Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I will move on to the State Pathology Service for which the development of a new facility was first mooted in 2006. However, the State remains without an adequate building in which to house the State Pathology Service and the Dublin coroner's facility. I note that in his opening statement, Mr. Purcell consistently reiterated the Department's commitment to strong oversight and the highest standards of financial control. He referred to the Department's risk assessment mechanisms and audit facilities and essentially spoke on how good is the Department with regard to oversight, managing projects and managing its budgets. However, in the case of the State Pathology Service farrago, this comedy of errors, there is no evidence to suggest, at least between 2006 and 2011 or 2012, that any of these traits were in evidence. In his contribution earlier, the Comptroller and Auditor General went through in chronological order the series of events that led to this impasse and to a point at which considerable sums of taxpayers' money were spent on a project from which no benefit is being derived and that has lost well in excess of €3 million for the taxpayer, notwithstanding the fact that in each year from 2006 to 2011 or 2012, the Estimates of the Department provided resources for this facility to be developed.

I am seriously concerned about the lack of oversight the Department had in respect of this project. It is clearly that from an investment point of view, Dublin City Council managed the project and invested one third of the resources into it, with the Department investing two thirds. From the documentation I read arising from the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, it appears there was no single overarching document that detailed clearly who was responsible for what in respect of managing this project. In itself, that constitutes a serious indictment of the Department and of Dublin City Council and may have led to the current situation, whereby the service now will be developed at the vacated Whitehall Garda station. I simply am not convinced that any proper oversight was involved in this particular project and there is no evidence to suggest it was. The project first moved from concept, that is, from the page to the stage as such in 2006. It went out for public tender in 2007 at one stage but then had to go out for public tender again because the Department was not conforming with the 2007 framework instituted by the Department of Finance. The Department claims it was not foreseeable that an objection might arise from anyone, even though this particular site was located right next to a national monument, namely, the Casino at Marino. One would not need to be an expert to anticipate that the then Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, as the line Department, would have had a view in this regard. This clearly delayed the project, as did the fact that the original developer went into receivership at that point. I accept this could not have been foreseen but why, for example, was the second firm on the panel not engaged to complete this project? This has been a complete waste of money, there still is no facility, and this highly sensitive operation, the State Pathology Service, still is being carried out in prefabs in Marino.