Vol. 550 No. 2
3 Mr. Deenihan asked the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation if, in view of the findings of the High Point Rendel Report, the Government will proceed with the Stadium and Campus Ireland project; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7714/02]
The overview of the Stadium and Sports Campus Ireland project conducted by independent consultants High Point Rendel was published on 31 January 2002. The Government has requested me to report on the implications of the HPR recommendations and options and in particular to evaluate the viability of the existing tendering strategy as a basis for any modification of the stadium design and operation, the implications for the Exchequer of the options and recommendations, and the issues raised in paragraph 1.7 of the report. I propose to circulate a copy of this in the Official Report.
I have initiated a process for the consideration of these issues. I will draw on a wide area of expertise and advice so that a thorough evaluation of the recommendations is made to ensure the Government is in a position to reach the best and most appropriate decision on the future of Stadium and Sports Campus Ireland. Until I have completed this evaluation and reported to Government it would be premature to make any statement on the future plans for this project or to speculate on the extent of any future expenditure on the project. However, the Government remains convinced that a stadium project at Abbotstown is both desirable and feasible and that the Abbotstown campus can and will be developed into a vital infrastructure asset for the achievement of national aims in the field of sports, recreation and related tourism.
In relation to the national aquatic centre at Abbotstown, in the Minister's opinion does Waterworld UK, and subsequently Dublin Waterworld, comply with the tendering specifications?
I am allowing a Private Notice Question on this matter.
It is a part of this question.
There is a Private Notice Question.
Will you allow me to finish please? Did it comply with the tendering specifications and guidelines set down by CSID? Who was part of that decision by CSID?
It is not in order to proceed because a private notice question has been allowed.
I would like a ruling on that.
You have got a ruling.
It is unfair, because I tabled a question on Campus and Stadium Ireland of which the aquatic centre is part. The Minister is willing to answer it. You should allow me to pursue the question.
I have ruled on the matter, Deputy.
Has the Minister sought a report on the controversy surrounding the awarding of the tender? Will the Minister clarify the relationship between the US company, NBGS, and Waterworld UK? What is the present involvement of NBGS in providing equipment for the national aquatic centre?
Do I understand from the Ceann Comhairle that I am to take a private notice question after Question Time?
Yes.
I was unaware of that. I will answer the Deputy at that time but on the face of it, everything appears to be above board and legal and I would like the opportunity to explain it. I have been accused in editorials today of not knowing what exactly is happening; I know everything that is happening in this area and I would like the opportunity to elaborate on it further.
The nation is waiting.
As far as EU procurement law is concerned, every dormant and shelf company has a right to make an application for a contract. EU procurement law states that one must take on board the application of the shelf and the dormant company. When the shelf and the dormant company has financial backing behind it, that is, via a US company and the backing of Anglo-Irish Bank to the tune of the £3 million, the Deputy can bet that I would like to be able to answer the questions asked and the accusations made against me.
In view of the controversy surrounding the awarding of this contract and the question I asked on the outcome of the High Point Rendal Report, does the Minister have confidence in CSID to manage this enormous project? Will the Minister declare in the Dáil that he has confidence in this company and that it has the expertise in view of the criticism contained in the High Point Rendal Report?
I am examining the High Point Rendal Report. I refer to paragraph 1.7 regarding the expertise available to it. I am examining the report and the recommendations and would like the chance to do that. Regarding the latest situation, I asked for a report from CSID on the aquatic centre. I received that report some time around 8 o'clock last night. I immediately replied asking that a number of further questions be clarified. I was given that clarification approximately one hour ago and have just had a chance to go through that. I have requested the board of CSID meet as soon as possible.
We have exceeded the time and must proceed to the next question.
Despite the fact the contract had to be accepted and taken on board, I regret, nonetheless, that I was not informed that it was a shelf company.
We must proceed to Question No. 4.
Is that the end of the matter?
