Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)

I welcome the production of this Bill. It has been promised for some years and the development of the lands at Abbotstown for sports and amenity purposes is something I strongly support. When I was elected to the former Dublin County Council in 1991, the land was owned by the Department of Agriculture and Food and used for various agricultural purposes. I moved a motion that it should be designated in the county development plan for amenity and sports purposes for the growing population of Dublin 15 and as a regional park. I have always been a strong supporter of amenity, recreation and sporting facilities on this land.

The debate on this Bill gives us an opportunity to ask the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, the Minister for Finance or the Taoiseach to clarify the position regarding the National Aquatic Centre, which is the first part of the series of proposals to be developed on the Abbotstown site. I speak as a strong supporter of the aquatic centre. It is appropriate that the aquatic centre is located in its current location. I supported that as a member of the county council from the time the idea was first floated. Approximately €63 million has been spent on the National Aquatic Centre.

Yesterday, we had the judge's rulings on the dispute between Campus Stadium Ireland Development and Dublin Waterworld, the managers of the facility. The Minister must make a full statement clarifying what went on at the National Aquatic Centre. A three-part consortium — a firm of architects, a construction company and a management company — was given over €60 million of State funding to design, build and subsequently manage the pools at Abbotstown. What we know at this point is that the cost of this project, as with many other Government projects, was considered by many observers to be very high and that pools of equivalent quality in other locations in Europe, for instance, are developed for approximately €20 million less than was paid by the Irish taxpayer for the facilities at Abbotstown.

Since it opened and hosted a successful part of the Special Olympics, of which we are all very proud — many Members of this House but, more particularly, large numbers of individuals from every walk of life took part in and gave their support to the Special Olympics — the development does not appear to have had a lucky moment. The first problem was the storm during which the roof blew off. I raised that issue in the House and pointed out, based on solid engineering advice available to me, that the roof should not have blown off in the second year of completion of the building of the facility. The Taoiseach and others said it was due to a hurricane. There were very strong winds on the day but there was no hurricane at the location. Furthermore, the Taoiseach went into denial mode about the seriousness of the problem but the pool had to be closed for many months, the staff were laid off and left with an uncertain future and very expensive remedial work was undertaken by those involved in the construction.

That disaster put a huge dent, so to speak, in the National Aquatic Centre but it was followed by the running rows between Campus Stadium Ireland and the company managing the facility. We have heard unfold, in dribs and drabs, a story of incredible complications that would not be out of place in a thriller involving last-minute meetings during which people were persuaded to take part in management companies. We had information yesterday to the effect that the management company arrangement was the subject of a sub-lease to a businessman which, to quote the judge and a witness in the case, was tax driven.

This facility was built entirely with €60 million of taxpayers' money. How could there possibly have been a tax break element to it? It defies logic. Perhaps it was possible, in the way that the Minister, the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance created Campus Stadium Ireland Development, to assign some capital values which in turn would attract some tax break advantage to what I assume is essentially a sub-lessor businessman. That is an outrage. We are well used to people having tax advantages conferred on them by the Government in a way that at times is inappropriate and enables multimillionaires to reduce their annual tax bill to zero, but what happened yesterday and what was disclosed in the court case defies reason. I expect the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism to give the Dáil a detailed explanation of what happened regarding the arrangements for the contract for the National Aquatic Centre and the various ramifications.

It must be borne in mind that others tendered and offered to build this facility. I understand some of those offers were considered to be potentially significantly more beneficial to the Exchequer, the taxpayer and the users of the facility, but they did not appear to be part of the inside circle that resulted in the selection of the three-part consortium. We are still unclear as to what happened. Tribunals have incurred a bad name and the mechanism by which the Government has established tribunals has ensured they will go on potentially for decades. I believe we are in tribunal territory in terms of what happened here.

Some months ago I had an opportunity — I do not know if the Minister has had this opportunity; I am sure he will not want to know — to visit the complex and I was shocked by what I saw in the basement areas. This is a new facility — it is not yet three years old — but metal fittings in the basement areas are already corroded and rusted. There are large cracks in the wall of the basement area under the pool and, most tellingly, the water consumption for the centre is way off what was included in the original specifications. As I am sure the Minister is aware, that is of major significance because swimming pool water must be treated to a very high level. The swimming pool in Abbotstown is leaking large volumes of water, resulting in high costs for water charges.

The roof blew off and that should never have happened. From the limited amount of information provided by the consultants, we know that it was not due to a hurricane or tornado as claimed by the Government at the time, rather it was due to faults in the construction which were subsequently rectified. The Minister claims that it will not cost the taxpayer anything, but its construction cost 20% more than equivalent facilities on mainland Europe and its roof blew off within two years. A two-year old building should not show severe cracks in the under-floor and underwater area that require the construction company to patch them up, nor should metal fittings become completely corroded. A video was shown on RTE which showed water seeping from cracks into the lower part of the building. Large water volumes have been lost through seepage into the Tolka river. It is a disgrace that a project can cost more than €60 million and be riddled with problems after the Special Olympics finished. Was the construction rushed for the Special Olympics? What about the three members of the Government who have personal responsibility as shareholders in Campus Stadium Ireland Development?

Section 38 of the Bill seeks to continue that latter arrangement and tries to rectify it. The Taoiseach, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism are the shareholders in this company, so the buck stops with them on how the contracts were awarded and on how a €63 million project had to close its doors and lay off its staff. The staff received very little information about the closure and the people in west Dublin who worked there are very concerned about the future. A €60 million project should have a life of 20 to 30 years and I want to know if the future of the centre is threatened. Has the Minister made an inquiry into everything that went on? I asked the Comptroller and Auditor General to carry out an audit of this development and he will do so in due course.

The bill for the electronic voting experiment must have risen to €60 million. The Luas came in almost five years late and at almost double the cost. The port tunnel will be an excellent project whenever it is finished, but it has come at double the cost. Taxpayers have been taken for a ride and the National Aquatic Centre is a monument to this Government's inability to manage projects.

Section 38 is an extraordinary provision. It states:

The Taoiseach, the Minister for Finance and the Minister shall have, and be deemed always to have had, power to hold and transfer shares in the Company and the establishment of the Company shall be, and be deemed always to have been, as valid and effectual as if they had that power at the time of its establishment.

This is to rectify retrospectively what the Government did by administrative arrangement. The Dáil normally does not legislate retrospectively. The three culprits are seeking to give themselves retrospective powers that most constitutional lawyers would argue they never had in the first place. We need an explanation. The explanatory memorandum provides none and I can only guess that there must be doubts about the legal capacity of the three Ministers to form a private company without statutory authority and to enter into contracts relating to the acquisition, holding and transfer of shares in it. It would also affect their capacity to transact business for public purposes with public moneys through the medium of that private company and it would impugn the validity of the Votes of money made by the Dáil and confirmed in Appropriation Acts. That is why we deal with money Bills in this House.

In correspondence with the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Commission on Electronic Voting, I raised the issue of whether the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government had statutory authority to enter into contracts for the purchase of electronic voting hardware and software. We have argued that Ministers acquire capacity from two sources, namely, the Ministers and Secretaries Acts and from the various Acts conferring additional powers on particular Ministers. We raised this issue on several occasions, as we did with the deal that was made with the religious congregations. The Minister needs to make a full statement on this to the House.

When I was elected to the old Dublin County Council in 1991, I moved that the land at Abbottstown be reserved for amenity, recreational and sports use and for parkland. I have always supported the development of appropriate amenity and recreational facilities there. However, we want local representation on the board of this body and we want more detailed information about the plans for development on the site. Dublin West is very built up and this is one of the last reserves of land for amenity use in the area, which is now larger than Limerick city and almost as big as Galway. There is a need for recreational and cultural amenities.

What are the details of this development? Can local people obtain any more information? Work is being carried out at the perimeter of the site, which was an old farm with stone walls. Many of the stone walls on the Corduff side appear to be taken down at the moment. Local people could do with an information board to show what is happening on the site. They support the development, but they need more information about what is planned.

See this speech in context