Results 2,321-2,340 of 32,547 for speaker:Paschal Donohoe

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 77 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Resumed) (2 May 2013)

Paschal Donohoe: What kind of relationship?

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 77 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Resumed) (2 May 2013)

Paschal Donohoe: Given the scale of the investment being proposed, did the board not ask why other developers did not have an opportunity to participate in these discussions and allow themselves to be selected for participation in this construction?

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 77 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Resumed) (2 May 2013)

Paschal Donohoe: From which document does Ms Moylan source that information?

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 77 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Resumed) (2 May 2013)

Paschal Donohoe: I thank Ms Moylan for that. I quote from the minutes of the meeting, in section 3.2, which state: "The board agree the executive could open negotiations with a potential tender partner with a view to formulating a joint bid". That was minuted within the meeting. Why did the board not ask the reason other developers had not been allowed to participate in a bidding process for this project?

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 77 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Resumed) (2 May 2013)

Paschal Donohoe: At that meeting, however, it was decided to open negotiations with this particular developer.

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 77 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Resumed) (2 May 2013)

Paschal Donohoe: I put it to Ms Moylan that such legal advice should have been sought first, before a decision was taken to begin a partnership with this developer.

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 77 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Resumed) (2 May 2013)

Paschal Donohoe: We will return to that because I believe there remains an open question as to why the question was not asked regarding what other bodies or developers could play a role in the process. I wish to move on to the meeting of Friday, 20 October 2006, which continued discussions about the site and what would happen in its regard. The reason this is particularly significant is that this is the...

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 77 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Resumed) (2 May 2013)

Paschal Donohoe: Okay, we will come back to that point. The letter dated 12 October was to Ms Moylan, a member of the board, and included a figure of €220 million. Ms Moylan attended a meeting some eight days later and the discussion was on a figure ranging from €275 million to €375 million. Did she ask why there was such a variation?

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 77 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Resumed) (2 May 2013)

Paschal Donohoe: I understand those points, but, respectfully, that is different from the question I am asking. I have a letter from Mr. Moloney, chief executive of the board, to Ms Moylan, including a figure of €220 million. In the minutes of a board meeting, attended by Mr. Moloney, there is a figure ranging from €275 million to €375 million. There is a gigantic difference between...

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 77 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Resumed) (2 May 2013)

Paschal Donohoe: Ms Moylan says the figure mentioned is a typographical error. What should it have been?

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 77 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Resumed) (2 May 2013)

Paschal Donohoe: Ms Moylan has said the figure varied. The letter including the figure of €220 million was dated 12 October. I will get to the minutes of the meeting of 24 October in a moment. The letter to the Department mentions a figure of €220 million, but the board discussed a figure as high as €375 million. The value did not vary by that much. There was no change in plot...

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 77 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Resumed) (2 May 2013)

Paschal Donohoe: Okay, but even if there were variations, the letter to the Department stated a figure in the region of €220 million, yet there was a discussion based on a figure of up to €375 million. That is one hell of a variation.

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 77 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Resumed) (2 May 2013)

Paschal Donohoe: We have been around this issue and Ms Moylan is clear on my line of questioning. I accept that she has given me an answer, but I challenge it, as I still want to understand why there was such a difference. As she has pointed to the meeting of 24 October, I will move on to discuss what happened at that meeting. That meeting took place at 8 a.m. At this stage, we should remind everybody who...

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 77 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Resumed) (2 May 2013)

Paschal Donohoe: Who was physically in the room when this was happening?

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 77 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Resumed) (2 May 2013)

Paschal Donohoe: Incorporeal meetings appear to have been in vogue in that period. This meeting took place with the majority of people taking part via telephone. I want to go on to the particular issue of declaration of interest. Paragraph 2.3 states: "members were concerned that to some people there might be a perception of conflict but following further discussion it was agreed that such perceived...

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 77 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Resumed) (2 May 2013)

Paschal Donohoe: If there was a conflict of interest at the meeting, why was there not a conflict of interest at the other two meetings?

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 77 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Resumed) (2 May 2013)

Paschal Donohoe: Mr. Curtin was one of the people who withdrew from the meeting. Is that correct?

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 77 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Resumed) (2 May 2013)

Paschal Donohoe: Who was the individual who withdrew?

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 77 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Resumed) (2 May 2013)

Paschal Donohoe: It was Mr. Declan McCourt. What bank was Mr. McCourt involved with at that stage?

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 77 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Resumed) (2 May 2013)

Paschal Donohoe: Bank of Ireland and Anglo Irish Bank were two of the banks foremost in supplying investment to large property deals and large construction activities at that time. Did it not occur to anyone during the previous two meetings that their banks might have been involved in looking to secure funding for the deal if it was agreed by the board? It is not only a matter of an actual conflict of...