Select Committee on Treasury Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 416-419)

MR PETER MCNAMARA, MR ASHLEY DEAN, MR RON DELNEVO AND MR MARK MILLS

1 FEBRUARY 2005

  Q416 Chairman: Good morning and welcome. I am sorry the first session ran over, but you were all present and you heard my outline at the beginning on this being a public policy issue and we are looking at the future of the market. I think Mr Delnevo, Bank Machine Ltd, has written to us and said that in terms of the development of cash machines it has been a "win-win" situation already, so I do not think I will go along the table and ask you that. I presume you all agree with Mr Delnevo that this market is a win-win one? Okay; thank you. For the shorthand-writer could you introduce yourselves?

  Mr McNamara: Peter McNamara, Chairman at MoneyBox.

  Mr Mills: Mark Mills, Chief Executive of Cardpoint.

  Mr Dean: Ashley Dean, Managing Director of TRM.

  Mr Delnevo: Ron Delnevo, Managing Director of Bank Machine.

  Q417 Chairman: We will come on to discuss the details and the rules of transparency charges later in this session, but LINK told us that five members voted against the new requirement for approved transparency at the meeting on 14 December, and, as you heard earlier, LINK were unable to supply us with the names of the companies that voted against the new requirement because of what they said were "confidentiality agreements". Can you each tell us whether your companies voted for or against the requirements for improved transparency and, if you did, give your reasons for your decision?

  Mr Delnevo: Against, because LINK was simply rushing to react to the fact that there was a Treasury Select Committee rather than spending time properly examining all the issues.

  Q418 Chairman: So LINK are opportunists, are they?

  Mr Delnevo: You used those words. I am not using them. I have given my position.

  Q419 Chairman: Okay, we will maybe come back to that. Mr Dean?

  Mr Dean: As it happens TRM voted for the proposal, and I think that was on the basis that primarily we would like to get on and run our business and are very happy for things to be transparent and were keen, therefore, to do and to support anything that allows us to move on from this issue and get on with our business.


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2005
Prepared 31 March 2005