Despite major reservations about CI╔'s proposed link with Esat in 1997, the transport group's solicitor yesterday said he was not prepared to approach its chief executive or chairman with his concerns.
As the fourth week of the rail signalling inquiry opened, Mr Michael Carroll described a strong sense of isolation to an Oireachtas subcommittee. Asked if he was fearful, he said, "Not particularly."
Mr Carroll had serious misgivings that CI╔ would sell its soul if it agreed to terms proposed by Esat. He was worried also that the telecoms firm was "leaning on" CI╔'s property division, "hammering away" at its manager, Mr Jim Gahan, so that he would exert pressure on him as group solicitor. Mr Gahan denied that.
Yet Mr Carroll chose to go it alone to seek better terms for the transport group, believing the link with Esat was a fait accompli when the draft heads of agreement arrived to him in May 1997.
It was a striking admission, but one which appeared to tally with the contention 10 days ago by Iarnr≤d ╔ireann's managing director, Mr Joe Meagher, that the arrival of a new CI╔ management team in 1995 saw power shift away from its bus and rail subsidaries.
Mr Carroll acted for the group, but wanted to avoid a confrontation with its then chief executive, the late Mr Michael McDonnell. He felt he could retrieve the situation before it was necessary to "kick down" the door of the boardroom. That would have been the last throw of the dice, Mr Carroll said, and he did not consider himself a hero.
For all that, CI╔'s then chairman, Mr Brian Joyce, questioned why Mr Carroll would not approach him. That was "lilly-livered" behaviour, Mr Joyce suggested.
The bottom line, however, was that CI╔'s most senior legal executive felt he was not in loop as far as its vaunted telecoms initative was concerned. And neither was the internal team set up to manage the transport company's attempts to exploit its railway for telecoms purposes.
It was an unsettling image and, as in his evidence last Friday, Mr Carroll again pointed the finger at the group's then programmes and projects director, Dr Ray Byrne, as architect of the link with Esat.
Asked why he would not approach Mr McDonnell, Mr Carroll cited the chief executive's close links with Dr Byrne. "I would have regarded it at the time as futile for me to seek to have my views preferred over those of Ray Byrne," said Mr Carroll.
Dr Byrne, who with Mr McDonnell was a driving force at CI╔ in the mid-1990s, worked simultaneously for Esat at a certain stage. He rejected Mr Carroll's evidence, describing it as "utterly disgraceful". There were two things about CI╔, Dr Byrne said. "First and foremost, it ran on diesel and, secondly, it ran on rumours. Never a truer word was spoken, particularly in this context."
Dr Byrne said he was proud of the deal CI╔ reached with Esat, claiming it could be worth up to £100 million for the cash-strapped group. Interesting indeed, given that the inquiry was set up to establish why a signalling plan worth £14 million might ultimately cost more then £50 million. Dr Byrne was asked to amplify this assertion, but before the inquiry heard his explanation he was dismissed and told to return again today.
Only then, 5 1/2 hours into the hearing, was a former Esat director, Mr Leslie Buckley, called to give evidence.
It was a short engagement, marked by an attempt by Mr Buckley's barrister, Mr Paul Gardiner SC, to address to subcommittee after it adjourned. Mr Gardiner argued that due process had not been observed in citations of evidence by Esat's former chairman, Mr Denis O'Brien. But the subcommittee refused to listen and left the room.