Speeches - January 2006

Registration of Deeds and Title Bill

Mr. Boyle: This Bill is welcome, partly because of the need to upgrade administration but also because the availability of technology requires legislation such as this. If I have a criticism of the Government’s policy in this area it is that it has chosen, once again, to opt for a narrow reform rather than for wider reform of the legislation regarding property. Last Tuesday, in the National Library, the Taoiseach launched the tenth report of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution. What happened to the ninth report of that committee? That was launched with great fanfare a number of years ago but we have not seen a single legislative proposal from the Government to enact any of its recommendations.

There has been a gradual improvement in all aspects of the registration of land and public access to information on same. However, it remains an imperfect practice. The current Land Registry based in Waterford was an early example of the Government’s so-called decentralisation programme but all it did was make it difficult for people in the rest of the country to access information that would have been available in Dublin. It was just located to a new centre. I hope the new body being established under this Bill will not suffer from the same geographical problems but will increase the amount of information that might be available to the public.

Other contributors to this debate have mentioned that we could have used the Bill to strengthen the Derelict Sites Act, which gives local authorities some powers, after a great deal of time and searching for the owners of derelict properties, to acquire title to such sites. However, we should go further. If an owner does not become available within a set time period, such properties should automatically be vested in the local authority. This would apply to properties which are obviously derelict, regardless of whether they are built upon, and have the effect of downgrading a local community.

Such legislation should exist. It exists in the United States where an investigation regarding the rights and responsibilities of property owners can be instigated not so much by a local or state authority or the national government but by individual members of the public. Why are we not legislating to provide that members of the public can get information on who owns and is responsible for a particular property in their community, particularly if that property is a building that is not structurally sound or is a vacant site which has been allowed to become littered and a stain on the area? On these grounds we can go much further in terms of the law on property. I am disappointed the Government and the Minister appear to have made no effort to act upon the recommendations in the ninth report of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution and, given the Government’s legislative programme, there is little likelihood that such legislation will be in place by the next general election.

Given the opportunity presented by this new organisation and technology that will allow the identification of property to become easier, there should be standardisation of property leases. Attempts have been made in the past to do this through Private Members’ legislation. The lease on my house, as is the case for most people here, is written in very arcane language. It refers to the property being located in the geographical area identified by the local parish, which was the parish of the established church, the Church of Ireland. There is an inconsistency, first, in the language used in leases, which should be a little more user friendly and, second, in the geographical terms by which property is identified. This Bill could have been an opportunity to address this. Perhaps the new organisation, when it is up and running will put such changes into effect.

Last night I attended a meeting in the town of Ballincollig in my constituency, although it will no longer be part of my constituency at the next election due to boundary changes. That meeting highlighted a particular difficulty regarding State ownership of property and the transfer of such property to community interests. The meeting was organised by the Ballincollig soccer club which had been promised four years ago, by the then Minister for Defence, Deputy Michael Smith, that it would be given an area of ground for sports and amenity purposes as part of the development resulting from the sale of Murphy Barracks in Ballincollig.

Most of the ground was to be made available on the open market to commercial interests. The land was subsequently sold and has been developed but the amenity area is still undeveloped. There is now a landlocked section of property which cannot be accessed because the planning authority made a mess of how access was to be provided. The biggest problem, however, is the question of the title. I understand this issue is currently being dealt with by the Chief State Solicitor’s office and I hope it comes to a proper conclusion.

What I and the attendance at the meeting last night find frustrating is how, in transferring State property to these interests, such a double standard applied. Why were the commercial interests, so obviously and quickly looked after? Why were the community interests treated so shoddily? Many of the difficulties brought up regarding title are used as unnecessary obstacles but these obstacles seem to be easily overcome when commercial development is involved. It is a double standard that State agencies should no longer apply.

The Green Party will not oppose this legislation. We believe it is necessary. However, perhaps the Minister will address the need for wider ranging legislation on property and property rights, the need to develop, in the public interest, properties and pieces of land of which the current owners are not making proper use and the need for mechanisms to allow State authorities, particularly local authorities, to secure the better use of such property. Representing a largely urban constituency, I can identify many such properties which current legislation does not allow the local authority to acquire and develop as quickly as is necessary. This legislation might have been an opportunity to push that agenda a little further. If the new agency uses the powers being conferred on it in terms of defining property and improving the availability of information on property, that is a good thing. There is much further to travel in terms of legislation that better meets the needs of our community and individual citizens.

January 26th

Public Accounts Committee – Questioning of the Secretary General of the Department of Education and Science

Deputy Boyle: I am learning the disadvantage of coming to school early. I will ask my question anyway. I was in and out of the meeting.
Chairman: The Deputy indicated to me and I listed him but he then said he did not want to be listed.
Deputy Boyle: I was saying there was a vote in the Dáil. The hand signals were misinterpreted.
Chairman: I did not list the Deputy. I apologise to him.
Deputy Boyle: Most of my questions have been asked already. If some of them were asked during the vote I apologise. On residential redress, where stands the payment by the religious institutions in each of the three divisions, cash, property and the third, nebulous area of counselling and support services? Has the cash payment been made? Has all the property transfer happened? Confusion or disagreement still existed in the third area recently when the Department spoke to the committee about ongoing negotiations on how the support services and counselling services were being defined. Has this been resolved?
Chairman: That question has been answered already. Everything has been fully paid. Will the officials explain the calculation of the monetary value of the support services which were in place before the agreement, such as the counselling?
Ms McManus: We have agreed the figures for counselling services in principle and await an audit report from the congregation as the final sign-off.
Mr Fanning: The Secretary General has already given the figures for what has been delivered under the agreement. We await an audit statement from the religious congregations on its spending of moneys on counselling services.
Deputy Boyle: They claim such services had already been provided, which was the biggest area of disagreement before.
Mr. Fanning: The audit report will cover services that were provided on and after the policy announced by the Taoiseach on 11 May.
Ms McManus: It will cover everything.
Deputy Boyle: I am not sure if this has been raised but I wish to ask about the letter sent by the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children to Deputy Jan O'Sullivan regarding Ms Marie Therese O'Loughlin and the Regina Coeli hostel. Ms O'Loughlin has been petitioning outside Dáil Éireann for a number of months for inclusion in the Residential Institutions Redress scheme. The letter indicates the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children believes the Regina Coeli hostel should be included in the scheme. What is the Department's position, given that the deadline passed in December? Is there any chance of processing a claim for abuse she might have suffered in the past?
Ms McManus: I am not sure exactly what the letter is.
Chairman: The letter pertains to today's agenda as relevant correspondence. The key paragraph states that archive files in the Department of Health and Children reveal that it provided funding for specific services at the Regina Coeli hostel, at least as far back as 1935. The first record of any inspection initiated by the Department was 1947. On the basis of this information the Department advised the Department of Education and Science in April 2005 to consider the inclusion of the hostel in the Schedule to the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002. That advice seems to have been ignored by the Department of Education and Science.
Ms McManus: Our view is that the Regina Coeli hostel does not fall within the definition in the Act of institutions covered. Subsequently Ms O'Loughlin told our staff that the institution in question was not the Regina Coeli but the Morning Star mother and baby unit. At that point we consulted the Department of Health and Children who advised us it had no record of such a unit being one that had an inspection function. Under section 4 of the Act it must be an industrial school, a reformatory school, an orphanage, a children's home, a special school for children with a physical or intellectual disability or a hospital providing medical or psychiatric services to people with a physical or mental disability or mental illness. Even if it is one of those it must be one on which there is an inspection and the issue of whether inspections were carried out is only relevant if it is an institution covered by the Act, and our advice is that it does not fall within those. A degree of confusion was caused by the person referring to two different institutions.
Chairman: The Tánaiste's letter was dated 12 January 2006 so I suggest Ms McManus talks to officials in the Department of Health and Children to check if both Departments have the same information.
Deputy Boyle: There appears to be much confusion about this issue because before the Christmas recess the Taoiseach indicated in the House this was a possible avenue available to Ms O'Loughlin. The House was made aware of the difference between the Regina Coeli hostel and the Morning Star mother and baby unit. It appears the Department of Education and Science is still trying to come to a decision, despite the expectation of others in the Government that a possible resolution exists.
Ms McManus: I will check the record but I believe the Taoiseach indicated that Ms O'Loughlin's scope for making a claim was based on the fact that she was also a resident of Goldenbridge. Our officials had meetings with her and both the Minister for Education and Science and the Taoiseach are on record as saying it was open to her to claim for her her period there.
Deputy Boyle: I spoke to Ms O'Loughlin yesterday and she told me she was unaware of any meeting with Department officials. I put it to her that people might have approached her outside the Dáil without making her aware that they were officials from the Department of Education and Science but she was emphatic she had no formal contact.
Ms McManus: Perhaps Mr. Fanning will answer that.
Mr. Fanning: Officials have met with Marie Therese O'Loughlin. She asked for a meeting.
Deputy Boyle: Was it a formal meeting?
Mr Fanning: It was.
Deputy Boyle: What was the venue?
Mr Fanning: I was not present so I will have to check the details. A meeting certainly took place.
Chairman: I ask Mr. Fanning to take on board what has been said here and to write to the committee clarifying the many issues that have been raised.
Deputy Boyle: On an unrelated matter I wish to follow up on Deputy Curran's question on the transfer of responsibility from Jarvis for a number of schools under the public-private partnership initiative. With particular reference to the first group of schools to be affected, have subsidiary contracts for services like computers been allowed to lapse because a new company has not been able to take over the contract?
Ms McManus: No. The computer element of the contract was only for three years, unlike other services which were for twenty years.
Deputy Boyle: It appears many of these schools do not have replacement computer contracts.
Ms McManus: That was the way it was designed.
Mr. Hanevy: It was deliberately designed that way in anticipation of the progression of IT services over a twenty year period. We felt it would be unwise to look beyond a three-year horizon. An option was taken for the first three years and the Department has two options for renewal. We can go to the market or deal with the school as we deal with all schools.
Deputy Boyle: Have the services been replaced since?
Ms McManus: The three years have not elapsed yet.
Mr Hanevy: The issue is live at present.
Deputy Boyle: I understand the argument that technology changes over a short period but I find it hard to believe there are no alternative plans in place for replacement computers.
Mr Hanevy: The school has computers. It was provided with new computers three years ago as part of the deal. All other schools in the country have computers provided to them under different schemes, which handle the maintenance. We now have a choice to either replicate a model of extension to the programme or use the standard means of how schools handle the computer issue. We regarded this as a wise option to pursue rather than being tethered to an arrangement over 20 years, for example.
Deputy Boyle: Is that the only service on a short-term arrangement?
Mr. Hanevy: It was a deliberate action in the case of information technology.
Ms McManus: When I appeared before this committee on a previous occasion I recall the Chairman being concerned that the computer programme was quite expensive. There was certain dissatisfaction with the schools over some aspects of the computer service.
Deputy Boyle: A loss is one issue and continuation of service is another. My final question relates to the original chapter and I am not sure if it has already been covered. To what extent has the Department sought and had actuarial advice with regard to the superannuation schemes? Where does it seek such actuarial advice? I understand that the number of actuaries is limited within the Civil Service, and there may only be three people who perform the role of actuary.
Ms McManus: To the best of my knowledge we use the actuary in the Department of Finance.

January 26th

Private Members Time (Independents) Draft EU Services Directive

Mr. Boyle: Listening to the debate last night and the contribution to Government speakers today I, like Deputy Hogan, find it difficult to understand why the Government has submitted an amendment to the Independents’ motion. The Government’s argument is that this draft services directive will not be the same as the final directive. I do not accept that argument. This Government is philosophically inclined towards the intent behind the services directive. Any changes it will seek to make, as a member of the European Council of Ministers, will be cosmetic. The Minister outlined 300 observations on the draft directive but would not specify how many had come from Ireland. The Minister of State referred to six areas where the Government sought further information on the directive, rather than raising objections, reservations or concerns.
One of the areas where the Government sought only further information was the country of origin principle. If the Minister and the Government seek to be taken seriously on this subject they must listen to what Members have stated. The country of origin principle needs to be removed from the services directive. Engaging in some minuet with Commission officials and Commissioner McCreevy will not address the concerns this directive raises because the country of origin principle is not acceptable to Irish people.
Though there are real concerns about employment, displacement of jobs and undercutting wages, not enough emphasis has been placed on services that would be made more freely available to private interests if this directive was passed in its current form. The directive in its draft state is similar to what it will be if Commissioner McCreevy and the Commission succeed. Employment risks, as a consequence of importing workers from another country to provide services, are not the only concern. We must consider the type of services that can or might be provided under this directive, such as health and education services. I refer to these because of the previous ministerial experience of the Minster for Enterprise, Trade and Employment.
We must also consider the provision of services of important natural resources, such as water. If it takes a carte blanche approach to the provision of important social services, as well as the employment implications of this directive, the Government is flying in the face of reality, and applying the philosophical intent of Commissioner McCreevy.
Mr. Martin: Health services are not included in this directive.
Mr. Boyle: I refer to the direction the EU is taking on services and competition. This must be seen as an indication of how the EU is thinking on this matter and how Commissioner McCreevy is thinking. This Government is ad idem with that philosophy. If the Minister is not prepared to address the concerns, we do not have a Government that will ensure the draft services directive is not passed in its current state and we must depend on other governments and other social movements within Europe to ensure the directive does not come into effect and that the necessary changes are made.
The Opposition, and my party in particular, is not confident these changes will be sought by this Government. As the Government structures its policies, it takes an approach of damning the workers. The underlying message is that profit must be sought to justify the structure of the Government’s economic policies. We will not support this approach and will continue to question and harry the Government until it reflects the sentiment that exists on this side of the House and in the country in general.

January 25th

Adjournment Debate – Loss of Jobs at GN Resound

Mr. Boyle: I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and the Ceann Comhairle’s office for giving me the opportunity of raising this matter. I am grateful for the presence of the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, to respond to my concerns, shared by many in the Cork region but particularly those representing the Cork city area. The Minister of State may be aware that the previous Minister at his Department visited this company, GN Resound, at the end of 2002. The Tánaiste launched an expansion of activities at the company to expand the range of manufacturing, the types of products and the types of jobs available at the plant.
While that was welcomed by those who wish to see the development of economic matters in the Cork region, it is disturbing to note that since then the company has decided to move its manufacturing operations to China. This is indicative of a trend in many manufacturing industries. The Minister of State may feel pleased with news pertinent to his constituency announced this week. While announcements of new jobs in the regions are always welcomed, the distribution of such jobs and the industries they are in is something of which we must take greater cognisance.
The Cork area is reliant on the pharmaceutical, chemical and biotechnology areas. The announcement in the Minister of State’s constituency is a further example of this. The region has seen a sad deterioration in high-tech, electronic manufacturing in recent years. The technology park in which GN Resound is based, on Model Farm Road, Bishopstown, on the outskirts of the city, is a sad testament to how that aspect of industrial development is not working as well as it could. The technology park has a number of empty units due to similar decisions by companies involved in manufacturing, particularly electronics. Some closed their operations for economic reasons and some for the reasons announced by GN Resound, namely, that profitability could be better obtained in a country with different economic circumstances where the workforce is prepared to be paid less.
The Government must decide to what extent such decisions represent a trend. What other type of manufacturing industry are we prepared to see leave our shores in coming years because of the effect of globalisation? It is not acceptable for the Minister of State to reply that we have high employment in this country or that announcements have been made for the Cork region in the past few days.
We must offer an industrial development policy that is varied, for the sake of workers with different skills in this economy, but also because we cannot become over-reliant on any one industry in the event of that industry being subject to economic factors in the future. We are placing all eggs in one basket and this may cause difficulties later. For the people who will lose their jobs at this company in April, what the Minister of State is likely to state in his reply, concerning high employment and recent job announcements, does not cut ice.
Besides the fact that people have been put in a disadvantageous employment situation, the company’s product, hearing aids, is no longer made in this country. This will have implications for imports if this situation is repeated in other industries. Trade will be affected as well as employment. I am interested in the comments of the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment in response to this.

January 19th

Public Accounts Committee – Continued Questioning on PPARS Computer System

Deputy Boyle: At the last meeting a few questions remained unanswered because information was unavailable. I hope, in the interim, information may have come to light. Mr. Hurley compiled information for the benefit of the Health Service Executive. The question related to the additional €65 million cost to accrue if the PPARS system is rolled out to all ten HSE regions and St. James's Hospital. I asked a specific question regarding the proportion of that €65 million that it is anticipated might go to Deloitte &Touche consultants if the contract were completed. Of the money paid to date, those consultants have received approximately 35%.
Mr. Hurley: The €65 million mentioned refers to the capital ICT budget. The position remains the same. I cannot answer Deputy Boyle's question today either. We have not yet finalised our plans and do not know how long it will take to roll it out across the rest of the HSE, what it will cost, or what, if any, role there will be for consultants.
Deputy Boyle: Perhaps I might ask direct questions. Is it envisaged that a time and materials contract will be continued, or will it be a fixed-cost contract when it is eventually agreed? Will a cap be placed on the extra money to be spent, in order that it is no more than 5% or 10% of overall costs?
Mr. Hurley: If consultants are involved, it will obviously be for very specific work they will have to do. It will be properly managed and awarded as a fixed price contract rather than on a time and materials basis. Regarding whether any cap will be placed on it, we will have to examine the overall context. I do not think it will be a question of doing that but rather of seeing why we might have to employ consultants, what they would do, and why we could not use internal resources or perhaps recruit. Perhaps I could call on contractors. There would, therefore, be many issues to examine. One could not simply say that if one spent another €100 million on a large-scale project, €30 million would automatically be assigned to outside consultancies. The bottom line is that, at this stage, since we have not yet worked through to that level of detail, I cannot answer the Deputy's questions.
Deputy Boyle: I suspect Mr. Hurley will not have the information regarding my second unanswered question. However, if he has a ball-park figure, I would be grateful. The €65 million roll-out was to take the project to the ten HSE regions and St. James's Hospital. A final roll-out was intended to the Dublin voluntary teaching hospitals and several voluntary agencies. Does Mr. Hurley have any idea of the final cost beyond the €65 million figure?
Mr. Hurley: No, not yet. The immediate focus will be on rolling it out across the rest of the HSE and St. James's. We have not yet begun to consider the voluntary hospitals or agencies.
Deputy Boyle: I find that disappointing, but I hope the information will become available sooner rather than later.
Does the peer review process being undertaken involve members of the project team? Have some of them since left the health service? For instance, is the former CEO of the North Western Health Board, Mr. Pat Harvey, involved?
Mr. Hurley: The Department of Finance is sponsoring the peer review process established on the basis of a Government decision. Several peer reviewers have been selected by the Department, but neither I nor the HSE is involved. We are involved in the peer review of another project. However, when it comes to peer-reviewing PPARS, I assume the Department of Finance will once again select those who are to conduct it.
Mr. Dave Ring: On the peer review, we have set up a panel. The idea is that it will select members from a broad list. To my knowledge, the person mentioned is not on any list that we have.
Deputy Boyle: Regarding the ongoing review being undertaken on behalf of the HSE, is Mr. Ring involved in consultation with members of the project team, and particularly with people who have since left the health service?
Mr. Hurley: No one who has left the health service is involved in that review. There are officials from the HSE and, as I said at our last meeting, we have representatives from the Department of Health and Children and the Department of Finance. Apart from those nominees, there are no external people.
Deputy Boyle: Perhaps I might briefly move to Mr. Kelly, whom I also thank for attending today.
In Mr. Kelly's statement he outlines a process whereby his predecessor and he and subsequently the Department of Health and Children attempted rationalisation of the health service. Would it be fair to suggest the Department took an ever more hands-off approach? As part of the process, might the bigger picture be missed? The obvious questions were not asked regarding what the health service was and what it constituted. One essential question is who is in the health service. At a previous meeting, Mr. Scanlan expressed the difficulty of quantifying the number working in it and the circumstances in which they are employed. Drawing on his experience, perhaps Mr. Kelly might explain how that process of rationalisation happened. It was going on, yet no one seemed to ask about the bigger picture.
Mr. Kelly: I am not sure if I understand the question. Regarding asking about the bigger picture, I spent most of my time at the top of the Department doing that, since the development of the health strategy, which had long sections on human resource management, patient services, population health, information management, the acute system, primary care and so on, was essentially concerned with standing back from the health system and asking what we would like to see at the end of a developmental road. It covered services for those who depend on the system, patients and clients, and what sort of system we should desire in order that those who work in it might contribute productively and be reasonably content as employees. What sort of system should we have to produce a performance-based, value-for-money outcome? That is the essence of the health strategy.
Deputy Boyle: That was not my question. The health strategy was about what the health system could be and how we could make that come about. I do not think questions were ever asked regarding what the health system consisted of. If one is introducing a programme for human resources, how might that be defined and used across the health service? That seems to be the problem with the PPARS project - those big questions were not asked.
Mr. Kelly: I dispute that. In a previous existence, as assistant secretary on the HR side of the Department, I can remember leading an exercise about managing human resources better. It led to the establishment of an office for health management whose raison d'être was to raise management capability in the health system, with a very specific emphasis on human resource management. The Comptroller and Auditor General's report refers to there being a lack of clarity regarding what human resource management meant in a health service context. If there was a lack of clarity, it certainly was not for want of effort in attempting to answer the question, having produced the strategy piece on human resources and a follow up to it, the action plan for people management, the establishment of quite sophisticated partnership structures and a whole lot of individual initiatives at agency level which were about the involvement of people on the ground in things like service planning and developing a partnership process locally, in working on individual service improvement initiatives in a collaborative way and so on.
There was actually a great amount under way in the health boards and health agencies over quite a number of years on this issue. I am a little puzzled by an assertion at this stage that people did not understand what human resource management was about. I think they did. This project was about putting the instruments in people's hands through which they would have the knowledge and information they needed on the key parameters in human resource management. There would also be an accountability loop in order that a central manager responsible for resources would know how the system was performing.
Deputy Boyle: Mr. Kelly said that his own experience in managing a project would be to avoid, to every extent possible, the use of consultants on a time and material basis and that that was standard practice in the Department. Why was the project team not made aware of standard practice or the usual procurement practices within the Department in making the decision to give and time and materials contract to Deloitte & Touche?
Mr. Kelly: I do not think they were unaware of the general practice. It was not just the general practice in the Department of Health and Children. There was nothing set down that prohibited anybody from making an arrangement with a consultant on any basis, nor should there be. There will always be situations where such a policy is appropriate. I just pointed out that from my own experience, I would not go for that type of contract if I had the choice. I believe that would have been the same instinct of the chief executive heading the project and of the project team. Had there been an alternative to time and materials, I feel confident that they would have taken this.
Deputy Boyle: As Secretary General in the Department of Health and Children, when will Mr. Scanlan know how many are working in the health service, the number of categories working in the service and whether those categories have standardised employment conditions?
Mr. Scanlan: I would not like to think I am only focused on inputs. Having listened to the previous debate and in fairness to the Deputy, he is picking up the message that I have been trying to convey. How is it that we cannot pin down exactly where the money is going or where people are employed? The answer to the specific question is that I do not know. The HSE is undergoing a major transformation process and I believe it will take some years. My colleagues in the Department of Finance are putting me under pressure and I hope the HSE feels the same pressure from me in order that we can get to grips with the numbers at some level. That will not get us to the next level of understanding more than an aggregate. The third part of the Deputy's question related to variations-----
Deputy Boyle: Standardising the terms and conditions of each employment category in the health board.
Mr. Scanlan: To be fair to everyone involved, standardisation raises big IR issues. Mr. Magner stated we may have to start that with new recruits. However, we cannot start to look at the options until we know what exists and I would certainly like to know what is there.
Chairman: I am now opening the Vote. I thank Mr. Kelly for attending and for being so forthcoming in his contribution. Before Mr. Kelly leaves, I would like Mr. Purcell to conclude this part of the meeting.
Mr. Purcell: In the interests of transparency, Mr. Kelly should be present to hear one or two of my comments. I have no fundamental problem with what he said in his contribution. Anybody who knew what was going on in the health service would have no qualms about the objective of what was being done. However, as Mr. Mooney said, we might take issue with the way in which it was done. There would be value for money if we had a proper system in place, controlling staff numbers and pay and helping people manage staff. I have been preaching that gospel in reports I have brought before this committee. We cannot have a new system at any cost and that was the problem. The appraisal by Hay Management Consultants commissioned by the Department, which referred to €92 million on top of the €17 million already there, has proved to be very wide off the mark.
The governance structure on paper looked quite well, but perhaps there is something in what Deputy Dennehy said about too many committees. There may be a need to have some supremo in place. That is not just my conclusion as a result of our work in this area. An internal report by the HSE in January 2005 stated that the large board was too unwieldy to make all the necessary decisions around project planning, design, HR and IR issues. The HSE took a particular course of action to try to overcome that rigidity.
There was much talk today about consultants such as Deloitte & Touche. Whether the company was a partner or an adviser could be seen as an exercise in semantics. We engaged with Deloitte & Touche in finalising this report. Appendix F of the report lists the company's role as its management saw it. That has been borne out by the contents of the letters of engagement up to 2005. I do not think it was just a case of semantics. Being a strategic implementation partner implies a share of the risk and of the concerns and that should be built into an arrangement where one company is a partner.
I would not disagree with Mr. Kelly's opinion on the time and materials part of the contract, depending on the circumstances. In this situation, the same firm had been commissioned to scope the rest of the project and was paid €400,000 or more for doing so. Having been commissioned to do this and then to operate on a time and materials basis, there must be something wrong from a management perspective to accept such an approach.
Chairman: I thank Mr. Purcell. Mr. Kelly is free to go. I thank him for attending today.