Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Thank you for coming, Sir Nigel. We look forward to your contribution to the inquiry. Sir Nigel is a former president of the Irish Rugby Football Union (IRFU) and a former IRFU representative on the sponsor board. At this point, I remind members and witnesses of their obligation to declare any relevant financial or other interests in relation to today's business.

Mr McMullan: I am a member of the GAA.

Mr Ó hOisín: Likewise, Chair.

Mr D Bradley: Likewise.

Mr Hilditch: We sometimes go into matters relating to Windsor Park. I have just been appointed to the IFA council.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Congratulations.

I was in the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure when this process was initiated in the last mandate.

Mr Ó hOisín: I would like to bring up an issue. There was an article in this morning's 'Irish News' that might be prejudicial to the inquiry, as it contains inaccuracies and suppositions.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): OK.

Mr Humphrey: I have not seen the article. It might be an idea, since the member has raised it, for us to be provided with copies.

The Committee Clerk: We will do so.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): We will deal with that and the other newspaper article at the same time later on.

Thank you for coming, Sir Nigel. You are in a unique position in that you bring the perspective of the IRFU on its experience of the process and a wealth of knowledge of how government systems and processes work. I am sure that some of that will inform your comments as well. Would you like to give an overview of your views at the start?

Sir Nigel Hamilton (Irish Rugby Football Union): Thank you very much for the invitation. Just a minor correction: I am still on the sponsor board, as I have been from its inception. I am a former president of the Ulster Branch.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): I was misinformed. Apologies.

Sir Nigel Hamilton: Thank you for the opportunity. Maybe I should say a word about the sponsor board, its role, its terms of reference and its membership, if that would be helpful.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Yes, please.

Sir Nigel Hamilton: It was set up in October 2011 following a gateway review. As the Committee knows, these projects are structured through different levels. Basically, the terms of reference at that time were to advise the permanent secretary of DCAL and to assist in overseeing the delivery by Sport Northern Ireland. The role of the sponsor board was essentially advisory. There were other elements, of course, including a project assurance team and, more particularly, a project team in each sport. When I was invited to serve, it was on the basis that I was not personally involved in the project team in Ulster Rugby. I was to bring whatever broad understanding I had, but I would not be delving into the details of Ulster Rugby or any other sport project team.

The first meeting of the sponsor board was in December 2011. I think that there have been over 20 to date. The sponsor board at that time was chaired by the permanent secretary, Rosalie Flanagan, and the senior responsible officer (SRO) for delivering the projects for oversight purposes was Eamonn McCartan, at that time the chief executive of Sport Northern Ireland. The sponsor board consisted of me; Jim Shaw, president of the IFA; Michael Hasson, a vice president of the GAA; and representatives of the Sports Council and the Strategic Investment Board (SIB). Then the sponsor board invited the chairs of the project teams in each of the sports and the chief executives of the three sports to attend the meetings.

The board was, as I said, essentially advisory in nature. In setting the context, it may be worth saying that, at the beginning, the draft terms of reference said that the sponsor board was also to provide assurance; but we could not provide independent assurance per se given the level of oversight, and that was therefore clearly defined as a function for the Strategic Investment Board. Interestingly, in February and March 2012, the Strategic Investment Board provided letters that were somewhat critical at that time of the handling of these projects by Sport NI. As a result, in May 2012, the SRO responsibilities were transferred from Sport Northern Ireland to DCAL. From May 2012, DCAL has both chaired the sponsor board and been the senior responsible officer.

The way the sponsor board operates is that, before each meeting, each member of the sponsor board is sent a report. That report is prepared by the SRO across the three sports. It identifies a number of the key high-level issues on contracts or finance or some of the key challenges that may be faced. Those SRO reports are discussed at each meeting of the sponsor board.

Is that helpful to set the context, Mr Chairman?

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Yes, indeed. Thank you.

How many of the 20 meetings of the sponsor board did the Minister attend? Initially, it was said to us that the original intention was that the Minister would chair the sponsor board.

Sir Nigel Hamilton: From memory, the first couple of meetings were chaired by Rosalie Flanagan. The Minister chaired the bulk of them since then. I presume that the Committee will ultimately have copies of the papers, minutes etc. I have read all my papers and done my homework, but I do not want to mislead.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): We are in receipt of, I think, 2,200 pages to work through. We will get that in full. I was just taking the opportunity to ask you about that.

Do you have any view on the structure and the way in which this was put together? Sometimes, I have difficulty understanding who line manages someone who is employed through SIB and brought into DCAL. Who are they answerable to? Is it a good system?

Sir Nigel Hamilton: As I said, Mr Chairman, my experience over many years has been that there has to be a formal structure in terms of responsibility. It is entirely right and within best practice that there is an identified, named senior responsible officer through whom and to whom everything should be reported. Given the nature of these projects, in Ulster Rugby, for example, we had a very professional project team, which was chaired by Cecil Watson, whose previous experience was in big infrastructure developments with Northern Ireland Electricity. We had a retired contractor. We had someone with legal experience and someone with financial experience. We also employed an external project adviser, whose job it was to drive the project etc. Some of those project-management skills, from time to time, over the years, I know, have been a little thin. The SIB has recruited a number of these folk, who are then maybe seconded to DCAL or wherever. I am quite clear, Mr Chairman — I have always been — that if someone from the SIB is seconded to DCAL to do the project board, their responsibility is to DCAL. They work to DCAL in that system. The SIB also sits on the sponsor board, so it has an opportunity, if it wishes, to challenge or provide assurance etc independently. But anyone who is seconded to any organisation or any project is accountable to that project.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Who represented the SIB on the sponsor board?

Sir Nigel Hamilton: Brett Hannam, its chief executive.

Mr B McCrea: Sir Nigel, you said that the sponsor board was advisory. In other correspondence that we have had, it seemed to be viewed as the senior body that would make decisions for authorisation.

Sir Nigel Hamilton: No, absolutely not. It did not have an authorisation authority; it was advisory. I can give you chapter and verse, not least the project training that Sport Northern Ireland held in February 2012. I have a copy of the papers with me, which state that it is quite clearly advisory in nature.

Mr B McCrea: In the three or four tiers of oversight that we have, which body had authorisation powers?

Sir Nigel Hamilton: Ultimately, nothing would have been capable of delivery unless DCAL had approved it, in the sense that business plans would have had to be produced and approved by DCAL and contractual arrangements agreed with it etc. DCAL would have had to be content.

Mr B McCrea: We note that emergency exit planning was in the advisory board's minutes for quite a number of months. Can you tell us what discussions you might have had?

Sir Nigel Hamilton: I could give you chapter and verse on all issues of safety from when they first emerged. The first reference was in January 2013. It was just a factual reference to sports grounds technical advice. That happened for a number of years over a number of reports. The next one was April 2013. They were purely factual comments in the SRO report.

Mr B McCrea: Just so that I can let you know where I am going with the questions, just to help you, you said that the SRO's report was circulated in advance, which you had a look at. Having had it and then it being on the paper, there must have been some discussion.

Sir Nigel Hamilton: There was never a discussion of evacuation procedures at the sponsor board. You will have read too that, in March 2014, the SRO report said — I am just quoting; I am not offering opinion or comment — that:

There were further references in subsequent meetings, in April, June etc, on the SRO report simply saying, "Work is continuing", right through to the last meeting in March 2014, which simply says:

Those were in each of the SRO reports as a factual comment, but those issues were not discussed at the sponsor board.

Mr B McCrea: Those issues are on the minutes though, and they were in the SRO reports: why were they not discussed?

Sir Nigel Hamilton: It said, "Work is continuing", so I can only presume that the matters were still under consideration. They were not discussed. Do not forget that the SIB and Sport NI were present at all those meetings, and they never raised any issues at those meetings in relation to evacuation procedures.

Mr B McCrea: OK, so they never brought it up. Are you aware of Rosalie Flanagan's letter at the end of 2012, I think? She talked about the development of Windsor and said that it would be imperative that there was sign-off by the safety technical group (STG), Sport NI and others before the Department would support the planning application.

Sir Nigel Hamilton: I am not aware. I go back to what I said: the sponsor board was handling big strategic issues not detail. The detail was left to each project board and the relationships between those project boards and Sport NI and DCAL.

Mr B McCrea: I have one more question and then the Chair might let me come back in later if we come back to it. In both Ravenhill and Casement, there would have been some concern about putting new stadiums into an existing footprint.

Sir Nigel Hamilton: Would there?

Mr B McCrea: Would it have been —

Sir Nigel Hamilton: Sorry, I thought that you were asking me a question.

Mr B McCrea: I am asking you if you were aware of concerns about putting big new stadiums —

Sir Nigel Hamilton: I was not aware, Chairman, because — I have to repeat this point — I am on the sponsor board. We were handling the big, key strategic issues. I will go back to some of the things that we discussed like Crusaders and state aid etc. All those issues around the work of the STG etc would have been handled between the STG and the project teams.

Mr B McCrea: I am sorry, Sir Nigel, but I would have thought that one of the successes of the Ravenhill/Kingspan stadium was that they went to extensive consultation with residents in the surrounding area, they looked at transportation schemes, and it was a really big issue that had to be successfully negotiated with the community. I would have thought that that would be a similar issue with Casement. I am surprised that, even if not in an official capacity, but in the general role that you were in, you were not aware that there might be problems putting a big stadium in an existing location.

Sir Nigel Hamilton: From day one of his appointment, one of the key priorities of the new chief executive of Ulster Rugby was to relate to and engage with the local community. He did that over a number of years, and there were regular meetings etc. I was very aware, because I sit on the Ulster Branch, of the nature and extent of the consultations between the chief executive and the community. I am absolutely certain, given his professionalism, that he would have been discussing the relationship between the stadium and the community in terms of access, transport and policing etc at a general level.

Mr B McCrea: So, if you were aware of all those issues —

Sir Nigel Hamilton: Generally.

Mr B McCrea: — were you aware of any emergency exiting planning?

Sir Nigel Hamilton: No, I was not, because it was not my responsibility to be aware of it. I keep making this point, Mr McCrea: I did not sit on the project team. The project team had responsibility for delivering the project in all its spheres.

I will spell this out, Mr Chairman, because it might be helpful. The sponsor board has considered issues such as business plans, construction procedures and general planning issues where we challenged the Department to raise matters with DOE Planning Service in terms of the importance of planning, PROST, the judicial review by Crusaders, state aid, the relationship between Windsor Park and Linfield, community facilities and social clauses, all of which were high-level strategic issues. We did not consider the detail of an evacuation plan at Ravenhill or anywhere else.

Mr B McCrea: I am not asking you about the detail; I can accept that other people might advise. However, if you, as you have said, were aware of the community consultation, the extensive interaction with people, transportation and all the other issues, surely some thought must have been given to getting people out in an emergency.

Sir Nigel Hamilton: Yes, of course thought would have been given to that — by the people who were responsible.

Mr B McCrea: Do you think that that should have been decided —

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): I am sorry —

Mr B McCrea: This is my last question —

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Let him finish, please.

Sir Nigel Hamilton: Mr McCrea, let me explain yet again that the responsibility of the sponsor board and my knowledge were at the high level. The consideration of a host of technical issues, including health and safety issues, was the responsibility of the project board. In Ulster Rugby, we had someone on our project team who was very experienced in health and safety issues because, obviously, we were concerned about that. I had every confidence that the Ulster Rugby project team, which built the stadium on budget and on time, met all the professional and technical qualifications that were needed because of the professional nature of that. It is not something that I was aware of. I also come back to the fact that, if the evacuation procedures were such a key issue, why were they not raised at the sponsor board by Sport Northern Ireland?

Mr B McCrea: My final question is —

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Basil —

Mr B McCrea: Just let me ask one question, Chairman. Do you think that the emergency exiting plan, which might limit the capacity, should have been considered before the design stage was undertaken, or is it acceptable to leave it until two weeks before opening the stadium?

Sir Nigel Hamilton: I am sorry; you are asking me a question about something that I am not aware of. That is a technical question about which I do not have any knowledge.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): OK, thank you. Mr McMullan, do you wish to ask a question?

Mr McMullan: I am not ready yet, Chair, if you do not mind.

Mr Dunne: Thank you for coming, Sir Nigel. Earlier, you mentioned the role of the sponsor board in relation to its assurance function: could you clarify what you mean by that?

Sir Nigel Hamilton: I am sorry, Mr Dunne; I was saying that, in the initial draft terms of reference, the word "assurance" appeared, but we challenged that because you cannot be advisory on one hand and provide some sort of independent assurance on the other. It was then confirmed that that independent assurance in relation to the projects would be undertaken by the Strategic Investment Board.

Mr Dunne: So, you did not see it as a role of the sponsor board to provide assurance.

Sir Nigel Hamilton: No. It was quite explicitly said in the terms of reference and subsequently that it was to provide advice at a high level. I would have interpreted that as saying that, if, at the sponsor board, there were issues around governance or issues in terms of what Ulster Rugby, in my case, needed to do at a different level, the sponsor board would have been the place where that might have been raised for us to reflect on it. The sponsor board was also an opportunity for the sharing at a high level of experiences. I will give you a small illustration: the very first Gantt chart that was produced by Sport NI had an assumption in it that planning approval would be given within six months. In the case of Ulster Rugby, it took 17 months, so we challenged that; we said, "Sorry, the working assumption here to have this is actually based on something that, in our experience in redeveloping Ravenhill, wasn't factually correct". It then challenged that and revisited it in terms of the likely timescale.

Mr Dunne: Was that applicable as well to the Casement Park application?

Sir Nigel Hamilton: At that stage, we were saying to Sport NI initially, "Look, you must be realistic in terms of the assumptions about planning". I am sure that that would have applied to Casement as well.

Mr Dunne: This is my last point, Chairman. Whose responsibility was it at the sponsor board meetings for raising safety issues?

Sir Nigel Hamilton: For raising safety issues?

Mr Dunne: Yes. What is your understanding of the line of responsibility?

Sir Nigel Hamilton: Nobody had responsibility for raising safety issues per se. If anyone had any concerns, it depended on the source of those concerns. I come back to the point that, if Sport NI had concerns about safety issues, they should have been reflected in the SRO report — I made reference to the fact that it said that work was continuing — or raised at the sponsor board by Sport NI. I would be sitting at the sponsor board not knowing these issues. Maybe, Mr Dunne, I could come back with a different illustration: if the Committee were considering an issue and you, Mr Dunne, had a piece of knowledge that was important for the Committee's consideration and would help the Committee in exercising its remit, I think that the Committee would expect you to raise it in Committee so that it could be considered. That would be my approach on reflection, looking back on this.

Mr Dunne: Is it right that there were a number of programme boards, or was there just the one?

Sir Nigel Hamilton: There were three project boards, one for each sport.

Mr Dunne: And there is talk of a programme board.

Sir Nigel Hamilton: I think that there may be something else in DCAL.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): That is something in the Department.

Mr Dunne: Did you have access to those minutes?

Sir Nigel Hamilton: No. The only papers that were ever presented to the sponsor board were the regular SRO reports that came before every meeting.

Mr McMullan: When was the safety certificate issued for the Ravenhill Kingspan stadium?

Sir Nigel Hamilton: I cannot tell you that. That is a matter for the project board. I do not know, and I will not mislead you.

Mr McMullan: What do you know outside of your sponsor board?

Sir Nigel Hamilton: What do I know about what?

Mr McMullan: You are on the sponsor board.

Sir Nigel Hamilton: Yes.

Mr McMullan: What did you know outside of that? Do you just take to do with the sponsorship board?

Sir Nigel Hamilton: Sorry, Mr McMullan: what did I know about what?

Mr McMullan: About safety.

Sir Nigel Hamilton: About safety?

Mr McMullan: Yes.

Sir Nigel Hamilton: I do not know anything about safety.

Mr McMullan: You do not know anything.

Sir Nigel Hamilton: No.

Mr McMullan: You sit on the sponsorship board and you know nothing about safety.

Sir Nigel Hamilton: No, because —

Mr McMullan: No. That is fine.

Sir Nigel Hamilton: Let me repeat: the role of the sponsor board was high-level advisory, not detailed and technical. In the same sense, Mr McMullan, I do not know anything about contracts and their detail or planning etc. As I said, the role of the sponsor board was high-level and advisory on the big issues that were emerging.

Mr McMullan: Is safety not a big issue? Forgive me for asking again.

Sir Nigel Hamilton: I have every faith in the professionalism of those who are handling the projects, including, as I have already mentioned, the project team in Ulster Rugby, which will have had experts on health and safety.

Mr McMullan: At any time, there was never a discussion on safety, over a cup of tea or in your role on the board.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): It is a rather odd question.

Mr McMullan: Do you have difficulty understanding that?

Sir Nigel Hamilton: Yes, sorry.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): I think that we all have some difficulty understanding it.

Mr McMullan: At any time, was safety mentioned?

Sir Nigel Hamilton: No.

Mr McMullan: Thank you.

Mr Hilditch: Thanks, Sir Nigel, for coming in this morning. The SRO will have changed over time. Can you recollect which individual brought forward your agendas or information to the meetings?

Sir Nigel Hamilton: Yes. The SRO for the first couple of meetings was Eamonn McCartan from Sport NI. When that function transferred to DCAL, it became Rosalie Flanagan and then Cynthia Smith. May I also say, Mr Chairman, knowing the individuals and, as you said earlier, given my background, having worked with those individuals at senior level, as I have with the project team and, indeed, my colleagues in the other two sports, I have every confidence in their commitment, professionalism and application? I wanted to say that publicly. Sorry, Mr Hilditch.

Mr Hilditch: No problem. I have not cast any aspersions on those people.

Sir Nigel Hamilton: No, I just wanted to make that comment.

Mr Hilditch: What is emerging in my mind is that there seems to be a difficulty understanding the ordinary, run-of-the-mill exiting against emergency exiting. That is becoming very clear, particularly from some of the witnesses who were before us last year. I appreciate that, at the top of the pile, you were there in an advisory capacity. We know that you were not being told about the misunderstandings that came about down the line, although evidence may be emerging that Sport NI had it in the public domain some time previously. That is why the Committee is sitting here today. We picked up on the problems that were emerging in Casement on the BBC, and that is why we are having the inquiry. There was some public information available some time ago, but maybe people did not realise the extent of what the problem was going to be.

Sport NI was also on the board. Who was its representative?

Sir Nigel Hamilton: It was Eamonn McCartan initially. Antoinette McKeown came to one or two of the initial meetings, but it was usually Nick Harkness, and, I think I recall at one meeting, Andrew Sloan.

Mr D Bradley: Good morning, Sir Nigel.

Sir Nigel Hamilton: Good morning, Dominic.

Mr D Bradley: You said that, at the beginning, the role of the sponsor board was purely advisory and gave an example of where information was given to the sponsor board that planning permission would be achieved within six months and you gave advice on that. Is that right?

Sir Nigel Hamilton: No. You are absolutely right: we challenged the assumption that was in the paper that planning permission could be given within six months and, therefore, asked for it to be reviewed.

Mr D Bradley: So, as well as being purely advisory, there was a challenge element to it, when appropriate.

Sir Nigel Hamilton: Where appropriate, yes, if we thought that there was something that needed to be challenged. We questioned. On the state aid issue, for example, the board asked whether work could continue, given the fact that it was still outstanding, because, at that stage, construction was happening at Ravenhill, for example.

We were asking questions like that to make sure that we were aware of what was continuing.

Mr D Bradley: Can you give us examples of other issues that you advised on? You advised on state aid and planning.

Sir Nigel Hamilton: When I say "gave advice", I tried to list some of the issues. Obviously, we asked about financial profiling and the implications of the Crusaders' judicial review. We gave advice on what was happening on social clauses, which was an important dimension to the contract. We also identified common issues that were emerging.

That happened, Mr Bradley, because Ravenhill was first out down the track. Issues are now arising in relation to rates, as, with the stadium as it is, there is the potential for a significant increase in them. Those issues were taken away by the three sports and DCAL to discuss the implications.

Mr D Bradley: I can see clearly why you would have issued the challenge around planning because, with your experience, you knew that that was an unrealistic timescale. I can see why you raised the issue of state aid, because there was an Azores ruling that might have impacted on Windsor Park.

You said that you raised financial planning issues: what gave rise to those?

Sir Nigel Hamilton: Every SRO report would have had reference to financial issues in the sense of profiling. If there had been a delay in contracts or planning, that would have a knock-on impact on financial profiling, given that there had been moneys allocated to DCAL in each financial year. There were comments in the SRO report on that.

Initially, we asked about the costing of staff etc, going way back to the beginning, when there was a suggestion that Sport NI was funding staffing out of other budgets. Those were the things that would have had an impact on each of the sports or which were coming together and which we raised.

Mr D Bradley: You said that safety issues arose quite frequently as agenda items at your meetings.

Sir Nigel Hamilton: No, sorry. To be absolutely clear, they were not agenda items per se; they were in the SRO reports at different stages purely as a two-line report. They were in the paperwork, but they were never discussed as agenda items.

Mr D Bradley: So there were items such as finance, planning, state aid and social clauses that led you and/or your colleagues to, as it were, issue a challenge around them.

Sir Nigel Hamilton: We questioned.

Mr D Bradley: You questioned.

Sir Nigel Hamilton: We questioned whether the working assumptions were correct or whether further action was needed.

Mr D Bradley: Why, then, was there no tendency to question issues around safety, which were constantly part of the SRO reports?

Sir Nigel Hamilton: Because it said that discussions between the GAA and the STG were continuing. There was no indication in the report that any of those issues were deal-breakers.

Mr D Bradley: There was no probing of those issues merely to find out what lay behind them and what stage things were at.

Sir Nigel Hamilton: No. If they were deal-breakers, I would have expected that those who had concerns would have raised them at the meeting.

Mr D Bradley: Surely the fact that they were recurring in the report indicated that they were an ongoing issue and, perhaps, required a certain probing.

Sir Nigel Hamilton: Hindsight is never wrong. However, there was no indication whatever in the report that that was a deal-breaker or — another phrase that was used in Committee — a showstopper.

Mr D Bradley: You were not disturbed in any way about the issue recurring in the report.

Sir Nigel Hamilton: No. Let me read the very last one in the March minute:

That is a fact. There is no issue there that says that that could seriously undermine the timescale or could seriously undermine capacity etc. The previous meeting said that safety technical group issues remain ongoing.

Mr D Bradley: I was going to say that, at times, it is possible to read between the lines. Obviously, you are making it clear that you are sticking to the facts and to the facts alone.

Sir Nigel Hamilton: I am trying to outline the facts and not necessarily get involved in speculation or what might have been.

Mr D Bradley: OK. Thank you, Sir Nigel.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): You mentioned that Sport NI had not raised those issues in the meetings of the sponsor board. One of the key figures is the stadium programme director, who is at the heart of the architecture. Did he ever raise any issues?

Sir Nigel Hamilton: That being?

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Noel Molloy and, later, Rory Miskelly.

Sir Nigel Hamilton: No. Safety issues were never discussed at the sponsor board.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): It is purely for the record.

Sir Nigel Hamilton: Neither Noel Molloy nor Rory Miskelly —

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Neither of them.

Sir Nigel Hamilton: No.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): That is fine.

Mr Cree: Good morning. I think that most of us understand the strategic level at which the board was working and that it was a macro-scenario. A couple of contexts occurred to me. First, was anything ever raised with the board from a legislative context about the statutory, regulatory, detailed framework or anything like that?

Sir Nigel Hamilton: In relation to, for example, safety at stadia etc?

Mr Cree: Clearly, we would go there, but even on a broader spectrum of the regulations. Planning, for example, would come into that.

Sir Nigel Hamilton: No. To go back to my comments to Mr Bradley, the issue around planning was the assumption that it would happen within six months, but we knew that it was going to take much longer. The board never got into the detail of the specific requirements about planning in terms of the substantive issues. Maybe I should say that they were more about processes than substantive issues.

Mr Cree: They were ongoing. It is the same in the external context; obviously, best practice and comparators come to mind. Was the board involved in any of those?

Sir Nigel Hamilton: No, but those would have been discussed at the project board. There is a very good working relationship between the chief executives of the three sports. One of the key things for us was to pool experience of what was happening. I will give you a small illustration. Around some of the issues on planning, suddenly there was a difficulty in Ravenhill about the existence of bats in the old stadium. That is not an issue that would have been discussed at the sponsor board, but I know that it would have been shared with the other two sports when thinking about what you need to consider and check out before your planning application. It was about process rather than substance.

Mr Ó hOisín: At the time, the three stadia were being developed almost contiguously; they were coming relatively close together. They were all quite similar in that they were in built-up areas on old and difficult sites. Do you know what best practice was taken into account and shared across the board for the three stadia?

Sir Nigel Hamilton: No, because the detail would have been shared at project team level and by the programme director. When the original proposal for the multi-sports stadium at the Maze collapsed, there was discussion at a high level between the three sports about what should happen next. The analogy used at a high level was of three trains in the station and that we would be together in our negotiation — it might even have been with you, Mr Chairman, when you were wearing another hat — so that benefits were accrued to each sport. There was that high-level discussion. The redevelopment of Ravenhill was first. Once the approvals came, we were in a position to go ahead with Ravenhill, and, as I understand it, there have been very good discussions between the three sports on best practice and on sharing our experience at Ravenhill as first out of the traps, so to speak, but that was at project level.

Mr Ó hOisín: Ravenhill has picked up on best practice from elsewhere across these islands and maybe further afield. It is clear to see that. At last week's meeting, it was brought up that, if two of the exits at Ravenhill or Kingspan were blocked, there might be a difficulty in exiting there and that there is a possibility of perhaps using the pitch itself in any exit plan. Are you aware of any of that?

Sir Nigel Hamilton: No, I am not aware of that at all. As I said earlier, I was not involved at all in the project team or in the detail. I have every faith in the project team at Ravenhill and in those who manage the stadium to make sure that whatever statutory requirements are in place — going back to Mr Cree's question — are met and fulfilled.

Mr Ó hOisín: To reiterate, you said earlier that safety issues were never discussed. When did you first hear about the safety issues? Was it in the media?

Sir Nigel Hamilton: In the media a few weeks ago when Mr Scott came. I do not know him and, to the best of my knowledge, have never met him.

Mr Ó hOisín: That was the position of the sponsor board.

Sir Nigel Hamilton: Yes.

Mr Ó hOisín: You did not know.

Sir Nigel Hamilton: No.

Ms McCorley: Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. Thanks very much for the presentation. I do not want to be repetitive. What I was going to ask has been answered. There is no need to ask it.

Mr Humphrey: Good morning, Sir Nigel. Thanks for your attendance. It is interesting from listening to your evidence to hear that you, as the former president and the representative of the Ulster branch of the Irish Rugby Football Union, had complete confidence in your team that was taking Ravenhill forward and the competence that had been gathered in that team, as you stated earlier. Given the questioning put in your direction this morning, do you think that perhaps, on reflection, communication and the sharing of information with the sponsor board might not have been what it could or should have been?

Sir Nigel Hamilton: Communication with the sponsor board?

Mr Humphrey: Yes, from the Department and its arm's-length bodies involved in those projects.

Sir Nigel Hamilton: I think that you are inviting me to speculate on what happened between Sport NI and DCAL and within DCAL. I repeat, yet again: if there were issues that were deal-breakers or which would have seriously undermined the project, I would have expected, as I said earlier, those to have been raised at the sponsor board, either by the SRO, by Sport NI or by the Strategic Investment Board. I think that we were entitled to that.

Mr Humphrey: Yes. That is a fair point. I think that, in reply to a question from one of my colleagues, you quoted from the March minute. If you do not mind, can I ask you to restate that?

Sir Nigel Hamilton: It is not the minute, because the minute comes out before the next meeting. It is the SRO report. Just for information, Mr Chairman, there are six pages to the SRO report. That is typical. The comment under GAA Casement, 2.3.12 said:

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Basil, very quickly.

Mr B McCrea: Sir Nigel, I just want to check. One of the advantages of having you on the advisory board, I guess, is that Ravenhill Kingspan was first out of the traps, as it were, down the line. Is that correct?

Sir Nigel Hamilton: One of the advantages? You might say that; others might not. Certainly, the advantage to the development of the other two stadia is that Ravenhill was out and further down the track and is now completed. It is something that we are very proud of.

Mr B McCrea: You raised issues — for example, bats. That might have been passed on. That is the type of information that —

Sir Nigel Hamilton: At a lower level, yes.

Mr B McCrea: Was there ever any discussion, as far as you are aware, about emergency exiting planning problems from Ravenhill Kingspan?

Sir Nigel Hamilton: Not to my knowledge. However, I repeat: I did not sit on the project board.

Mr B McCrea: It is not an allegation; I was just inquiring. Were you aware of any issues?

Sir Nigel Hamilton: I am not aware of any issues, nor would I expect to be aware of issues, unless it was a deal-breaker for Ravenhill, or unless it was going to seriously undermine the successful operation of the stadium.

Mr B McCrea: You have been very good and generous with your time. My final question is this: did nobody, when they were looking at the advisory capacity, mention safety? Mr Bradley mentioned and you clarified that you had looked at planning, state aid, financial profiling, attempts at delay, cost of staff, Crusaders' judicial review and social clauses. There is a range of things that you were looking at. Did nobody mention safety at all? Are you saying that it was never mentioned?

Sir Nigel Hamilton: No.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Oliver McMullan, do you want to ask a question?

Mr McMullan: My question has been answered, thank you.

Mr Dunne: Thanks again, Nigel, for coming in. Earlier, you mentioned social clauses. What discussion was there at the sponsor board of social clauses?

Sir Nigel Hamilton: That was a regular feature of discussions on the sponsor board because it was very important to DCAL and to the Minister that the contracts benefited the local community. I have not actually earmarked each of those; you will see them in the minutes, Mr Chairman. There was a regular discussion about the requirement that, in contracts, a number of local unemployed people would be taken on board or apprenticeships offered. Let me say, Mr Dunne, that we on the sponsor board did not discuss the detail, but we discussed the importance of its being included.

Mr Dunne: Were some of those clauses related to the planning application, the impact of this major planning application, which has been controversial from the start? I am sure that that issue was discussed at the sponsor board.

Sir Hamilton: No. The social clause issue was about the benefits, the social benefits — maybe that is a better expression, Mr Chairman — for the construction of the stadia during the work and subsequently.

Mr Dunne: What about the benefits and the negative effect? Surely, all those would have been discussed as part of the —

Sir Nigel Hamilton: No. They were not discussed at the sponsor board per se because the starting position was that we were going to refurbish three stadia, one for each sport, on the current site, as one of your colleagues said earlier.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): We are being diverted into —

Mr Dunne: So, you did not get into that detail then.

Sir Nigel Hamilton: No.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): We are into an area that is away from emergency exiting.

Mr Dunne: It is part of it, Chair.

Mr Hilditch: Thanks, Chair, for letting me come back. Sir Nigel, I was interested to hear you touch on the environmental issues of bats at Ravenhill and whatnot. Was Japanese knotweed ever mentioned as an environmental issue at Casement?

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): That is not emergency exiting either.

Sir Nigel Hamilton: I never heard it discussed, Mr Hilditch.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Unless you cannot get out without climbing over the Japanese knotweed or something.

Mr Hilditch: It is an environmental issue.

Sir Nigel Hamilton: Sorry, I was using that as a small illustration of learning at the project level —

Mr Hilditch: Those are issues that can hold up building and whatnot.

Sir Nigel Hamilton: Yes, but that would have gone on to the project board.

Mr Hilditch: OK, and is there any discussion on any new planning application that might have been forthcoming at this stage?

Sir Nigel Hamilton: No. What happened at the last meeting of the sponsor board, as I am sure my GAA colleagues will tell you, is that they reported to the sponsor board at the meeting in March that the GAA is still considering the implications of the outcome of the judicial review and hopes, to the best of my knowledge, to bring forward a new planning application later this year in light of that judgement.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Thank you very much, Sir Nigel, for coming this morning and for your evidence to the inquiry.

Sir Nigel Hamilton: Thank you very much indeed, Chair.