Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 29 Nov 2000

Vol. 527 No. 1

Priority Questions. - Mini-CTC Project.

Emmet Stagg

Ceist:

23 Mr. Stagg asked the Minister for Public Enterprise when she was informed by officials in her Department of their serious concern at the cost overrun on the mini-CTC Iarnród Éireann contract; the action she took at that time on the matter; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [27840/00]

I was informed by officials in my Department on 2 November 1999 of their concerns in relation to delays and contractual difficulties on the mini-CTC project. I was informed that one of the contractors involved had been taken over and that there had been a restructuring within the companies involved which had already led to delays and cost overruns. My officials informed me that it had been hoped these difficulties had been overcome but that it was now evident that this was not the case. I was further informed that Iarnród Éireann was attempting to resolve the contractual issues which had arisen with the contractors on the mini-CTC project. I asked clearly to be informed of developments.

My Department agreed with CIE that an independent evaluation should be carried out in relation to the ongoing contractual difficulties. In January 2000 my Department stopped a payment of EU funds in respect of this project because of its concerns about the ongoing delays and contractual difficulties. On 28 January my Department was advised by CIE that legal advice had been sought and that Iarnród Éireann was re-assessing the project with the assistance of external experts.

PricewaterhouseCoopers was engaged by CIE on 24 January 2000 to carry out an external review of the project and I was informed of same. My Department received a copy of its report on 21 September 2000. Following receipt of this report and the serious questions it raised in relation to the management of the mini-CTC project, I referred the matter to the Joint Committee on Public Enterprise and Transport.

We are dealing with the mini-CTC project regarding signalling and the improved safety of the rail track which has an overrun from the original £14 million to somewhere in the region of £50 million. Is the Minister aware that the assistant secretary of her Department told the committee he became aware of the problems with this contract in October 1998, that he was seriously concerned about it in April 1999, that he informed his Secretary General between April and November 1999 and he informed the Minister in 1999? Does she agree that she discussed rail safety on several occasions in this House after November 1999 and never made reference to this problem of which she had been made aware? Does she also agree that she informed the House on 19 October 2000 that she was not made aware of this problem – the record shows that is what she said – until September 2000?

Mr. Fearon said he informed the Minister in November 1999 – he told that to the committee on 26 October. There is a gap of a year between what the Minister told the House on the last occasion and what she is saying today. I would like the Minister to clarify that. I do not want any more fudging or covering up on this issue. She should come clean and be clear on it. On the last day she said it was September 2000 that she informed the House, today she is saying it was November 1999.

I received the report, after several protracted requests for same, of PricewaterhouseCoopers on 21 September which was a very full evaluation and description of the whole event. I received, as I said clearly, a telephone call at the end of October at my clinic in Athlone on Saturday afternoon from a technical person with very full information. I asked the official and he provided me with an interim report which stated there were concerns but there was no clear delineation of the extra costs. I continued to request it. I understand that a decision was taken at the board meeting that there should be an outside professional evaluation – I am glad of that – and PricewaterhouseCoopers was employed to carry it out. When that was put in train we had to await the outcome.

I received a telephone call in my clinic in the summer informing me in a very technical way about the project and that there would be a much greater overrun than had been envisaged earlier. I said I must await the report. I requested and received the report on September 21 and it is being considered by the committee.

Does the Minister agree that her answer is disingenuous in the extreme? We know what she said in the House the last day before she knew Mr. Fearon was going to spill the beans on her a few days later at the committee. She is now withdrawing her statement of 19 October and replacing it with the evidence of Mr. Fearon. I am glad she is putting the record straight.

Will the Minister inform the House why, given that she knew about this crisis for a full year before it was raised by Deputy Jim Higgins during Question Time on the last occasion, she sat on the issue and did not do something about it? Why did she not take corrective action? She was informed about it a full year before she took any action. Does she agree she only took action when Deputy Higgins raised this hot potato in the House and that she tried to kick to touch by asking the committee to consider it? If the Minister thought that was the correct course of action, why did she not take it as soon as the matter was brought to her attention by Mr. Fearon and the Secretary General of her Department, according to their evidence?

This is exactly the position. The officials went back to CIE and said I was extremely concerned because, as I say, I received word of it first from an outside source – I am not aware and perhaps it was within—

When was that?

Let me finish. I said at the end of October. I immediately raised it with the official. Two months later – I was informed in November – CIE asked PricewaterhouseCoopers to do—

The Minister is taking my time.

—a professional evaluation of the project. Clearly, that was action. We stopped funds for the project. CIE took a decision, I am sure it was a board decision—

The time for this question has expired.

The Minister is taking up my time.

I am entitled to answer.

The Minister is not entitled to use my time.

I arranged that I would meet the chairman on 6 March to discuss this matter and the safety issues.

A Cheann Comhairle.

On that morning, the chairman did not turn up for the meeting but wrote me a letter saying he was resigning. He said I was interfering too much in the business of the company. It seems to me I was not interfering enough.

We must proceed to the next question.

In spite of the Minister's best efforts to use my time—

The Deputy must be brief.

Arising from the special CIE board meeting yesterday, is the Minister aware of whether any senior executives in CIE have resigned?

I am not aware if any senior executives have resigned. I do not intend to talk of senior executives—

We must proceed to the next question.

Barr
Roinn