Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 27 Mar 2002

Vol. 169 No. 16

Campus Ireland: Statements.

Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation (Dr. McDaid)

Members would agree that this particular sporting project has generated a significant amount of media and political publicity since the proposal was first mooted. I have on many occasions in this House and in the Dáil made extensive contributions to discussions on the project. I am pleased to be afforded this opportunity to address the Seanad about the position in relation to the aquatic and leisure centre, which is being developed at Abbotstown, to be ready to host the Special Olympics Summer Games in 2003. Since January 2001 funding for the development of this facility is being provided through the Vote of my Department.

A year before that, in January 2000, the Government decided that the feasibility of developing an aquatic centre to host the Special Olympics Summer Games in 2003 should be actively considered by Campus and Stadium Ireland Limited, CSID, the company set up to oversee the development of the Stadium and Sports Campus Ireland project at Abbotstown. This project is one of the highest priorities of the Government. This is reflected in the quality of the people appointed by the Government to the board of CSID, which is made up of people of the highest calibre in the fields of sport and business.

In July 2000 CSID commenced an international competition by inviting tenders under the EU public procurement directive to participate in a negotiated procedure to design, build, finance, operate and maintain an aquatic and leisure centre on the site at Abbotstown. Tenders were to be assessed by CSID, which was also the designated contract awarding authority for the competition. Eight expressions of interest were received. An assessment process, under the auspices of CSID, shortlisted five consortia which were invited to submit outline bids, on the basis of which three were selected to proceed to detailed negotiation stage. The consortia selected were Waterworld UK-Rohcon with S&P Architects, Dublin International Arena Limited and Prospero. Panels including members of CSID, the Office of Public Works, the Irish Sports Council, Fingal County Council, the National Coaching and Training Centre, Special Olympics 2003 and an international leisure and sports expert assessed the bids. Expert legal advice was provided by McCann Fitzgerald Solicitors and PricewaterhouseCoopers also provided a report on the bidding consortia.

The assessment panel recommended to the board of CSID that the Waterworld-Rohcon bid, which was also the lowest cost proposal submitted by some €15 million, merited overall top ranking for the award of the contract for the project. The Government, on the basis of the board's recommendation, agreed, in December 2000, that CSID sign heads of agreement with the Waterworld consortium. Heads of agreement were signed by CSID, Rohcon and Waterworld UK on 22 February 2001. The tender included a requirement to establish a special purpose company to operate the pool.

Dublin Waterworld Limited was set up as the company to act as operators of the pool on completion of the construction phase. This is a private company limited by shares with a shareholding of 4% held by Waterworld UK and the balance by three directors who already have an involvement in the operation of swimming pools in Ireland. Final contract negotiations, on foot of the signed heads of agreement, continued between CSID and the successful consortium through spring into summer 2001. In May 2001 my Department, in consultation with its legal and technical advisers on the project, agreed to CSID's request for approval to issue a letter of intent. The purpose of this was to allow work on the pool to commence pending completion of the final contract negotiations in order to meet the Government's objective of having the pool ready in time for the Special Olympics World Summer Games, which will take place in Ireland next year.

Following the completion of these negotiations, and subsequent consultations with my Department and its legal and technical advisers, CSID late last year submitted final draft contracts as agreed with the consortium for formal approval prior to signature. Last January, the Government, on the basis of a memorandum submitted by me on the negotiations and resulting final draft contracts, approved the conclusion by Campus and Stadium Ireland Development Limited of its negotiations with the consortium, which I am advised signed the contracts on 7 February last. Following a recent media inquiry, I asked CSID for a comprehensive report on certain issues raised in relation to the contract for operating the aquatic and leisure centre, including specific reference to the role and status of a named company in the tendering process and final award scheme. I received a response from CSID and subsequently sought some further clarifications, which were supplied by CSID.

In its report to me, CSID again outlined the process, which it undertook in giving effect to the Government decision to procure an aquatic and leisure centre at Abbotstown. In relation to the status of the operating entity, CSID has confirmed that when the detailed proposal from the consortium which included Waterworld UK Limited was received, the assessment panel's recommendation was that this consortium, based on all aspects of the bid, including design, price, etc, should be selected as the preferred bidder. CSID insist that notwithstanding that Waterworld UK Limited was a dormant company it was entitled, under EU procurement rules, to proceed as part of the bid provided that it was in a position to satisfy CSID that it had available to it the resources from a third party or parties on which it could rely in the performance of the contract, if awarded.

CSID requested that independently verifiable proof of sufficient backing for Waterworld UK be provided. This was provided to CSID on 7 February 2001 by way of letter of comfort from Anglo Irish Bank, indicating that it was prepared to provide a €3 million guarantee to Waterworld UK Limited in association with the national aquatic centre project. Furthermore, the track record of the individuals who were identified as having responsibility for managing the centre was also considered by CSID to be satisfactory.

CSID and its legal advisers are satisfied that the contract has been awarded in full accord with the bid received by CSID and in compliance with EU procurement regulations and that the arrangements entered into between Waterworld UK Limited and Dublin Waterworld Limited are the result of normal business negotiations between the parties. There were, however, a number of aspects of the handling of this matter which needed to be urgently reviewed by the board of CSID. I therefore recommended that the executive chairman call an immediate meeting of the board, which took place on 8 March 2002. I received a report on the outcome of the board's review immediately after the meeting. At the same time, the Government informally decided at its meeting on 7 March that I would arrange, following consultation with the Attorney General, for the preparation of an independent report on the matter for the next meeting of the Government.

It was subsequently agreed on 10 March, by the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, the Attorney General and myself, that an essential input into this report would be an inquiry on issues surrounding the award of the operator's contract for the aquatic and leisure centre at Abbotstown. This inquiry was carried out under the auspices of the Attorney General and focused on issues relating to the corporate governance of CSID in so far as it concerned the process of selecting the preferred bidder. It also examined the processes and procedures adopted within CSID leading to and including the selection process. The Attorney General's team initially examined all documents relating to these issues and followed this up with clarifications with particular individuals where necessary. The Attorney General stresses that his report does not purport to resolve any conflicts of fact or recollection or to pass any final judgment on the merits or demerits of the behaviours of any individual or company. On the contrary, the purpose of this report is, as requested by the Government, to provide it with a provisional analysis of the issues and to highlight some features of the matters dealt with to assist the Government.

The draft report was brought to Government on 20 March 2002 and the completed report was delivered yesterday. The Government has made the report available to the Committee of Public Accounts. The Attorney General's report repeats the executive chairman's explanation that he did not bring certain information regarding the contract for the operator for the aquatic centre to the attention of the board of CSID or the Government. However, the Attorney General states that it is important to emphasise his analysis is not suggesting that the decision of the assessment panel to select Rohcon-Waterworld in preference to the other two bidders was unreasonable. For reasons of price and design, the preferred bid was obviously clearly ahead of the other contenders. It has been stated on a number of occasions that even if the information in question had been made available to the assessment panel and the Government, the consortium which was eventually selected as the preferred bidder would have been the same.

At its meeting to discuss the report yesterday, the Government decided to act on the proposal of the board of CSID to separate the roles of chairperson and chief executive. To ensure that the project proceeds to completion on schedule and in the light of the controversy which has arisen, the Government decided to appoint a senior official of my Department, who is also a member of the board of CSID, as interim chairman of the board. The Government will also make available to the board the services of an appropriate official as an interim chief executive. Mr. Teahon will remain a member of the board of CSID.

I reiterate the Government's statement that Mr. Paddy Teahon is a person of outstanding integrity and commitment to public service. In carrying out his duties as executive chairperson, he has been committed to contributing to the construction of a set of facilities of which the people of Ireland would be proud. His commitment and achievement in a long career of public service have been widely and deservedly applauded, not least in respect of his contribution to social partnership and the Northern Ireland peace process, especially the Good Friday Agreement. That same commitment is evident in his efforts to ensure that the Government's challenging target of having an aquatic centre available in time for the Special Olympics would be met.

Despite the recent adverse publicity, I assure the House that the aquatic and leisure centre remains on course for completion by the end of December next, well in advance of the Special Olympics Summer Games in June 2003. The Special Olympics will be the largest sporting event in the world in 2003 and will involve 7,000 athletes and 3,000 delegates and coaches. All will be accommodated in Ireland during the period of the games. This is the first time the Special Olympics will be staged outside America.

In addition to the Special Olympics, the pool at Abbotstown will provide state of the art swimming facilities for our competitive swimmers and will also be a major leisure facility for families and the local communities. The pool at Abbotstown will be one of the largest indoor water centres in the world. It will comprise a 50-metre international standard swimming pool, an international standard diving pool-warm up pool, extensive leisure waters, including adventure water rides, seating for 2,500 spectators, a fitness centre and cafes. The pool will feature a moveable boom and floors to allow the pools to be reconfigured for leisure activities. Under the terms of the contract, the operators will make the 50-metre pool available for agreed periods of time for training for Ireland's elite swimmers, as well as emerging promising top class swimmers. The pool will also be available to host competitions. We will have an aquatic and leisure facility of which the country can be proud.

In relation to the main element of the stadium and campus project, a tender competition for the stadium and other sporting facilities, in the form of a design, build, finance, operate and maintain process, DBFOM, commenced on 20 November 2000. The outline bid stage of the competition closed on 21 June 2001. Bids from three consortia have been received. No decision has been taken to move to the next stage, the detailed negotiation stage, pending the Government's clarification of the future of the project.

As the stadium and campus project advanced, concern at the potential overall cost of completion was a matter of public comment. To assist it in determining final Exchequer allocations for Stadium and Sports Campus Ireland, the Government decided on 1 May 2001 to conduct an overview study of the likely costs arising and to review the overall approach and contracting strategy with regard to risk identification, management processes and structures, timing and overall cost effectiveness. A steering group was established, under the chairmanship of my Department, and following a public competition, High Point Rendel Limited was appointed to conduct the overview study.

High Point Rendel finalised its report in November 2001 and it was published on 31 January 2002. The overview set out to assess the estimated costs and revenues arising from developing Stadium and Sports Campus Ireland as defined both at the beginning of the outline bid process and as currently envisaged by CSID. Based on the proposal for a revised scope of project, the HPR report estimates the total cost of the stadium, arena and other facilities are broadly similar to those of CSID. In addition, the HPR projection provides for a higher contingency amount because of the still evolving nature of the brief and a slightly higher than anticipated inflation level. It also provides for professional costs and a sinking fund.

HPR considered that a rationalisation of certain facilities within the project could be made, but the extent could be confirmed only after agreement with the main stakeholders. The report also identified a number of issues critical to the realisation of the project, including the need for detailed planning and strong management of the project. The Government has requested that I should 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 specific issues raised in the report. The consideration of these issues is underway.

The Government remains committed to the concept of a national stadium and is convinced that a stadium project at Abbotstown is both desirable and feasible. It remains convinced that the Abbotstown campus can, and will be, a vital infrastructural asset for the achievement of national aims in the field of sports, recreation and related tourism.

Mr. Coghlan

One does not know where to begin with this issue. I thank the Minister for his outline, even if he has to be an apologist for what has happened. Oliver Hardy used to say to Stan Laurel: "That's another fine mess you've got us into." I can imagine how Paddy Teahon, the fall guy Kerryman who was scapegoated, might feel.

Unfortunately, this project has become embroiled in frightful controversy. There is no doubt the aquatic centre is entirely meritorious. We all sincerely hope that the proper procedures will be put in place and that the centre will be ready for the Special Olympics. I had a few words on Radio Kerry this morning with a distinguished Fianna Fáil colleague and councillor, for whom I have a lot of time. He was asked by the interviewer, as I was, about Mr. Paddy Teahon and how he would summarise what happened. He said: "It is as simple as this, Niall, Paddy Teahon was in the wrong place at the wrong time. There is an election in prospect and certain people cannot appear to take the blame." He seemed to imply that Mr. Teahon was expected to roll over, lie down and play dead. However, I am pleased he will remain on as a director, even if he was prised out of both roles.

Mr. Dardis

What did the Senator say?

Mr. Coghlan

I am trying to recall. I took note of what the councillor said. In fact, I largely agreed with him.

A large element of the Government is trying to face both ways on the issue. The Minister said that Mr. Teahon was guilty of a lack of information and not bringing forward certain points. He also referred to his very distinguished record of public service, with which I wholeheartedly agree. He has been a very fine public servant throughout his career, including in the Taoiseach's Department. I do not know what hoops he was expected to jump through or what pressure the Government or others may have put him under.

In regard to the other Kerryman and businessmen involved, there is nothing wrong with their record in business. It is just that they got caught up with this dormant company with Virgin Islands connections. I am not sure whether they can be held responsible for that.

The Taoiseach and the Tánaiste either agreed or compromised on this issue. We do not know which because we are not privy to the negotiations. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us as he attended the Cabinet meeting yesterday. The decision of the Government was to stand Mr. Teahon down. There was an admission that corners were cut, but we do not know precisely where they were cut. I am not sure we have been fully informed in that regard. In fairness to Mr. Teahon, he was hand-picked by the Taoiseach who would have known his style. Therefore, if there was something wrong with his style, the Taoiseach is culpable. Mr. Teahon, in turn, hand picked Laura Magahy and her company. I have a lot of respect for Des O'Malley, as have all Members of this House, and he was very trenchant in his comments about the Magahy company and the contract. I do not wish to get into that aspect but his words were harsh. I greatly respect his judgment but I am not aware of all the arguments.

The Attorney General's report was highly critical. We are led to believe that there was a lack of consultation all round. In terms of Deputy O'Malley's comments and the executive services management, there are probably further questions to be asked in that regard. There may be questions about the memorandum brought to Government. I understand it may have come from CSID. I also read it was the Taoiseach who briefed the Cabinet in advance of the decision being made.

The Comptroller and Auditor General was also rather scathing in his analysis. He spoke about incomplete corporate governance of the project and said there was a major deficiency in the way it was run. I also took note of what the chairman of the Office of Public Works, Barry Murphy, said because he seemed to be very unhappy. These are major players in the State and I have no reason to believe they are not exemplary civil servants who are doing their best for Ireland incorporated. The lesson I draw from the remarks of Mr. Purcell, Mr. Murphy, Deputy O'Malley and the Attorney General is that the Government needs to get its act together and bring people together. A much more appropriate and cohesive approach must be taken to this issue which is a frightful shambles. It is all over the shop and it is not good for the country.

In fairness to Mr. Teahon, I do not think he would have hired Dermot Gleeson, a former Attorney General and very eminent senior counsel, to be in his corner. He said he would not resign, he did not break any law and that he did not do anything wrong. The question arising from that is why did the poor man capitulate? What happened during the telephone conversation between him and Mr. Dermot McCarthy, the Secretary General to the Government?

Dr. McDaid

He decided in the interests of completing the project—

Acting Chairman (Mr. McDonagh)

Senator Coghlan, please.

Mr. Coghlan

I assume the Minister was privy to what went on. Therefore, I have no reason not to believe him. The question is whether this is a nod and a wink system. I would be interested to know what Mr. McCarthy said. The Tánaiste was very critical of the concept of 1.8% of the overall price for executive services which she said was not sustainable. I do not think we have all the information on that aspect. Perhaps in his response the Minister will fill us in on that matter.

I believe there are many more questions than the Minister attempted to answer in his speech this evening and we deserve to know. The aquatic centre is a meritorious project which we would all like built on time for the Special Olympics. However, there was a heading in this morning's edition of the Irish Examiner, “Teahon move will not end controversy”. I had a quick skim through the article from which many questions arise. Everything was above board legally, yet, as the Minister said, certain matters were lacking. The information given to the Government was of a flawed nature, which is what the Attorney General seemed to say in his report. I would like to hear the Minister say something further on the fees. It is something about which the Tánaiste and Deputy O'Malley were very concerned, and perhaps still are. It was a commercial decision of a very unusual nature, to say the least.

There is the major question of taxpayers' money being invested in projects which people seem to think are poor value. I already referred to what the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Purcell, said and there are questions about the overall cost of the venture and how much it has increased since it was originally projected.

Dr. McDaid

The cost of the pool at Abbotstown has not increased. It was always going to cost £48 million or €62 million.

Mr. Coghlan

Why did it state in the editorial that it went considerably over the original price?

Dr. McDaid

That is incorrect.

Mr. Coghlan

Let the Irish Examiner take note and stand corrected. I understood the paper and the Minister to say there was a lack of proper procedure. Was it on that that it was finally hung?

Dr. McDaid

It was not a lack of proper procedure. It was a lack of information being provided to the Government.

Mr. Coghlan

There must have been something wrong with procedures and information. The Tánaiste said that if proper information was given, a different decision would have been taken.

Dr. McDaid

If the information had been provided, this would not have happened. I said earlier that even if the information had been provided—

Mr. Coghlan

I look forward to the Minister's reply on the outstanding questions.

Mr. Walsh

I welcome the Minister and compliment him on his interest in championing this project and on the benefits he has brought to the sporting area since becoming Minister. Many of us make annual representations for sporting organisations which have benefited from the various schemes at his disposal. We are fortunate to live in a country which has an interest in sport. That is healthy for our leisure and social activities.

This issue emanates from the political football that has been made of the idea of Sports and Stadium Campus Ireland. If that controversy was not in the arena, the issue that arose in regard to Mr. Paddy Teahon would not have become a significant issue at national level. It is worth restating what the Minister said:

For reasons concerned with price and design the preferred bid was, obviously, clearly ahead of the other contenders. It has been stated on a number of occasions that, even if the information in question had been made available to the assessment panel and the Government, the consortium which was eventually selected as the preferred bidder would not have been different.

That statement is significant in the context of the controversy raging in the media over the last few weeks.

Mr. O'Toole

Why is the man being sacked?

Mr. Walsh

I would say that it is to raise publicity in one's own right. I have seen colleagues, and I may have done it myself on occasion, reading newspapers or listening to "Morning Ireland" to see what issues they can raise on the Order of Business to gain publicity. The same thing is prevalent in the Dáil. The more I think about it, the more I feel it is an unhealthy preoccupation.

Mr. Coogan

That is highly unfair. We react to public demand.

Mr. Walsh

The leaders of the Opposition should set a political agenda on the social and economic priorities of the day instead of taking their agenda from the headlines of the morning papers. Much of the political arguments we hear in the Dáil or Seanad, although fortunately not to the same extent in the Seanad, are driven by those headlines. That does not mean that politicians should not have regard for what goes on in the media. The media are an important component of any democratic society. However, there appears to be a kind of incestuous relationship there at the moment and we need to take stock of the situation.

In this instance it has been clearly outlined that there were eight bidders for the contract. The number was narrowed down to three, one of which was the successful and preferred bidder. I listened with interest to many discussions in the media on this matter over the last number of weeks and heard much ill-informed comment in regard to dormant companies. It was the fact that it concerned a dormant company that initiated the controversy in the first place, but that should not have been a significant issue.

The only real issue should be the management capability of any of the bidders to successfully administer the project and prove that they had resources available to them. It would not be unusual in such circumstances, particularly where a number of different parties were coming together, that they would establish a company which might not have financial resources but would have access to them in order to operate and run the contract subsequently.

The Attorney General's report was, in his own words, a provisional analysis to deal with some of the issues that arose and to highlight some of the features. In corporate governance in general the view is that the role of chairman and that of chief executive should be separate to have the right checks and balances. In this instance we must be aware that the executive chairman was under pressure not only to deliver the project, but to do so on time because of our commitments to the Special Olympics. The games organising committee for the Special Olympics in Ireland would have been one of the pressure points. The Special Olympics international committee would also have brought pressure because its reputation and the running of the games depended on the chairman meeting his targets. The sponsors involved and our national image would also have created pressure. The Government also, aware of these issues, would have been mindful of the necessity to have it delivered and finished on time. In that situation it is understandable that somebody of Mr. Teahon's record and capability would be doing what was necessary to ensure that the project was successfully delivered on time.

I listened with interest to the reports from the Committee of Public Accounts. Anybody who read the reports would be impressed by Mr. Teahon's integrity and by his interest and commitment to the project. The manner in which he presented himself before the committee was indicative of his commitment and of the integrity with which he carried out his responsibilities.

Without the background controversy, this matter would probably not have become the issue that it did. We hopefully will have a saner approach to this after the election. The facilities we have in the country, at both local and national level, leave much to be desired. The Minister wants to ensure, in regard to the resources available to him, that basic services are available in any local club to those participating in sport.

Last year the Minister visited one of my local clubs. The manager of that club told me that since the mid-1970s he has been in charge of many boys ranging from age ten to senior level. In all his time involved with the club, only one young lad has ever become involved in difficulties that brought him to the attention of the Garda. That is indicative of the social benefit we derive from sport.

The GAA has taken steps to provide a stadium commensurate with current needs but if we look at rugby and soccer, we can see the need for facilities which service the public. As a country that has gained achievement and success at international level in many sports, disproportionate to our population, we should have facilities commensurate with that. The Minister has outlined the facilities that will be available at Abbotstown: a 50 metre international standard pool and diving area, leisure waters and seating for 2,500 spectators. When we look at Campus Stadium Ireland in the future people will be reminded of George Bernard Shaw, who said, "Some men see things and say why but I dream of things that never were and say why not?" That is the vision we need – the vision that is driving projects like this that aim to make Ireland a better place.

Mr. O'Toole

I hope never to hear anyone in this House describe me as a man of integrity because I know it will be my obituary or they are about to sack me.

I have listened carefully to this debate over the past two weeks and I have not yet heard the reason Paddy Teahon has had to step aside. He is a decent, highly regarded former public servant, a man who has been diligent, committed, effective and has done all that has been required of him efficiently and effectively. That much was confirmed in the Minister's speech. In the past two weeks he has seen his reputation tainted and has been buried by the media.

I take issue with a point made by Senator Walsh by stating that this is a classic example of a Government running madly in front of the media – it is not Members on the Order of Business they need to worry about, it is the Government which is worried about comment in the media. I do not know if anybody else has a sense of responsibility or a sense of conscience about this but we are looking at a person who, in the light of the revelations of tribunals in the past two or three years, received no personal gain or enrichment. There was no fraud involved, nor was there commission of anything that was unacceptable. His was a sin of omission. The only point the Government can find is that he did not bring a particular piece of information to the Government. According to the words of the Government and others, had such information been available to the assessment panel and the Government, the consortium which was eventually selected as the preferred bidder would not have been any different.

What then did Paddy Teahon do? He made a judgment about the quality of the information, he decided not to bother the Government with it and he anticipated correctly – in the Minister's words – what the decision would be. I call that effective management. What we see is a victim of the media and a victory of bureaucracy over good and effective management.

This brings me to the conclusion – and I have said this before – that when elephants fight, Kerrymen get trampled. I have seen this time and again. This is a lack of understanding about what is meant by transparency, accountability and the relationship between them. There is a complete and significant difference between taking responsibility, being accountable and being transparent. Transparency is a different thing. Now somebody who is not transparent is considered to be less than completely honest. In the part of the world that I grew up in – which significantly is Kerry – we used the word transparent to describe someone who was a bit simple, someone one would not send to the end of the pier to buy a box of mackerel or pull a pint behind the bar. However, we placed much importance and merit on honesty, accountability and taking responsibility. That was what was done here and we are seeing a man who has paid the price.

I was told he took shortcuts. I answered that I take shortcuts every day in my job – I only employ people who take shortcuts. I am sick and tired of people who wait around for something to happen before they make it happen. The people who do not say "why", but "why not" are people who skip from here to there as quickly as possible, efficiently, credibly, accurately, honestly and legally and that is what happened here.

As a senior management person, I have a rule about information which is that I need to know what I need to know. I had better be told what I need to know to ensure that correct decisions are taken. That is a mantra I use in my own organisation and I feel very strongly about it. Most organisations are tied down by useless pieces of information going from one level to another which do not help the quality of the decision making and often skew the focus of what is sought to be achieved so that we do not see the wood for the trees.

In dealing with this issue, a good man has paid a price. I feel disturbed by it and to be part of the political process. I have argued for our taking a harder line against politicians who step out of line and that we should be seen to regulate our own procedures and take the strongest measures possible. I have read through this report, looking for the reason someone should be brought to a public hanging, which is what has happened to Paddy Teahon in this case. In any system of reprimand or dealing with a problem, the effective and eventual action must reflect the issue that created it but whatever error made should justify the pain suffered. I defy anybody to prove otherwise.

I do not want someone telling me there were minor issues. I said last week if someone made a mistake of significance, cost the taxpayer or did something incorrectly they should be made to pay the price. This media frenzy was based on notions of what was done. Somebody in the media told me they had information that EU procurement rules were not followed but, according to the Minister tonight, they were followed. The legal advisers of Campus Stadium Ireland have confirmed that. Even if they turn out to be wrong, he was following his legal advice. We cannot have it every way.

Deputy Michael Noonan was hammered for following legal advice in the Brigid McCole case. One can never get it right because it is a matter of judgment – it is not a clear path or route, it is about having people of integrity taking the correct decisions with the information available to them in the best interests of everybody.

Paddy Teahon must have felt that he had political cover because I have seen that man operate, I have worked with him. I have argued with him over the years and I have never seen him operate without political cover. He must have believed that he was doing right because there is no way he would have taken a decision that he believed would embarrass the Cabinet, nor would he deliberately conceal information from the Government which he felt was important in its reaching a decision. That is proven by the facts because, as the Minister said, there was no question of the decision being any different.

What we have seen is wrong. It has tainted him and we must have some degree of understanding of what we have done. Who is satisfied today? What is different today? It is just that somebody has been pushed aside. I agree with separating the two roles of chief executive and chairperson, but I would like to see the Government put that in legislation. In large public listed companies that should apply. I have raised that here myself and the investment managers association has been saying it for years. No large organisation should be run by an executive chairman who is also chief executive officer. It cannot be done and it is right that they should be split up. However, that is not the issue.

In all fairness, the only words in the Minister's speech that apply, as far I can see, are "in the light of the controversy". Has the Government taken this action because there is a controversy? What are we doing as politicians? Are we afraid to take action or face up to people? Some of us are involved in controversy every day in our jobs, and most Senators have experienced it in some shape or form. In the light of controversy we should try to make the correct decisions, not defuse the controversy. We can live with, and through, the controversy as long as we are doing the right thing.

I recognise that people may be attempting to deal with this matter correctly but there has been a sacrificial victim, which is unfair. On many occasions I have defended people or argued with them, but I have always tried to be absolutely direct in my assessments. On some issues I may have turned out to be wrong but this is basically a flawed outcome that does us no service. In years to come, people will look back and try to analyse this affair. In doing so they will examine this episode and ask why it happened. I believe that time will justify the position of Mr. Paddy Teahon. I hope it does.

Mr. Dardis

I think I can answer one of the questions posed by Senator Coghlan. The central issue in the controversy over the aquatic centre at Abbotstown is that there must be confidence that the democratically elected Government is provided with accurate and comprehensive information for the decisions it takes regarding taxpayers' money. That fundamental point has also been mentioned by the Minister in some of the exchanges during this debate.

If there is one conclusion to be made today, it is that confidence has been restored, as it should be. This has been a difficult decision for the principals involved. We all regret the difficult personal situations that people find themselves in on occasions like this, but the imperative must be to restore confidence in full, democratic accountability for public money.

Senator O'Toole spoke about the need to know, so that he could make the correct decisions and make them properly. The need to know is at the heart of the matter. It has been the Tánaiste's concern for a number of months that taxpayers' money is at stake and that the Government was being left in a poor position to secure the taxpayers' interest through flawed negotiations and lack of information provided to it. Other lessons can be learned about the negotiation and management of a bid process. They will be of value going into other public projects and particularly in public private partnerships, so some good has come of these events in recent days.

Our focus must be on ensuring that the public interest is well served through these difficult events and decisions. Any fair-minded person will give credit to the Attorney General and the permanent staff of his office for the clarity and comprehensiveness of the report he produced for the Government. The Government was absolutely correct to publish the report, with all the supporting documentation, so that interested parties, the public, and people like Senator O'Toole, can see the full picture and take their own view. In essence, the report of the Attorney General shows the extent to which the Government was not kept fully informed about the aquatic centre contract and the people behind the operator company.

Clearly, there were many occasions when full information could have been given to Government. Only last December, the Government and the Tánaiste put the contracts under a lot of scrutiny but the information given was still incomplete. The Tánaiste confirmed in the Dáil today that full information about what the relevant people in CSID knew about the dormancy of Waterworld UK Limited on 18 December 2000 was given to the Minister only a few weeks ago. This and prior events undermined confidence in information coming from CSID to the Government.

It is important to differentiate between the construction and operation of the facility. Nobody is suggesting that there has been any problem with the construction of the facility or that it will not be completed on time. Neither has anybody suggested that the Special Olympics will be jeopardised.

The Attorney General's report also shows that bidders made an attempt to create the impression that Waterworld was a significant operator with 20 years' experience, yet this was wrong. The creation of that false impression should have led CSID to disregard those bidders when that information came to light. This information should have been brought to the attention of the Government. Corporate governance in the private sector would demand no less than that, and would probably demand a great deal more. In addition, corporate governance in the private sector would not tolerate open-ended contracts for executive services or 30-year contracts for the operation of facilities.

The political response to recent developments has been interesting, to say the least. The Fine Gael and Labour spokespersons on sport have maintained strict radio silence throughout the controversy. That distinguished former sportsman and county colleague of Senator Coghlan's, Deputy Deenihan, was kept well out of sight.

Mr. Coghlan

I went on radio instead.

Mr. Dardis

His party leader did his "Mr. Angry" routine. Unfortunately, Radio Kerry does not extend as far as Kildare, so I did not have the good fortune of hearing Senator Coghlan.

Mr. Coghlan

Not yet, anyway.

Mr. Dardis

For Labour, Deputy Rabbitte has been highly critical of the aquatic centre contract and has been very audible on radio, yet his party colleague, Deputy Spring, cut the ground from under him on radio last Saturday. In fact, nobody has given stronger and more unequivocal support to the operating contract at Abbotstown than the former Tánaiste.

As a party in Government, the Progressive Democrats speak with one voice on this issue. It is no secret that there are differences between the two Government parties on the whole Abbotstown issue. The Progressive Democrats have been concerned for some time at the expanding scale of the project and its rising cost. We have been concerned also about the capability of CSID to manage a project on this vast scale.

It is because of these concerns that we secured agreement for the appointment of independent consultants to conduct an overview study of the whole project. Those consultants – High Point Rendel Limited, to which the Minister referred – reported last year and their report was published some weeks ago. The HPR report is an excellent document. It is comprehensive, analytical and questioning. It is based on considerable expertise and a deep knowledge of sporting infrastructure.

There have been efforts in some quarters to question the credentials of HPR and I would like to address that issue briefly. HPR acted as project managers for the sports complex in Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia which hosted the 1998 Commonwealth Games. This was a massive project by any standards, comprising a 100,000-capacity, roofed, all-seated outdoor stadium built to international standards; an indoor, air-conditioned, 13,000-seat stadium for sporting events such as badminton, boxing, tennis, basketball and gymnastics; and a 3,500-spectator, covered swimming complex with ten-lane, 50-metre competition pool, five-lane training pool and 5-metre diving pool. The project also involved the upgrading of pre-existing facilities and the provision of 5,500 parking spaces.

The ability to handle such a project is clear evidence that HPR are serious players who know what they are talking about. When they tell us that the Abbotstown project will cost, in total, almost €1 billion to complete I, for one, am prepared to listen to them.

Writing in The Irish Times last April, the then chairman of CSID wrote: “The honest reality is this; this project is being built out of a budget surplus.” That was true at the time but the international economic situation means that our budget surplus has declined. The need to invest in hospitals, houses, roads and railways over the next five years will push us to the limit to keep our budget in balance. This means that, by definition, Abbotstown can only be built at the expense of something else.

The Maastricht criteria put a lid on our ability to borrow and we must live up to our responsi bilities as members of the eurozone. Given that one cannot spend the same money twice, the next Government will have to choose between Abbotstown and other more pressing needs. My party has made it clear that a vast sports complex on the scale mooted would not be a priority for us and that we could think of better ways of spending the money.

Some commentators have raced into print in recent months with the conclusion that the Progressive Democrats are anti-Abbotstown and, therefore, anti-sport. On a personal level, as someone who has been involved in active sport for 30 years, I find that somewhat insulting. We have reached a sad stage if Members of these Houses must repeatedly make declarations of their interest in sport. Let me make it as clear as I can for the commentators: I am not anti-sport, the Tánaiste is not anti-sport, and the Progressive Democrats are not anti-sport. Nor are we anti-stadium.

As a regular and paying visitor to Lansdowne Road, I know as well as anybody else how far that ground lags behind its international counterparts, although that does not diminish my affection for it. Our international rugby and soccer sides take to the field in what is now a physically sub-standard stadium, although it is situated in an ideal location and has a great atmosphere on big match days. It is a big step, however, to jump from saying that Lansdowne Road is run down to saying that we need to sink €1 billion into a site at Blanchardstown.

We do not need an 80,000-seat coliseum in Abbotstown. That would make us one of the few cities in the world to have two such facilities, although we need a second stadium to Croke Park in Dublin, perhaps on a more modest scale, such as one which could accommodate 50,000 spectators. We have had one attempt to get such a stadium off the ground and it failed. It is not beyond the ingenuity of the people, Government and sporting bodies to devise a workable proposal for the development of such a stadium in a cost-effective way that protects the interests of the taxpayer. We must learn lessons from this. We have learnt some and we know that corners cannot be cut with taxpayers' money.

Mr. Coogan

I was one of the people to whom Senator Walsh referred as having raised this issue on the Order of Business. This is the place to raise such issues if they are pertinent and timely. We did not do so for political reasons. We sought the truth. Our concern was the same as that expressed by the Tánaiste, namely, what exactly was happening. Was everything above board and everything done correctly? We waited and saw some results. The Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation said everything was above board. If that was so, why was it necessary to fire Mr. Teahon, a man whom I know only from his good reputation as a hard worker and a focused individual who knew his way around business and the inner workings of the Dáil? It is ridiculous. If he did nothing wrong, why was he removed from his position?

Dr. McDaid

It is because—

Mr. Coogan

The Minister will have an opportunity to respond.

Dr. McDaid

I will not. It is because he realised that the project could not be completed with the controversy surrounding it and, from his experience, he realised that he had to take up the Government's decision. That is the answer. He is a very good public servant.

Mr. Coogan

Mr. Teahon is not present to answer. Only the Minister is present to answer on his behalf. While I do not imagine the Minister would tell me anything other than the truth, the perception would not concur with his explanation.

Mr. Glennon

He answered the Senator's question.

Mr. Coogan

These are political decisions. If the man did not do anything wrong, even though his effectiveness was reduced he would still stand on his principle and demand to stay in his job. That is a fact no matter how much the Minister tries to cloud it.

My party supports the construction of a 50-metre swimming pool and believes it should be in place for the Special Olympic Games. I have a keen interest in swimming and for years hoped that the pool would be located in Galway because of the strong interest there, but unfortunately, it was not. I thought subsequently it might have been improper to have located it there because not many such pools would be built and perhaps the place to locate it would have been somewhere central like Athlone. Instead, it is to be located in Dublin, but I do not disagree with that as long as we get it.

I know the difficulties swimmers have with training in a 25-metre pool. They have to do too many turns. They cannot get themselves up to Olympic standard without the appropriate facilities. For that reason, we fully support the construction of the 50-metre pool.

However, we do not support the idea of what is known as the "Bertie bowl". Having listened to some of what Senator Dardis said, I can see that one of the partners in Government feels the same as we do. If €1 billion is to be spent, we had better examine how it will be spent and the long-term effect it will have. The concept of a substantial sports stadium and associated facilities is wonderful and looks good on paper. However, the experience of similarly sized developments in other countries has shown that often they do not pay. The stadium in Australia built for the Olympics is facing bankruptcy. It is easily accessible from Sydney by public transport. Abbotstown is not, although it may be in future if it is built. The Australian experience has been replicated in other countries with similarly sized projects. The facilities have not been utilised to the full and costs are too great.

If such a facility is developed in this country, it will benefit those who have realised their potential at the top level. While that is wonderful, we should look at the bottom level. People must become involved in sport at an early stage. Senator O'Toole will say, and I am sure the Minister knows well, that physical education teachers are not attached to national schools. If children are not involved in sport at an early stage, no one will come through at the top level. It does not matter how good the facilities at that level may be if there are no participants. There are many opportunities for young people to spend their time and money, many of them indoors such as computers or listening to music. Unfortunately, many young people do not take the opportunity to become involved in physical exercise. That said, it does not follow that, if they did become involved, all of them would become Olympic sports stars, but it does mean they would be healthier. The Minister would have to agree.

We know from experience in Canada and the United States that $1 spent on sports facilities saves $3 in the cost of health care provision because the population is healthier. However, for that to be effective, people must become involved at an early stage so that the perception is created of sport as a part of everyday life. I have been involved in education for 35 years and have seen the gradual reduction in the number of children participating in sport. There is a dependency on voluntary contributions and on small sports clubs which scrape by on minimal grants. Will the Minister review the position and build from the bottom up? The top level will be created in time. It will not be done from the top down. It will not work that way if young people are not involved.

Mr. Moylan

I welcome the Minister to the House for these important statements. A number of people have called for this debate in recent weeks.

We must welcome the rapid progress and development of this project which the Minister outlined. The Government decided in July 2000 to proceed with the development of the aquatic centre in Abbotstown which would include facilities for hosting the swimming events of the Special Olympic Summer Games in 2003, with the potential of upgrading the facilities to host European championships. It was proposed that the facility at Abbotstown would feature swimming and diving facilities of an international standard designed for use by élite swimmers as well as by the public. It would also include extensive water leisure facilities.

It would be one of the world's largest indoor water centres. The Minister outlined that there would be a 50-metre swimming pool and diving pool of international standard, a warm-up pool, extensive water leisure features, including water rides, seating for 2,500 spectators, which is important, a fitness centre and cafés.

We have spoken often about our élite swimmers having to leave the country to train. People with an interest in sport have asked why we cannot provide facilities for them in this country. This development is not just for the current generation but also for future generations who will have the training facilities by which they can reach the top in the swimming world.

This country has got great enjoyment from our athletes' success in the Olympic Games. Getting to the top involves huge financial cost to the athletes and their families to enable them carry out their training programmes abroad and they deserve to be complimented on that. As well as catering for international events, the facilities in north County Dublin will also be a major benefit to the huge population of the Dublin area. The choice of location to ensure excellent access to the facilities is also a major advantage.

Many people have been greatly confused and concerned by the recent reports in The Irish Times in relation to a dormant, London registered shelf company with assets of only £4 sterling. The Minister and his Government colleagues took the right approach in undertaking to have the matter thoroughly examined by the Attorney General. His very detailed report outlines the developments at each stage of the project. All the companies involved were fully bonded. The significance of the shelf company was exaggerated out of all proportion and it was implied that some of the parties involved could walk away, leaving the Government and the Exchequer to carry the can. The reality is that the companies involved are of the very top class and are fully bonded. Everything was above board, nothing was left to chance in relation to the development of the facilities which we are discussing and those involved are to be complimented on their work.

Irish people, especially younger people, are saying they want the development completed. With the open draw system now operated by the GAA, Croke Park is not capable of catering for additional sporting fixtures to the extent now required. I agree with Senator Dardis's comments earlier in relation to the need for adequate facilities to enable our soccer and rugby teams display their talents to a wider audience. The aquatic leisure centre is phase one and people are looking to the completion of the remaining elements of the development. In my view, the right party, the right Taoiseach and the right Minister were in place at the right time for the development of those facilities. I welcome the development and compliment the Minister on the way he has driven it forward. I have no doubt the people will remember him and this Government for ensuring that proper facilities are provided for sporting activities, including swimming, Gaelic games, soccer, rugby etc. The Government and the Minister are committed to fulfilling that requirement.

Mr. Burke

I welcome the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation to the House and thank the Leader of the House for, even at this late stage, allocating time to debate this very important issue. For various reasons, sport and leisure activities of all kinds are undoubtedly playing a substantial part in all our lives and featuring in television and radio programmes to an increasing extent. We have shorter working hours, people have more leisure time and sport is an ideal interest to fill that free time. When people go on holidays, they expect hotels to have adequate leisure facilities – in fact many people will only go to hotels which have such facilities.

Campus and Stadium Ireland has been well and truly debated in recent weeks in the print media and over the airwaves. The handling of the entire issue leaves a great deal to be desired. From the outset, the Taoiseach made this his pet project to embrace a majority of sporting activities in this country and I am sure his heart was in it, but it has fallen asunder in many ways. The events of the past few weeks are depressing. It is surprising that the Office of Public Works has not had a significant role in this project. The Office of Public Works has done outstanding work throughout the length and breadth of the country, including work of the highest standard on the these buildings where we are meeting. However, in relation to the Campus and Stadium Ireland project, the Government has veered away from the Office of Public Works which, apart from having a member on the board, has only played a back room role in the project. There are aspects of the matter which I simply do not understand.

I have sympathy for Mr. Paddy Teahon, whom I do not know apart from what I have read and heard of him in recent days, and have no doubt he is a person of the highest calibre and of excellent standing. I fail to understand the basis for Mr. Teahon's recent statement that he would deliver Campus and Stadium Ireland on time and within budget, having regard to the fact that the aquatic centre has already gone over budget by 50%. It was to cost in the region of £30 million and it now stands at £45 million.

With regard to the involvement of Ms Laura Magahy, her payment structure was on the basis that the more the project cost, the greater her remuneration. In many cases where consultants act on behalf of companies or State bodies, they are paid on the basis of their cost saving achievement. The more they save, the more they are paid. In this case, the greater the cost of the project, the more the consultant stood to gain.

The handling of this project is incomprehensible to me and to people outside. The Taoiseach must take the blame for what has happened in this regard. I have great sympathy for the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation, who has been pushed forward by the Taoiseach to take some of the blame. The Taoiseach has said this is his project. It is called after him – the "Bertie bowl". It is difficult to believe that all this was passed in Cabinet meetings.

The charade we have seen taking place in the media over recent weeks leaves much to be desired. People are asking how this happened. They want to know if this is the way the country has been run as well, over the past five years. We have seen—

Dr. McDaid

The opinion polls are saying it has been done very well.

Mr. Burke

There will be a poll in two months' time and that will be the real opinion poll.

Dr. McDaid

I look forward to that too.

Mr. Burke

One cannot always believe the opinion polls of the Irish Independent or the Sunday Independent. They are only opinion polls.

Mr. Dardis

What about Mayo FM?

Mr. Burke

In spite of the recent budget surplus of £2 billion, a couple of months later we were short by £1 billion.

Mr. Dardis

At least we are not like the Fine Gael Party which lost £1 million.

Mr. Burke

Some £3 billion—

(Interruptions.)

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Burke, without interruption.

Mr. Burke

Campus Stadium Ireland will cost in the region of £1 billion. Surely all of that money has not been spent on the project yet. I hope not, because there is only a small bit of the project above ground at this stage.

Dr. McDaid

Fine Gael lost €1 billion even before it started, even before the races began.

Mr. Burke

When the Minister goes to the country for the poll, the opinion polls will not be much good to him. Questions must be answered in regard to this. It is hard for people to understand what has happened because the politicians themselves and the board members do not know exactly what happened, nor does the Taoiseach. The whole affair is regrettable and it is time for the Taoiseach to have another look at it.

Mr. Glennon

I welcome the Minister to the House. It is somewhat ironic that towards the end of a term of office that is unprecedented in this Department, there is a cloud of sorts hanging over it. Much of the debate on this subject has been misdirected. It is appropriate on his visit to the House that the Minister's achievements in office should be placed on the record. The figures in regard to this are quite staggering.

In 1997 the sports budget was the equivalent of €17 million. This year that budget is €166 million – an increase of some 900%. Over that period 2,044 clubs have been funded, to some extent, through the national lottery. The introduction of a minimum grant of €250,000,000 per county ensured that the smaller counties were not discriminated against. That was a very worthwhile achievement. The Minister and his Department have provided support for projects such as the Ryder Cup, the Special Olympics 2003 – which I will return to later – and more recently, the UEFA football championships in 2008. By any standards that is a remarkable catalogue of achievement.

The commitment of the Government to the entire Abbotstown project has been restated:

The Goverment remains committed to the concept of a national stadium and is convinced that a stadium project at Abbotstown is both desirable and feasible and that the Abbotstown campus can, and will, be a vital infrastructural asset for the achievement of national aims in the fields of sports, recreation and related tourism.

I wholeheartedly agree, particularly in regard to the infrastructural asset. It is essential if sport, recreation and tourism are to move on to achieve anything like their potential.

Having been involved in competitive sport for most of my life, I admit to a degree of cynicism in regard to the direction which sport is taking, particularly at the higher levels. I do not have to go into the detail of the problems being encountered at Olympic level and at the top level of international competition in regard to drugs. It is a travesty and does no service to the individuals involved at a voluntary level who form the base of the pyramid that is the culture of sport throughout the world. The trust that those athletes placed in their coaches and in the voluntary workers at the outset of their careers is being blatantly betrayed when they move on to this higher level of achievement. Short-cuts are taken in the never ending search for success. The drugs factor in sport is greatly to be regretted and does no favours at all to those involved at the base of the pyramid.

As a member of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Tourism, Sport and Recreation, last week I had the privilege to witness a delegation of Special Olympics athletes make a magnificent presentation. For one who has become somewhat cynical in regard to the direction sport is taking and the dilution of the traditional ethos of sport, listening to those people talking about the work they put into it and the aspirations they have on running such an event in this country next year was heart warming. It had all the best elements of sport – voluntary effort, State support and the individual aspiring to excellence.

The 2003 Special Olympics will be one of the great sporting occasions in Irish history. It will be the largest sporting event in the world in 2003, involving 7,000 athletes and 3,000 delegates and coaches. It will be a huge event by any standards and will be an enormous event by Irish standards. It is probably being somewhat overshadowed at the moment by the prospect of World Cup 2002, but I have no doubt that when the excitement of Japan and Korea dies down and we begin to focus on what is next on the sporting agenda, the enormity of what is involved in the Special Olympics will hit us. It is a project which will provide a lasting and hugely beneficial legacy, not only to Irish sportspeople but to the nation. It will give us an entirely new awareness of the potential of those less fortunate in society than ourselves.

I mention that particularly in the context of the pressure that was involved in moving along the Campus Stadium Ireland project specifically to facilitate the holding of those games. Having listened to those people last week and studied their presentation I do not hesitate to recommend every possible support and I congratulate the Government and this Minister on the support they have given to that project. If it had been completed before this controversy arose, the dispute would have been very much diluted. The prize is certainly well worth the hassle of the obstacles encountered along the way to reaching it.

There has been a lot of individual finger pointing throughout this controversy. I have a copy of the Attorney General's report, which was published today, and wish to refer to an extract from page 30.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator must be brief.

Mr. Glennon

I will. It states that S&P Architects describe Waterworld UK Limited as the UK company of one of the world's leading water park operators, with approximately 20 years' experience operating and managing some of the most popular resorts of the type. Its philosophy is to maintain and improve its place in the market by constantly seeking creative and innovative ways to have fun. From these assertions it is clear that an attempt was made to foster in the minds of Campus and Stadium Ireland's executives the impression during the early stages of the process that Waterworld UK Limited was a leading water park operator with approximately 20 years' experience.

In the submission made to the project, as described on page 30 of the Attorney General's report, a firm is named which has not come to the fore in the course of the debate and controversy so far. Given the circumstances, I ask where that information came from, because it is patently untrue.

Labhrás Ó Murchú

In many ways the status and success of Ireland internationally are far out of proportion to the size of its territory and population. Many are asking questions, as they are here, about the country's success and on what is based. I read recently in the newspapers that in a number of countries in which elections are taking place opposition parties have put up advertising hoardings asking the reason those countries cannot do what Ireland has done. That has to be the basis of this debate. We either have vision and confidence in ourselves, or we return to the days of pessimism and scepticism, of which there is an element creeping into the debate.

Paddy Teahon has been mentioned many times in the House. He described the matter very simply when he said a problem was brought to his attention, he analysed it and found a solution. It is as simple as that. He was approached with the proposed statement and asked the reason he accepted it. He said he did so because he was committed to this project and wanted to see it succeed. I have known him personally for many years and had the privilege of working alongside him on another project which had a North-South dimension. I travelled to Stormont with him and have seen the difficulties and obstacles placed in his way. He had a manner of circumventing such obstacles, overcoming or sidelining them and whatever choice was presented to him, he took one or other of those courses. He was held in the highest esteem by both traditions in Northern Ireland because of his pragmatism. As we all know, the Unionist family is particularly endowed with that same pragmatism which they recognised in Paddy Teahon.

At first this latest controversy was about the particular issue of the firm involved being a dormant, shelf company. Since then it has become quite evident that people wanted to add to it. This has been happening on a constant basis, which clearly suggests that we see this debate against the background of the original negative response to the project which came from certain quarters. It has made me very sad to see that negative response because I have seen exactly the same thing happen in the case of every other development.

A great deal of money has been invested in tourism during the years and we have had the fruits of that investment in one of the most successful industries we have ever developed. We were very glad to have it at times when other industries were not successful, but when we were making that investment there were doubting Thomases who believed we were too small to have the ambitions we had and that we should not go down that road. Luckily, we had visionary, pragmatic people who went down it.

I still remember the huge controversy when Charles J. Haughey proposed the Government Buildings project. I stood in that building with a number of people from Northern Ireland and as they cast their eyes around it, they remarked what a pity it was that they did not have a building like it in the North of Ireland. The same can be said when talking internationally. We will not maintain the status to which I have referred with the begging bowl or as an inferior state, we will do it as an equal.

Many other projects elicited exactly the same negative response, but I thought we had left those days far behind. When it comes to sport there is no excuse for not having done so. Is there any person of a certain age who does not get excited by reruns of Ronnie Delaney's Olympics win, or who does not get the same excitement when seeing Dundrum jumping against the clock to win the Aga Khan Trophy? One can take any other sporting exploit going back as far as one likes and see what it did for morale. When Clare came in from the cold and won an All-Ireland, nobody could measure what it meant to the county and Munster. The same is true of our successes in the World Cup. We have seen the welcome our team has got upon returning home. If we want to measure investment, we have to measure what it means to the morale of the nation. If we do any less than what is planned for Campus and Stadium Ireland, we are not being fair to future generations. We have had affluence at our disposal. It is the one area where investment is required.

I do not mind the public cut and thrust when people want transparency in procedures, but as I watched Paddy Teahon before the Committee of Public Accounts in recent days, I felt ashamed to be Irish and a public representative. This goes far beyond the question of integrity. Here was a man who had a specific and special talent and done great service to the State as a civil servant. When he was appointed chairman and chief executive officer of the project, although I thought it was asking too much of him to fill both positions, I still believed that it was in particularly secure hands. We were asking the man to meet deadlines, to be professional and succeed in completing the project with his hands tied behind his back. Any suggestion that the Government got rid of him is disingenuous in the extreme, because all one has to do is go back a number of steps in this debate to see that it was evident from the beginning that a head on a plate was being demanded. There is no doubt about this. For anybody who made that demand to suggest that they played no part in Paddy Teahon's departure from the positions of chairman and chief executive officer is also disingenuous. The fact that he is prepared to continue as a board member means the project will have continuity and represents a vote of confidence by him in its prospects for success.

The Taoiseach and the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation have handled this in a most sensitive manner. I listened to the Minister's speech in which he clearly stated his view and that of the Government of Paddy Teahon's ability, character and service. I guarantee the public sector will look for Paddy Teahon to get involved in many projects in the future.

Let us leave this behind us once and for all and, for the sake of the country, get on with the project. It has much to offer sport, economics, tourism, the country's image and its youth. It is particularly important that the negativity is sidelined and that this project is brought to fruition. If we do that, we will also do justice to Paddy Teahon.

Mr. Connor

People are not opposed to the completion of this project; it is a project few people would have opposed in the first instance. What is wrong, however, is the culture that exists in Irish business, which is almost being given a blessing by Government in this instance. I listened to Senator Ó Murchú speak about people getting rid of the chief executive, Mr. Paddy Teahon. Mr. Teahon was removed by the Government. The Government put pressure on him to resign; it told him he had to resign.

Dr. McDaid

There is a contradiction in the Senator's remarks. How could he finish the project with your crowd calling on him—

Mr. Connor

It is not a contradiction. If the Government backed Mr. Paddy Teahon, he would never have resigned. He is not that kind of man. He resigned because of the embarrassment caused and I am not sure that he really caused it. Much pressure was put on him, unfair pressure perhaps, to carry out this project, so he cut corners. It was wrong that the contractor was a dormant shelf company in London with a share capital of £4. He did not tell the Taoiseach, the Minister or members of the Cabinet. However, the Minister has plenty of officials and the Minister or the Taoiseach should have been asking these questions at that time.

Dr. McDaid

How can one ask a question when one has set up a company to do it? That is ridiculous. It is obvious the Senator has not even read the report.

Mr. Connor

Somebody is politically responsible for this. This issue is a huge embarrassment and somebody, namely the Minister, must be politically accountable for it. There is such a thing as the principle of political accountability in this country and what is wrong is that too many people try to dodge this, including the Minister. That is the simple reality.

I hope the Minister read what Mr. John Purcell, the Comptroller and Auditor General, an independent constitutional officer of the Oireachtas who does the accounts for and is accountable to the Oireachtas, had to say.

Dr. McDaid

That was clarified yesterday at the Committee of Public Accounts. The Committee of Public Accounts and Mr. John Purcell cleared everything with regard to CSID.

Mr. Connor

He was clearly critical of the procedures that were adopted and he is the guardian who is answerable to this House for public funding. Perhaps the Minister did not hear or read what Mr. Barry Murphy, the chairman of the Commissioners of Public Works, said about it. Did he hear what Deputy O'Malley said about it? Regardless of whether one agrees with Deputy O'Malley, he is an influential Member of the Oireachtas and has a long record of insisting upon the politics of accountability and openness. The Minister will have read what the Attorney General, the chief law officer of the State and the legal adviser to the Government, had to say about this. It did not make for pleasant reading with regard to how public funding was being managed.

I am sorry for Mr. Paddy Teahon.

Dr. McDaid

Crocodile tears.

Mr. Connor

I am sorry for him because he is taking the rap. Like it or not, his reputation is damaged by this affair. The Minister was responsible and his boss, the Taoiseach, carries ultimate responsibility because it was he who insisted on this project becoming a reality before the general election. That is what this debate is about and there are lessons to be learned.

There were lessons to be learned from many things in relation to business and where Government and business interface which we should have learned but did not. This affair is a repeat of so many things we have seen in the past. It is a repeat of what has bred so much public cynicism about how the Government goes about its business. In the general election we will be lucky if 60% of the people go out to vote. About 40% will be disillusioned because they are so cynical about the way we conduct our business.

This project was intended to be carried out as a public private partnership. The Comptroller and Auditor General drew our attention to this. However, we discovered it was being funded almost solely by public money. It is most important that there is clear accountability when public funds are involved.

Mr. Glennon

That is what happened.

Dr. McDaid

The Senator is all over the place.

Mr. Connor

This could easily have been a financial disaster. I remind the Minister of what the Tánaiste said, that if this information had been known to her and to the Government earlier in the process, different decisions might have been taken. That is a damning comment by the second most senior Minister in the Government. She was not pointing the finger at the Opposition. That is all I have to say on this matter. I am sorry that so little of the contributions from the Government benches focused on the real issue.

Dr. McDaid

Senator Ó Murchú used the words "confident" and "vision" with regard to our people and their future. I also pointed out that the Campus Stadium Ireland project, indeed the Abbotstown project, was a vision for the future and an indication of where the Irish people were at the beginning of this century. The Government remains committed to ensuring that we have facilities in place that will attract international attention. That is what the people of this country deserve. We are determined to have those facilities for the future.

If one looks at the transcripts of all the debates that took place in the Dáil, and probably in the Seanad, before this week, the entire Opposition, particularly Fine Gael, focused on the role of Paddy Teahon. Yet when the Government made the decision to separate the two roles to ensure the project can proceed—

Mr. Connor

It made the decision to sack Mr. Teahon.

Dr. McDaid

Paddy Teahon agreed with the Government decision, that it would be impossible for him and this project—

Mr. Connor

He had no choice.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Connor had his opportunity to speak. I want no further interruptions.

Dr. McDaid

Given the controversy surrounding the project, which was created by Fine Gael, it would have been impossible for him to remain as chairman and get the project finished. That is what the Government decided. Paddy Teahon was not sacked. Like the good civil servant he was to the end and in the interests of a project that was his lifeblood, he stepped aside in order to allow the project to go ahead.

Everything said by Opposition Members with regard to this subject was directed at Paddy Teahon. The Senator should read the Official Reports. Now, when the issue has reached this stage, I see nothing but crocodile tears because Paddy Teahon is gone. That is a fact.

Mr. Burke

The Minister said he would not appoint him.

Dr. McDaid

We had to make a decision. Paddy Teahon has informed the Government and the Committee of Public Accounts that he made a mistake in not informing the Government of the particular subject matter. There was a number of occasions when Paddy Teahon could have informed the Government. In fact, when the decision was taken on 19 December, Paddy Teahon was present at the Cabinet meeting to explain the project and the process to the Cabinet. Even then, however, he did not use that situation to explain about the shelf company.

Mr. Burke

He must not have been asked many questions.

Dr. McDaid

Senator Glennon raised a serious point. Executive services were bringing forward the information to CSID. Page 30 of the report, as Senator Glennon mentioned, refers to S&P Architects. The Senator quoted what S&P Architects said about Waterworld UK. I understand S&P Architects is a reputable company. If the Senator was receiving this information, as CSID was, from a reputable company regarding Waterworld, he would have had confidence that he was proceeding in the right fashion as well.

Unfortunately Waterworld UK turned out to be what has been described by some people as a cowboy company. It had tried this on a number of other occasions, particularly with Southport Council in England, where they tried to use a similar tactic in order to get through to a contract. Unfortunately it turned out that Waterworld UK did not have any financial backing and that this could have repercussions for the public purse. Naturally all sides of the Government decided we should have been informed regarding this specific issue.

Mr. Connor

He should have insisted on knowing these matters.

Dr. McDaid

That was the reason we took the decision, that it would be impossible for the project to proceed otherwise. Mr. Paddy Teahon, like the good civil servant to the end, accepted the Government's decision and he will carry on as a board member. When all the Opposition Senators are out there in December at the opening of one of the largest water projects in Europe, if not in the world, this country will be proud of it.

Mr. Connor

Proud of the project, not of what is going on now.

Dr. McDaid

The people will come out and say, "So this is what Paddy Teahon was all about," and it probably will become known in later years as the Teahon pool rather than anything else.

Mr. Burke

He is trying to disassociate the Taoiseach now.

Dr. McDaid

Now that the Opposition is shedding crocodile tears for Paddy Teahon, it is trying to involve the Taoiseach. They are trying to make it into a political football, making sure they say every morning on the Order of Business that the Taoiseach is responsible.

Mr. Connor

Men have resigned in situations like this.

Dr. McDaid

It is a natural that the Opposition benches would try to involve the Taoiseach. All along it has been the policy of the Opposition benches if they cannot get the man on his policies, they attack him personally.

Mr. Connor

Does the Minister know anything about honour?

Dr. McDaid

From the opinion polls, they should have learnt long ago that attacking the personality of a person rather than the policies is not working for them. They will try to involve the Taoiseach in order that he becomes the focus of it. They are really wasting their time in that case because the public know exactly what we are doing and from where we are coming. There is a great deal of confidence in the way we have handled this matter.

This project will proceed. The Special Olympics will proceed. It would probably not be capable of proceeding or would not have been at the stage it has reached today and be finished in December without having had a person of the calibre of Paddy Teahon at the helm.

Mr. Connor

More crocodile tears.

Dr. McDaid

That is not more crocodile tears. The Senator should go back and check his records.

A number of other issues arose. Senator O'Toole made an eloquent contribution. The reasons we felt that Paddy could not continue are those which I have outlined.

Senator Coogan and other Senators made the point that Paddy Teahon knew we had to get the project finished. I said last night that we did put a great deal of pressure on Paddy Teahon in order to get it finished. I did not mean the pressure was just from the Government. There is Special Olympics Ireland, the International Special Olympics and sponsors. Paddy was under pressure from many areas to get this project finished.

Other Senators mentioned other stadia such as Homebush, which was built for the Olympics. If one takes a look at what we have planned, the whole campus idea was to have sports facilities, headquarters for national governing bodies, water facilities and, surrounding all of that, 100 acres of parkland which everybody in the community could use. There are all of these facilities and there are facilities where hotels and businesses would grow up. It will provide a real spark to that entire area and it will become a hub. That is what is intended. One cannot compare it to Homebush.

If people wish to view other stadia, they should take a look at the stadium at Munich. The Olympic stadium in Munich is a hive of activity, a total success, and that is the idea on which this one is based. In due course, other stadia will probably come to profitability also.

Senator Coogan and Senators on the Government benches spoke about the pyramid effect. This Government is trying to build up a sporting infrastructure. As Senator Glennon pointed out, 2,400 projects have been grant-aided. By the end of this week, or certainly by the end of next week, that figure will have risen to nearly 3,000 and we will probably have added another €60 million or €70 million to it.

Mr. Connor

There are deserving projects in my constitutency.

Dr. McDaid

This is an excellent way of spending money. We need to have the facilities for these young people to practise so that one day they will get to the top. I see no reason that the pyramid should not be here. There are people whose ambition is to play at Lansdowne Road or in Croke Park. We all probably had those dreams and we all want to provide those facilities for young people in the future. We will continue to put money into those facilities.

Senator Connor asked if I had read the report and what the Committee of Public Accounts said. I know every page of each PR report, the report of the Attorney General and the report of the Committee of Public Accounts. Senator Connor said that the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. John Purcell, had raised certain issues. The Committee of Public Accounts was satisfied to the very end that all the accounting issues were totally above board. That was the conclusion.

Mr. Connor

He was critical of the procedures. The Minister does not deny that.

Dr. McDaid

He also mentioned that—

Mr. Connor

A rebuke from the Comptroller and Auditor General of the accounting of the Department is a serious rebuke.

Dr. McDaid

—Barry Murphy of the Office of Public Works brought forward a list of conflicts of interest. The Secretary General of my Department researched all of those conflicts of interest. Eventually when we came to open up the bids on 21 or 22 June the Attorney General said that all these issues were completely legal, there were no conflicts of interest, and we could go ahead and open up those bids.

There was also a meeting which we held, I believe, in May of last year, at which Paddy Teahon gave a presentation to the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, the Minister for Finance, myself and officials from all of those Departments. The Office of Public Works was present also. There were no "conflict of interests" questions raised at that meeting but now that this matter has come to the fore, all of these questions have to be answered, as I am quite confident they will be.

Mr. Connor

Rightly so. Is he complaining?

Dr. McDaid

When this facility is opened in December and the Senators look back on some of the contributions they have made on this subject, I believe many of them will have regrets.