Mr. Greg Ennis:

This document dates from March 2009. It has a page 1 and a page 7. It has introduction, options and recommendations sections, that is, a start, a middle and an end. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. It is not an appendix to any other document. It is an appendix to my submission. I have not had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Gill before. He was asked a simple "Yes" or "No" question. Perhaps Mr. Carlyle knows the answer. It is either "Yes" or "No". We absolutely believe this is a CIÉ document. It is damning on CIÉ.

The other point Mr. Gill made is that we were not short on funding. The evidence is quite clear that in the 1951 scheme, 2.8 times was paid when the maximum was 3.6 times. On the regular wages scheme, the maximum was 2.7 times and 2.3 times was paid. It has fallen short. Multiply it by nine years. One wonders why we have a problem. The company submitted plans to the Pensions Authority, which is back looking for more plans now which were off-track. They do not include pay increases that have already been accepted by CIÉ and its subsidiaries. We will fall off the edge of a cliff in a number of years. It needs to be looked at. I agree with my comrade, Manuel Cortes, that we cannot engage seriously in the dark without getting legal opinion on all of the items in this. Someone needs to get a hold on this. I do not agree with everything Senator Feighan said. I think he and Deputy Troy agree on one thing, which is that they should be calling for a full legal opinion. I thank the Vice Chairman for bearing with me.