John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

As there is a quorum, we will commence in public session. Are the minutes of the meeting of 6 December 2012 agreed? Agreed. On matters arising from the minutes, we will deal with the draft report on the HSE under item 6. The other issues referred to in the minutes relate to Dublin WaterWorld. There are two issues to be dealt with. First, the official response to our report on the VAT charge and second, new evidence that has been submitted to the committee from Dublin WaterWorld which contains extracts of legal advice to Campus Stadium Ireland from PwC where the whole issue of the weakness of the case was set out in 2002. I propose that we accept generally the note from the Department on its reaction to our report, which, essentially, outlines its intention to implement the main points relative to our report.

However, in the context of the second item, which is the correspondence received from Dublin WaterWorld, I would suggest that we hold that matter open. What is being suggested here is that CSID was made fully aware by PwC in late 2002 that its case to levy VAT on Dublin WaterWorld was not in compliance with the VAT regulations - in e-mails, they talk about their approach being "not perfect". It appears, based on this, that the case rested on the fact that Revenue had not updated its own guidelines. Therefore, and without going into detail on what is a technical issue, we need to know why CSID, a State company, went all the way to the Supreme Court when at the minimum its legal advisers were telling it in 2002 that its case did not fit the law of the land. The committee was given assurances that the legal advice was fully in support of the strategy pursued. At a minimum, the extracts of legal advice, as contained in emails from PwC to its client, casts some doubt on that.

I propose to ask the Accounting Officer, who only took possession of this issue when there was a change in departmental responsibility for sport, to review his files and to ascertain first, whether the files he reviewed when giving evidence to the committee contained the PwC advice that has now been made available to the committee and second, if he remains satisfied, based on this further review, that his evidence to the committee, in terms of the legal strategy followed, still stacks up.

As we stated in our report, this case went all the way to the Supreme Court and now the State is facing what is, most likely, a hefty legal bill, and the evidence now submitted to the committee appears to lend more support to the contention that this issue should have been resolved in 2002 and that the VAT issue should never have been pursued.

We will await a response from the Accounting Officer. We have asked for a comprehensive and speedy response. On receipt of that, we will place the matter on the agenda for an early meeting of the committee in 2013. Is that agreed? Agreed.

On correspondence received since meeting of Thursday, 6 December 2012, the following is correspondence from accounting officers and-or Ministers. Correspondence, dated 6 December 2012, received from Mr. John Corrigan, chief executive, NTMA, providing information requested by the committee at its meeting of 22 November 2012, is to be noted and published. Correspondence, dated 7 December 2012, from Mr. Ray Mitchell, assistant national director, parliamentary and regulatory affairs, HSE, providing information requested by the committee at its meeting of 8 November 2012, is to be noted and published. Correspondence, dated 11 December 2012, from Ms Geraldine Tallon, Secretary General, Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, providing information requested by the Committee at its meeting of 11 October 2012, is to be noted and published.

On item 3B, individual correspondence and-or complaints, correspondence, received on 5 December 2012, from Mr. Thomas W. Brennan regarding right of place is to be noted and forwarded to the HSE for a note on the matter. Item 3B.2, correspondence received on 3 December 2012 from Mrs. Miriam Cotton, 13 Woodlands, Clonakilty, County Cork, regarding Youthreach, Macroom, County Cork, is to be noted and forwarded to the Department of Education and Skills for a note on the matter. 3B.3 is correspondence, received 4 December 2012, from Mr. Bev Cotton, regarding Youthreach, Macroom, VEC, is to be noted and forwarded to the Department of Education and Skills for a note on the matter. Correspondence, dated 1 December 2012, from an anonymous source regarding waste of public money on road signage, is to be noted and forwarded to the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport for a note on the matter. Correspondence, received on 11 October 2012 from Mrs Mary Farrell regarding HSE budgets is to be noted and forwarded to the HSE for a note on the issue. Item 3B.6, correspondence, dated 20 June 2012, from Mr Pat Brady, Station Road, Millfarm, Dunboyne, County Meath, regarding apprentice programme allocation, is to be noted and forwarded to the Department of Education and Skills for a note on the issue.

No. 3B.7, correspondence dated 11 October 2012 from Seán and Elaine Moran, Courthill, Borrisokane, County Tipperary on affinity fraud, is to be noted and forwarded to the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine in order that it might review the case.

The next item is documents related to this meeting. No. 3D.1 is correspondence received on 6 December 2012 from the National Development Finance Agency. This is a briefing paper on matters to be considered at today's meeting and to be noted and published.

No. 3D.2 is correspondence received on 11 December 2012 from the National Development Finance Agency. This is the opening statement of the chief executive of the agency and to be noted and published.

I received a letter yesterday from Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan regarding the work of the Public Accounts Committee at Westminster which called in representatives of multinational corporations to examine their profits and practices. I mention this matter because it involves direct correspondence received from a Member of the House. Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan has asked that this committee conduct the same type of inquiry as that carried out by its sister committee at Westminster. I will circulate the letter and ask the clerk to the committee to provide a briefing on the matter at our meeting next Thursday. We do not have the same powers as the Public Accounts Committee at Westminster; therefore, the matter in question falls outside our remit. However, the clerk will brief us on any issue which arises and bring forward a report in the usual way.