Mr. Emmet Cotter:

There is a core issue that has to be fleshed out here as to why our concerns are so grave with regard to the governance of the 1951 scheme. When the committee was fully functioning with eight people in August and September of 2017, it was asked to confirm that it had adhered to all its legal requirements pursuant to Statutory Instrument No. 353 of 1951, not least sections 15 and 16. I can cite the document, but basically those two sections require all pertinent information for consideration to be brought before the committee. These questions were asked in the context of the 2013 funding proposal and the submission of the funding proposal to the Pensions Authority. To date, we still have not received an answer to what is a very fundamental and basic legal question. In layman's terms, we are asking the committee, and I accept the differentiation between the CIÉ board as the employer and the committee, to confirm that it complied with all its legal requirements. These questions were asked as far back as August and September last year, but to date it has failed to answer them. There is an ethical issue here for the four newly elected members. In CIÉ's replies to the parliamentary questions it states that the questions were replied to, and technically it is correct. However, it did not answer the questions. There were responses to the emails but in those responses it patently failed to answer 22 pertinent questions. There is a core question in those 22, and that is one of the reasons that we must have legal advice.

Mr. Carlyle has confirmed that there are two new members on the committee since 2013, but equally there are two members who were on the committee in 2013. There are four board-appointed members of the committee, so two remained and there were two new ones, of whom Mr. Carlyle is one. I will crystalise those questions into one key question. If the committee cannot answer the question as to whether it adhered to its legal requirements pursuant to Statutory Instrument No. 353 of 1951, how could we possibly agree to enter into that same forum without that core question, and it is just one question, being answered?