timeframe and budget. Public consultation and The proof of concept wasere also undertaken. However, there were problems with phase 3 – procurement — which commenced in MayApril 2004 but was subsequently terminated in May 2005. The procurement process itself was carried out in line with national and EU rules but no tenderer ultimately met the selection criteria. The complexity of the project, together with another State transport agency also seeking a similar system in the marketplace at that particular time, appears to have undermined the procurement process. The RPA subsequently informed the Department in June 2005 that the net additional estimated cost of this unsuccessful procurement was €8650,000 and had the effect of delaying the project by at least approximately a year.

Suspension of Project

In light of the difficulties experienced with the project, the Department commissioned a consultancy report

to review the approach to procurement

to benchmark the costs of the system against other major smart card integrated ticketing systems

to consider the deliverability of the benefits

prior to committing any further expenditure which, at 31 December 2005, had amounted to approximately €9.5m. This report was presented to the Department in April 2006.

The conclusions reached were that there was general agreement among the stakeholders that integrated ticketing was required in Dublin and that the procurement process should be continued. The report, however, stated that there was a general feeling of uncertainty over the future regulatory and institutional structure for transport in Dublin and this had had two significant impacts. Operators were unsure of the size and/or nature of their role in the public transport network of the future and were, therefore, unwilling to commit to a particular ticketing direction and the institutions to progress integrated ticketing were lacking. It stated that these uncertainties had led to two fundamental problems – private operators had largely withdrawn from the process and Dublin Bus and, to a lesser extent, Iarnrod Eireann were continuing to develop their own ticketing systems in parallel to maintain flexibility in the event of regulatory review requiring them to stand alone.

The report considered a number of options but firmly recommended proceeding with the project and stated that, with firmer governance, the project could be kept on time and budget.

The Department also commissioned a peer review of the project in line with the Government decision on the management of major ICT projects. This report noted a lack of unity of vision and purpose among the participating parties. It stated that discontinuing the project would incur further costs bringing total expenditure to approximately €13.5m .13.5m. It also recommended that the project, as currently envisaged, should proceed and stressed that successful completion would depend on

full agreement by all parties to the concept of integrated ticketing

unity of vision and purpose in achieving this

a willingness to forgo partisanship in favour of the project

more effective project governance and management.

Both reviews looked at the options of abandoning the project, mothballing it, or continuing with it and both the resultant reports strongly recommended the continuance of the project, subject to new and enhanced governance arrangements being put in place. The Department considered these reports, in addition to taking account of its own analysis, and recommended to the Minister that the broad thrust of the recommendations be accepted.

In July 2006, the Minister formally advised the Government of his intention to proceed with the integrated ticketing project on the basis of the establishment of enhanced governance arrangements for the completion of the project. The Minister's intentions were noted by Government..

Details of the expenditure of €9.5m to the end of December 2005 are set out in Table 1.

Table 1

	€ m
RPA	4.7
Systems design and development	3.0
Operator equipment contribution	0.9
Third party professional Fees	0.7
Marketing and branding	0.1
Market Research	0.1
Total	9.5

Expenditure in the four years 2002 to 2005 was €0.3m, €1.9m, €4.9m and €2.4m respectively.

Audit Concerns

As I was concerned that the way in which the project had been managed had led to the lack of progress and the incurring of substantial nugatory expenditure, I put a series of questions to the Accounting Officer.

Governance

To what extent was the unsatisfactory rate of progress attributable to the governance system employed?

The Accounting Officer informed me that, until the initial public procurement process failed in May 2005, the project was reported by the RPA as within budget and it was not evident up to that point that the existing governance structure was incapable of delivering the project. There were a number of factors which contributed to the inconclusive procurement process. These included the relatively small scale of the system being procured by international standards, confusion over the role of the RPA and the other agencies within the system and the specialised nature of the services being sought. A further contributory factor appeared to be underlying tensions between RPA and the CIE companies, particularly Dublin Bus, which were becoming increasingly evident at that time. Department records showed that the process of seeking agreement with, and involving stakeholders in, the decision making process had become protracted. However, delivery of such a project in a multi-operator and multi-agency environment would always depend to a material extent on the co-operation of these agencies no matter what the governance arrangements or the available statutory powers.

She stated that the conclusion that enhanced governance structures were required arose directly from the Departmental review of the project following the failed procurement process in May 2005, protracted tripartite discussions between the Department and the chief executives of the RPA and Dublin Bus which took place between July 2005 and January 2006, the consultancy undertaken to review the project and the peer review undertaken in accordance with a Government Decision on the management of major ICT projects. The governance system relied on agreement between the RPA, Dublin Bus, Bus Eireann, Iarnrod Eireann, the Department of Social and Family Affairs (DFSA) as well as the private bus operators and Luas. Revised governance arrangements for the project were introduced in July 2006 in the form of a new high level project board charged with the successful delivery of the smartcard technology required to deliver an integrated ticketing system within an agreed specification, timeline and budget.

The board would also consider such other technical scope and design issues as may be necessary to complete delivery of the smart card technology (e.g. technical design issues in relation to possible fare structures and levels, ticket products, revenue collection strategies, data requirements etc). Before a public transport operator could proceed with any of its own ticketing investment proposals, the operator would be required to satisfy the board that the proposed equipment was consistent with the integrated ticketing requirements.The board comprises an independent chairperson, the chief executives of the RPA, Dublin Bus, Iarnrod Eireann, Bus Eireann, senior officials from the Department and, as appropriate, the DSFA and a representative of the private bus operators. The Minister has appointed a retired senior civil servant former Secretary-General as independent chairperson of the project board. The first meeting of the new Board took place in July 2006.

The board will be accountable to the Minister for Transport. It has been asked to formally report on progress to the Minister in September 2006 and every 3 months thereafter.

A project implementation team will be established, led by the RPA, to include the current RPA ticketing team and relevant personnel from Dublin Bus, Iarnrod Eireann, and Bus Eireann, private operators and, as appropriate, the DSFA. It will report to the project board and will be responsible for the day-to-day development and implementation of the project. Members of the project implementation team will, however, remain as employees of their own organisations throughout the duration of the project.The Accounting Officer also informed me that the Department is reviewing the current mandate of the RPA and will amend the underlying Statutory Instrument, if appropriate, in order to give effect to the new arrangements.

She stated that the enhanced governance structure for the integrated ticketing project is designed to recognise the independent statutory role of the various stakeholders while ensuring a single focal point for all key decisions in relation to the integrated ticketing project.

She pointed out that the governance structure employed was intended to be interim in nature pending changes in public transport institutional arrangements. It was always recognised by the Department that the most appropriate locus for the project was in an independent transport regulatory body with statutory powers to govern the public transport market. The Minister has moved to address this issue and the Government recently approved his proposal for the establishment of a Dublin Transport Authority (DTA) and the drafting of the necessary legislation as a matter of urgency. The DTA would have overall responsibility for public transport and traffic management in the Greater Dublin area and this would include responsibility for integrated ticketing. The integrated ticketing project would, therefore, become the statutory responsibility of the DTA on the establishment of the new Authority. This is being addressed by the Minister for Transport in the context of his proposals to establish the Dublin Transport Authority.

In the interim, the Minister wants to ensure that the project progresses as expeditiously as possible and that the benefits of expenditure to date are realised.

Action Taken to Address Shortcomings

What specific action was taken by the Department to address shortcomings in the interaction between the RPA and the CIE group of companies up to the end of 2005?

The Accounting Officer stated that, from the outset of the project in 2002, the Department had monitored progress on the project between RPA and CIE. It hosted many meetings between the CIE subsidiaries and the RPA with a view to resolving specific issues on integrated ticketing as they arose. In addition to other correspondence from the Department, she had written to the Cchairman of CIE in June 2004 seeking assurances that Dublin Bus, Bus Eireann and Iarnrod Eireann would be full participants in the integrated ticketing system under development by the RPA. The Minister also wrote to the Cchairman of Dublin Bus in November 2004 regarding Dublin Bus's interim ticketing arrangements and again in March 2005 to clearly articulate public policy on integrated ticketing.

Following the abandonment of the procurement strategy in May 2005, the RPA presented a revised strategy to the Department in July 2005. The Department was reluctant to agree to the revised strategy until it was assured on the costings and the time frame for the project and until agreement had been reached between RPA and Dublin Bus on the way forward. The Department considered it essential that Dublin Bus, as the biggest public transport operator in Dublin, would be a fully committed participant to ensure the success of the integrated ticketing scheme.

To that end, tripartite talks were arranged in an attempt to resolve differences. In December 2005 agreement was reached on a way forward and formally signed off by the chairmen of CIE and the RPA in January 2006. The agreement covered a number of central issues including the development of a disposable smartcard for operation on Dublin Bus services as an interim step, the RPA to be the issuer of the disposable card with the agreement of Dublin Bus, the withdrawal of the disposable card within 12 months of the introduction of the integrated system, the testing of the software interface on a number of buses and the next steps to be taken by both parties.

Financial provisions were also included in the Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) agreed between the Department and the three CIE subsidiaries in 2005 and 2006.

Imposition of Financial Sanctions

Was any consideration given to the imposition of financial sanctions on the CIE group of companies in light of their perceived lack of commitment to the project?

The Accounting Officer informed me that this was considered. She stated that the MOU on service levels and targets agreed between the Department and the CIE companies provide for subvention payments to be made to the companies. In relation to the integrated ticketing project, the MOU provide for a proportion of the payment to be contingent on cooperation with the integrated ticketing project.

The agreements for 2006 provide that payment be linked to satisfactory participation in the development of the multi–operator system of integrated ticketing. Payment would only be released if, in the opinion of the Department, the companies complied with the relevant conditions of the MOU.

The MOU for 2005 also made provision for the withholding of funds on the basis of compliance with the integrated ticketing project. The Department had written to CIE in December 2005 warning that certain payments associated with progress under this project would be recouped during 2006 if significant progress was not made during 2006. The Department would be making an assessment in due course whether there was sufficient evidence of commitment by the CIE companies to warrant not recouping these payments.

She stated that the CIE companies did not accept that there was or is a lack of commitment on their part to the integrated ticketing project.

Financial Leverage

Had the Department exercised the appropriate financial leverage to progress the project considering the substantial subsidies paid to State transport agencies?

The Accounting Officer informed me that the peer review report, in its concluding remarks, noted inter alia that "a compelling case could be made to make the very substantial Exchequer investment in the various modes of transport contingent on transport operators introducing the integrated ticketing project."

She stated that the Department acknowledged and accepted the point made by the report. However, the Department had to balance this with the impact on the travelling public and society generally of the withdrawal or deferral of public funds on the provision of public transport services provided by the State transport agencies. Any financial intervention of this kind which might be considered would, while clearly reflecting a lack of satisfaction with the commitment of the relevant CIE companies to the project, also have to be proportionate, have regard to the overall financial position of the relevant company and the CIE group and not result in a significant curtailment of services provided under public service obligations.

While the Department had made it very clear to the CIE companies that it would exercise the sanctions in the MOU in the event of default of their obligations under the MOU, the Department's main focus was to ensure that the integrated ticketing project was implemented as speedily as possible and to address the legitimate concerns of transport operators in that context. The new governance arrangements being put in place were designed to achieve this.

Nevertheless, the Department, in November 2005 and again in early 2006, had asked RPA to defer two payments claimed by Dublin Bus in relation to expenditure incurred by the company in procuring electronic ticketing machines. The claim arose from an agreement by the Department (and included in the project budget) to pay a grant towards the partial funding of the cost to Dublin Bus of electronic ticketing machines pending developments on integrated ticketing.

While the Department had initially agreed to the payment of the funds to Dublin Bus, in both cases the agreements were subsequently rescinded. Firstly in November 2005, the Department advised RPA to defer payment pending agreement being reached in the tripartite discussions. Secondly, in February 2006, the Department initially agreed to a payment by RPA claimed by Dublin Bus. However, before payment was made, the Accounting Officer had reviewed the project and, in light of the difficulties and delays experienced, initiated the immediate undertaking of the consultancy review and the peer review. She did not consider it appropriate to make the payments in question to Dublin Bus pending the outcome of both reviews and clarity regarding the future approach to the project.

She stated that these payments are still outstanding and she would be considering whether to release them in light of the decision to proceed with the project and progress under the new arrangements now being put in place.

Nugatory Expenditure

To what extent had nugatory expenditure been incurred on the project to date, and specifically, on the procurement process discontinued in 2005?

The Accounting Officer stated that the RPA informed the Department in June 2005 that the consequential net additional cost resulting from the inconclusive procurement process was approximately €860,000.

From July 2005 to end December 2005, approximately €700,000 was incurred on the RPA's project team and on associated expertise. During this time, the RPA's project team participated in the tripartite talks and supporting technical dialogue which contributed to the resulting agreement with Dublin Bus in December 2005. In the first half of 2006, a further €690,000 was paid to meet the costs of the RPA on integrated ticketing. The funding also contributed to some limited detailed design work and development of the smartcard interface module. In the first half of 2006, a further €690,000 was paid to meet the costs of the RPA on integrated ticketing. While some of the ongoing costs incurred over the past year could be regarded as nugatory expenditure, the Accounting Officer was not in a position to be definitive on the proportion.

The Accounting Officer informed me that the Department moved to address the underlying issues before allowing the project to proceed, while recognising that some nugatory expenditure could be incurred by not giving an immediate go ahead to the revised procurement process proposed by the RPA. However, Sshe stated that she recognised that there had been would be ongoing costs associated with the project pending the completion of the two reviews. She took the view, subsequently endorsed by both review reports, that if the project team and associated expertise were to be lost, it would have resulted in significant nugatory expenditure and it would have been difficult to resurrect the project in its current form. In all probability it would have required additional expenditure very substantially in excess of that incurred over the review period to resurrect the project. Therefore, she believed that the continued incurring of these costs was warranted pending a final decision on the project.

DFSA Requirements

Was she satisfied that the requirements of the DSFA’s free travel schemes were being fully catered for in the proposed system?

The Accounting Officer stated that it was the Department's expectation from the outset that the technical specifications of the integrated ticketing system would address the requirements of the DSFA. That Department had had an involvement with the project at various stages since its inception. It had participated in the project as members of the Steering Committee and had communicated, on a number of occasions, its support for the project. DSFA recognised the benefits of the project and had stated that it was in full agreement on the need to ensure compatibility between the integrated ticketing project and the free travel scheme. The Department was in discussions with DSFA to finalise how it would be involved in the new project board in a manner that recognised the role of that Department as a transport user.

Implementation Timetable

What was the current best estimate of the cost and time required for the successful and full implementation of the system?

The Accounting Officer stated that the Minister had set a number of immediate tasks for the project board, including to

to review and settle by way of agreement the scope, timetable and budget for the phased completion of the integrated ticketing project, having regard to the work undertaken by the RPA to date, the agreement signed off by the chairmen of the RPA and CIE in January 2006, the overall target budget of €42.7m proposed by the RPA in January 2006 and the recommendations of both reviews.

to review the ticketing plans and associated timetable of the transport agencies to satisfy itself on their compatibility with the integrated ticketing project;

to agree a procurement plan for the project taking on board lessons learned from the experience to date.

The Minister had asked the chairman to report back to him on these issues by September 2006. The cost and timetable for the project would be clearer at that time.

Accounting Officer’s Conclusion

The Accounting Officer concluded that projects of this nature were inherently complex and difficult particularly in a multi-operator environment. They also tended to be more costly and to take longer to deliver than initially anticipated. Experience in other countries, such as Australia and the Netherlands, supported this point. The steps taken by the Department were intended to mitigate the difficulties that had arisen in rolling out integrated ticketing with a view to getting best value for money for the taxpayer for expenditure that had already been incurred and to ensure successful implementation of a project that had an important contribution to make to the delivery of integrated public transport.

11.2 Dundalk Port Company – Corporate Governance Issues

The Harbours Act 1996 provides for the management, control, operation and development of certain harbours. It enabled the Minister, (the Minister for Transport since 1 January 2006, formerly the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources) with the consent of the Minister for Finance, to establish companies in respect of certain harbours for that purpose and to define the functions of those companies. Among the companies so established is Dundalk Port Company, which on incorporation took over the functions, previously carried out by Dundalk Harbour Commissioners. The Minister and the Minister for Finance or their nominees are the sole shareholders in the company.

In October 2004, in my capacity as Comptroller, I received a request from the Department of Finance on the recommendation of the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources to release €119,000 from the account of the Exchequer at the Central Bank to enable the Department to provide funding to Dundalk Port Company under the National Development Plan 2000-2006.

On examining the requisition and associated papers, my staff noted references to the propriety of earlier borrowings by the company and the setting up of a subsidiary company. In the light of my misgivings the requisition was not pursued. These matters were followed up during the course of my 2005 audit.

Unauthorised borrowings

The consent of the Minister and the Minister for Finance is necessary for all borrowings by the company under Section 23(1)(a) of the Harbours Act 1996. However, three instances of unauthorised borrowings by the company were noted as follows:

An unauthorised loan of €371,960, for the purchase of a dredger, was drawn down by the company in October 2003.

An unauthorised loan of €161,834 for the purchase of a pilot boat was drawn down by the company in August 2004. This loan was drawn down by the company despite the fact that the previous instance of unauthorised borrowing had come to light and had been raised with the company.

In August 2005, despite correspondence from the Department that it was gravely concerned at persistent breaches by the company of the requirements of the Harbours Act, 1996 and the Code of Practice for the Governance of State Bodies, the Department became aware of a further unauthorised borrowing – a short term overdraft of €280,000 that had been drawn down in February 2005.

The balances outstanding on these facilities as at 1 April 2006 were €103,584, €161,869 and €761,923 respectively. The borrowings have since been repaid using the proceeds of a land sale.

Unauthorised subsidiary

The consent of the Minister, given with the consent of the Minister for Finance, is necessary for the establishment of a subsidiary company under section 6.1 of the Code of Practice for the Governance of State Bodies. However, the Department had noted on receipt of the company's annual accounts for 2003 that an unauthorised subsidiary company, Dealgan Shipping Ltd (Dealgan) had been incorporated in July 2003.

Dealgan was the registered owner of the dredger and operated it in 2003. Ownership was later transferred to the port company. In June 2004 the port company informed the Department that an employee was allowed a monthly management fee to operate the dredger outside of his normal duties. However, while the management fee was invoiced, no payment was ever made and the company has confirmed to the Department that no fee will be paid. The company informed the Department by letter in December 2004 that Dealgan had ceased trading with effect from 1 September 2004.

Audit Concerns

In view of the foregoing I asked the Accounting Officer if she was satisfied with the monitoring by the Department of the activities of the company and whether, in view of the level of unauthorised activity in the company, she was satisfied that corporate governance in this and other State port companies was in line with best practice.

I also asked her to comment specifically on

Measures taken to ensure that unauthorised borrowings are not drawn down by the company or any other state port company

The delay in striking off Dealgan

The conduct of the sale of the land.

Accounting Officer’s Response

The Accounting Officer informed me by way of background that her Department had assumed responsibility for maritime transport functions on 1 January 2006. Dundalk Port Company is required to take all proper measures for the management, control, operation and development of its harbour. Operational decisions relating to the port are primarily a matter for the port company and its board.

On becoming aware of the existence of the subsidiary when considering the company's accounts for 2003, which were signed off by the company on 25 March 2004, the Department launched an immediate investigation into the reason for the establishment of an unauthorised subsidiary, and led to a temporary postponement of the company's AGM. The company was instructed that it must produce a comprehensive business plan for the subsidiary in order for the matter to be considered further.

In giving guidance to the company on the production of a business plan, it became apparent to the Department that a primary driver for the establishment of the subsidiary was an erroneous perception on the part of the company that such an arrangement was necessary in order to draw down National Development Plan funding. When the Department clarified to it that this was not the case, the company undertook that Dealgan would cease trading and be wound up.

In consultation with the Chairman of the company the Department engaged the services of a firm of accountants and business advisors in September 2005 to provide a report on the state of affairs of the company. The key recommendations received were

To consolidate all unauthorised loans and facilities into one authorised bridging facility of €700,000 to be repaid as soon as possible using the proceeds of a proposed sale of property

To train company staff in corporate governance procedures

To monitor quarterly the implementation of these recommendations and the ongoing performance of the company and its management.

In this way the Department sought to get assurance that proper procedures would be implemented and maintained.

The firm of accountants and business advisers were re-engaged in December 2005 to provide the necessary training and oversight. In a progress report dated 10 May 2006 they confirmed that all recommendations were being implemented. In the light of these developments the Accounting Officer stated that she was satisfied with the monitoring by the Department of the activities of the company.

In relation to the particular audit concerns the Accounting Officer informed me that

The requirement to obtain the consent of the Minister before arranging to borrow finance is clearly laid out in the Harbours Act 1996. The Department had written on 10 March 2005 to the CEO of each port company, including Dundalk, to outline what procedures must be followed when submitting a borrowing application. In the specific case of the company, the Department has confirmed that unauthorised borrowings have been repaid by the company from the disposal of a non-core asset, that appropriate commitments to future compliance have been obtained and that appropriate monitoring and training arrangements have been put in place. Similar breaches had not come to light in any of the other port companies.

The consultants had informed the Department that Dealgan could not be struck off the register of companies until 2005 accounts had been prepared. All requirements for strike off had now been carried out and the Department understood that strike-off would be completed shortly.

The consultants had monitored the closing stages of the sale of land on behalf of the Department. The property was sold on the open market and the Department understood that the process was carried out under the relevant Government guidelines.

The Accounting Officer confirmed the validity of the commercial decision to purchase the dredger, thus avoiding the expense of renting a vessel on a temporary basis. In fact, the company could not have afforded to have the dredging work carried out at the rates quoted by international companies. Failure to carry out the dredging would have ultimately led to the closure of the port.

She added that Dundalk Port is seeing the benefit of the dredging work carried out. It permits access to larger vessels and has led to a significant expansion of the port's customer base and throughput. As a result, the port company has indicated that it hopes to return an operating profit in the current year.

11.3 Performance Audit of State Port Companies

The Harbours Act 1996 also provides that the Minister may appoint a suitably qualified person to carry out an examination as to the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the performance by a state port company of its functions and to report in writing to the Minister the results of the examination. The Minister shall submit a copy of such a report to the Government and the company or companies to which the report relates.

In the course of my review I noted that in September 2000 the Department commissioned a performance audit of the State's port companies under the provisions of Section 29 of the Harbours Act, 1996. The consultants recruited examined the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the performance of the following port companies

Dublin Port Company

Port of Cork Company

Dun Laoghaire Harbour Company

Shannon Estuary Port Company/Foynes Port Company (merged December 2000)

New Ross Port Company

Galway Port Company

Drogheda Port Company.

The consultants' report was received in Spring 2001 but I noted that it had not yet been presented to Government as required by Section 29(2) of the Act. I asked the Accounting Officer why, what action the Department had taken as a result of the report and whether, in light of the content of the report, it was proposed to commission any further performance audits.

Accounting Officer’s Response

The Accounting Officer informed me that submission of the audit findings to Government had been delayed on foot of legal advice, dated April 2002, regarding a judicial review sought by former board members and employees of one port company. This advice stated that if the Department wished to present the report to Government then any mention in it of that particular port company should be deleted. The cases were struck out in March 2004 as part of an agreed settlement. The report was eventually presented to Government on 12 July 2006.

She stated that, in summary, the performance audit found that the eight State port companies operating in 2001 managed very different ports, that the companies had successfully accommodated rapid traffic growth, were generally adapting to a more commercial mindset and were becoming cost efficient and customer focused. In January 2005, the Minister for the Marine had launched the Government's ports policy statement. This aimed to better equip the port sector and its stakeholders to meet national and regional capacity and service needs through clearer commercial mandates for the ports and their boards, encouragement of private sector investment and mergers, better dispute resolution and better transport policy coordination. These issues were consistent with a number of the performance audit findings.

She also informed me that the Department did not propose to commission any further composite performance audits of all the State port companies. The Department believed that, having regard to the number and diversity of the State port companies, individual monitoring and targeted intervention where necessary was more efficient and cost effective. The Department also considered that the mandatory annual reporting requirements that apply to the port companies, together with regular meetings and other contacts, was the appropriate mechanism for monitoring the performance of the port companies. The focus of current Government policy was on sectoral ports policy and, in that context, an extensive study has just been completed in the area of port capacity.

Mr. John Purcell

I will confine myself to the chapters, since the Vote is self-explanatory. Chapter 11.1 draws attention to difficulties surrounding the development of an integrated public transport ticketing system using smartcard technology. The system was intended for initial deployment in the Dublin area, the plan being to have it in place by the end of 2005 at a cost of €29.6 million. However, in late 2004 the Railway Procurement Agency which had been assigned responsibility for the delivery of the system indicated that it would be 2006 before it could be implemented but that the cost could still be met from the agreed budget of €29.6 million.

The procurement of the system which commenced in April 2004 ran into difficulties and was subsequently abandoned in May 2005 when it had become clear that no tenderer could meet the selection criteria. The Department's view was that several factors had contributed to the inconclusive procurement process: the relatively small scale of the system being procured by international standards; confusion about the role of the RPA and other agencies in the system; and the specialised nature of the services being sought. The fact that there were underlying tensions between the RPA and the CIE companies, particularly Dublin Bus, did not help matters. Dublin Bus and, to a lesser extent, Iarnród Éireann were continuing to develop their own ticketing systems in parallel to maintain flexibility in the event of a regulatory review requiring them to stand alone.

The RPA presented a revised strategy in July 2005, but the Department was reluctant to agree to the strategy until it had been assured regarding the costings and timeframe for the project and agreement had been reached between the RPA and Dublin Bus on the way forward. The parties reached agreement in January this year, at which time a revised budget was prepared, with an upper limit price tag of €42.7 million. Since then a consultancy report and peer review have both recommended proceeding with the project and pointed to the need for firmer project governance and management. As a result, revised governance arrangements were introduced in July 2006 in the form of a high level project board, and the establishment of a new project implementation team comprising representatives of the interested parties. I believe the board was due to report to the Minister by the end of last month, just a few days ago.

By the end of 2005, €9.5 million had been spent on the project without satisfactory progress being made and as far as I could see, that was, at least, partly attributable to the way in which the project was being managed. This had repercussions, not only in the delay in getting the system operational but also in the project's increasing costs. That included what I saw as nugatory expenditure arising from the abandonment of the procurement process and the ongoing cost of project staff in the RPA when the project was in limbo.

In response to my inquiries the Accounting Officer informed me that the consequential net additional cost resulting from the inconclusive procurement process was approximately €860,000. In addition, approximately €700,000 was incurred on staff and associated expertise in the second half of 2005 when not much was happening, and a further €690,000 in the first half of 2006 when the project had ground to a halt. I do not suggest all of the €1.39 million incurred in those periods was unproductive, but I suspect a substantial proportion was. The Accounting Officer believed the continued incurring of these costs was warranted pending the two reviews and the final decision on the project, on the grounds that if the project team and associated expertise had been lost, it would have resulted in significant additional nugatory expenditure and been difficult to resurrect the project in its current form. Be that as it may, looking at the slow progress to date, it is clear that governance of the project left much to be desired. In my opinion earlier positive action by way of knocking heads together might have helped put the project on a proper footing sooner and avoided at least some of the sunk costs.

I will move on to chapter 11.2 which refers to Dundalk Port Company. I will clarify for the benefit of the committee that commercial State harbours are managed by companies which operate under the general superintendence of the Department of Transport. These companies are not subject to the audit remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General or the oversight of this committee, but the Department's monitoring arrangements for the sector are. Chapter 11.2 points to corporate governance issues that came to light in one of the companies, Dundalk Port Company. The main issue involved the company borrowing without the requisite consent of the Minister or the Minister for Finance on three separate occasions over a two-year period. The balances outstanding on 1 April 2006 on those borrowings totalled over €1 million. They have since been repaid using the proceeds of a land sale. Another issue involved the establishment of a subsidiary company, again without the necessary statutory consent. The purpose was to operate a dredger that had been acquired to deepen the port, thus permitting larger ships access to it.

I appreciate that the boards and management of port support companies must operate in a commercial environment and be given scope to use their initiative in business matters, but that does not mean ignoring the need to comply with statutory requirements and the code of practice for the governance of State bodies. These constraints are there for a purpose and while in this instance it did not have any negative financial repercussions, that might not always be the case. It is, therefore, important that the Department have an oversight function and that it be discharged diligently. In this case the Department, in consultation with the chairman of the company, engaged advisers in September 2005 to provide a report on the state of the company's affairs. The key recommendations of the report covered the clearance of the loans using the proceeds of a property sale, the training of company staff in corporate governance procedures and the regular monitoring of the ongoing performance and management of the company. I am now satisfied that the company is aware of its responsibilities regarding the way it conducts its affairs and that the Department is able properly to monitor its activity.

Chapter 11.3 stays with the theme of the Department's monitoring of State port companies. The governing legislation provides that the Minister shall appoint persons to carry out examinations of the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the performance of the companies in question. In that regard, the Department commissioned consultants in September 2000 to undertake performance audits at eight of the port companies. Although the consultants' report was received in early 2001, I noted that it had not been presented to the Government as provided for in the legislation. In response to my inquiries, the Accounting Officer informed me that the submission of the consultants' report had been delayed on foot of legal advice taken in the context of a judicial review sought by former board members and employees of one of the port companies. This legal impasse was not settled until March 2004.

I am not sure what delayed the presentation of the report after that, but it was eventually submitted to the Government in July this year. One can see that the Department does not intend to commission any further composite performance audits of all the State port companies, but will rely on individual monitoring and targeted intervention, where necessary.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Purcell. Will Ms O'Neill now make her opening statement?

Ms O’Neill

I have given the committee a written statement, which is quite long. I will summarise some of it, if that is all right. The full written statement can be used in the House.

Chairman

It can be summarised and we will pick up the other points.

Ms O’Neill

Like the Comptroller and Auditor General, it might be useful if I confine my comments, largely, to the integrated ticketing project. By way of context, over 2005 and indeed coming into 2006, there has been significant progress in terms of improved project management, cost, destinations and control arrangements across the programmes operated by and on behalf of the Department of Transport, generally. For instance, nine out of ten projects on the national roads programme have been delivered on or ahead of time and in budget so far this year. We no longer require any operating subsidies from the Exchequer for the Luas since the beginning of 2005 and there have been no cost overruns as regards CIE projects in the recent past.

With the advent of Transport 21, the unprecedented level of capital investment, some €34.4 billion, will be going into that programme and the very strong governance and monitoring arrangements being put in place in that context, in general the Department has moved a long way with its agencies towards having enhanced safeguards for the expenditure of State moneys and for ensuring value. It is in that context that I should like to make some comments about the integrated ticketing system.

The achievement of integration is a key objective of the Department. It is all the more important now in the context of the national development plan and Transport 21, where we are getting a very significant expansion of public transport infrastructural facilities. Many new players are coming into the marketplace, opening the bus market to the involvement of private operators — with new players being involved in Luas and metro services as well as significantly increased rail services.

There are two core building blocks to the integrated ticketing project, both of which must fit together if it is to be successfully implemented. The first is technical. Ironically, in some ways that is the easier of the two to address. The challenge is to move from a situation where the current ticketing systems of the various transport companies are characterised by individual systems, different ticketing technologies, different generations of equipment and a limited capacity to interact.

The systems range from the older electromechanical technologies such as magnetic stripes to the most sophisticated smart card technology, which is available on the Luas. Even in the CIE group, the technologies employed by the three companies, understandably, are at very different stages of their life cycles. The technical challenge that arises in the introduction of integrated ticketing is to move from this relatively closed disparate network to a more modern system that can handle both the existing fare structures and ticketing products of the various companies, meet new operator demand, facilitate the development of new ticketing products, such as one single ticket for the greater Dublin area and provide the transport user with the equivalent of an electronic purse in which money can be stored to pay for ticket transactions.

To do that an open technical platform is required, and the solution that brings that together is smart card technology. International experience in integrating smart card enabled integrated ticketing has been varied. It ranges from situations where all of the old systems have been replaced by completely new equipment at enormous cost, to a phased approach that allows for more progressive roll-out. Market characteristics can also impact on the complexity of the system's implementation. In a monopoly situation, it is undoubtedly easier to do one single public transport utility that is running the whole system compared with a multi-operator environment. In dealing with a multi-operator environment, the issues that come to the fore are business and commercial in nature, as well as the interests of the various operators — as opposed to just merely technical issues. They include how revenue will be apportioned between the various players in the integrated system and revenue dilution, for instance, when someone gets off a bus and onto the DART, and how the cost of this is to be shared out — does one of the operators take a revenue dilution in that context? Then there is the whole issue of the security of the revenue from the operator's viewpoint, and indeed the security of the information underpinning the integrated ticketing system.

These issues form the second and by far the more complex building block to a successful integrated ticketing system. It is imperative when developing such a system that the commercial interests of the participating operations are clearly defined, agreed and protected by means of legally binding agreements. Equally, it must be designed in a way that facilitates and supports such agreements, which have to be consistent with the overall public transport objective of the integrated ticketing project, namely, one single smart card, particularly in the greater Dublin area.

The technical aspects of the project are progressing well and pose no particular difficulties. This is due to the work the RPA had undertaken. It was given statutory responsibility, as the committee knows, for the integrated ticketing project in 2002. The rationale for giving the job to the RPA was the recognition that we were moving towards a multi-operator public transport environment, as anticipated at the time, and a transport procurement body as distinct from a direct public transport operator was better placed to perform those functions. This was thought to be preferable to an existing transport operator which might be considered biased in the pursuit of its own commercial interests.

The fact that the project has encountered difficulties is, of course, a disappointment to me. I have €34.4 billion worth of projects in the Transport 21 programme. This project, which is of the order of €30 million to €40 million, probably has taken up more of my personal time than any other that I have been dealing with. That is a reflection of the complexity and the challenges involved, as the Comptroller and Auditor General said, in knocking heads together to get progress. The difficulties encountered, while disappointing, are not necessarily surprising, when one considers the major leap being taken in introducing the leading edge of tried and tested technology while simultaneously moving towards a multi-operator integrated system, and in the light of international experience.

The RPA came to us in mid-2005 to say it had run into difficulties with the procurement project. It was a public procurement process and it decided to abandon it. While I had been aware of the underlying intentions and issues up to that — and there had been a good deal of engagement with the players concerned to try to move these on — it was at that point that for me the alarm bells seriously went off. At that stage we stepped in, immediately, initially to facilitate tripartite discussions between the Department, Dublin Bus and the RPA to try to identify the underlying issues and tensions that had led to the difficulties. That in itself took up a considerable amount of time on behalf of the Department. One of the principal officers was heavily involved and it took until the end of the year. At that stage the RPA, in light of the significant progress that was made in the tripartite talks, was able to say it was now ready to go, but that it had revised the budget. At this stage the figure was outside the sanctioned budget we had from the Department of Finance. Frankly, I was not prepared to go ahead until a thorough review was undertaken of the project. I had to look at the options of abandoning or mothballing the project, or proceeding with it.

The Comptroller and Auditor General has outlined what we did. The outcome of that process was a strong recommendation by both reviews that the project should continue. A new project board has been put in place under the chairmanship of Mr. David O'Callaghan, former Secretary General of the Department of Defence. The reason for that was a recognition that the underlying difficulties were less about the technical issues than the business concerns that I have mentioned. That needed the full and high-level engagement of the chief executives of the various bodies involved, precisely as the Comptroller and Auditor General said, to knock heads together to resolve the problems. I understand that the chairman is just finalising his report. I expect to have it within the next few days. I had hoped to have had it before this week, but I did not want to rush him, just to meet the requirement of the PAC. I understand he will be telling me that considerable progress has been made, and we shall see where to take matters from there.

From my perspective the slower rate of progress has to be balanced against the scale of what we are trying to achieve. The Department has taken appropriate practical diligent steps to address the issue, to balance the need for the implementation of the system effectively with the requirement that the taxpayer gets value for money. As I do not have anything to add to what the Comptroller and Auditor General said on the ports issue, I will leave that matter until the later questions.

Chairman

Before I call on Deputy Hayes who is the lead questioner today, there is associated correspondence. I refer, in particular, to correspondence from Mr. and Mrs. Gallagher, whose daughter was tragically killed in a road traffic accident. In effect, they are expressing unhappiness with the replies they received from Ms O'Neill. Will she comment?

Ms O’Neill

I will. I was literally handed the letter from the Gallagher family to the committee earlier today; obviously, therefore, I need to reflect on it more closely. This is a very difficult issue. It was a tragic accident in which a young woman lost her life. When I was with the committee on the last occasion, there had been question as to whether the Health and Safety Authority would engage in an investigation of the accident. It decided it would carry out such an investigation which is under way and involves a detailed investigation with both Mayo County Council and the National Roads Authority, which is also the subject of investigation. From that investigation emerges the wider issue regarding the extent to which local authorities are enforcing the guidelines which are well established by both the RPA and the local authorities in regard to road resurfacing issues and road works generally on national and non-national roads.

When I responded to the committee following the last meeting, I tried in good faith to rehearse information which was available to me from the National Roads Authority which supplies my Department with technical expertise. That information sets out the situation as the NRA understands it, the standards required to be adhered to and the NRA's beliefs with regard to the requirements for the local authorities. In a subsequent letter to me the parents of Aisling Gallagher attached a list of 28 questions, with boxes to be ticked and information to be filled in. I belileve strongly that the job of the Department of Transport which has a policy role in regard to road safety and road standards generally must be to stand back and take a strategic view of the issues involved, particularly given that two investigations are under way.

Two issues are of concern to me. First, is the Department satisfied that the guidelines in place with the NRA which are agreed with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government are robust? In other words, are we satisfied that they are the correct guidelines? Second, I have a concern with regard to the extent to which those guidelines are in practice being enforced by the local authorities.

I delayed in responding to the Gallagher family because I wanted to engage directly — I have taken a proactive role in this — with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the Road Safety Authority, the National Roads Authority and the Health and Safety Authority, which, while recognising that it could not comment on the investigations under way, was prepared to talk to my Department about the general issues involved. We all agreed it would be useful if the National Roads Authority, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Health and Safety Authority got together and satisfied themselves that they were on common ground as to the nature of the guidelines and what they ought to be.

The second issue relates to the enforcement of the guidelines. It is clear from the tone and tenor of the correspondence I have received from the Gallagher family that they seek an enforcement regime vis-a-vis the local authorities. I take a strong view in this regard. We use regulatory frameworks when there is an onus on the State to enforce the activities of the private sector and others outside the State apparatus. In this case, we are referring to elected local authorities with the responsibility, authority and accountability to abide by the very clear rules of the game set out by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the National Roads Authority.

We have engaged not just with the players to which I referred but directly with the City and County Managers Association and the Local Government Management Services Board which are alive to the major importance and responsibility they have to begin getting this right. This relates not just to the narrow, specific issue of road works but to the broader issue of their health and safety responsibilities generally, both to their own employees and the wider public. The bodies have undertaken a very important piece of work, that is, to get the local authorities together to tell them we need to make improvements in this regard. It is not enough to state guidelines are in place and it is not enough for the Department of Transport to sign off to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government that it is abiding by the guidelines. We need to be satisfied that the proper arrangements are in place. We have agreed to actively participate in that process in order that we can be satisfied that the arrangements in place are sensible, robust and comprehensive.

We are trying to put arrangements in place which will ensure we do not simply add another layer of bureaucracy for the sake of it and the local authorities take full responsibility for their actions in this area, which they recognise they should. We have also joined the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in seeking updated information from the local authorities because some information was available to the Health and Safety Authority in the course of the year which suggested a number of incidents had occurred on road surfaces which had been left unfinished. As that was not in line with information the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government received directly from local authorities, we need to square the circle.

My stance has been strong in stating we need to be satisfied the arrangements are in place. This does not necessarily mean the Department will police the local authorities; it means the local authorities should be in a position to give the assurances they ought to be able to give, namely, that they are abiding by the rules. I am sorry the Gallagher family have taken offence at my genuine attempt to be responsive and helpful. I am sorry that my earlier attempt to lay out the information made available to me by the NRA created an expectation that I could deal with the technical details of the matter. However, I believe strongly that what we are trying to achieve in policy terms in making sure a proper framework is in place is correct. Two investigations are under way into the case, from which the facts will assert themselves.

Chairman

Is the Department of Transport making a submission to the inquiry by the Health and Safety Authority?

Ms O’Neill

No, we have not been called as a witness to that inquiry. We have engaged with the HSA and talked openly with it. There was a good discussion where the chief executive of the HSA and a number of his lead officials thoroughly investigated the wider issues raised. It is recognised that we do not have a direct role because the Department does not investigate accidents, as the committee is aware. I am glad to note the Garda Síochána is strengthening its capacity for the technical investigation of accidents. The Department is working in any way it can but, unlike the NRA and Mayo County Council, it is not a subject of the inquiry.

Chairman

I thank Ms O'Neill. May we publish her opening statement?

Ms O’Neill

Yes.

Deputy Hayes

With regard to the integrated ticketing system, in his report the Comptroller and Auditor General stated another State transport agency was seeking a similar system. What agency is this? Will Ms O'Neill elaborate?

Ms O’Neill

I will. I am glad Mr. Joe Meagher of Dublin Bus and Mr. Frank Allen of the Railway Procurement Agency are also present. The reference was explicitly to the fact that Dublin Bus was moving towards procuring a smart card for operation on its own system. This was one of the areas that had the potential to give rise to confusion within the marketplace. While Mr. Meagher may wish to expand on this point, the issue for Dublin Bus is that its ticketing equipment is old and that there is a genuine revenue risk for the company if it is not replaced. This relates to the point I made in my opening statement with regard to ticketing equipment being at various stages of its life cycle.

The issue that arose which has now been resolved in the context of discussions between the RPA and Dublin Bus, as facilitated by the Department of Transport and as taken forward by the chairman of the project board, was Dublin Bus's need to move quickly towards getting smart card ticketing equipment in place on its buses pending the availability of a fully integrated ticket. I must make clear that a smart card is just that — it is a piece of plastic that talks to a machine in a particular way but it is not an integrated ticket per se. They are two different things, which is one of the issues that causes confusion in the marketplace. Mr. Meagher may wish to comment.

Mr. Meagher

To clarify, the Railway Procurement Agency, RPA, is responsible for delivering the integrated ticketing system, ITS. However, each of the operating companies must supply its own ticketing system and ensure, with the assistance of the RPA, that it is compatible. It is the responsibility of Dublin Bus to acquire its own ticketing system.

There may have been some perception that we were seeking to implement a system that was similar and almost in competition with that of the RPA. That was not the case. We sought to procure a system that would enable our sales agents — the shops where we sell tickets — to deal with smart cards. It would be a subset of our system, which would, in turn, be a subset of the overall integrated ticketing system. The system the RPA sought to procure had a very different function, being concerned with processing the back office information.

Both systems are necessary for the effective functioning of an integrated ticketing system. We discussed our requirements with the RPA before we began the procurement process and made sure the specifications fitted in with the overall system. The RPA placed a notice in our journal to explain the context and requirements of the project, and assisted us in discussing with bidders the issues arising from the tenders submitted. The system we plan to implement is one element of the overall system that will provide integrated ticketing for customers.

We are anxious to move as quickly as possible to a system that can handle smart card technology because our existing equipment is beyond its sell by date. The magnetic validators into which customers insert their prepaid tickets, situated to one's right on boarding the bus, are 16 years old. Ideally, they should be retained for only ten years and much effort is being put in to keep them going. Our efforts were geared towards developing a system that would allows us to use smart cards in place of these validators.

We have an agreement with the RPA and approval from the project board to proceed with the development of a disposable smart card ticket. This is an interim measure that will be in place pending the development of the ITS. It will take a considerable amount of the workload off the magnetic validators and will be extremely helpful to us. This interim solution will be withdrawn when the ITS is in place.

Chairman

Would Mr. Allen like to comment on this issue?

Mr. Frank Allen

Yes. The mandates the RPA received in 2002 set forth a certain concept of what integrated ticketing should include. Explicit in this was the development, initially, of a single smart card ticket for use on the services of all transport operators in the greater Dublin area. The transport system in Dublin will be always small in comparison with international schemes. To put it in context, our business case set out the prospect of up to 250,000 smart cards whereas other successful international schemes would involve many millions of cards. It is essential to the success of our project that there is a single smart card which can be used on the services of all operators and that it should become a key ticketing product.

The RPA was involved in the procurement for all aspects of the system, including a distribution network. The mandate we received in 2002-03 clearly stated that there should be a distribution network for these tickets. The Comptroller and Auditor General is correct when he refers in his report to a degree of confusion in the market. This related to our endeavours to convince well qualified and experienced contractors that this scheme was one that would ultimately involve significant numbers of cards and transactions and would be a fully integrated system, incorporating all transport providers. There was confusion, however, in that both Dublin Bus and the RPA were in the market for a distribution system at the same time. There had been extensive discussions between the two to facilitate the eventual development of a single distribution system, something I believe will be ultimately necessary. Some of the bidders came back to us and expressed a degree of concern that, given their choices of bidding for Dublin or for a range of other places, our system might turn out to be quite small and financially not particularly attractive. This contributed to some of the confusion in the market at the time. It was one of a number of factors.

Deputy Hayes

Has the Department secured the agreement of all involved parties on the policy to which this project should adhere and is that in line with Government policy? This is a complex and detailed project and it must be difficult to get agreement from all parties. Is everybody on board and is there full agreement to go ahead?

Ms O’Neill

Again, Mr. Allen and Mr. Meagher can speak for themselves. However, I will say that it was heartening to discover from the two reviews we carried out that there is strong support from all the agencies for an integrated ticketing system for Dublin and an agreement that it should be on a smart card platform. This conviction is shared by the public, who view it as a sensible and attractive prospect and something that should be in place as soon as possible. I do not believe there is any difference of principle among the parties concerned in terms of the need for an ITS, and it is accepted and understood that it should be based on a smart card service. From my discussions with the chairman of the project board, I understand there is also now agreement on the technical platform on which it will be developed.

However, there are issues to be resolved that are less policy issues and more pragmatic issues related to revenue sharing. Some of these issues, such as the question of a single distribution network, will always give rise to some tensions. The Department is clear on the policy it has directed and the mandate it has given. This mandate was clearly articulated from the outset and we did not change our minds in any way. The project management board under the chairmanship of David O'Callaghan is charged with working through the issues and coming back to us with several assurances. One of these is to review and settle by way of agreement the scope timelines and budget for the phased completion of the project. There also will be a review of the ticketing plans and associated timelines of the various transport agencies to ensure they are compatible with the integrated ticketing project.

I would agree, therefore, at the high level of principle that this must go forward on a particular basis. However, there are some details that may take another month or two to thrash out among the various players. This is necessary to ensure the level of certainty I believe is necessary to produce a definitive budget and timeline and get on with delivering the project.

Deputy Hayes

Can Ms O'Neill say whether a particular agency is chiefly responsible for the remaining difficulties?

Ms O’Neill

It is neither useful nor right that I should get into a blame game. We are trying to achieve something significant. These types of difficulties do not arise in a case where, for example, a single transport operator for the greater Dublin area is charged with undertaking a project over which it has total control. Inevitably, in a multi-operator environment, there will be tensions and different perspectives. Dublin Bus is an extremely important player in the Dublin transport market, and already has its own distribution network and ticketing project. It is not that we do not have integrated tickets; we have an entire series of combined bus and rail and bus and Luas tickets. What we do not have, however, is a single integrated ticketing system of which both existing and new operators can become a part.

My focus in this project has not been from the perspective of penalising people for not playing ball. I am more interested in recognising and understanding people's legitimate concerns while pointing out the greater good that is at stake. This is something that is in the interests of everybody in Dublin and, eventually, the State. It must be a system that will accommodate new entrants to the market as well as the existing dominant players.

In terms of governance, the structures we had in place were fully compliant with the requirements of the Department of Finance for the management of projects of this type in terms of monitoring and steering groups. What was missing, however, was the space to allow the chief executives to sit around a table and knock their heads together until they had teased out and resolved the outstanding issues. That framework is now in place.

The chairman has recognised this is not a straightforward, simple or easy project. It has significant business and commercial implications for the players involved. However, a mechanism is now in place for working through them. As Mr. Meagher and Mr. Allen sit at the board at present and are privy to that, they may wish to comment in this regard.

Mr. Meagher

Ms O’Neill

By way of introduction to this topic, members may be aware that the Department of Transport took over responsibility for the commercial ports from the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources at the beginning of 2006. This problem was substantially dealt with — and dealt with well — by my predecessors in that Department. I believe we have inherited a good regime from that Department for monitoring the commercial port companies. The port companies are commercial bodies that are set up under various Acts, including the Harbours Act 1996.

In this case, there were breaches of the Acts' provisions in the setting up, in terms of both unauthorised governance and unauthorised borrowing, of a subsidiary company without permission. While the Comptroller and Auditor General's audit picked this up, it had also been picked up as part of the normal corporate governance arrangements because such companies are expected to make annual reports and to set out detailed information for the Department. Such information is studied carefully by the Department and the companies are then queried.

Hence, by the time this issue was picked up by the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources was already in pursuit of and expressing concern regarding what had taken place. It is worth stating that what happened in this instance was that a company recognised, from a commercial perspective, that it wished to take steps such as acquiring a dredger and dredging the harbour, which was a sensible and practical measure. However, it short-circuited some of the requisite processes and procedures. This was unsatisfactory from the perspective of the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and would not have been satisfactory from our point of view either.

An unauthorised subsidiary was established by the port company. I understand that so doing would require sign off by the board. This came to light when the Department received the company's annual accounts because something like this cannot be done without appearing in the annual accounts. It came to light in the company's annual accounts for 2004 and an investigation was launched immediately. The subsidiary was set up to manage the dredger issue.

This was one of these cases in which someone thought the ends would justify the means. However, the means were neither allowed nor acceptable. Subsequently, we told the port company that it could not do this, that it must delist the company and remove it from the register and that it must deal with any consequences. However, the mechanisms were present in the requirements under the Companies Act, the Harbours Act and the existing corporate governance requirements to detect such a problem when it arose and to pursue it.

Deputy Hayes

Why did the port company not buy the dredger itself? Why was it obliged to set up a company to do so?

Ms O’Neill

I cannot say. If it is helpful, I would be glad to get more background information on the specifics. I believe the port company viewed this as a device to get the dredger in place, which it used, but having done it——

Deputy Hayes

Buying a dredger is——

Mr. Purcell

Perhaps I can help on the last point. I noted in the chapter that from the company's point of view, a primary driver for the establishment of the subsidiary was an erroneous perception on its part that such an arrangement was necessary to draw down national development plan funding. The Department clarified that this was not the case for the port company, which then undertook to cease trading and to wind up the subsidiary. Hence, it appears as though it was a misconception on the company's part.

Ms O’Neill

The Department did not get a sense that any kind of nastiness, malice or anything similar was going on in this case. The company believed it needed to do something for particular purposes and was lax about the rules. We cannot accept that and this is important. These are State companies that function commercially. They are not in receipt of State funding, apart from minor funding made available under the national development plan. However, we expect them to abide by the code of corporate governance that is in place and in the rules set out in the Harbours Act. We have mechanisms in place to pick up such issues rapidly and to challenge them. This is what happened in this case and a number of recommendations were made on foot of the report produced by Baker Tilly O'Hare to strengthen the internal governance arrangements within the port company. The internal governance arrangements required strengthening as there were weaknesses in terms of how decisions were taken.

Deputy Hayes

Were proposals made to have them strengthened?

Ms O’Neill

Yes. As we were unhappy that there were persistent breaches of the guidelines and the code of corporate governance, we sent a team in to examine it very rigorously and make a series of recommendations about what needed to be done. These recommendations have been addressed and taken on board. We have not been forced to do this elsewhere but we will do it when it is necessary.

Deputy Curran

I welcome Ms O'Neill to the meeting. Before I begin my line of questioning, I will comment on Ms O'Neill's opening statement because things often go unnoticed. It was possibly a throw-away remark but there was a time when the Department of Transport or the NRA would be here and the meeting would have been dominated by cost overruns or delays in projects. Ms O'Neill's remark that nine of the projects were on time and on budget should be acknowledged. It is interesting to see that the line of questioning moves on to something else. I do not wish Ms O'Neill to think she will necessarily have an easy day but this should be acknowledged.

I share Ms O'Neill's disappointment that the project relating to integrated ticketing and the smart card has been ongoing for four years but no results have been delivered. The RPA has been tasked with delivering these results. Ms O'Neill picked a glossy brochure and indicated that integrated ticketing arrangements exist among some of the companies. Would it not have been an alternative approach to build on this base rather than reinvent the wheel? Was this approach ever considered?

Ms O’Neill

The business case underlying the mandate given to the RPA in 2002 had a high degree of clarity. The particulars of the business rules, bilateral arrangements and so on were more detailed than what would have gone into a business case of the time. Matters needed to be worked out in due course. The mandate given to the RPA set out what would happen if the implementation team's powers of persuasion were insufficient. For example, it was anticipated that a regulator would be appointed to make those decisions or, in the absence of a regulator, the Department of Transport would be involved.

It is fair to say that many of the issues, which were serious business concerns of each of the operators — I mentioned previously that this is not a question of interagency rivalry — were worked out while others were not. The specification for the project, as presented for procurement, would have accommodated any of the likely solutions that would have been reached through bilateral engagement with the operators.

Deputy Curran

I liked Mr. Allen's choice of words "any of the likely solutions", but I like to see more certainty when I am on this side of the table. I do not want to go on, but where are we now? The Department of Transport will receive Mr. O'Callaghan's report next week, but where will the project go and what is the timescale? We are four years into it.

Ms O’Neill

Obviously, I want to hear from the chairman of the board on this matter. On the Deputy's last point, the critical choice is between how many issues one works out and gets absolute certainty on before going to the marketplace and when one can have a sufficiently robust shape to decide on a budget and timeline.

Deputy Curran

One does not always need to go to the market. Validators are——

Ms O’Neill

At this stage, that is okay. We have given Dublin Bus the go-ahead to proceed with a temporary smart card on the clear understanding that it must be compatible with the integrated ticketing system and not nugatory expenditure. The ground work will be there for use of the smart cards.

I am in the hands of the project board. I hope to be in a position in a number of weeks to give the go ahead and to know when the project will be finished and what it will cost. At that point, I will ask the Department of Finance whether it is prepared to sanction the project. This relates to design and specifications drift. I want certainty that we have a robust proposal into which the key players buy and about which there is a belief that what we are trying to do is deliverable. Otherwise, it must be changed constantly.

Deputy Curran

I wish to ask a question about chapter 11.3. I will not delay on it and will return to my general questions later. I apologise for asking Ms O'Neill this question as her Department inherited this matter from another. In September 2000, a performance audit was commissioned and the report was submitted to the original Department in spring 2001. In April 2002, there was legal advice regarding a judicial review. What happened in the year between the report going to the Department and receipt of the legal advice? Does Ms O'Neill know why the report was not dealt with? I can understand why she would not.

Ms O’Neill

Ironically, for eight months of that period I was the Secretary General of the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources.

Deputy Curran

Ms O'Neill has no excuse, therefore.

Ms O’Neill

I remember that period. Almost as soon as the performance audit was reported, a port company decided to raise an objection on the grounds that the report could reveal damaging confidential information about it. The company took a judicial review. There were discussions with the company and the Attorney General's office that culminated in the April 2002 legal advice to the effect that we could not go ahead.

The idea of a performance audit of port companies under the Harbours Act 1996 came from a different school of thinking on the relationships between the Department and commercial bodies. The audit was meant to examine the commercial bodies generally and compare them to one another. A performance audit is an expensive undertaking. It involves consultants, someone to go around to ask questions and a great deal of information compilation. From where we now sit and our current relationships with State bodies, we are not convinced that the added value of such an exercise is significant.

By the time the matter had been resolved, the report was almost out of date. When the Department of Transport inherited the report, we took it to the Government in April 2006 to determine whether we were compliant with legislation before laying it before the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Deputy Curran

By that time, it was past its sell by date.

Ms O’Neill

Yes. Through our robust corporate governance arrangements and direct contact with the commercial companies in question, we are trying to get them to consider themselves as commercial State bodies operating in a competitive environment that face large challenges individually. We are trying to respond to them on a one-to-one basis and to be ruthless in picking up issues with any of them instead of using an artificial synopsis. The audit was a good idea at the time and was probably useful for the first round, when the companies were bedding down in the new arrangements following the 1996 Act, but it has outlived its usefulness.

Deputy Burton

We should congratulate our guests on being in the same room together. Having read the report, that is quite an achievement.

Ms O'Neill stated that Dublin Bus would engage in an interim project to keep its ticketing service going, which I am relieved to hear. In the area I represent, public transport is a considerable issue. Any suggestion that such a project would imperil the delivery of public transport services for hard-pressed commuters is a matter of importance. Trains are filled beyond capacity and we have a limited number of buses. The situation in places such as Dublin 15, which has the highest level of population growth according to the census, is incredibly difficult. Our major motor route is the M50, which is clogged from morning until night. People in the Dublin 15 area, where most new housing is located, are in a difficult commuting situation. Does Ms O'Neill know the cost of the interim ticketing system?

Ms O’Neill

I will ask Mr. Meagher to comment on that. There was no question that we would imperil the delivery of public transport services or that buses would stop running. The concern that Mr. Meagher had was that revenue would be lost in cases where magnetic strip cards would not be recorded but passengers would still get on the bus. In any event ticketing equipment had to be replaced, a cost that would have arisen irrespective of integrated ticketing.

Mr. Meagher

The cost of the development of the disposable ticket is €420,000. Approximately half of prepaid revenue can be transferred to it. This will remove a considerable workload from the magnetic card readers. This is of significant benefit in the short term.

Deputy Burton

How long has it taken to arrive at this agreement? Has it taken one year?

Mr. Meagher

When the Railway Procurement Agency, RPA, sought to establish the back office we intended to introduce a loadable ticket but we had to consider other options. We have developed costings for the disposable ticket over the past year. While the overall programme was under review this was on hold. This was one of the first items considered when the project board was established. We are pleased it has been allowed to proceed and we are making progress with the contract.

Deputy Burton

The impasse was reached in 2004 when it became difficult to make progress on the difference of views we have heard today. The RPA believes it must identify the correct market superstructure and back office structure as part of the overall design as opposed to the real time needs. Mr. Allen is looking forward to a different kind of public transport market from the present one. Dublin Bus and CIE are operating services at present.

Mr. Allen

That is not a reasonable description of our position. The mandate for the RPA was clear and took account of aspects of Government policy. Our work was based on implementing a smart card scheme on the Luas. One of our concerns was that, ultimately, there should only be one scheme rather than a proliferation of smart cards for different modes of transport and different operators. We have facilitated and assisted a bus company in installing a smart card system and a smart card system has operated on the Luas for the past year and a half. We are fully supportive of the Dublin Bus smart card system. It will lead to full integration with the final scheme.

Ms O’Neill

The Department is attempting to juggle two policy imperatives, a genuine desire to achieve integration in the Dublin area transport market and enhance existing services, of which Dublin Bus is a significant provider. As an Accounting Officer, I provide significant subvention to Dublin Bus and am responsible for funding the integrated ticket project through the RPA. I had to ensure that the two policy imperatives were not tripping over one another and that we did not set the RPA the impossible task of an integrated ticketing project that would be overtaken by events.

A proliferation of smart cards could result in the perception of the integrated ticketing project being useless. This came to a head in the second half of last year when Dublin Bus identified a problem with its equipment and needed to replace it promptly. It sought to introduce the disposable smart card. The RPA was concerned that this development would hinder integrated ticketing. This was the primary reason for convening tripartite discussions late last year. At these, we agreed on a disposable smart card for Dublin Bus with the chairmen of CIE and RPA. My concern was that we should not prevent immediate necessary improvements to Dublin Bus and that this should not prevent us from achieving integrated ticketing.

Another player in this has not yet appeared, namely, the Dublin transport authority. It has been mentioned in the Dáil regularly but we still do not have it. During the organisation of this project were carts put before horses? Where is the Dublin transport authority? Will that particular cart or horse clip-clop onto the scene? Representing the Dublin 15 area, I am extremely interested in seeing more buses and trains. I could not care less about the rows between Mr. Allen and Dublin Bus. Perhaps they are not rows but discussions.

Ms O’Neill

Last week, in the context of decisions on the allocation of additional buses to Dublin Bus, the Minister announced a Dublin transport authority would be established and that it would be the regulator of all public transport services in the greater Dublin area and have responsibility for the integrated ticketing project and a number of other important issues.

Deputy Burton

How does that sit with the project board about which Ms O'Neill told Deputy Hayes?

Ms O’Neill

As we announced when we established the project board, it was done as an interim arrangement pending the establishment of the Dublin transport authority on a statutory footing. I need to move away from a situation where, as Mr. Allen stated, in the absence of a Dublin transport authority these issues come to the Department to be resolved, although we do not necessarily have the technical or other expertise to do so. The Dublin transport authority is being established and the project board is in place as an interim arrangement pending its establishment.

Regarding the putting of the cart before the horse, there is probably not a right moment to do this. I considered suspending the project pending the establishment of the Dublin transport authority. The difficulty is that important decisions are being taken by Dublin Bus, Irish Rail and others. Mr. Allen will soon take important decisions on the type of ticketing equipment which will be installed in the new metro stations. If the project is allowed to slip back, there is a danger that irrevocable decisions will be taken on expensive equipment by other players and the €800,000 nugatory expenditure could be significantly greater if we attempt to impose new ticketing equipment afterwards. For better or worse, my view was that we needed to progress the project. Like Deputy Burton, I look forward to seeing the Dublin transport authority up and running.

Deputy Burton

I am stuck for words. Powerful interests are involved. Ms O'Neill referred to people going to Paris and Munich and being able to buy a ticket. The situation is incomprehensible to commuters. Before the project began, it was possible to buy a book of ten tickets for Dublin Bus and there was a level of overlap between bus and train usage. This is important with regard to other elements of policy.

Spencer Dock will be a new train station for the Clonsilla and reopened Dunboyne lines. Trains will not stop at Connolly Station, they will continue to Spencer Dock north of Sheriff Street, from which Connolly Station will be a walk of approximately 700 metres. It will be approximately 500 or 600 metres to Mayor Street, to where the Luas may continue. It will be approximately 750 metres to the south city across the new bridge. On a rainy day or a dark night, they will be significant journeys. I presume buses will also travel to north Sheriff Street eventually.

How will the people from Clonsilla and Maynooth manage? It will be one of their few serious additional transport options until 2015. If one does not have an integrated ticket and must pay an additional €2.40 or €1.35 minimum fare, one will continue to travel by car because the cumulative cost will be too high. By the time this is introduced the minimum fare will probably be increased to €1.50. Is anyone in the Department engaged in forward thinking? I see no completion date. I state this with a certain degree of despair. I want to hop from one mode of transport to another. However, it is difficult to do so.

Ms O’Neill

I agree with the Deputy. Together with physical infrastructure, integrated ticketing is an important part of the glue of an overall integrated transport system. I want to see it introduced as speedily as possible. I look forward to receiving the chairman's report and seeing how much we can progress it.

Deputy Boyle

The history of the project is outlined by the Comptroller and Auditor General in the relevant chapter of his report. It covers the period from 2002 to 2005. Is it fair to state this proposal was first made in 1994 by the Dublin Transportation Initiative, a body funded by Ms O'Neill's predecessor Department? It made the recommendation to introduce an integrated ticketing system. I presume it was on the basis of international experience and information on its feasibility. I presume that information was made available to the predecessor Department and is in the possession of Ms O'Neill.

The first political announcement on integrated ticketing was made in 1999 by the Minister with responsibility for public enterprise. I presume that statement was made on the basis of having knowledge of its feasibility and departmental officials being prepared to back up the promise being made at the time. We did not see any progress on integrated ticketing until 2002. MsO'Neill has stated that between 2002 and 2005, other than keeping account of the budget, the Department was satisfied with the way the project was progressing.

The drafting of the Bill is well under way and I expect it to be announced reasonably soon. Clearly then it is a matter for the Whips to agree on how quickly it can be dealt with. The Deputy can take it that it is top priority legislation within the Department.

The interim arrangement was put in place on the basis that it would be robust and capable of handling the situation. I do not see any disconnect there. We are very clear what powers will be written into the legislation to handle this type of situation. We think it will stand the test of time but Mr. Allen is correct in that it was always envisaged that in due course, some of the tough regulatory decisions in this area would be made by a regulator. The RPA was put in the position of trying to manage this project up to that point and the project board has been designed to help to facilitate that in the meantime.

Deputy Boyle

Given today's news, I would like to ask a question on aviation policy.

Chairman

The Deputy may put his question after Deputy Deasy has made his intervention.

No, the bid would be blocked. A takeover cannot go through without the agreement of somebody who holds a minimum of 25.1%.

The Deputy will appreciate that this happened as I was coming in the door this morning. We will clearly sit down with our own advisers today, as will the board of Aer Lingus, to consider the matter, including the competition implications. We would have been very clear beforehand that the rationale for holding on to the 25.1% share was to enable a blocking minority if the need arose.

Deputy Burton

This was discussed on and off but I am not entirely clear on the matter. The Heathrow slots and those in America were never on the balance sheet before the flotation of Aer Lingus. What is their legal position in the event of a takeover, which has been launched today?

Ms O’Neill

We again entered into very explicit arrangements. These were made public in the past few days but I do not have the details with me now. Explicit arrangements were entered into in the context of the deal. Amendments were made to the memorandum and articles of association such that the disposal of slots at Heathrow cannot go ahead without our agreement as a significant minority shareholder and the agreement of at least 5% of the other shareholders. That is in the context where ESOT held in the order of 14.9%. There is an explicit arrangement in place provided for in the memorandum and articles of association.

There are two issues. I am sure the Chairman is more familiar with this than I. There was a significant development proposal relating to Limerick port.

The first of the two issues relates to the controversy which arose regarding the proposals for Limerick docklands, and a sense that was widely shared by members of the board and other stakeholders that the development was moving too far and too fast, without adequate consultation with local interests about what should happen. I gather the intention now is to engage in a comprehensive, inclusive and participative process with all the key stakeholders. It will also include Limerick city councillors and port users. It will be some time before they decide on development.

Separately, on 30 August the chairman of Shannon Foynes Port Company wrote to the Department to indicate that some very serious allegations had been brought to his attention by a third party against two members of the board, including the chief executive. The board decided to set up an investigation committee with an independent chairman, who is a former assistant secretary in what was known as the Department of the Marine, having responsibility for maritime transport.

At this stage the investigation is a matter for the port company. We do not have a direct function. We are taking clear legal advice as to what point, from a corporate governance perspective, it would be appropriate for us to step in. We have asked the port company to keep us fully informed and up to date of progress on the investigation.

I understand the investigation has begun. Its progression is dependent, from a natural justice perspective, on getting the allegation in writing from the third party. That document is still awaited. In other words, allegations have been made which are serious in nature, but they have not been put in writing. Therefore it is difficult for somebody to counter them. We are staying in close contact with the company with regard to what is happening, and we are taking our own legal counsel on what further we may need to do. We look forward to getting a report on that as soon as possible. It is certainly not an issue we would like dragged on. It is clearly damaging and gives rise to concern.

Chairman

Is it agreed that we note Vote 32 and dispose of chapters 11.1, 11.2 and 11.3? Agreed.

The witnesses withdrew.

Chairman

There is no other business. The agenda for the meeting on Thursday, 12 October 2006 is the Comptroller and Auditor General Value for Money Report 54: Department of Education and Science educational disadvantage initiatives in the primary sector; and the 2005 Annual Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General and Appropriation Accounts: Vote 26 — Department of Education and Science, chapter 6.1, payment of salary in lieu of untaken annual leave, chapter 6.2, Institiúid Teangeólaíochta Éireann, and chapter 6.3, superannuation schemes.

The committee adjourned at 14.28 p.m. until11 a.m. on Thursday, 12 October 2006.

COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS díospóireacht - Thursday, 5 Oct 2006

Chapter 11.3 — Performance Audit of State Port Companies.

Ms Julie O’Neill

Mr. Joe Meagher

Mr. Meagher

Mr. Colm Gallagher

Mr. John Purcell

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Mr. Meagher

Mr. Frank Allen

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Mr. Meagher

Mr. Allen

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Mr. Purcell

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Mr. Allen

Mr. Allen

Mr. Allen

Mr. Allen

Mr. Allen

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Mr. Meagher

Mr. Meagher

Mr. Allen

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Mr. Purcell

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Mr. Allen

Mr. Allen

Ms O’Neill

Mr. Allen

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Mr. Allen

Ms O’Neill

Mr. Allen

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Mr. Allen

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

Ms O’Neill

COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS díospóireacht -
Thursday, 5 Oct 2006