Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): We are delighted to have with us Jim Shaw, president of the IFA, in regard to the Committee's inquiry. I remind members and witnesses of the obligation to declare any relevant financial or other interests.

The Committee Clerk: We did that earlier today, so we can carry that forward.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): OK, we carry that forward. Do you want to make an opening statement, Jim, or take questions?

Mr Jim Shaw (Irish Football Association): I would prefer to take questions on the basis that I do not know how much I can offer to you, but I will certainly do my best to answer any questions that are asked.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): First is David Hilditch.

Mr Hilditch: No, sorry; I had been indicating about declarations of interest.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Sorry. Leslie Cree then, please.

Mr Cree: Welcome, Jim. On the question of safety and how it works its way through — exiting in particular — were you aware of any talk about the essential nature of exiting and, indeed, entering sports grounds and that there was legislation and a guide to cover that?

Mr Shaw: I was not deeply involved in the detail, as you can imagine. You have probably been told already or are aware that there were three levels in the structure. There was the working group, which was the IFA people who met on a regular basis, monthly, to discuss and deal with any issues. Also meeting monthly, we had the project board, which brought in DCAL, all the external people, Sport NI, the builders, the architect, Central Procurement Directorate (CPD) etc. It dealt with the next level up, so to speak, if there were issues to be dealt with. We then had the programme sponsor board, which, as you are probably aware, looked at the three sports projects together as one programme. It was high level. I sat on that, representing the IFA.

We did not discuss detail. It was more about scheduling, timeliness and items of common interest, such as planning permission, for which rugby was able to give us the model, because it had done it before us. That helped us immensely to get it right first time. So, I am not involved in the detail, but I am aware of the access and egress issue. During the planning permission phase, the safety technical group (STG) ultimately produced a report in January 2013. It would have ensured that the design was to the red guide, which is the Northern Ireland guide, and to the green guide, version 5, I think, which is a futuristic guide. It is not yet in vogue, but it protects us for the future. The design complied with those two key pieces of documentation, which are very important, obviously, for sports stadiums. I do not think that it ever went further; it did not need to go any further than the project board level.

Mr Cree: So the project board was looking at that sort of detail.

Mr Shaw: Yes. In fact, I am led to believe that they had seven scenarios for Windsor and, of course, they chose the one that was optimum for the 18,000 capacity. Remember that it is an 18,000 capacity stadium and, speaking of access and egress, we had 15,000 in not too long ago for the match against Italy, which was approved by the city council. We do not have a big increase in capacity.

Mr Cree: I must say that the east stand looks really well.

Mr Shaw: I have just come from there. It looks absolutely superb.

Mr Cree: Is the Kop still under consideration, just to digress slightly, Chair?

The Committee Clerk: That is for the next briefing, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Curtail your enthusiasm, Leslie.

Mr Cree: All right. It is good to see something happening there. I wish you all the best for Saturday.

Mr Humphrey: Hear, hear.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): We will get back to that in the next session.

Mr Dunne: Welcome. Will you clarify the responsibility of the sponsor board? What is your understanding of the responsibility of the sponsor board?

Mr Shaw: I do not have it here, but, if I remember rightly, its remit was an overview of the programme, which involved the three sports and a total spend of £110 million. It was really there for any issues that arose. For instance, there was concern when we had a potential judicial review situation, because that could have had an impact on all three sports, obviously. That issue was dealt with through the sponsor board. The role of the sponsor board was to clear the pathway for the design and development of all three stadiums. Items that were common to all three stadiums and any other relevant issues were debated there, but I can assure you that we did not get down to Windsor Park egress etc. We did not have to, because it was covered through the normal processes.

Mr Dunne: Was there any discussion on the emergency exiting of Casement Park specifically, which the inquiry is focusing on, at the sponsor board?

Mr Shaw: It is probably difficult for me to answer that, not remembering all of the meetings, but I am not aware that there was any detailed discussion.

Mr Dunne: You are not aware of any detailed discussion.

Mr Shaw: No.

Mr Dunne: OK. You mentioned the drawings that were brought forward. You understood that they were compliant with the design guide. Were you talking about Windsor, or were you talking about —

Mr Shaw: I was talking about Windsor only. I can only talk about Windsor.

Mr Dunne: But you were on the sponsor board, which —

Mr Shaw: Yes, and I think you would have to accept that all three were dealing with the same legislation under the red guide and green guide.

Mr Dunne: You do not recall any discussion at the sponsor board about the exiting issues at Casement.

Mr Shaw: No, I do not.

Mr Dunne: At any time.

Mr Shaw: No.

Mr Dunne: OK. Thank you.

Mr Ó hOisín: Jim, Nigel Hamilton said earlier that safety issues were never discussed at the sponsor board. Is that your —

Mr Shaw: Yes, they were never discussed in any detail at the sponsor board.

Mr Ó hOisín: When did you first hear of the issues raised by Paul Scott?

Mr Shaw: Through the media.

Mr Ó hOisín: After 30 April.

Mr Shaw: Yes, when the media brought it to attention.

Mr Ó hOisín: You had no indication of that at any time before.

Mr Shaw: No.

Mr Ó hOisín: OK. Thanks.

Mr D Bradley: When he was here this morning, Sir Nigel Hamilton said that safety issues came up as part of the senior responsible officer (SRO) report pretty regularly. Why were no questions asked?

Mr Shaw: First, you have to accept that I was not at every meeting. I can only really speak for Windsor, but, from looking at the minutes, I see that there were no real issues at all around Windsor on access and egress.

Mr D Bradley: In those reports, there was specific reference to Casement Park. No one asked any questions or raised any issues.

Mr Shaw: Not to the best of my knowledge.

Mr B McCrea: There is a letter here, Jim. I do not know if you are aware of it. It is from the permanent secretary at the time and is about the development of Windsor. The letter is from 8 October 2012. The sponsor board started before that, did it not?

Mr Shaw: At about that time, yes.

Mr B McCrea: With regard to Windsor, the letter says:

It continues, but did the Department approve the plans to go forward for planning?

Mr Shaw: I do not think that "approval" is the right word, but it was involved in it. We put in the planning application in December 2012.

Mr B McCrea: I know that you put it in and were taking it through but, given that the Department was putting a fair bit of money into it, would you have given it to it and said, "These are the plans"?

Mr Shaw: Yes, absolutely. That was part of the process.

Mr B McCrea: Would it have come back with something like, "Yes, OK, that is dead on. Away you go"?

Mr Shaw: To the best of my knowledge, it did not come back with anything significant. We submitted that in December 2012, and the stadium technical group put in its report in early January 2013 covering all aspects of safety at the ground.

Mr B McCrea: When did you get the safety certificate?

Mr Shaw: In January 2013, but it also informed the planning people, of course.

Mr B McCrea: The permanent secretary says here that she thinks that there has to be approval. I realise that it is her issue rather than yours. The letter states:

Do you know if such approval was given by Sport NI, the PSNI and Belfast City Council?

Mr Shaw: Yes. I do not have it with me, but the stadium technical group produced the report and all the agencies were involved in that. It was led by DCAL and Sport NI and involved the Fire and Rescue Service, the police, the city council, us and another one that I cannot remember.

Mr B McCrea: I realise that you have more of an oversight view, but it would be helpful if you could help us out on this. I know that you got your approval in the end, obviously, but do you know if you got an indication early, which is to say in about October 2012? I know that you got it granted officially in January 2013, but do you know if you got approval a year earlier?

Mr Shaw: No, I do not. I doubt that we would have got approval a year earlier.

Mr B McCrea: It was just that it said that she was having a look at it. I have another couple of points. I realise that you were there for the IFA; this is just to help us to know what goes on at the sponsor board. There are quite a lot of mentions in the minutes of emergency exiting and things like that to do with Casement. Was it just a case of "There is that" and then moving on? Did nobody talk about anything?

Mr Shaw: In the meetings I was at, when it was brought up, it may have been discussed but definitely not in significant detail. You would probably not expect it to be discussed in detail at that level.

Mr B McCrea: I note the draft minutes of the sponsor board meeting from Wednesday 18 December 2013. That is just before you were about to get your certificate. Item 5.10 states that Antoinette McKeown:

Could you shed any light on that? What was that?

Mr Shaw: Not really, because I was not involved in that part of it at all. I know that there is flexibility in the green guide, but other than that I have no real knowledge to support or deny it.

Mr B McCrea: We are getting towards the conclusion of this, because you are telling us that you cannot really help us that much. That is not, in any way, to say that you are not being helpful —

Mr Shaw: No, it is not negative.

Mr B McCrea: Absolutely. It seems strange to me that there were issues around building new stadiums on old sites. There was a lot of community consultation and suchlike. Were there any discussions about how people might manage the expectations of the local community?

Mr Shaw: We went through the process of talking to the local community early on; I can only talk for ourselves. We met the residents from the area to explain what we were doing, including timelines and the structures that we were going to put in place. We did not have an issue with that. In fact, it was very well accepted. However, I emphasise that that is because our increase in capacity was minimal. We were not going to a big stadium; it was simply an 18,000 all-seater stadium, compared with , as I said, having 15,000 for Italy three and a half years ago in the lesser stadium. There was not a big issue about the numbers side of it.

Mr B McCrea: It was a fairly compact site, but, as you said, you were not increasing the capacity that much.

Mr Shaw: Not significantly.

Mr B McCrea: So you had experience of the emergency exiting scheme, and you knew that you could handle that.

Mr Shaw: Yes, I think that that is fair.

Mr B McCrea: I will finish by saying this, because it is important: your recollection is that at no time did anybody raise a substantive issue and that, if there had been a substantive issue and people were really worried about it, they probably would have raised something. Is that the right forum?

Mr Shaw: It is supposition on my part but, yes, if something significant was raised, it would have to be dealt with.

Mr B McCrea: I noticed the language used in this minute and, for the record, I know that you were not at the meeting, so that is a get-out as well, Jim. Cynthia Smith provides this update on the IFA project:

That is December 2013. Do you have any recollection of what the risks and issues that you might have to deal with for the IFA were?

Mr Shaw: From memory, I cannot. The overall risk — I do not think it was dealt with at that meeting — was the potential for a judicial review of the whole programme. That risk was dealt with extensively at the sponsor board.

Mr B McCrea: Would there be a record anywhere? Would the SRO, Cynthia Smith, have provided a list of the risks and issues that were threatening the delivery of the programme? Would there be a list somewhere? Would there be documentation?

Mr Shaw: There certainly should be some record of it, I would imagine, yes.

Mr B McCrea: I know that you were able to work it out, but it would be useful for understanding how the process worked, given that this is in some detail, if we could have a look at that documentation.

Mr Shaw: I do not have the documentation, obviously.

Mr B McCrea: Maybe, Chair, we might ask for the detail that that relates to just to see how the process works. I understand that you got your issue sorted out, and that is fair enough. However, that would be useful.

Mr Hilditch: Jim, you are very welcome. I just want to get a feel of how things progressed up the chain, as it were. We are aware that Ms Flanagan sent a letter thanking the STG for their work on the Windsor project at the time, prior to going to planning. Would the like of that have been reported through to the sponsor board?

Mr Shaw: From memory, I think the fact was simply recorded that it had been achieved.

Mr Hilditch: That the safety had been achieved?

Mr Shaw: No, that the report from the STG had been produced and was in order, for lack of a better term.

Mr Hilditch: Would it have been the same for the planning application, which ended up as part of a judicial review for Casement?

Mr Shaw: I think that it was the same.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): I do not have anyone else down for a question.

Mr B McCrea: I would like to ask one supplementary question. We asked whether the SRO talked about those issues. However, just to be clear that neither the Minister nor the chair at any time raised the issue — I do not know whether the Minister was in the chair all the time.

Mr Shaw: The Minister chaired those meetings.

Mr B McCrea: At any time did the Minister raise the issue of safety either?

Mr Shaw: In an overall context of the whole programme, of course, the long-term unemployed and safety were key parameters in the whole thing. From a concept point of view, they were key parameters. Does that answer your question?

Mr B McCrea: I know that those are parameters. We have established that you were not getting reports coming through or on the agendas and all that. I note that it is not on the agenda — I am not trying to lead you; I am just asking the question — but did the person chairing the committee ever raise safety issues for discussion?

Mr Shaw: I did not come across any specific safety issues being raised.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Thank you very much, Jim.