Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure

OFFICIAL REPORT

(Hansard)

Inquiry into Issues around Emergency Exiting

Plans, Including their Impact on Stadium Capacity, for the Redeveloped Casement

Park Stadium: DCAL Officials

28 May 2015

1

NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY

Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure

Inquiry into Issues around Emergency Exiting Plans, Including their Impact on Stadium Capacity, for the Redeveloped Casement Park Stadium: DCAL Officials

28 May 2015

Members present for all or part of the proceedings: Mr Nelson McCausland (Chairperson) Mr Gordon Dunne (Deputy Chairperson) Mr Dominic Bradley Mr David Hilditch Mr William Humphrey Ms Rosaleen McCorley Mr Basil McCrea Mrs Karen McKevitt Mr Oliver McMullan Mr Cathal Ó hOisín Witnesses: Dr Denis McMahon Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure Ms Cynthia Smith Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): I welcome the following officials to the meeting: we have Ms Cynthia Smith, the deputy secretary in DCAL; and Dr Denis McMahon, the permanent secretary in DCAL. I remind members and witnesses of their obligation to declare any relevant financial or other interests in relation to today's business. I declare that I was the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure at the time of the stadium redevelopment programme being agreed. Mr Ó hOisín: I am still a member of the GAA. Mr McMullan: I am still a member. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Thank you. Thank you for coming to the Committee this morning. If you would like to make an opening statement, it would be appreciated.

Ms Cynthia Smith (Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure): OK. Good morning, and thank you very much, Chair, for inviting me to attend the Committee today. I welcome the opportunity for further discussion of the important issues raised. Just to state up front, I have no relevant financial or other interests to declare.

2

Evidence provided recently to the Committee raised safety concerns about the proposed design of the new Casement Park stadium. I want to affirm to the Committee the Programme for Government commitment for delivering Casement Park. Our commitment to the regional stadia programme has already been delivered for the Kingspan Stadium and for Ulster Rugby, and construction work on Windsor Park for the IFA is well under way. That leaves Casement Park, where there is a real opportunity to create a stadium that will make a positive difference to the lives of people in west Belfast and provide economic, social and cultural benefits for everyone. As the Minister has said, that will mean getting the balance right in terms of both the size of the stadium and how it is used. I also want to make absolutely clear the Department's commitment to delivering the new stadia in compliance with safety requirements. As with the Kingspan Stadium, the redeveloped stadia at Casement Park and Windsor Park will not open without valid and compliant safety certificates. I know that the Committee will understand that we do not wish to prejudice the independent investigation that the Minister has initiated, which is ongoing, of the very serious concerns raised by the chair of the safety technical group. That, in turn, means that I am not able to respond to some of the specific questions about the concerns that people may have while the process is ongoing. It is important —

Mr B McCrea: On a point of order, Mr Chairman. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): I think I know the point that several members have picked up on. We will come back to that at the end. Mr B McCrea: I just want to put it on record that I want to raise a point of order on the matter. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Several heads were shaking at that point. Will you proceed, Cynthia? Thank you. Ms Smith: It is important not to pre-empt that process and to protect the person raising the issues and others involved. I also want to add that I welcome anyone coming forward in good faith to raise issues when they feel that they have not been properly addressed. I look forward to working with all key stakeholders when the actions initiated by the Minister have been completed, guided by the outcomes of the investigation and technically focused review, to provide the necessary assurances as the GAA moves to initiate a new consultation process for its planning application. It is worth stressing again that the actions initiated by the Minister involve two distinct areas of work: the project assessment review on the stadia programme, which is a bespoke, technically focused review; and the investigation, in line with whistle-blowing procedures, which will focus on the concerns and grievances raised at the CAL Committee hearing, including allegations of bullying. We must be careful not to confuse the two. It is my job as senior responsible officer (SRO) for the programme to ensure that it meets the objectives and delivers the projected benefits. In addition, each of the three projects has an SRO with clearly defined responsibilities, which have been agreed with the respective governing body. These include, in respect of Casement Park and as agreed with the GAA, overseeing the delivery of Casement Park on time and to budget, ensuring all high-level risks are mitigated and managed, and providing written confirmation of risks that need to be escalated to DCAL. We need to ensure that statutory requirements are met in order to deliver a compliant programme. A key element of this role includes putting appropriate governance arrangements in place. These have been explained in detail in the Department's letter of 12 May 2015 to the Committee Chair setting out the managing successful programmes methodology to deliver the regional stadia programme. The stadia programme has several key mechanisms to ensure compliance and to escalate issues to me as SRO, the accounting officer and the Minister. These include the sponsorship board, chaired by the Minister with representation from the three governing bodies and attendance by the SROs and/or investment decision-makers; the programme director, director of sport and Sport NI representative; and the programme board, including me as chair, the stadium programme director, the director of corporate services, the director of sport and the principal information officer. I want to make it clear that this is in addition to the structures that exist at individual project level. For example, a project board, a project steering group, a senior responsible officer and an investment decision-maker all ensure compliance at that level.

3

Under the funding agreement, the contractor is required to meet all statutory obligations. This is the key contractual control mechanism to ensure that programme funding supports compliant projects. DCAL set up the programme on the basis of best practice advice from the Central Procurement Directorate of the Department of Finance and Personnel and other relevant bodies. It is important to take a few moments to set out the development process, which is still ongoing. There are two key stages in any capital development process, namely, design and build. In the design phase, the project design team develops plans and associated documentation. In design-and-build contracts, the design team works with the contractor to ensure that what is being proposed is practical and affordable within the available budget. These plans are developed through a series of iterations, but it is only when the plans are signed off that we move to the build stage. Only compliant plans can be signed off. The build is taken forward by the contractor teams working to the plans and, again, ensuring statutory compliance along the way — for example, ensuring that appropriate building control certificates are in place. One key aspect of the role of the project senior responsible officer and the programme senior responsible officer is to sign off at key points in the process. While there are a range of points that require sign-off, there are two key stages worth highlighting here. The first is approval to proceed to design. This is, in effect, agreeing to sign off the contract with the design team, or, in the case of design-and-build contracts, the design/contractor team. This decision is supported by the approval of a business case. Importantly, the design-and-build contract which is signed with the contractor specifies that statutory obligations need to be addressed as follows. The services the contractor is to provide during the pre-construction period, which are included in the pre-construction period services fee, are liaising with statutory authorities, licensing and other approving and advisory bodies and attaining sign-off from statutory and advisory bodies. Secondly, approval to proceed to build. This is where the design has been completed and is assessed as meeting all of the requirements including, of course, statutory obligations. It may be necessary to agree a revised business case at this point, for example if costs have increased significantly. It is really important to understand that, at this stage in the process, we have only issued one of the approvals, namely the approval to design. We have not issued the approval to build. That would be achieved through a signed-off construction. The trigger to proceed from the design phase to the construction phase is the release of the construction notice. The construction notice has not yet been issued. That is the only point at which it is deemed appropriate to proceed to construction. It is issued by the project manager. The building contract we developed has the specific requirement placed on the contractor to attain statutory approvals and advisory bodies' sign-off. The safety technical group (STG) that we asked be established is a key advisory body, and this gate has yet to be reached. Work has commenced on the design to address the emergency exiting issue, but it has not yet been concluded. The Department has put in place grant management processes and procedures through the funding agreement and various contracts, all of which include various gates and check stages. On Casement Park the step-through and approval process included: approval of the outline business case and business plan; approval of the integrated consultancy team (ICT) — the design team; obtaining planning permission; approving the final business case; developing and executing the funding agreement; and a gateway 3 investment decision review. Only then is a contractor appointed. Members should note the separate statutory processes of planning and safety certification, as have previously been noted to the Committee. I also want there to be no doubt about the developmental nature of the programme. The development process is ongoing as we speak. Also, as the development process continues, not all aspects of work will be completed at the same time. Finally, I want to make it really clear to the Committee that no decision has been taken or recommended to build, and no construction notice has been signed off. It is absolutely clear that capital funding can only be provided to build the stadium when all statutory processes have been satisfied. Building work may only proceed when the construction notice has been issued. That has not taken place, and nor will it, until all statutory processes have satisfied their obligations. In other words, no approval will be given to proceed to the next stage, which is construction, until key requirements have been met. Moving forward, I will be guided by the conclusions and recommendations of the independent project assessment review by independent experts from the Major Projects Authority, which I have

4

commissioned through the Central Procurement Directorate of the Department of Finance and Personnel as the centre of procurement excellence. This will address the capacity issue of the safety certificate for the stadium. The project assessment review commissioned by the Minister will come to a view, and we assure the Committee that we will share it with them.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Thank you. I will take a couple of points here first of all. Technically, in Committees, we do not have points of order, but there was, from a number of members around the room, a concern that was fairly evident when comments were made with regard to not being able to address certain things or not pre-empting or prejudicing whatever other work is ongoing. I assume that it is the view, of at least the majority of the Committee, that as the role of the Committee is to scrutinise the work of the Department, if the Department itself is doing something internally, that should not constrain what we ask or what we do. It is important to acknowledge that the questions that are asked should be answered and that we are not constrained in any way in pursuing this. It is a matter of public importance. We are talking about substantial amounts of money, a public investment of tens of millions of pounds and the health, safety and well-being of the people who use the ground. Therefore, the inquiry that we are carrying out needs to be followed through without any obstruction or anything that would in any way constrain us. Ms Smith: I am very clear that I want to be as helpful as I can to the Committee and to be as open and transparent as you would expect. To explain, there are at least three investigation and review processes under way, and the Minister initiated two of those. It is very important that everybody understands that we have a collective responsibility to examine and consider all the facts. This is, in effect, a whistle-blowing case, and needs to be treated as such. Such cases are governed by the good practice guide on whistle-blowing in the public service, which is endorsed by the Audit Offices here and in England, Wales and Scotland. It is also promulgated by DFP in its guidance. One of the key recommendations in the report is that investigations are undertaken by people with the necessary experience and expertise. In recognition of that, the Minister arranged for the appointment of our chief internal auditor to scope the investigation, with Mr Scott's input. Depending on the output and outcome of that work, DFP will consider whether and how the full investigation will be taken forward. That again is absolutely consistent with the guidance on whistle-blowing in the public sector, which recognises the need to put together a properly qualified team and to put in place arrangements to avoid any potential or perceived conflict of interest. Clearly, matters will arise in the course of the investigation on which there will be a difference of opinion, and it is right that those should be debated and discussed. The point that I want to make is that if the Department appeared to dispute facts, allegations or perceptions before Mr Scott has been given the opportunity to formally record and agree the evidence, it would undermine the independence of the investigation and would not be consistent with our duty of care. For that reason, all that I can do is seek to correct misperceptions. I am very happy to cooperate as far as I can.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): I reiterate the point that the Committee will want to follow the issues through fully and to investigate, inquire and interrogate fully all the aspects that are relevant. There is no desire, in any way, to create difficulties for any other processes, but other processes should not thwart, constrict, constrain, hold back or create no-go areas. There may be internal personnel matters with regard to Sport NI, and one would have to respect those, but more generally we need to get to the bottom of the big questions and the issues that were identified in the media long before Mr Scott came to the Committee. Issues were brought to the attention of the public by the BBC some weeks prior to that. This is out there already, apart from what Mr Scott presented to the Committee. We need to look at those things fully and comprehensively, and we intend to do that. I do not think that it would be acceptable for the Committee to be constrained, so we expect full answers to all the issues. As I said, we do not have points of orders in Committee. However, the point has been made, and I will leave it there.

Mr Ó hOisín: I suppose that the point is that we have the three processes in place: the investigation, the review and the inquiry. It is very much as I said when the inquiry was voted on within the Committee: we will invariably run into duplication, and the three processes may indeed prejudice each other in terms of information. That is notwithstanding that the information should be available.

5

However, that was the risk that we took in launching an inquiry whilst an investigation or review went on. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Do you have questions for — Mr Ó hOisín: I just wanted to put that on record as well. As it stands at the moment, Cynthia, the approval to design has been issued and we await the approval to build, at some point in the short to medium term. Have the concerns or assessments, as raised by the chair of the safety technical group, particularly in terms of the exiting strategy, been pre-emptively raised? Is it too early for those assessments to be taken on board, as of now? Ms Smith: I just want to underline the point that I made earlier: the design process is still under way. The design work has not yet been completed. Mr Ó hOisín: So the approval is only for the design process to commence. Ms Smith: That is right. The design — Mr Ó hOisín: Obviously, once it has been completed, it has to be approved again. Ms Smith: Yes. Under — Mr Ó hOisín: So we really are at a very early stage here. Ms Smith: Absolutely. Put simply, the design is taken to a certain stage by the design team that has been appointed. In a design-and-build contract, the contractor also conducts design work as well. Only when that has been completed satisfactorily and in line with seeking statutory approvals and any other approvals that are required will the construction notice then issue. The construction notice is the key part, in terms of giving the approval and the go-ahead to begin construction work. Only the approval to begin the design part of that process has been given. The design work is still under way. Mr Ó hOisín: Safety issues must be paramount in the development of any stadia. I am in stadia almost on a weekly basis. Notwithstanding that, what we are doing, or a lot of what we are doing possibly in this inquiry and possibly in the investigation as well, is academic. Ms Smith: I point out again that we are at a stage where the approval to design has been given. We have not yet approved the building through the issue of the construction notice. That building work will not take place until all the necessary approvals have been met, in terms of what is required both under the funding agreement and under the contractual obligations which, as I said in my introductory remarks, are to meet statutory approvals. Let me also say, just to point it out and highlight it because I know that this point was raised last week by the Minister, that there is very clearly a separate safety certification process for stadia. It is important that the Committee is aware of that. The stadia will not be used until a safety certificate is issued under the Safety of Sports Grounds (Northern Ireland) Order 2006. That safety certificate will only be issued when Belfast City Council is satisfied that it can be issued. So there is a separate statutory regime that covers safety at sports grounds, as it does as well through the local planning process. Mr Ó hOisín: There are substantive safeguards within the entire process. You are satisfied with the safeguards within the process? Ms Smith: The whole process has been organised and delivered in accordance with 'Managing Successful Programmes'. This is recognised best practice in delivering major programmes. On 12 May, the Department provided the Committee with full details of those structures. I think it might be helpful to give the Committee a sense of the programme management structure. We have a programme management structure which includes a programme sponsor board, which is chaired by the Minister. Below that sits the programme board, on which I sit and which has overall responsibility for delivering the objectives of the programme and ensuring that the very important business, economic and cultural benefits from the programme are delivered.

6

Beneath that, there sit three individual projects for each of the three parts of the programme, ie the delivery of the Kingspan Stadium for Ulster Rugby, the delivery of Windsor Park for the IFA and, thirdly, the delivery of Casement Park for the GAA. Beyond that, there is a whole series of protocols, funding agreements, business cases and contractual agreements, as you would expect in a major contract and a capital build programme of this size and scale.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): I will come to David Hilditch in a moment; I just want to pose a couple of points there. You said rightly that the stadium would not be used without a safety certificate, which would specify a number of people who could be there as spectators. The concern was that you might end up building a stadium with a capacity for, say, 38,000, but only get a certificate for 20,000, which would be a ludicrous and unacceptable situation. It was that connection that was hugely important. Ms Smith: Maybe I could respond to that, Chair. I appreciate absolutely what you are saying. As you very eloquently said, the stadium could not be used, even if it were built, if it would not be able to meet a safety certificate capacity. It would never be used, and, certainly, that would be a different argument: it would be a value-for-money argument. That will not happen, however, because no approval will be given to construct until all statutory obligations are met. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): So a situation could never arise where a stadium was built with a seating capacity in excess of what eventually went on the safety certificate. Ms Smith: I quote again from the design-and-build contract, which was signed by the contractors:

"There is an obligation to liaise with the statutory authorities, licensing and other approving and advisory bodies in attaining statutory and advisory bodies' sign-off."

I think that makes the position quite clear. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Am I right, then, in saying that it would be impossible to get to a situation where you actually build a stadium, only for it to get a safety certificate for a number lower than the actual physical capacity? Ms Smith: Safety certificates are issued on an event-by-event basis. The point that you are making, Chair, is that there would be a very big question about value for money if you designed and built a stadium that could not ultimately attain a safety certificate for the maximum capacity for which it was built. Our requirement is that the stadium be capable of meeting the safety certificate requirements of the capacity of the stadium. Dr Denis McMahon (Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure): I suppose, really — The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): That is not quite the same as saying — Dr McMahon: Maybe if I — The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): It is very different, actually, from the point that you might end up building a stadium that is bigger than the number that eventually appears on the safety certificate. Dr McMahon: If I may add a point in clarification, the question is whether it is impossible. One of the issues with any capital build is that it is built at a point in time and then, over time, regulations often change. It is thus possible that you might have a stadium that would receive a safety certificate today but be in a different situation 30 years from now. That is why it is difficult to be absolutely definitive. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): I am thinking, though, about the terms of the contract. Whether it is the red or green book, it does not change that often. It is quite a number of years. Dr McMahon: To be specific, then, there need to be satisfactory professional and technical assurances in place for the SRO to sign it off and say, "Now we are ready to move to the build stage". They have to be in place. Normally what happens in a process at that point is that you do a gateway review of the project, which involves looking at all of the documentation, at what is there and at the design. That would happen in any case. I do not know if that is helpful, Cynthia.

7

Ms Smith: Yes, absolutely. If I can just say that, at key decision points, there is a series of processes, technical advice, sign-offs, documentation and approvals protocols. Those are all in place at key decision points and milestones. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): I have two other short questions: first, it was mentioned that the design had not yet been completed. I find it difficult to understand how, therefore, you could get planning permission, although that was eventually dealt with in the judicial review. How did you get planning permission for a design that was not yet completed? Ms Smith: I think that it might be helpful if I could make two points in response to that, Chair. First, I refer the Committee to the judgement in the judicial review in December. To quote Mr Justice Horner:

"in order for the ground to operate it requires a certificate under Article 5 of the Safety of Sports Grounds (Northern Ireland) Order 2006. Regulation 5(1) states: 'A safety certificate shall contain such terms and conditions as the council considers necessary or expedient to secure reasonable safety at the sports ground when it is in use for the specified activity or activities, and the terms and conditions may be such as to involve alterations or additions to the sports ground.' Without a safety certificate a sports ground cannot be used. However, there is a regulatory regime in place to ensure sports grounds are safe and can operate safely."

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): That is not what I was asking. As I said, if the design has not yet been completed, how can you submit an incomplete design? What design do you submit for planning permission? Ms Smith: Can I just be very clear on that as well? Under the design-and-build practice — and this is not unusual at all, Chair — I want to make it clear that design work takes place, and it is designed to a certain stage. That is set out very clearly in a works description. At that stage, planning approval is sought. Once planning approval has been obtained, further design work can take place because it is a design-and-build contract. The design work gets to a certain stage to allow planning approval to be sought. The contractor, under a design-and-build contract, can then undertake further design work. That can often be a really helpful thing, because the contractor himself can see what further design work needs to take place in order to meet the terms of the contract. Dr McMahon: That is not an unusual process; it happens in capital projects right across the public sector. Ms Smith: Yes, and this is exactly the same process that took place at Kingspan, Ravenhill and at Windsor Park. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): OK. Others may want to follow up on that point. Finally, when did the stadium sponsor board last meet?

Ms Smith: If you just give me one minute, I will get you the details of that. Chair, I just wanted to give you a really accurate picture. It may be helpful to the Committee if I just say a few things about the sponsor board. The stadium's sponsor board was established by DCAL back in December 2011. I mentioned earlier that the sponsor board is chaired by the Minister and includes myself as the programme SRO and senior representatives from the governing bodies. The purpose of the board is to report to the Minister as to the progress of the programme, provide a forum for the governing bodies to raise any issues and advise the programme SRO to assist with overseeing the delivery of the programme. The first meeting of the board took place on 1 December 2011, and the last meeting took place on 19 March. That was the twenty-first meeting of the programme sponsor —

8

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Was that 19 March this year? Ms Smith: Yes, and that was the twenty-first meeting of the sponsor board. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): OK. We have requested minutes of those meetings, so we will get that information about the dates of all the meetings, and it will be discussed in due course. I just wanted a general overview. Mr Hilditch: Thanks, Chair, and thanks, Cynthia, for coming along this morning. We have established that we are in a very early stage, as far as design goes. Ms Smith: What I am saying is that design has not been completed. It is still under way. It has not been finalised. It has reached a certain stage, but it has not yet been completed. Mr Hilditch: What stage are we at with design? We were told that it is at an early stage. We are now somewhat down the road from the judicial review (JR). Time seems to have gone on fairly well since this all kicked off to try to get the stadium in position. I am confused about the very early stage. Ms Smith: I did not say "early stage"; I said that its design has — Mr Hilditch: You agreed with the question that was put to you. Ms Smith: — not been completed. It is under way, but it has not been finalised. I wonder whether it would be helpful if I took the Committee through a timeline of the project. That might help to put it in context. In March 2011 — Chair, you will have good recollections of this — the outline business case (OBC) was approved. That was followed in October 2011 by the business plan being approved. There was then a programme gateway. We mentioned that, at various regular intervals, we get independent assurance as to the state of the programme. The first of those took place in October 2011 at programme level. Pre-design work took place in the early part of 2012, and we had the appointment in September 2012 of the design integrated consultant team (ICT). We then had another programme gateway in October 2012, which was followed by further work on design and the submission in mid-2013 of the planning application for planning approval. That took some six months to determine. In December, we were notified that planning approval was being granted; I think that the official notice came out in January 2014, but it was granted at the end of 2013. That was followed by a gateway review, which was a gateway 3 review on the Casement Park project, on the investment decision. We then talked about the various approval processes required to go to various key milestones. The final business case was then approved. The funding agreement was executed to allow funding to be released, and the design-and-build contractor was appointed in December 2013. Since then, the design development by the contractor, Heron Buckingham — it is a joint venture — has proceeded. In April, the JR process started. In September 2014, the hearing commenced. In November, the hearing was completed, and, in December, we got the JR determination. Hopefully, that is helpful in giving you a bit of context in terms of the timelines for the various key stages in the Casement Park project.

Mr Hilditch: Yes. I have a letter from Populous confirming that the current design proposal complies with x, y and z. That is over a year ago. It seems a bit strange that we are still in design and are confirming the current design proposal. Ms Smith: I think that what was said in previous evidence is that the stadium is compliant with normal standards, but the issue that, obviously, is of concern to the Committee is the emergency exiting. Clearly, that design work is ongoing in relation to that. Mr Hilditch: The problems, Cynthia — this follows on from the Chair's question — are so extensive that they are probably going to have to go back to the drawing board. We have now spent about £6 million of public money on something that will have to be so thoroughly redesigned that it is going to have to seek planning permission again. That is part of the problem. We can flurry it up all day for as long as we want, but the evidence presented to the Committee to date is substantial. While we have timelines and whatnot, you just wonder where we would have been if things had not been caught up in JRs and whatnot.

9

Ms Smith: I assure you that the technically focused project assessment review, which is being conducted by the major projects authority, will look at those very questions. I am very happy to be guided by its recommendations and advice. Mr Hilditch: It is a very difficult situation for everybody involved; there is no doubt about it. The week before Mr Scott came in here to tell us all about it from his end of things, you were here in front of us. You, Cynthia, stated:

"We have been taking the advice of the safety technical group on board, and any decision will be informed by all of this."

That is not what we are being told. You also said:

"It is really important that we have very strong communications between the various parties involved and the work of the group, the Department, the GAA and the design team."

None of that has actually been happening. We also have documentation that says that the STG had been asking for the emergency exiting plans for some 18 months to two years, with an absolute blanket — nothing coming forward whatever. Where is DCAL in all this? Why has it been ignoring those requests to try to get over these hurdles? Ms Smith: Firstly, we have not been ignoring the advice of the safety technical group. The processes are still ongoing in that we are still designing with regard to emergency exits. Those processes are still ongoing. The design has not yet been completed. One of the aspects that I have asked the technical review to look at relates to the very point that you raise. As I said, I will be guided by their technical advice. Mr Hilditch: That will be interesting. Following on from that; what is the structure of the project's reporting mechanism from you as the senior responsible officer? Obviously, last week, we had here the Minister, who is at the very top of the pile. Where does it drill down? Now, over various years, we have had various people in front of us telling us all about it. We are obviously having to question some of it at this stage. What is the chain of command down through the project as such?

Ms Smith: Maybe I could talk you through some of the processes and the decision-making process. Maybe it would be helpful if I could point out, say, the structures in the stadium board. Again, I refer back to the Department's letter of 12 May. In it, we put out in some detail what the programme governance structures were. I am very happy to go through it. The stadium programme board, for example, was formally constituted to provide advice and assurance to enable us to make recommendations and to pursue the key milestones in the programme. Can I give you an example that would be helpful in describing that process? Looking at the stadia programme, I think that I have described, in talking through the timeline, what key decision and milestone points there are. For example, a key milestone point would be the approval of the full business case. The next key milestone — Mr Hilditch: Maybe it is not about the milestones, but the structure as such. Who reports to who? Who is below you down the line? We have the ministerial aspect and you. We have had various project officers before us, some with DCAL officials and some without. We have minutes, notes and emails here. DCAL withdrew from the STG early on and whatnot and stuff, and, basically, in my opinion, they virtually ignored it. I know that you are going to say something different. It really does look as though that is the way it has been, because requests have been totally ignored. Just what is the reporting structure down the line? Ms Smith: Maybe it would be really helpful if I talk you through it. As I said earlier, the methodology that we use is Managing Successful Programmes. It is the methodology that we use to deliver the project and to form the structures and programme. It is an accepted methodology in delivering successfully major programmes in both public- and private-sector organisations. That includes a whole set of principles and processes which we use when managing a programme. One of the key principles under Managing Successful Programmes is — as you were saying — that you have a defined organisational structure to enable effective programme governance. The structure that we

10

have developed to implement the stadium programme consists of the top level of a stadium programme sponsor board. I can talk you through what each of these do. Beneath that, there is a stadium programme board. Beneath that, we have project boards, one for each of the three individual projects, and project steering groups, again, for each of the three stadia projects. Mr Hilditch: Maybe I did not make it clear: from the Committee's point of view, with regard to the people who land at the bottom end of the table to report to us, how does that come down the line? Who should be here? Who should not be here? Have some people stayed away from us? Why did we not know about these issues? That is what I am trying to drill down to. Ms Smith: What I can say is that, very clearly, procedures, escalation procedures and management procedures are set out in all the documentation here. One of the documents that is really helpful in setting out the various roles and responsibilities and to assure the Committee that we have recognised best practice that is in place here in good programme management is set out in the memorandum of understanding between ourselves, the Department and the GAA, for example — Mr Hilditch: Who reports to us as a Committee to give us the updates? Should that have been DCAL, or should it have been done jointly between the project management team and DCAL? Sometimes people came here on their own and did not have DCAL officials with them. I do not know whether that was deliberate or not. Again, if you were suspicious, you would say — Ms Smith: My role is to ensure that the programme as a whole, encompassing the three individual projects, meets its objectives and delivers its benefits. Beneath that, we have three individual projects, one for each of the stadia. Their role is to deliver each of those individual projects on time and on budget and in accordance with the government structures and with value-for-money considerations and ensure that the proper processes are followed in each of those key stages. On top of that you have one overall oversight body, chaired by the Minister, which ensures that, overall, that important Programme for Government objective is on target and is going to deliver the very significant benefits that it was designed to deliver. Mr Hilditch: I am not sure that I got the answer there, to be honest. It is difficult. You are left with the problem of a project that would potentially be a white elephant if it had gone ahead to where you wanted it to get to, despite design modifications or whatever. It really needs to get back to redesign. If I was a resident in that area, I would certainly pay close attention to what is being said here today. Chair, I will come back later. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Following on from what Mr Hilditch said, one of the difficulties for members is that we got the diagram that sets out the various entities — the steering groups, project boards, stadium programme SRO and all of the rest of it — and, in a sense, it all focuses around the stadium programme SRO, which is obviously you, in that you are chairing the stadium programme board, which then meets prior to the meetings of the stadium sponsor board. It says that the board will normally meet two weeks in advance of the sponsor board meetings, which were normally to be every six weeks, and ad hoc meetings can be arranged as required, so information would come up through the system, but, in a sense, it should all come to you as the SRO at some point, if the system is working properly. Mr Hilditch: I am only trying to get to who should have come along and told us what the potential problems were a year or so ago, so that it could all be overcome and resolved, and we could all move forward. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): We have it in writing. We are aware of that. There were issues being raised 18 months ago, or whatever period of time ago it was, yet it is only now, belatedly. Those issues about egress — not about the extent of the egress; the Minister said that she was aware that there were egress issues, but that she was not aware of the extent of them — when did you, as SRO, become aware that there were egress issues, and what did you understand to be the extent of them? Ms Smith: Can I just make it clear again — I will answer your question, Chair — that I am accountable for ensuring that the stadium programme meets its objectives and delivers its benefits. For example, that will include the appointment of the programme director, making sure that the right staff are there, making sure that the expenditure is released in accordance with the financial control framework and recommending approval of the full business case.

11

Health and safety is clearly a key element that is going to be considered in any major construction contract of this nature. Clearly, it is an area where there is going to be ongoing discussion, debate and technical advice. What I am saying to the Committee is that those discussions are still under way in that the design work has not yet been completed. Final design work is still under way. The agreement to go to the next stage in the building of the stadium will not take place until we have satisfied all of those statutory requirements.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): I appreciate that entirely. But I will ask my question again. When, as the SRO, did you become aware that there were concerns about emergency egress from the stadium? Who told you and what did they tell you? Ms Smith: Just to be clear, there are clear methods for escalating issues. One clear method, for example, is through a risk register. Managing risk issues are an integral part of managing a stadium — The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): We are aware of a number of risk registers. Which risk register is this one? Ms Smith: There are risk registers at programme level and project level. Safety issues are under discussion throughout the design process, hence we set up a safety technical group. Let us remember that it was the Department that set up the safety technical group to provide us with that advice throughout the design process. That design process is ongoing, and health and safety issues are a normal part of those discussions. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): I will interrupt you there because time is against us, and we will run out of time. I will ask the question again: when, as the SRO, did you become aware that there were issues around egress? Who told you and what did they tell you? Ms Smith: I was absolutely aware that there were ongoing discussions about health and safety issues. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): About egress? Ms Smith: On emergency exiting in general. That is obviously an important part of the — The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): When did you become aware of that, who told you and what did they tell you? Ms Smith: What I can say, for example, is in terms of identification through a formal risk register process. For example, a risk would have been registered on the programme board's risk register at a certain stage. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): I will ask you the question again. When did they tell you? Whether it was recorded in the risk register or whatever, when did you, as the senior responsible officer, become aware that there were issues around emergency egress? Who told you and what did they tell you? Ms Smith: I would have been aware from normal day-to-day discussions with the stadium team, the programme director and — The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Was that Noel Molloy or Rory Miskelly? Ms Smith: Well, one preceded the other. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): The question is this: at what point was it raised? Ms Smith: Health and safety would be an ongoing area for discussion. Obviously, these areas would be discussed at regular points. I was aware that there were ongoing discussions and that those discussions had not yet been completed because the design work was still under way. That is what I can tell the Committee. I was aware that various options and alternatives were being looked at and that further design work and modelling was taking place.

12

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): When was that? Ms Smith: That was during the period when the design work was taking place, as it still is. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): I do not want to be difficult around this, but I have to ask the question again and again because I am not getting an answer: when did you first become aware? Was it in 2012, in January or February? What month and what year? Ms Smith: I want to be very clear that in developing the design health and safety issues were part of the discussions. I will take you back to the Casement Park timeline again. The design team would have been working on the design from September 2012, and, as part of that, there would have been ongoing design work taking place right up to the submission of the planning application in July. Planning permission was granted in December, and there would have been further design developments by the design-and-build contractor. So, all through those processes there would have been consideration of design and emergency exiting. That would be an ongoing part of the process. Mr Hilditch: That is still not addressing the problem. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): People were aware of the issues, but it seems that nothing was done about it. At the end of it all, there was no exiting plan. There was a request for one, but it never appeared. The issue was allowed to run, millions of pounds were spent, we ended up with judicial reviews and the current situation, in which a major and important project is being delayed inordinately because of a failure to address those issues. They started planning or designing in September 2012. How soon after that did you become aware, and who told you?

Ms Smith: Chair, I am trying to answer the question as fully as I can. I am telling you that the design work commenced. Pre-ICT design work took place in the early part of 2012. Once the design team was appointed, in September 2012, there would have been further design work. That would have been under way right until — As I explained previously, the design work would have been taken to a certain stage to enable the planning application to be submitted. Once the planning approval was granted in December 2013, the funding agreement had been executed and the design and build contractor had been appointed, further design work would have taken place by the contractor. The JR took place in April. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): I have to say that I still feel that I do not have an answer to my question. You have not told me who told you. Could you tell me the name of the person who told you that? Ms Smith: My normal communication is through the programme director. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Was it Noel Molloy or Rory Miskelly who first raised those issues with you? Ms Smith: It would obviously have been the first programme director. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): So that was Noel Molloy. Ms Smith: Yes, and that was part — The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Right; OK. We have the right person now. He raised the issue. When did he raise it with you? Ms Smith: I do not have a precise date, and the reason for that is that that would have been an ongoing part of the discussions. I want to make it really clear for the Committee that health and safety issues are an ongoing part of the design process. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): We appreciate that, but —

13

Ms Smith: Similarly, emergency exiting design work and arrangements would also be discussed as part of that process. That would be an ongoing process, and there would have been ongoing work by the design team. Clearly, that process would have been ongoing. What I am saying to the Committee is that that design work has not yet been completed. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): I appreciate that. We have now clarified the point that, at some point after September 2012, when the design work really got under way, Noel Molloy raised those issues with you as the SRO. Ms Smith: What he raised with me was that there was ongoing design work, which I would have been — The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): So, he did not spell out the detail of what the — Ms Smith: I was aware that there was work going on with the design team throughout the process and that health and safety was obviously an ongoing part of that work. As part of that work, they would have taken advice from STG and clearly would have liaised with the various teams to take technical advice. It was a process. It is hard to nail it down, Chair. I think that you want one specific date or something, but this is a process. I have to keep underlining the point that the development of a major capital build is a process. It is an iterative process of designing and building a major capital project. Health and safety issues are an integral part of that design process. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Absolutely. Some people would like us to live in a paperless world, but we do not. You go to meetings, and somebody takes a note of it. Are there no records in DCAL about this? Ms Smith: There are ongoing iterations — The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Are there references in those iterations? I presume that those iterations were on paper. Ms Smith: The iterations are the normal cut and thrust of design development. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Somebody must write something down somewhere. Ms Smith: This is no different from the process that took place in other major capital projects. Dr McMahon: Can I add a point? Cynthia referred to the risk registers, and we talked about them. The risk registers clearly record this. The minutes that you requested, Chair, will be coming through, and, clearly, they will reference at different points that health and safety issues were discussed. Those issues are recorded in various minutes. Obviously, you will want to look at that to see the extent to which they are recorded and how they are recorded and so on. However, they are recorded and have been recorded. That is my understanding. Do you agree, Cynthia? Ms Smith: Yes. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): It would be helpful if you would go back and check through all that paperwork to find out at what point that happened. The core issue in people's minds is this: why was nothing done if people knew? Who did know, and when did they know? Ms Smith: I think that you have got a set of those, but if you would like us to go through them again and highlight issues, I would be happy to do that. Clearly, you can also have the risk registers as well when they are recorded. I am happy for the Committee to have them as well. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): I am sure that there will be discussions later about that. I have one final question. With regard to the non-attendance of DCAL at the STG, who took the decision that DCAL would withdraw from the STG, and were you aware of it? Ms Smith: That is one of the areas where we will be getting information. In fact, I do not have information about that. It is one of the facts that have —

14

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Were you aware that it had withdrawn? Ms Smith: It is one of the facts that have to be established as part of the investigation that is under way. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Let me ask you this again: did DCAL withdraw from the STG? Did it stop attending it at some point? Ms Smith: I cannot answer that, Chair, because there is clearly a dispute of the facts. We have different versions. I want to get to the facts. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): That is what the Committee wants to get as well. Ms Smith: Absolutely. The purpose of the investigation is to get the facts of who said what at what point. That is what I am keen to establish. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): We will have to discuss this. There is no point coming along here — thank you for coming — if we cannot get answers to questions. That is a fundamental question. It was raised in the Committee, everyone is aware of it and a statement was made that DCAL stopped attending the STG. I am putting this to the permanent secretary, but I would have thought that, in the Department, people would already be ferreting around to find out who originally attended, when they stopped attending, why they stopped attending, who told them to stop attending, whether they got permission to stop attending, what was the reason given for no longer attending, who made the decision and why and when. Dr McMahon: That is a perfectly reasonable thing to say, and certainly those are answers that I would be very keen to see. However, and this is where we get into the practical issue, if you go beyond whatever papers are there, how then do you go to the next stage and find out those facts by asking people the questions? I am very aware of the fact that, as soon as we get into an independent investigation, which, remember, is going to be reported to DFP, we need to be very careful that I am not ringing up people who made the claims in the first place or ringing up people who have to respond to it, because that might appear as though we are somehow trying to influence the answers. It is about giving you a sense of the practical implications of this. I know that we say that there are issues that are difficult for us to respond to. In a sense, it is almost difficult for the Department to defend itself, because we need to wait to hear what people come forward and say. It is as much not to cut across this inquiry as it is to not cut across the other processes. That is why I have not been in a position to start going beyond whatever papers are there. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Well then, let me just ask a very simple question to the SRO: were you aware that DCAL was no longer represented at the STG? Ms Smith: Again, I think that those are matters that we have to leave to — The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): No, no. I am sorry, but I must press this point. We are not talking about asking somebody else; I am asking you, as the SRO, whether you were aware that DCAL was not represented at the STG. Ms Smith: I was aware that there were ongoing discussions and — The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): That is not the question I asked. I will put the question again. I am, I hope, being respectful in the way I ask it, and I ask that respect is shown to the Committee in that answers are actually given. Were you aware that the Department was not represented on the STG? Ms Smith: I was not aware that engagement had stopped with the STG, and I was not specific — The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Let me be precise. The term "engagement had stopped" is vague. Were you aware that DCAL representatives were no longer attending the STG? Ms Smith: No, but —

15

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): That is OK; the answer is no. That is fine; that is grand. Ms Smith: Can I just say this, because I want to be absolutely clear to the Committee? My understanding is clearly that engagement continued. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): There was no longer attendance. Thank you. Ms Smith: Let me be clear: engagement did continue. Mr Dunne: Thanks, Cynthia and Denis, for coming in again. We appreciate that it is not easy sitting there. You mentioned a number of issues. You talked about the establishment of an ICT in October 2012. What is an ICT? Ms Smith: It is an integrated consultants team. It is one of the technical terms. You and I would know it as a design team. Mr Dunne: OK. Is there an argument that the STG should have been included at that stage? I understand that the whole project is run under the standards and requirements of CPD. Is that correct? Ms Smith: Yes. It is structured, organised and managed under 'Managing Successful Programmes'. Individual projects also use elements of the PRINCE methodology, which is another project management tool. Organisational, structural and governance arrangements would be in accordance with that best practice guidance. Mr Dunne: Are those standards managed by CPD? Ms Smith: Yes, that is a recognised process and tool for managing major programmes, and it is recommended and acknowledged by the Central Procurement Directorate in the Department of Finance and Personnel. Mr Dunne: Is there not then an argument that the STG should have been involved right at the start, when you talked about the integrated team? That is something that I have brought up before. To me, integrated involves everyone. Departments have looked at this over the years. I am sure you are very much aware of involving all the stakeholders right at the very start, whether they are responsible for maintaining the building, health and safety or whatever. All those are brought in at the very start of a project, along with the customer or customers, if you like, and everyone gets involved. Sitting here as a layperson, I would have expected that safety would have been paramount. You have made that very clear all along. It is a major factor, as are quality, cost and all those other factors that make up a project. Surely safety should have been in there at the start. Is it a major failure that they were not part of the integrated project team? Ms Smith: The integrated project team is the design team that is appointed to take forward the design of the project. The safety technical group was set up by DCAL, so it would have liaised between the safety technical group, the individual project boards through their steering groups, and with the Department through the team in the Department. Clearly, I will be guided in this by the Major Projects Authority's independent project assessment, but I would have thought that there would be a need for protocols. They would assist in stating the terms of the engagement between and across the safety technical group and the various structures. Mr Dunne: We have all listened to the evidence to date, and there seems to have been a clear lack of authority over and involvement in the whole project by the safety technical group. The steering group chairman was here, and he put a genuine case. His frustration, the lack of communication with him and the lack of action on the points raised were very clear.We have come to a conclusion that the STG was not properly involved in this project right from the start. Would you tend to agree with that? Ms Smith: The safety technical group was set up, as I said, by the Department as a sort of multi-agency group that was there to provide the Department with specialist advice. What I will say is that, and it is very clear —

16

Mr Dunne: Given that it was not fully engaged, is there now a risk that the points that it raised were not adhered to because it was not in the centre of the process? Ms Smith: Again, that is one of the issues that will be teased out more fully in both the investigation and the review. I am happy to be guided by the outcomes of those if they come up with recommendations. Mr Dunne: So, it could clearly be a risk. There are other issues. You said that the approvals were taken to the design stage: was the documentation for the design signed off? Can you clarify that point?

Ms Smith: No, I said that there are key milestones in any major programme, and the first of those is the agreement to set off the process for the design work. That design work has been taken to a certain stage. The design-and-build contractor has then been appointed, and I said that the contractor will not be able to proceed to building the contract until all the processes have been completed. That includes the pre-construction processes, meaning the completion of all the design processes, which enables it to meet the statutory requirements and get all the various approvals that it will require. That construction cannot happen until those have finally been "signed off", as you put it. That has not happened yet. Mr Dunne: It has not happened, yet the stadium had full planning permission. Is that right? Ms Smith: Yes, and that is not unusual, because the design would have been taken to a certain stage. That is clearly set out in a work schedule. Planning permission would then be sought, and, once it is granted, the design-and-build contractor is appointed. He then completes that design work before he is given the approval to go ahead with construction. That final stage has not yet taken place, so the designs have not been signed off. Mr Dunne: Could the planning approval have been subject to a lot of amendments, considering that the design was not complete? I find that strange and rather unacceptable, to be honest. Ms Smith: I reiterate that this was the same process followed as has been followed in the other two projects. Mr Dunne: Does that mean that it is right? Ms Smith: It is accepted under good management. Mr Dunne: That does not mean that it is right. Ms Smith: Clearly, I am guided by technical advice. Mr Dunne: Yes, we appreciate that. Ms Smith: Sorry, just to be clear, we are running and operating this project in accordance with best practice in managing major projects of this nature. At a certain point in the design process, you get to the stage where the design is at a sufficiently advanced stage that it can then be submitted for planning approval. Just to be clear, the area that we are looking at here is emergency exiting. This is one very important part of the design, but it is one part. The design has got to a certain stage that enables it to go forward under a work schedule to seek planning approval. Further design work, particularly on emergency exiting, is being undertaken. Mr Dunne: Going back to my other point, could it well have been subject to further approvals by planning, if all these issues with the design have not yet been finalised, as you said? Ms Smith: Further approvals would be required as part of the further design process. Building would not take place until all those various approvals and authorisations had been given. This is the normal process in a major construction project. What I will be asking, and what I have asked, is that the Major Projects Authority provide independent advice and assurance on these matters.

17

Mr Dunne: Right. As the senior responsible officer for the project, Cynthia, are you satisfied that, to date, all documentation is compliant with the statutory requirements? Are you satisfied that all documentation that has come through you, as the senior civil servant responsible for the project, is compliant with the required standards for health and safety, quality, cost, etc, which are all the requirements for a major project? Are you satisfied that, to date, all the documentation is compliant? Last week, you were unable to answer that, but today, maybe you have reviewed it and thought about it. Ms Smith: It is a very definitive statement to make that, if you looked over every piece of paper that has been produced by a project — Mr Dunne: No. You know, and you are trying to avoid the question. I am not asking you to do all that, but you have responsible officers who do that and account to you. It is your job as the senior responsible officer to give us, as elected representatives of government, assurances that all the documentation on Casement Park that was presented to you was compliant and met the requirements of all the statutory bodies and the standards to date. Can you give us that assurance? Yes or no? Ms Smith: I want to answer the question fully and completely, as you would expect me to. I will just explain this to you. You asked me which key approvals come to me. The ones that come to me, as senior reporting officer for the programme, are key milestones. Those are very clearly set out in accordance with established practice. I will use this as an example, and I am doing so in a helpful way to assist the Committee in understanding the process, but I am responsible for recommending approval of the full business case. Your question focuses on how I am seeking assurance and what documentation — Mr Dunne: No. Can you give us the assurance today that all the documentation on Casement Park that came before you is compliant? Can you give us that assurance? Yes or no? Ms Smith: I am really trying to be helpful here. Mr Dunne: With all due respect, this is a yes or no question, Chair. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Obviously, if you are not getting an answer — Mr Dunne: Can you give us that assurance? Ms Smith: Let me say that I operate in good faith on the basis of the assurances that come to me. Mr Dunne: I understand that. Ms Smith: I am responsible for recommending the approval of, or recommending to the accounting officer that they approve, the key milestones to enable, for example, the release of money for the appointment of the design team and for the design-and-build contractor to be appointed. That would have been based on a whole series of approvals, funding agreements, recommendations, assurance statements, casework committees, assurances from boards, input from economists etc. I have got sufficient — Mr Dunne: And the STG, I take it. Ms Smith: I keep repeating that the design work has not been signed off. That is still under way. Mr Dunne: I am not satisfied, Chairman, but thank you very much. Ms McCorley: Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. Thank you very much for your presentation. I think that you have been extremely patient in the answers that you have given today. I just want to clarify some points, because I maybe have been hearing things differently from other people in the room. Maybe I am taking a very simplistic view of things, but let me just say what I think about it. This is about the exiting arrangements, and concerns were raised that they were going to put people in danger. I got the impression that they were about to be signed off. I have heard you today, and, if I can just clarify, this is still part of a process. Those issues of concern are still a matter for discussion. Can you confirm that that is where it is?

18

Ms Smith: Yes. Ms McCorley: Can I ask this: will the point that it will move on be when it gets approval for the construction stage and gets the go-ahead? If it came to that point and there were any issues of concern about exiting arrangements, danger and a possible scenario where a disaster like Hillsborough or some other disaster could in any case — I mean in any case — happen, would that halt the process? Ms Smith: It would. I want to say very clearly that approval to build a stadium will not be given until all the statutory requirements have been met. That is in the funding agreement and the contract, which requires, for example, statutory licensing and other approvals to be received and an advisory body to sign off before you can move to the next stage. That would be the release of the construction notice. That would then enable the build to take place. I just wanted to say that very clearly. On the second point, because there is a separate safety regime, that type of event or disaster would not occur, because the stadium would not get a certificate to enable that capacity to be used.

Ms McCorley: I actually hear that clearly. That satisfies me. We were getting into all sorts of detail today, and I do not think that it is possible at this stage for you to be able to give answers on that. I am maybe hearing it differently. To be completely clear, as people know, it is in my constituency, and I have huge concerns about safety. So, I want to be very satisfied. You said that the project has been carried out in accordance with 'Managing Successful Programmes'. Are you satisfied that everything that it is required to be in accordance with that is being followed, or is there any part of the process that you feel is stepping outside it? Ms Smith: No information has been provided to me that suggests that we are outwith the normal processes and structures that are in place. I will say, as I said previously, that design work on emergency exiting is under way and that that work has not yet been completed or signed off. Ms McCorley: You are getting a lot of questions today, and everybody is entitled to put their questions. That is fair enough. There were questions about when this concern was raised. What would need to be the case for a concern to be lifted out of the normal process and raised as a particular concern? I view all these as concerns that are part of the process, and that is why you have a process to address concerns. What would need to be the case for something to be lifted out and brought to your attention? Ms Smith: The stadium sponsor board is an opportunity for the key bodies that are involved in the programme. For example, at the programme sponsor board, you would have representatives of the GAA, the IFA and Ulster Rugby and the SROs for each. Do not forget that each of the projects has a senior responsible officer who is accountable and responsible for those individual projects. Clearly, there would have been an opportunity to escalate particular concerns at any of the over 20 meetings of the sponsor board that have taken place. It was raised as an ongoing issue that was being addressed. You will find that recorded in, for example, my reports, where I reported that issues on emergency exiting were still being addressed. There was an opportunity, if others had information, to escalate it. That did not happen. Ms McCorley: OK, but the bottom line is that this will not proceed if there are any safety concerns that will endanger the public. Ms Smith: It will require all approvals to be met before the construction takes place and before I would recommend it for funding to Denis, as the accounting officer. I would not recommend it to the accounting officer unless I was satisfied that those processes and approvals had been met. Mr B McCrea: Why did the Department set up the STG? Ms Smith: Hopefully, I will explain this. The STG was set up as a multi-agency group to advise the Department and to give it specialist advice regarding health — Mr B McCrea: Just to be clear, why did the Department think it necessary to set up an STG?

19

Ms Smith: It was set up to provide additional specialist health and safety advice regarding aspects of the design and construction, up to the commencement of the facilities at Casement, Windsor and Kingspan — the three stadia. Mr B McCrea: How did the Department intend to incorporate the advice from this STG into its thinking? Ms Smith: Maybe I am repeating myself. The safety technical group includes membership from Sport NI, the overseeing body, and from each of the — Mr B McCrea: I am aware of the membership. The question I asked is this: how does the Department intend to be informed by the deliberations of the STG? Ms Smith: It would feed through to the Department through the programme director. There would also be liaison directly — Mr B McCrea: How would this happen? Ms Smith: There would also be liaison directly with the governing bodies. There would be separate STG meetings for each of the individual projects so that, for example for Casement Park, you would have an STG meeting overseeing — Mr B McCrea: Did the Department decide to put its own representative on the STG? Ms Smith: That would have been a means of liaison and engagement with the — Mr B McCrea: Did the Department appoint its own representative to the STG? Ms Smith: There was a departmental representative present at the STG. Mr B McCrea: Do you know who that person was? Ms Smith: It would normally have been the programme architect. That person would normally be the representation from DCAL. Mr B McCrea: So, would it have been a surprise to you that the departmental representative stopped going? Ms Smith: I think that this refers to the Chair's earlier question, and I answered that by saying that my understanding is that engagement continues as the design work continues. It is an ongoing process, and I think I explained that liaison and engagement. I will come back to an earlier point, and I hope you do not mind me repeating it to you: it comes down to a dispute of facts. Clearly, I would like the investigation to establish those facts and to come to a conclusion on them. Mr B McCrea: When was the concern about the emergency exit plan first identified as a potential issue? Ms Smith: I think that that question was asked of me earlier. Mr B McCrea: Do you mind if I ask you the question? I would like a specific date. Ms Smith: I do not have a specific date, because my understanding is that this is an ongoing development process, as health and safety issues, and in particular emergency exiting, would be discussed as part of the ongoing design development process. Certainly, we can review the minutes to see whether a formal date that says that — Mr B McCrea: Would it have been given in the outline business case in 2010, on pages 51 and 52? Ms Smith: This was previously recognised, I think. Clearly, health and safety, as well as emergency exiting, was identified as an issue that would have to be addressed. It should be no surprise to

20

anybody involved in a major capital project of this nature that emergency exiting was obviously an issue that would have to be addressed. From my memory of the wording of that, that it what was said. So, it should not be a surprise. I suggest that that was raised as an issue that needed to be addressed. Mr B McCrea: OK, so that was raised. Do you have a chronological list of the times when Sport NI raised the emergency exiting issues with the Department? Ms Smith: My response to the previous question is that we have had over 20 meetings of the stadia programme board, and it is fair to say — I would need to check the records — that SNI has been at the vast majority, if not all, of them. It has been at all of those meetings, and there was an opportunity at any of them to raise the issue of — Mr B McCrea: Do you have a chronological list of the times when Sport NI raised the matter of the emergency exiting scheme with the Department? Ms Smith: I do not have before me a chronological list. Mr B McCrea: Could you produce such a list? Ms Smith: I could go through the minutes of the meetings. I think that you have them, but, to be helpful and to cooperate with the Committee, we could go through the minutes of meetings at which that issue might have been raised. I would be happy to do that. Mr B McCrea: I accept that. I would like to see that list. An email from carlsouthern@dcalni.gov.uk on 9 October 2013 at 9.43 says:

"If you require additional STG input at the workshop, please feel free to invite representation. However, we would stress that the aim is to close out this activity as a matter of considerable urgency given the imminent return of the tenders at the end of the month."

Among the key areas that he identifies that he wishes to close out are the exiting strategy, both internal and external; uncovered seating; and the final agreement of exit widths. It states that these are:

"Key areas to reach a consensus position (those most contentious from the STG perspective, as discussed to date".

There is a trail of emails from the Department in October 2013. On the issue of not having finalised the design, this email, unless I am mistaken, says that you wish to "close out" at the end of the month. What does that mean? Ms Smith: I really am not in a position to comment on that email. That is a matter that will, no doubt, be raised in either the investigation or the independent inquiry. I am not in a position to comment on that. Mr B McCrea: The email is from a person who is in the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. In fact, it is from the programme architect. You said to me earlier that the person who you would have thought might have been on the STG was the architect. Were you aware of the information that the programme architect was trying to close out the emergency exiting strategy in October 2013? Ms Smith: I will have to say again, Chair, that that is a matter that will be considered in the independent investigation and inquiry. Mr B McCrea: I will ask you the question in the same way as the Chair asked it. This is not for the Department: it is a direct question to you, as the senior responsible officer. Were you aware that the departmental architect said in October 2013 that he wanted to close out these issues as a matter of considerable urgency given the imminent return of tenders? Were you personally aware of that information?

21

Ms Smith: I want to be as helpful, open and cooperative as possible, but I do not understand what the term "close out" means. This is where it is really important that people are given the opportunity to explain. I might comment, but the individual concerned may have a different interpretation. I really do not want to get into speculation about what was meant, so this is really a matter that — Dr McMahon: As Cynthia said, you would need to ask the person who wrote the email about the terminology. It sounds to me as though "close out" is being presented as "ignore" or "get rid of". "Close out" is a common turn. I have heard people in construction circles talking about "closing out" issues, as in dealing with issues and bringing them to completion, so, picking that up with no baggage, I would not necessarily read "close out" as meaning "ignore".It is important that we get that clear. The question "Were you aware that somebody had said that they wanted to ignore some issues?" is different from "Were you aware that somebody had written an email saying that — Mr B McCrea: Let me say this in a way that you understand. We had a discussion before when you did not provide information to the Committee in a timely fashion. I believe that you are trying to confuse the issue. We have here a paper trail that the Department should have been aware of. It is a trail of departmental emails from departmental representatives. I am asking you direct questions about what you know. What you came to the Committee to discuss is not a surprise to you. You have been briefed. You know what it is about, and we are not getting answers. I am just putting it on the record that, when you are asked a direct question, it is because we want a direct answer. Let me ask you one last direct question, please. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Before you ask the question, I will say that the paper to which Mr McCrea refers was given to us by Mr Scott at a previous meeting, along with a couple of hundred pages of other papers. As I understand it, those were then provided to the Department. The Department has had ample opportunity to read and assess them. I just make the point that it will not be a surprise today that Mr Southern put that into a departmental email. Mr B McCrea: Having made my point that we expect you to be on top of these things and expect answers, I ask you this: was the Department, at any time, aware of a plan by the GAA to purchase houses to alleviate the emergency exit scheme? Ms Smith: I was aware that there were ongoing discussions on emergency exiting, that a number of options and alternatives were being explored and that those discussions were ongoing. Indeed, they are still ongoing as the design work is under way. Mr B McCrea: I will ask this question specifically: were you aware of a plan to purchase housing to alleviate the emergency exiting situation? Ms Smith: I was aware that a number of options were being discussed. The technical details would not be for me to consider. I understood that a number of options were being explored. That is part of the ongoing discussions that were taking place. Mr B McCrea: So there were a number of options. Was one of the options a plan to purchase housing to enhance the emergency exiting scheme? Ms Smith: I am not familiar with the details of the technical discussions that were taking place. Mr B McCrea: So nobody in the Department is aware of any plan to purchase housing. Ms Smith: I am not saying that. I am saying that I personally was not aware. I rely on technical advisers to undertake those consultations, debates and discussions as appropriate in order to seek agreement and take the process forward. I am not involved in detailed design work looking at emergency exiting. Mr B McCrea: Are you aware of any minutes from Sport NI in which it declared its concern about the emergency exiting scheme and safety arrangements? Ms Smith: You brought those to the Committee's attention when we were here last week. If I recall correctly, you had obtained from the website the minutes of one of the Sport NI committee board

22

meetings. I think that you read to me from the minutes of that board meeting a discussion that had taken place in 2012. Mr B McCrea: So you are aware of those minutes. Ms Smith: You brought them to my attention last week. Mr B McCrea: Are the minutes that I brought to your attention — actually, I think that it might have been Mr Humphrey, but maybe I did, too — correct? Ms Smith: If it would be helpful, I will explain this so that people can understand which minutes you are referring to. Your reference is to the minutes of a Sport NI board meeting on 23 June. Those minutes were not brought to my attention. I did not attend the board meeting, so I cannot comment on the board discussion. Mr B McCrea: Are you surprised that Sport NI, in its minutes, discusses how, on its risk registers, it has reputational risk regarding the emergency exiting scheme? Ms Smith: I understand that it was on the risk register for a while and was subsequently taken off its risk register as an ongoing issue that was being discussed. Mr B McCrea: I will conclude with a statement. I believe that there has been flagrant disregard for safety technical group information that has been presented repeatedly and that the Department has not acted responsibly in dealing with these issues. I would like to ask you this question, given that you are the senior responsible officer: do you think that it is right that you should be concerned about the single most important issue in whether this project goes ahead? Ms Smith: For the record, I do not accept your statement that the Department ignored the advice of the safety technical group. I am sorry; what was the second part of the question? Mr B McCrea: The second point is that, given that the nub of this project now comes down to an emergency exit scheme that is mentioned repeatedly throughout the documentation, it is not easy to get a new stadium on an old site, particularly a constrained site, and that the emergency exiting scheme would have been important. Do you, as the senior responsible officer, not think that you should have been further across the subject than you appear to be? Ms Smith: I do not accept that I am not across the subject. If Sport NI had issues, I would not expect to be advised of them or to receive copies of minutes of board meetings. I would expect that, if there were significant concerns, they would be raised formally. There were plenty of occasions for that, as I have indicated. There were, for example, over 20 meetings of the programme sponsor board, most of which I believe and understand were attended by Sport NI. If it had any concerns and wished to escalate the issue of emergency exiting, it could have done so in that very appropriate forum. Mr B McCrea: If any such information had come to you, would you, in escalating that information, have written to the permanent secretary to inform him about concerns that had been raised with you? Ms Smith: The permanent secretary is also very involved in this whole process and, indeed, normally attends meetings of the programme board. He is very familiar with issues raised in that forum and through his attendance at meetings of the programme sponsor board. Mr B McCrea: If information had been brought to your attention — we are talking here about process and escalation — would you have escalated that to the permanent secretary in writing? Ms Smith: If there was an issue that was going to impact clearly on the delivery of the programme, I would have done so in accordance with the normal escalation processes. In notes to the programme board, which are on record, I recorded that emergency exiting was an issue that was still under development. That was made clear in a number of reports to the programme board. Mr B McCrea: Did you, at any time, write, email or communicate formally with the permanent secretary about concerns that had been brought to you about emergency exiting schemes?

23

Ms Smith: My understanding was that emergency exiting was part of an ongoing discussion. I have already explained that, in a capital programme of this nature, development is a process. There were ongoing discussions on emergency exiting. Clearly, if — Mr B McCrea: Did you, at any time, write to the permanent secretary explaining the situation? I accept that there were ongoing discussions. I want to know whether there was anything in writing. My question is this: did you, at any time, email or write a letter to the permanent secretary informing him of concerns that had been brought to your attention about the emergency exiting scheme? Ms Smith: I have not written, other than in my reports to the programme board in which I give an update report on the programme and draw attention to issues. One issue that I drew attention to, and that I have been drawing attention to in ongoing discussions, is emergency exiting. It is clearly also recorded on the risk register as an issue for the programme. Those discussions have not been completed. Mr B McCrea: I will finish because we have gone on for long enough. I just want this on the record, and I want to give you the opportunity to say yes or no: are you telling me, on the record, that at no time were you approached by Sport NI about its concern about the emergency exiting scheme for Casement Park and that you did not write to the permanent secretary about those issues? Ms Smith: I would like to be very clear that there were ongoing discussions. Clearly, there were iterations, and people were having discussions and debates. They were trying to find solutions to these issues. There were ongoing discussions, at a range of levels, providing advice. Those discussions have not been completed because the design work has not been completed. The build will not — Mr B McCrea: I will note that you have not answered this question and finish on this point because it is clear that I am not going to get an answer. However, I will ask the Chair to write to you specifically about those issues. Mr Humphrey: Good morning, and thank you very much for your evidence. Cynthia, your presentation, as part of your evidence this morning, sets out best practice in the Department and the processes, practices and procedures in DCAL and its arm's-length bodies. Why, then, is it necessary, and I quote, for you to be putting "appropriate governance" in place for those procedures, practices and processes that are in place?

Ms Smith: As I have been describing throughout my evidence this morning, in a major programme such as this, under the methodology that we are using to run this programme, 'Managing Successful Programmes', a series of governance arrangements is put in place in order to manage a major capital programme. I have described those arrangements. They follow the guidance on best practice for managing major capital programmes. Those are the structures, arrangements, governance and methods for ensuring that, at key milestones, appropriate documentation, assurances and documentary evidence are obtained and are available to support all of those decisions. Mr Humphrey: You also said that the process is no different from other major capital projects. It is not, except that there are now three major investigations into this process. That, I think, sets it aside from all the others that you may have had in mind. You also said that the GAA is moving towards a consultation process on the stadium. In your evidence, you said that the design team had started its work before and then formally started its work in, I think, in September 2012. There was an application in July 2013 and approval in December 2013. Is that correct?

Ms Smith: Yes, the consultant, Mott MacDonald, was appointed in September 2012. The planning application was submitted in July 2013, and approval was granted in December 2013. Mr Humphrey: Then we moved to a judicial review. You also said that the processes are ongoing and that a revised business case is being drawn up. Ms Smith: No. I said that, in circumstances that are quite clearly laid out in the approvals processes — if, for example, costs escalate or there is some other significant change to the basis on which the

24

provisional and final business cases were drawn up — there would be a need to revisit it. I did not say that we were doing it. That is the normal process when there are significant divergences. Sometimes, for example, quite a while has elapsed since approval of the final business case, as I am sure that you will appreciate, so it is always prudent to make sure that the parameters within which the business case was approved are still applicable. Mr Humphrey: I make that point in the context of you having said that the GAA is moving to a new consultation process. That indicates a change, as I see it. You also mentioned that the two processes in any development such as this are design and build, and we have not completed the design process. Nearly £7 million of taxpayers' money has been spent, and we have not concluded the design process. I presume, and feel that I should point out, that £7 million includes the cost to the taxpayer of the judicial review. Does it? Ms Smith: May I just provide a figure for expenditure to date? In common with all major capital projects, there are costs associated with developing the project: for example, establishing the appropriate structures, such as we have been discussing this morning; the appointment of the design teams; and the appointment of the business case consultants. They have been incurred to date on the Casement Park project. As of the end of March, the total spend on the project was approximately £5·6 million. That is the precise figure. Mr Humphrey: Does that include the judicial review? Ms Smith: I will describe the costs. They would have included things like design team costs, legal costs, statutory fees and all of the various processes that would have been included in those previous — Mr Humphrey: Yes, but we are not out of the starting blocks. Ms Smith: My technical advice — I rely on technical advice — is that the cost is £62·5 million plus the £15 million that the GAA is contributing. Anticipating your question, I checked this out with my technical advisers, who advised me that, in a major capital project, and given the scale and nature of this one, it is not unusual in the pre-construction stage to have incurred that scale and proportion of costs to date. That is my technical advice. Mr Humphrey: What has the taxpayer got in real terms for the amount that you have just mentioned? As I said earlier, you have talked about how the design is not complete. We have had a judicial review, and the GAA is moving to a new consultation process. What have you got for the £5 million-odd? Ms Smith: As I said, to deliver a major capital programme — this is a major capital programme that will produce significant benefits to the area in line with the original business case — you need to start design work in order to achieve the build. It is not unusual in this type of capital project to have spent that proportion of money on the pre-construction costs. That is not out of keeping. I will rely on my technical advisers to keep me right, and they have advised that it would not be out of kilter with normal practice in a major capital project. (The Deputy Chairperson [Mr Dunne] in the Chair)

Mr Humphrey: The work started before September 2012 and officially started — if that is how to put it — in September 2012, and we now sit in the mouth of June 2015. We are where we are with the project, but, if it was the private sector, heads would roll, I have to say. DCAL set up the safety technical group. I note that you do not agree with this point, but I will ask the question anyway. It seems to me that when I asked a question last week, referring to the minutes on 23 June 2014 and the advice given to the Sport NI board by Mr Scott, the chair of the safety technical group, there was a range of issues that, according to your answers last week, would ultimately have been conveyed to Mr Miskelly. Did Mr Miskelly advise you of the minutes?

Ms Smith: I would not expect Mr Miskelly to read the minutes of Sport NI board meetings. Mr Humphrey: When the Minister was here with the two of you last week and I asked that question, the initial answer was Mr Devitt. Eventually, it came out that Mr Miskelly is the responsible person. I

25

would have thought, in the situation in which we find ourselves, that Mr Miskelly should be reading minutes such as these because the safety technical group is there to provide information, the nature of which is the whole basis of this and the other investigations. Perhaps he should have been reading those minutes. Not only should he have been reading them, Ms Smith, he should have been briefing you and your colleague the permanent secretary about them. (The Chairperson [Mr McCausland] in the Chair)

Ms Smith: I will say again that the method of communicating issues to the Department should not be to rely on the Department reading the minutes of board meetings. I would expect that, if an issue was of significant purport, it would have been raised in another way. I have already suggested, in response to an earlier question, that an appropriate opportunity was available — plenty of opportunities were available — at meetings of the programme sponsor board. We are talking now about a different process, our sponsorship of ALBs and the mechanisms that we use to assure ourselves of the governance and finance issues etc in an arm's-length body. We have mechanisms whereby, for example, we have regular accountability meetings between the senior sponsor in the Department and the arm's-length body. That happens under our governance provisions with all our arm's-length bodies. That was the point that I wanted to make. Mr Humphrey: I will just go back a week to the answer when I asked the question. You now say that you do not expect Mr Miskelly to read Sport NI minutes. The answer that you gave, sir, as permanent secretary of the Department was:

"If significant issues arise in the minutes, there are two issues. First, if the issues identified mean that they go to the sponsorship team, they escalate them to senior management."

I suggest that the evidence that Mr Scott gave to the Sport NI board, as chair of the safety technical committee, was crucial. It is clear from the answer that you have now given, Cynthia, that it was not escalated. Which is it? Is it — Dr McMahon: I think — Mr Humphrey: Just hold on a moment. Dr McMahon: Sorry. Mr Humphrey: Is it what we have just heard from Cynthia Smith — she does not expect him to read them — or is it what you said last week? Dr McMahon: A number of issues are being confused in all of that. The first is that there is a normal process of sponsorship of NDPBs whereby minutes of the board meetings are sent to the sponsorship team. That is not the stadia team; it is a sponsorship team that is responsible for ensuring that the issues that arise in the non-departmental public bodies or the relevant arm's-length bodies are addressed right across the board, not just one issue. That is one mechanism. If that sponsorship team identifies something in the board that they feel is not being dealt with properly, whatever that issue is, it is right that they escalate it through the normal processes in the Department. There is a separate issue here, which — Mr Humphrey: May I just stop you there, if you do not mind? Was it escalated? Dr McMahon: No, it was not. Not that I am aware of. Sorry — to be fair, I am answering only about my time. Mr Humphrey: To be fair, for the record, Ms Smith nodded her head in agreement with what you said. It was not escalated to her level either. Dr McMahon: To be fair, looking at those minutes — if they are the minutes we are referring to — I am interested to see what exactly implies that this was not being looked at. Mr Humphrey: I anticipated the answers that I got, so I will move on.

26

At our meeting on 21 May, I asked the following question:

"Does the chief executive of Sport NI hold regular accountability meetings with senior officials in DCAL? If so, who are those officials?"

Cynthia replied:

"the normal practice for Sport NI, as with any arm's-length body, is to hold regular accountability meetings and sign biannual assurance statements".

Let me ask you this: over and above the advice that Mr Scott gave to the Sport NI board, which was not escalated to either of your levels — one assumes that it was ignored, contrary to the evidence that we heard earlier — did the leadership of Sport NI, in their accountability meetings with senior civil servants — that is, either of you or Mr McMahon's predecessor — raise these issues about escalation? Dr McMahon: Not with me. I cannot speak for my predecessor. Ms Smith: All I can say is that, through the accountability meetings, I am not aware of that. As you say, those involve the senior sponsor in the Department and normally take place with the chief executive of Sport NI and directors. I will give you a flavour: the issues that are normally discussed at those accountability meetings include performance against business plan targets and financial matters. I am not aware that the stadium programme featured in those discussions. Mr Humphrey: We have now established that Mr Miskelly, the person whom you say is responsible, did not escalate. From the minutes of the board meeting, which you do not believe he should be reading at that level, it was not raised directly by the senior officials, the chief executive or whoever in Sport NI. Having listened to what you said earlier, Cynthia, very carefully and taken note of it, I have to conclude that the advice of the safety technical group and Mr Scott, which was articulated at the Sport NI board, and the failure, according to your evidence today, of the CEO or other senior officials in Sport NI to articulate that at that level, was not taken up by or conveyed to your Department by Sport NI. That is what I have to conclude. Advice was either ignored or not passed on. The more evidence we hear, the more I wonder, having listened to what has been said over the last two weeks, including the evidence from the Minister, who is the political lead, and from both of you as the Civil Service leads in the Department, if we had not had the whistle-blowing and the evidence from Mr Scott, exactly where this whole process and this project would be, particularly in respect of the health and safety issue of emergency exiting. I am increasingly concerned by what I am reading and failing to hear answered at this Committee.

Ms Smith: Just to assure the Committee and to repeat the point, there is a separate safety certification process that would require a safety certificate before this stadium could be — The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Absolutely, but, as we said, we could end up building a 38,000-capacity stadium when only 20,000 people are allowed into it. That would have been a scandal, but, the way things were going, it could have happened. Mrs McKevitt: A screen is flashing up in front of me saying that the battery is very low, and I know how the machine is feeling. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): If you want to stop — Mrs McKevitt: Thank you very much for coming this morning. You have been well and truly put through the mill by the questions. I will try not to repeat them. I will explain where I am in my understanding of the process so far and what you have been trying to explain. I will use the remit of the Committee's inquiry, which I will read out:

"to ascertain whether appropriate consideration was given to plans for emergency exiting during the design process for the redeveloped Casement Park stadium."

27

There are two key stages. We heard about the design, and we heard about the build. We heard about the design team. One of the main aspects — emergency exiting — is still under discussion. We also heard that there has been no approval to build to date and that the construction notice has not been released. We heard questions about the safety technical group and communications between the group and the Department and individuals in the Department and so on. At the beginning of the meeting, Mr Ó hOisín raised the issue of duplication in the investigations. Do you see this Committee's inquiry as a hindrance of any kind to the independent inquiry and to the Sport NI inquiry? Ms Smith: As I explained, I think that it is not appropriate to discuss certain issues because an ongoing, live independent investigation is taking place that is totally separate from the Department. It is being scoped initially by the heads of audit in DCAL and DE. They will report independently to the Department of Finance and Personnel. They will decide independently from us how to take that matter forward, and it is very important to be clear that that is being done under procedures that are aligned to whistle-blowing procedures. It is very important that people are allowed to give evidence to establish the facts and that we do not cut across, prejudice or pre-empt anything that might be subject to that investigation. It is really important that those processes are allowed to take place and that we do not pre-empt or prejudice the outcomes or in any way. Let us be clear: this is to safeguard the interests of those who raise those concerns, and I put it on record that I very much welcome individuals coming forward and raising concerns in the way that Mr Scott felt that he had to do. People should feel free to raise those concerns. Equally, people need to be assured that they are able to do so in a way that not only supports them but supports and protects them and other people who might be involved in any investigations that are taking place. It is really important that that is well understood. Mrs McKevitt: Work on the emergency exit strategy has not yet been completed. We spoke about the statutory bodies and how they sign off on different things like building control regulations for planning and from outline to full planning permission, the changes that take place, the extra drawings from architects that have to be fitted in and all of that. Is it only the statutory body sign-off on emergency exiting that is outstanding, or are there others? Ms Smith: In a normal building contract, there will be a whole range of approvals and processes that need to be complied with, and, before any construction notice is released, we will go through each of those to ensure that they have all been complied with and met. In this contract, we have gone further. We have not just said that statutory approvals and licensing requirements have to be met, but we have included advisory body sign-off. Clearly, advisory body sign-off includes the safety technical group. Approval to release the construction notice will not take place until the STG is content. Mrs McKevitt: I think that I asked Mr Scott this question when he was here, but I will repeat it because I am not sure what the answer was. Do the minutes of the STG go to the board and get passed, or are they just taken as read? Ms Smith: That is one of the issues. Again, I do not want to pre-empt the conclusions of any of the various processes that are under way, but there have clearly been communication issues throughout the process. It would be really helpful in moving forward if clear protocols were established and normal processes were in place to ensure that meetings take place efficiently and effectively, including mechanisms for clearing minutes and for agendas — the normal things that you would expect. In response to that, there have been discussions with Sport NI since December looking at how we could make that more effective. We proposed that, if the Department provides the administrative support, it would facilitate that process and make it work more effectively. Again, and not to prejudice the outcome of any investigations or inquiries, but it would be helpful if there were clear protocols for the group's engagement with the various stakeholders. That would be really helpful and would add clarity. Mrs McKevitt: Three STGs were set up for the stadium projects. Ms Smith: Yes. The way — Mrs McKevitt: Was there any difference in the handling of the group for the Kingspan Stadium and the group for Casement? Ms Smith: There is one STG, but the membership varies. The core membership is the same for each of the three projects, but some individuals are different. A different person might represent the emergency services, depending on how they are structured and organised. It might be a different

28

person for Kingspan at Ravenhill than it is for Casement in west Belfast. The core membership remains the same. There was one for each of the three projects. We would like the project assessment review to look at those processes so that somebody can independently verify whether appropriate stages were reached when coming to certain decisions and whether there was similar treatment across the three projects. That is an important point to establish. Mrs McKevitt: We have established that one reason why an approval to build has not been rubber-stamped is because there are issues with the emergency exit scheme. As far as I am aware — I have listened to a couple of presentations — there is a process for the Belfast City Council safety certificate that coincides with the planning application, from discussions with the design team right through to before approval to build, so that they come to some form of agreement, even a verbal agreement, to say, "Yes, this will be acceptable". That is how guidance is given. Ms Smith: It might be helpful for the Committee to understand that, as you rightly say, there is a separate statutory process for certification. A stadium cannot be used unless it has a safety certificate. That is normally given quite close to the event, so it is after construction — Mrs McKevitt: That is the point that I was going to make. We know about the importance of a safety certificate; it has been raised here a few times. It is given to a stadium maybe only a week or two before it opens. How can that happen? Is it because guarantees and guidance are given right through the process? Ms Smith: There are two key parts about issuing a safety certificate. One, obviously, is whether the design is capable — Mrs McKevitt: I cannot hear you. Sorry. Ms Smith: Is the design capable of enabling the health and safety requirements to be met? Another important aspect of issuing the district council safety certificate under the separate statutory process is whether the event management plan is in place. That plan is drawn up and will be used as part of the assurance in issuing a safety certificate. That is done just prior to the stadium being used. In the case of the Kingspan Stadium, for example, I recall that the safety certificate for just over 18,000 people was issued just weeks before the stadium opened. Mrs McKevitt: You spoke about taking advice and how you welcome advice and opinions from specialists like Mr Scott. Given that the process is ongoing, do such opinions still come into play now that there is an investigation? Ms Smith: Maybe I will ask my colleague to answer that. I really want to make the point that the design process is ongoing. I want to bring in Denis because, last week, he referred to a meeting that he had arranged with the STG. Dr McMahon: That is a good example, because the Minister asked me to meet the STG to hear its concerns at first hand. One thing that I was very sensitive to, even in contacting Mr Scott to arrange the meeting, is the need to make sure that I was not getting into a conversation — [Interruption.] Sorry — getting into a — Mrs McKevitt: Chair, can I just say that tweets and everything are coming from this meeting. People seem to be able to tweet even though their fingers are nowhere near their phone. It is very distracting. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): As somebody who does not tweet at all and does not even read any — Mr Humphrey: Nor me. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): — I know nothing about it, but if somebody is doing that, please refrain. Mr B McCrea: The mystery might be that the meeting is being broadcast live as part of the normal process, and, no doubt, the public are looking at us. Maybe some people are tweeting on that basis.

29

Mrs McKevitt: If that is the case, Mr Basil McCrea, your account has been hacked. Mr B McCrea: Is there any problem in people looking at this on TV and making a comment — Mrs McKevitt: Sorry, I would rather go back to the question. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Excuse me. I want to keep a focus on this important issue and have no side issues. Continue answering the question. Dr McMahon: Apologies. We were talking about the meeting with the STG. I wanted to give an example. I was very aware of this in talking to Mr Scott. The last time we were here, I mentioned that I had spoken to Mr Scott twice. We had a very good conversation, even though it was short. For the benefit of Mr Scott and others, I did not want to get into some of the investigation issues. We are now very sensitive to that. One thing that I was waiting for was for the auditor to say, "We have gone so far in the process that now is as appropriate a time as any to meet the STG". That meeting will go ahead, and we have contacted Mr Scott to see whether we can get some dates when the group can be pulled together. I will answer your question in very straightforward terms. We want to bring that information in on a formal basis and to start to do that as soon as possible. We do not want to do it in a way that cuts across the investigation and maybe prejudices it. It is nothing more than that. That process will absolutely continue, and we will engage with the STG. One thing that I want to come out of this, as Cynthia said, is for a very clear protocol to be put in place so that everybody is satisfied. That is not to say that, going forward, there will not be disagreements or challenges. That is absolutely appropriate. We want critical friends to be involved in the process. However, the protocols need to be set up in such a way that people feel that they are able to get their point across. From our point of view, as the SRO and the accounting officer, we need to be satisfied that we are hearing what we need to hear and that that has been built into the process before we sign off.

Mrs McKevitt: The Committee needs to hear what it needs to hear on health and safety. We are not experts, but, when issues have been raised, it is good that you can come before the Committee so that questions can be put and answered as honestly as possible. I thank you for coming here today. Mr D Bradley: Good afternoon; it has been a long morning. Ms Smith, you said that you are, to some extent, curtailed in what you can say in this forum and that you are wary of prejudicing the DFP inquiry. Therefore — The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Is it a DFP inquiry, or is it being conducted by DCAL bringing somebody in? Ms Smith: We have asked the head of internal audit to do an initial scoping exercise in consultation with Mr Scott and to bring the outcome to DFP so that it will not go near DCAL. They will then consider the next steps in the process. The point that I was making is that I am concerned that we do not prejudice or pre-empt that outcome or the ability to establish the facts. The motive in all this is to ensure that the rights and interests of the individual who is raising the concerns, and others who might be involved, are protected and acknowledged. Mr D Bradley: You are basically telling us that you cannot give the Committee inquiry a full picture of what has transpired, because you are curtailed in certain areas. Ms Smith: It is only if it relates to issues concerning Mr Scott's bullying and harassment allegations, which would involve other people. We do not want to get into a "he said, she said" situation without having an opportunity to establish the facts clearly. From that basis, we can go forward. To go forward on any other basis would not support the process, which, I think, we are all trying to get to: to establish the facts. Dr McMahon: To be absolutely clear: anything that is factual, stated or put on paper will come to the inquiry. I have no problem at all with that. The only issue, as Cynthia said, is any area in which there might be potential dispute. If another investigation process was ongoing on a totally separate issue, for example, and I or somebody else disagreed with the person raising the allegations at a certain point, would it be appropriate for me, as a permanent secretary, to start to challenge those issues in a

30

public forum without the person having a proper opportunity to get those points across and for others to have responded? That is all that we are saying. Mr D Bradley: Ms Smith, you said that the STG was more or less the same for the three projects, with one or two differences here and there. Was the Department represented on the STG for Ravenhill during its design, construction and completion? Ms Smith: My understanding is that the representation was the same. There was a means of liaising. I need to be careful now, because the STG was appointed at the end of 2012, and one must remember that the stadium project was previously in Sport NI. At one stage, responsibility for the programme rested in Sport NI rather than in the Department. Mr D Bradley: Yes, but you said that the STG was more or less the same for all three projects. Ms Smith: That is right. Mr D Bradley: Did the Department remain engaged for the full course of the planning, design and completion of the Ravenhill Kingspan Stadium? Ms Smith: My understanding is that broadly the same process was in operation with regard to engagement, the advice coming through to the Department to inform — Mr D Bradley: Does that mean yes? Ms Smith: Clearly, different issues will arise in the three projects. There are site-specific issues. Mr D Bradley: This is quite a simple question: did the Department's official remain engaged with the Ravenhill Kingspan Stadium throughout its design, build and completion? Ms Smith: My understanding is that it did. Mr D Bradley: Why, then, did departmental representatives withdraw from the STG for Casement? Ms Smith: That is one of the questions that I really cannot answer. Earlier on, one email was quoted. I go back to the point about giving the individuals involved the opportunity to say what they meant, what was exchanged and what was said. I am really not in a position to comment on that. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Hopefully, the gentleman concerned will be with us in a few weeks' time. Mr D Bradley: Yes, but the question is this: will he answer the questions? Anyway, we will move on. In your earlier evidence this morning, Ms Smith, you said that there were ongoing discussions on health and safety issues — it was almost a day-to-day concern with Casement Park — which included emergency exiting. If my understanding of what you said is correct, those concerns were then channelled into the design team to be dealt with, rectified or whatever. Did the Department have any checks or safeguards in place to ensure that those health and safety matters, especially the ones relating to emergency exiting, were, in fact, being addressed by the design team?

Ms Smith: Ultimately, as I said, the check and balance is that no construction notice will be released unless the STG is content with the proposals, and that is what happened with the other two projects. The ultimate sanction is that STG agreement will have to be given to the proposals before the building work, through the release of the construction notice, will take place. Mr D Bradley: I do not disagree with you on that. Particularly with these issues, one would have thought that the Department would have wanted reassurance that ongoing attention was being paid to them and that they were being addressed through the design. If I were in a senior position in the Department, I think that I would want to know that. Did the Department want to know that, and, if so, how did it find out the answer?

31

Ms Smith: Clearly, there would have been ongoing liaison between the Department, the design groups and the individual projects. To be clear: in all these structures, we have project boards for each of the projects, which have been meeting regularly, and there are steering groups. All those boards and structures will be considering those issues, and there will be direct liaison with the design teams on the individual projects. It is an iterative process in developing the design. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Oliver wants to come in, but, before he does, I have a question. You mentioned that there were three SROs — one for each project. You are the main SRO, and there are three others. Who are they? Ms Smith: There are three SROs. I am the programme SRO and have overall responsibility. My role is to ensure that the programme achieves its objectives and delivers the benefits. There are SROs for each of the three projects: for Casement Park, it is Tom Daly; for Kingspan — The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): It is somebody from the organisation. Ms Smith: Yes. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): That is fine; that is what I was trying to clarify. Presumably, it is Jim Shaw from the IFA. Ms Smith: No, it is Patrick Nelson, and it is Shane Logan for Ulster Rugby. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Thank you. Ms Smith: They are from the governing bodies. Mr McMullan: I admire your patience, Cynthia. Who is the president of the STG, and is the group still there?

Ms Smith: Yes. Mr McMullan: Who is the chair? Ms Smith: Paul Scott is the chair, and, hopefully, we clarified that when we were previously before the Committee. I want to make it absolutely clear that Paul Scott remains the chair. I know that Denis had an opportunity to clarify that in conversation with him. He remains the chair.There was a proposal — I want this to be clear to the Committee — and there were discussions from December last year on how we could improve the effectiveness and efficiency of operation of the STG. I am just mindful of this point as well: quite an administrative task is involved, as you can imagine, in setting up meetings, getting minutes agreed and getting papers and agenda items. What we offered was that the Department would assist through providing administrative support. As you know, being the chairperson of a committee is an onerous task. In order to relieve you of that task and enable your technical and professional input to be made, we also proposed that the Department would chair. That was a proposal. Mr Scott remains the chair of the STG. The next meeting of the STG will look at that proposal. One of the issues was that there were no clear terms of reference, of course. Those were issued with a view to discussion at the next STG meeting. Mr McMullan: Mr Scott remains the chair at this time. Ms Smith: He is absolutely the chair. Mr McMullan: He has never been replaced. Ms Smith: No. Mr McMullan: Were many concerns raised by the chair of the STG at sponsor board meetings?

32

Ms Smith: The chair of the STG did not attend sponsor board meetings. The programme sponsor board meeting is the one which is chaired by the Minister. The three governing bodies attend it. Sport NI is also represented. I think that what you are asking me is whether a representative of Sport NI attends the meeting. If it was not him, it would have been either the chief executive or a senior official. Mr McMullan: Let me put it another way: were any of the concerns raised by the chair of the STG raised at the sponsor board meetings? Ms Smith: At the sponsor board meetings — and, again, we have provided the Chair with the record of the meetings — certainly, it would have been raised as an issue that was still ongoing. There were still ongoing discussions. Certainly, it was an issue that still had to be resolved. In saying that, we were mindful that the design work had not been completed and that discussions and the design were still ongoing, but clearly it was an issue that had to be resolved. Mr McMullan: I have only three questions to ask. My last question is hypothetical. Is it possible to build a 40,000-capacity stadium and then, all of a sudden, find out at the very end that you can put only 20,000 people in it? Ms Smith: No. The reason why that would not be possible is that we would not release funding to the contractor or the governing bodies to enable them to build it unless we were satisfied that all due processes had been followed, part of which is obviously getting any approvals that are required. In this case, obviously, the advice of an advisory group would have been required as well. We would not have released funding unless we were satisfied. I would not recommend it and I am sure that the accounting officer would not approve it either. Mr McMullan: Just for the record, those were hypothetical numbers that I mentioned. We have talked about the safety certificate being issued and a lot of emphasis has been put on how late that was issued etc. As we have clearly heard today, that is nothing unusual. I wonder when the safety certificate was issued for the stand at Windsor Park. Ms Smith: There was a safety inspection. You are obviously referring to the Sunday night international match. There had been a safety inspection just prior to that. A safety certificate had been provided by Belfast City Council. Certainly, it was subsequent to the match, the event, that the Department was notified of the issue with the west stand. Mr McMullan: Was that before the cracks appeared? Ms Smith: The issue arose after the event had taken place. Mr Hilditch: Thanks for allowing me to come back in, Chair. I have listened intently to the answers, and, obviously, a lot of this has revolved around the safety certificate. In normal circumstances, that is correct, but, in Casement Park, there are unique circumstances that sit outside those of Ravenhill and Windsor Park, due to the practicalities, the make-up, the motorway and the housing around it. So, it is always going to be more difficult to get to where you want to be. Maybe that is why there has been no response to the safety technical group's request for updated exit emergency plans for nearly two years. That is still sitting there. One wonders, after £5·6 million has been spent, when it will ever come forward. That makes you really wonder whether it is a total redesign. In any other circumstances, having a safety certificate being issued a few weeks beforehand is normally OK; but Ravenhill certainly did not get 18,000, and you know that. It is somewhat less than 18,000 capacity: it is maybe 16,500, 17,000, or whatever. The safety certificate is not for 18,000-plus. There are issues when you get that far, but the problem that the Committee has is that the information laid before it is potentially a white elephant: 38,000 is being said but, nearer the time, the safety certificate may state 15,000, or 20,000, as Oliver outlined there. That is the difficulty we are facing here. We really have not got any answers about what actions were taken. Design people have been on this for some considerable time, and the STG has had nothing coming forward for it to get its teeth into. That is a problem.

Ms Smith: Just to — Mr Hilditch: I do not need you to comment on that, because that is factual. That is where we are at the minute.

33

You said that you welcome people looking for information and raising concerns and so on, but I have a question: a development officer was instructed to go to other members and agencies of the STG in relation to Casement Park and tell them not to respond to a freedom of information request. Why was that done?

Ms Smith: Can I say two things? First, and in response, I am really not in a position to answer that question, because that is one of the issues that will be subject to an independent investigation. I really do not want to prejudice the outcome of that in order to protect the interests of the person raising the concern and others involved as well. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): There are various ways in which information filters up from the STG in order to be considered. One way is through the process set out in the diagram we were given; another is that the information might come to the board of Sport NI, and that point was highlighted earlier. There is another way, and that is through the DCAL departmental board meetings. Planning permission was approved, I am told, in December 2013. Ms Smith: Yes, I think that the official notice — The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): We will move beyond December 2013, and I will start at the beginning of this, at February 2014. On your website, the departmental board meeting minutes, or notes, state that, on 25 February 2014, there was a meeting of the board. Peter May was there as the permanent secretary; you were there as the deputy secretary; Antoinette McKeown was there representing Sport NI; and Aidan Cassidy was representing Mick Cory. It further states that:

"Cynthia Smith provided an update detailing progress on the Regional Stadiums. The Board noted the progress, discussed key actions which will be taking place in the weeks ahead and the management of key risks. Cynthia informed the board that DCAL has secured immediate-term support in construction expertise and project management through Rory Miskelly from the Strategic Investment Board and that consideration is being given to the resources required as the Programme enters the next phase."

Rory Miskelly was in post at that stage, and there was an update in February 2014 after the planning application. There is no mention at all in that minute of concerns about emergency exiting; so, presumably, it was not raised at the meeting. Ms Smith: Normally, the purpose of an update is a fairly high-level update to — The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Can I ask you this: was it raised at the meeting? Ms Smith: I would need to check back on my full report, which that is a summary of. I would need to see — The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Can we get those, then, as part of the paperwork? Ms Smith: Yes, absolutely. Certainly, it was on the programme risk register at that time of the programme board meeting. As I was explaining to you, the programme board would have had a risk register as well as the Department. Those minutes would be a summary of what was — The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): That is why I said that it was a note, really, of the meeting. Ms Smith: I would need to see what was really — The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Antoinette McKeown was there as head of Sport NI. Did she raise the issue of emergency egress? Ms Smith: Is that the departmental board meeting? The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Yes, she was there.

34

Ms Smith: We have a policy of going out round our ALBs. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Yes, it was out that day in Sport NI. Ms Smith: To inform the Committee, we meet as a board on a monthly basis, and, in recent years, we have been going out to our ALBs as a means of encouraging engagement. We normally go round each of the ALBs to hold our board meetings on their premises. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Sure. It says on the list of people present that she was there for the meeting and in attendance were several other people who were there for specific items as observers. She is listed as being present at the meeting. Ms Smith: I would need to refresh my memory of the specific meeting. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): I will pass it up to you. Ms Smith: The most recent one was when we were out at the Ulster-Scots Agency for our last board meeting, and the normal practice is that we ask the chief executive of the arm's-length body that is hosting our meeting to do a presentation on current issues in the arm's-length body. We invite them, in a very open and inclusive way, to attend the meeting. Some of them are not able to stay for the whole meeting. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Let me ask this then: did Antoinette McKeown, when she made her presentation, make any reference to the — Ms Smith: I do not have any recollection of the detail of a meeting. Dr McMahon: If there was a significant material issue, I would expect it to be recorded in the minutes, if it had been raised. I cannot comment on that because I was not at the meeting, but, just to be clear, in any board meeting, I specifically ask people — and I am sure that a similar process applied here — whether there are significant material issues where risks have changed or issues have arisen. I ask the question and people answer it, and that is recorded. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Let me follow on from that and say that there was reference to stadiums at the departmental board meeting in March 2014. Again, Peter May and you were there, and you provided an update on the regional stadiums. We will get a copy of that in due course. How key risks would be managed was discussed. In particular, there was reference to Casement Park and Windsor Park, but that was, I think, in regard to the EU decision on stadia. There is a particularly interesting one on 27 January this year. You were in the chair, Cynthia Smith. Rory Miskelly was at that meeting. That is not a year ago; that is only weeks or months ago. Did Rory Miskelly raise the issue of emergency egress at that meeting? Ms Smith: I would need to refresh my memory on whether that was a meeting at which — as you would expect in any departmental board, we have regular updates on key priority areas, and, clearly, as a Programme for Government commitment, you would expect us to advise the board of progress on a major programme such as this. That happens on a regular basis. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): I will refresh your memory on this. It says:

"Rory Miskelly provided an update to the board". He was at the meeting. He is the one who is really close to the practical outworkings of things and manages the project. So, the project manager was there and he provided an update to the departmental board on progress on the regional stadium programme. That is the meeting that you chaired. It states:

"The board noted the progress with each stadium and discussed the key actions which will be taking place in the weeks ahead and the management of key risks and challenges".

We are talking about a meeting that was a matter of weeks ago, not a year ago. At that meeting, did Rory Miskelly mention the risk associated with emergency egress?

35

Ms Smith: I could not recall. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Cynthia, this is a matter of major significance, and it was on 27 January. Ms Smith: Can I clarify this: did he present a report? Normally, at regular updates — The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): It says that he provided an update. Dr McMahon: To be clear, even so that we are not in this situation a year down the line; if we were sitting here a year down the line and somebody were to say to me, "At the departmental board, was the programme discussed?", I would have to say, "Of course. Any major programme will be discussed at the board". The key question for me a year down the line would be this: did somebody raise it in the context of a specific escalation of risks? The business of these programmes and the whole set-up of managing programmes is around trying to manage risks and whether they are being managed effectively. So, the question is not, in a sense, whether, at the departmental board, somebody has raised an issue or mentioned that health and safety is being dealt with through the programme in that way. It is actually about somebody saying that, if they feel that there is an issue that is not being managed appropriately within the programme, it needs to be escalated to the board or the permanent secretary. That is the question. I cannot comment, because I was not at the meeting, but it is hard to see. You could have a scenario where somebody mentions it and says that they are currently engaging with the STG on X, Y or Z, but that might be a whole different conversation from somebody escalating it and saying that it is a major issue.

Ms Smith: In any case, reports were provided to the board on a regular basis. From memory, it was roughly quarterly that — The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): I appreciate all of that. I understand how those things work. First, Denis, it was not a year ago; it was four months ago, so it is within reasonable memory. When Rory Miskelly provided his update and there was then:

"discussion in the meeting of the key actions". It is not just that he reported on it. There was a discussion about key actions that would take place in the weeks ahead and the management of key risks and challenges. Presumably, this is one of the key risks. It is a key risk. In fact, it is the key risk. Ms Smith: Clearly it was reported, for example, that— The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): So, it was reported. Ms Smith: Sorry; I am just saying to you that it was reported through the programme board, for example, and I think the meeting was around about the same time. The last programme board meeting was — I cannot remember it. The reports to, for example, the programme sponsor board and the programme board, were about just the same thing that I have been discussing this morning. It is an ongoing issue that needs to be addressed, work is ongoing and the design is still being developed. It is an ongoing issue that is being addressed. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): I would have thought that, if somebody was aware of the issues that had been ongoing for 20 months, or whatever the period of time was, at this stage you would actually say, "They've been at this for 20-odd months. They still can't get it sorted out. We're now into serious risk". That was obviously not discussed at that meeting, or you would have remembered it. Ms Smith: It was certainly not recorded. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): I know it was not recorded, but was it discussed?

36

Ms Smith: From memory, in any updates, Rory would normally have referred to it as an ongoing issue that was being addressed. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): But it would be remiss of the rest of the board to allow it to pass as an ongoing issue. We are talking about something that could endanger a £60 million project and potentially bring it crashing to the ground. You would then, I would have thought, raise that as a serious substantial issue; there would be real, in-depth discussion, and it would be flagged up with about 10 red flags beside it. It seems to be very casual. Ms Smith: No, absolutely not. Clearly, there were regular processes. You had a sponsor board. Just to be very clear; it is not that we have not had structures, meetings and discussions. You have a programme sponsor board. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): It has not worked. Ms Smith: You have a programme board and you have project boards at every level. You have steering groups. You have very significant structures. You have technical people and technical advice. I will just say again that the design work has not been completed. This issue is still being addressed and is still the subject of ongoing discussion. No construction notice will be issued to build it until those discussions have reached a successful and satisfactory conclusion. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): It all seems rather strange, in so far as the pressure is on in Government for capital schemes to be pushed ahead so that money is spent within this CSR period and not put back to the future, when money may not be as available. That has been a pressure from DFP on Departments across the board — get those projects under way; get them up and moving. I think everybody would accept that it is good practice to get money spent if the money is there and there is a project there. Yet we are sitting, 20 months later — I am not sure of the exact time, but a significant period — and there was no satisfactory resolution to that issue, which has the potential to derail the entire project or make it an entirely different project from what it is now. Then, Rory Miskelly is at a meeting and people do not interrogate him as to whether we are any nearer. Nobody asked, "Have you not got an emergency exiting plan back from these people? What's going on?". Ms Smith: Maybe it is something that we have not really mentioned this morning, but the other review we have commissioned is the Major Projects Authority's (MPA) technically focused review, which will address those issues and will have an independent look at the processes followed in relation to Casement Park. The MPA is a body that was set up by the Cabinet Office, and it will have access to technical expertise. This will be an opportunity to have the processes reviewed and the very questions that are the focus, and rightly so, of this Committee, addressed independently and outside of the departmental structures. That is a process that is well established for major projects, and it is undertaken by the Major Projects Authority, which is based in the Cabinet Office. We have commissioned it through the Department of Finance and Personnel's Central Procurement Directorate, which is a centre of excellence for these areas, and we are working closely with them. I will be meeting them next week to start the review. Normally those reviews report to the Department, but in this case the Minister has made it very clear that the findings of the report will be made publicly available. I am happy to say that it will be made available, of course, to the Committee.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): We have to be out of this room by 1.30 pm, because the Justice Committee is coming here. On that basis, we will have to defer the presentation on internal governance — Joanne McConway is breathing a sigh of relief at the back of the room — until a future meeting. Professor Bailey is with us from Armagh Observatory, and, out of respect to him, we need to have an opportunity to hear from him before the 1.30 pm finishing point. We will set half an hour aside for that. We have about three minutes left on this, and the last name on my list is Basil McCrea. You have one question.

Mr B McCrea: Who are Populous?

37

Ms Smith: Populous are the architects. We referred earlier to the integrated consultants team, which was appointed in September 2012. Mott MacDonald was the group appointed, and the architects for the ICT were Populous. Mr B McCrea: Would the board have any knowledge of a letter from Populous on 7 April 2014 entitled "Casement Park emergency exit system" that says:

"I confirm that the current design proposals comply with the technical requirements of the Guide to Safety at Sports fifth edition in relation to emergency exit for 38,000"?

Would the board have considered that or had any knowledge of it? What is the status of that document? Ms Smith: If you provide me with a copy of that document, I would be happy to look at it and give you an answer. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): It is from the bundle that was given to the Committee. Mr B McCrea: The point is, just for reference, that you have said, on a number of occasions in answer to people, that you could not sign off anything until you get a safety certificate, which may come at some late stage in the process. Ms Smith: No, to be clear, it is not that I would not sign-off anything until we have a certificate; I would not sign-off anything unless it had made safety requirements and the safety technical group had indicated that it was content with the design. Mr B McCrea: OK. In relation to the ICT, I have drawn attention to the issue and would like to know whether it was discussed. Ms Smith: I will have a look at the correspondence. The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Populous will be with us, hopefully, in a few weeks' time. Correspondence has been sent requesting them to come. Several other people have tried to come in with extra questions, but we have to finish as I said we would stop at 1.00 pm. I thank you very much for coming. I am sure there will be further opportunities for discussion with the senior officials in the Department. Thank you.