Aquatic Centre - Nine years on, it’s time for answers

Today the Public Accounts Committee will be looking into one of the most expensive corporate fiascoes in the history of Irish sport.

It involves tens of millions of euro being wasted and a plethora of issues left hanging.

Questions are already being asked about how €43m was spent on developing a masterplan for a sports campus that has been substantially shelved. The whole thing could be equated with the e-voting machine disaster, but in this case the public did not even get the equivalent of the useless voting machines.

Of course, the Aquatic Centre is in place. The highly paid advisers stated it should operate at a profit of between €500,000 and €2m annually, whereas it has required a subsidy of €1m each year to cover its running costs.

A private company, Dublin Waterworld Ltd (DWW). was initially hired to run the Aquatic Centre. The tendering process itself was flawed and led to some costly litigation, with which the taxpayer has been saddled. Elements of the whole thing have been as spiteful and vindictive as the costs have been exorbitant.

Civil servants from four state bodies will answer questions today about how and why a case was brought against DWW for a €10.2m VAT bill after both the Attorney General and the Comptroller & Auditor General advised that DWW did not owe the money because the Aquatic Centre failed to pass a crucial economic value test. The valuation of €75m put on the building by Campus and Stadium Ireland Development (CSID) was grossly inflated as the building was valued at much less on the open market. The valuation officer’s report actually valued the Aquatic Centre at €35m.

On whose advice did CSID pursue the case, and why did CSID’s highly paid financial advisers, Price Waterhouse Cooper, suggest the valuation officer’s report should not be shared with DWW? The whole case stinks and these issues must be aired properly.

In November 2011 when the Public Accounts Committee raised the matter, chairman John McGuinness was critical of the unsatisfactory answers provided and demanded that the officials come forward today properly prepared to answer the committee’s questions. The issues involved were legally complicated. Eventually DWW won its case in the Supreme Court and costs were awarded against the State, but the bills relating to it are still pending. The whole thing will undoubtedly cost millions more. It is imperative we learn from these mistakes.

On whose advice and why was the groundless case pressed? John Moriarty, the spokesman for DWW, has waived his right to privacy in calling for the full release of documents relating to the whole matter. This thing has already dragged on for over nine years.

Enough is enough. Let’s have the answers this time.