Dáil debates

Wednesday, 24 November 2010

Expenditure Programme

National Aquatic Centre

1:00 pm

Photo of John O'MahonyJohn O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 25: To ask the Minister for Tourism; Culture and Sport when she expects the full legal costs of the VAT case involving the National Aquatic Centre will be determined; if she expects the Exchequer will as a consequence need to provide levels of funding to the National Aquatic Centre to meet its liabilities; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [44380/10]

Photo of Mary HanafinMary Hanafin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The matter of Campus and Stadium Ireland Limited and Dublin Waterworld Limited came before the Supreme Court in November 2009, and the judgment of the court was issued on 30 April 2010. In a further hearing on 11 May, the Supreme Court ordered, inter alia, that the costs of the High Court and Supreme Court hearings be awarded to Dublin Waterworld Limited. The level of such costs has yet to be determined. Any such costs will fall to be met by the National Sports Campus Development Authority, which in turn receives its funding from this Department.

Photo of John O'MahonyJohn O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to clarify several points. Has the Minister asked for a report from the national sports campus with a view to the costs involved? There have been various media reports suggesting the costs could be up to €4 million and some of my sources suggest they could be up to €7.5 million. If this is the case, will the Department have to pay an extra subvention to the sports campus to make up for these costs? Will this impact on the amount of money available for sport in Ireland? Does the Minister believe it is fair that the taxpayer has to pick up the tab for this case when all of the advice from the Attorney General and the Comptroller and Auditor General was that it would be lost?

3:00 pm

Photo of Mary HanafinMary Hanafin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No agreement has been reached in regard to the costs. I know the sports campus has been in contact with its legal advisers but they are not able to predict what the cost claim is likely to be at this stage. If agreement is not reached on that, it obviously will be referred to the Taxing Master. There is obviously correspondence between the legal advisers on both sides. Whatever that figure is, the national sports campus will have to pay it. As matters stand, it is dependent on a subvention from the Department and although the aquatic centre is very successful and is the fourth most popular paid visitor attraction in the country, it still needs a subvention every year, as would every facility of its type internationally. That money would have to come by way of a subvention from the Department.

Photo of John O'MahonyJohn O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Effectively, the Minister is saying the taxpayer will have to pick up the tab for this and there will be less money to spend on sport as a result of the allocation. Might the money come from the funding allocated to sport?

In a reply to Deputy Enright on 14 October, the Minister stated the VAT invoice was issued and provided for under legislation at the time. In view of the Supreme Court judgment which took an entirely different view, does the Minister wish to withdraw that statement? In addition, the Attorney General mentioned highly paid advisers. Are these advisers being held to account for the mistake they made in pursuing this case and thereto advising the Minister? Can the Minister confirm whether she has sought a refund of €3.5 million paid to the executive services team which got the VAT wrong by more than €10 million and made so many other wrong calls?

Photo of Mary HanafinMary Hanafin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A number of issues were raised by Dublin Waterworld Limited which has been in contact with me and with all Deputies present in the Chamber. As this case has been before the courts, including the Supreme Court where it was determined upon, I do not think it appropriate to reopen all the issues which precede my time in this position. However, I have replied to Dublin Waterworld Limited on the issues it raised in its letter.

Photo of John O'MahonyJohn O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Minister agree that the VAT bill issued at the time was a mistake, as the Supreme Court has ruled?

Photo of Mary HanafinMary Hanafin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I reiterate I will not reopen issues determined by the Supreme Court. This case went to the High Court and the Supreme Court and was returned to the Supreme Court in regard to costings. I do not think it is appropriate to discuss it again because a final decision has been made. It preceded my time and relates to 2004.

Photo of John O'MahonyJohn O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I understand the Committee of Public Accounts is examining it.