ANALYSIS: The former Secretary General of the Department of the Taoiseach had to face concerns over project costs and a service contract for the national aquatic centre when he faced the Dáil's Committee of Public Accounts yesterday, writes Arthur Beesley
Paddy Teahon was among his peers when he appeared before the Dáil Committee of Public Accounts (PAC) yesterday to defend his actions in the award of contracts to run the €62 million national aquatic centre at Abbotstown, Dublin.
With disquiet in certain Government circles "heightened" by the report of the Attorney General, Mr Michael McDowell SC, into the affair, the strain on the former secretary of the Department of the Taoiseach appeared to show on occasion.
The executive chairman of Campus and Stadium Ireland Development (CSID) knew facing into the meeting that the Cabinet's response would await submission of the final report today.
In addition to Mr Teahon's submissions, the committee also heard contributions from Mr Teahon's successor at the Department of the Taoiseach, Mr Dermot McCarthy; from the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr John Purcell; from the secretary general of the Department of Tourism and Sport, Ms Margaret Hayes; and from Mr Barry Murphy, chairman of the Commissioners of Public Works.
Mr Teahon had already expressed regret in other forums for not telling the Government and the CSID board that Waterworld UK was dormant when it signed heads of agreement to operate the centre.
There would be apologies to the PAC too, but not before his colleagues at the highest levels of the public service put the spotlight on another significant agreement signed by CSID.
The contract in question was awarded to Magahy & Co to operate "executive services" . The company is controlled by Ms Laura Magahy, who made her own mark in the public service during the early years of the Temple Bar development in central Dublin.
Ms Magahy's company also provides similar services for the Digital Hub initiative in the Liberties area of Dublin.
In relation to the stadium, the company has been paid a flat fee of £100,000 (€127,000) per month since September 2000. According to the current plans, now likely to be changed, the work will be worth 1.8 per cent of the entire cost of the CSID development. This means the fee rises as the project cost increases.
Mr Purcell's comments about CSID's contract with Magahy & Co are of particular interest.
He is responsible for independently monitoring all State expenditure. Before completing his audit for CSID's 2000 accounts, he sought reassurance about the corporate governance at the company and about the Magahy & Co contract.
He had "general concerns" about the appropriateness of the contract, concerns which appeared to be shared by Ms Hayes and Mr Murphy. Mr McCarthy described the contract as "innovative".
In the event, Mr Teahon revealed that Magahy & Co had sought to amend the contract to reflect "charge out" fees for work done, because it was important that it would be shown to be "clear and transparent".
As for the aquatic project, Mr Purcell noted its projected cost increased to £48.4 million from an initial £30 million by the time bids were received to run the centre. Not only that, but large-scale private sectior expenditure on the project failed to materialise.
Yet the core questions surround the selection of Waterworld UK and the fact the Government was never told about its dormant status.
Mr Teahon's statement was 13 pages long and it took 25 minutes to read out. It did not directly address the fact that Waterworld UK essentially divested its interest in the contract by taking only a 5.1 per cent stake in the company that will operate the centre, Dublin Waterworld. There are indications that this central question remains unresolved by Mr McDowell's investigation.