Hopefully you can clarify or provide a response to the following. Apologies in advance for the rather lengthy list of questions. The questions relate to events as they occurred between 2000 and present day...
1. At a number of points before the lease was signed Mr Kivlehan wrote that he wished to see the contracts signed off as soon as possible. Why was this?
2. The lease was approved by a Mr John O'Gorman in 2000. What was his role at the time?
3. The rent payment cheques were signed by Mr Patrick Kivlehan, what was his role at the time?
4. Mr Kivlehan is now head of internal audit in Fás. Does Fás believe there is any conflict of interest regards the now on-going audit into the site rented from Mr Oliver and Mr Kivlehan's role at the time? If so, what has been done to avoid this conflict effecting the audit?
5. It appears the building in question has never been used for the function for which it was originally leased (as a training facility for apprentices). Is it correct to say it was used for storage between 2001 and 2006 and not in use since then? If not, what has the building been used for and between which dates?
6. In 2003 work was done, but not completed, on the building. What was the plan to build at the site?
7. When the work was not completed, did the attempt to change the building breach a fire safety cert? Was the cert therefore breached since 2003 to present, including the period when Mr Richard Keegan wrote the letter to which I refer later in this email?
8. Local management attempted to get out of the lease in 2003. They wrote to Mr Oliver informing him the lease had been cancelled, yet this appears to have been overruled by more senior staff, is that correct? If so, why was this and who overruled local management? And for what reason?
8. The lease could have finished in 2007, yet it was reinstated. This was despite the prior attempt by local management to get out of the lease, and the apparent uselessness of the building to Fás at the time. Why was the lease reinstated? Who was responsible for the extension of the lease (local management? HQ?) and what was their reasoning?
9. At a number of points over the years concerns were raised about the building not being fit for the intended purpose. At a minuted meeting on June 6th 2007 the effectiveness of running a plumbing course in a building with no gas facilities was questioned. Furthermore, on June 1st 2007 Mr Richard Keegan wrote to Alan Sharkey, Tony Hannigan and Neill Bannon noting that as the building stood at the time it was not fire safety compliant; it would require planning permission to alter for training apprentices; it did not meet fundamental requirements for running a plumbing course and that it had been closed down in the past by Fás for not meeting basic health and safety standards.
Mr Keegan said the building had been closed prior to 2007 as it was in breach of basic health and safety standards. When was this and what was the building being used for when it was closed?
10. What was Mr Keegan's role when he wrote the assessment? What is his role now?
11. Was there ever any analysis done before the lease was signed to ensure the building was fit-for-purpose, regulation-compliant and that planning permission was obtainable (or already obtained)?
12. Clearly the building was later found to be unfit-for-purpose, in breach of fire safety regulations and not easily altered without breaching or obtaining planning permission. How did this occur if there it met these conditions prior to the start of the lease?
13. If there was planning permission obtained, why was the development permitted not actioned?
14. Did anyone in Fás ever consider that leasing a building from the Terry Oliver of OSK, the company carrying out and tendering for financial control consultancy contracts for Fás, may be less than wise? If so who raised this matter and what was the response from the relevant superior staff?
15. How much has Fás spent on leasing, maintaining and/or altering the building since the lease was first taken?
16. What is the building being used for now? Are there any plans to change its use before the lease ends in 2011?
17. When is the on-going audit expected to be completed?
18. What triggered the audit into the leasing of this building?
19. Does Fás or any Fás staff have any comment to make on the matter today?