Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees
Thursday, 2 March 2017
Public Accounts Committee
2015 Annual Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General and Appropriation Accounts
Vote 34 - Environment, Community and Local Government
9:00 am
Mr. John McCarthy:
Certainly, Deputy. This issue relates to a housing development being undertaken as part of the Ballymun regeneration project. It was a situation where pyrite was found. It goes back to 2007 and 2008. When presented with the situation that arose at the time, we engaged with Ballymun Regeneration Limited on the appropriate response. There were two options which were considered. One was to continue with the existing contract and ask the existing contractor to complete the work and pay for it without any determination of legal liability which would be determined at a later stage. The other was to terminate the contractor's employment and secure someone else to come in and do it. Both of those options were considered from risk and legal perspectives and the choice was ultimately made that the best outcome from the taxpayers' perspective would be to continue the employment of the existing contractor, remedy the work and bring the project to a conclusion. The project was very significantly advanced at that stage. All of the financial, legal and risk factors were taken into account.
Where the issue of a loan came into play was that in wanting to progress the project to completion, we were faced with a situation where there was no legal certainty around where the ultimate liability for the defective material would be placed. We wanted an avenue through which to provide space for the additional public funds that were going to be provided to be recovered in due course, including if the contractor who was engaging in legal proceedings was to get a successful outcome. Even though it is ten years on, those legal proceedings have not yet concluded. There are a whole range of other legal proceedings, and I want to be careful about what I say, ongoing on a similar issue but Dublin City Council or BRL are not involved in those. This was a vehicle with the taxpayers' interests in mind to try to provide an avenue through which moneys could be recovered at a stage down the road, including if the outcome of legal proceedings which are still going on went in a particular direction.