John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

However, it does not say that in the minute; it says Mr. McMahon would fill the site. We as a committee are not happy with some of the details we have been given this morning - I will not say we are unhappy with the accuracy, but the detail of statements given - and are unconvinced by certain answers we have received. As such, we will have to go back into this matter again. I am simply pointing out to Mr. Neilan that on 28 June 2007, the board minute states very clearly that Mr. McMahon would fill the site. It does not say this would be done if it was possible, if he had the fill or if something else happened; it says very clearly that he would fill the site. Mr. McMahon also indicated his wish to project manage a stadium development up to planning stage. Here we have a situation where, as part of that deal, this person would fill the site.

Based on that information - the proposition of one individual seconded by another - the board unanimously agreed to proceed with the purchase of the site. In other words, it agreed to purchase the site based on the information given by the individual in question. If I was told that this individual would fill the site and I was proposing that the site be purchased on that basis, I would expect the site to be filled. Mr. Neilan had an exchange with Deputies Simon Harris and Derek Nolan in regard to the contract, but here we have the minute suggesting something rather different. I have not had time to go through Mr. Neilan's document this morning, but there certainly are issues that need to be addressed. If the members of the board were told that Mr. McMahon would fill the site, I presume the Minister would have signed off on something on 28 June to the effect that this would happen. Immediately following that sentence in the minute is the proposition by Mr. McKenna and Mr. Reilly, unanimously supported, to purchase the site. I would have to question the board members as to what they thought was being said to them here. What is conveyed in the minutes seems to answer the question that was posed to Mr. Neilan by the two Deputies completely differently from what Mr. Neilan said in response.

The legalities, etc., can be discussed and the committee can be informed with regard to whether it was a gentleman's agreement and, if it was, whether it stands up to scrutiny. On one occasion it appeared to be a gentleman's agreement and then it was stated that this was not the case. However, the press release from 2008 indicated that it was a gentleman's agreement. This matter must also be examined. We will certainly examine the documents further before coming back to our guests on them.