Why the fuss over the National Aquatic Centre? A dormant company - one which was not actively trading - was selected after a tender was put out by Campus & Stadium Ireland Development (CSID) to run the project. It is planned to be Europe's largest aquatic centre and a key part of the overall national stadium project which the CSID was set up to oversee. The dormant company, Waterworld UK, subsequently sharply reduced its interest in the project, by taking only a 5.1 per cent stake in a company called
Big deal? Yes. Neither Government nor the CSID board was informed of the status of Waterworld UK. This is the pet project of the Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, so there was considerable disquiet in Government circles that corners had been cut. Needless to say, the Opposition seized the opportunity to ask pointed questions about Mr Ahern's stewardship of the initiative, which covered the period when Waterworld UK signed heads of agreement - the outline agreement to run the centre. Mr Ahern says he was kept in the dark about the company's status.
But dormant companies are used all the time by business people. True. Yet the central questions surround the fact that Waterworld UK, having initially signed the heads of agreement, is not itself going to have a major role in operating the centre. This was put down to "internal agreements" between the parties involved, although the nature of those agreements remains unclear.
Is the contract valuable? Yes, although there are conflicting views. According to the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr John Purcell, the centre was projected to generate an annual surplus (profit) in the £492,000 - £2 million range. By contrast, CSID's executive chairman, Mr Paddy Teahon, has said Dublin Waterworld projects an annual surplus of about £100,000.
Mr Teahon has said he did nothing wrong? Yes. However, he has accepted that his communication was "inadequate" and that "misjudgments" had been made. These are significant admissions from a former secretary general of the Department of the Taoiseach. Given that questions remain unanswered and the political sensitivity of the affair in advance of the general election, apologies might be judged to be an insufficient response. Questions on Waterworld UK's involvement were apparently unresolved in the draft report by the Attorney General, Mr Michael McDowell SC.
Does the affair stop with the Aquatic Centre? No. CSID hired "an executive services" firm, Magahy & Co, to oversee the development of the entire Abbotstown project. CSID's contract with Magahy & Co, was scrutinised by the Comptroller & Auditor General, Mr John Purcell, who described it as "novel".
Is "novel" a strong word for the State's official auditor? It indicates that the contract was very unusual. Mr Purcell said its ultimate value was to be fixed at 1.8 per cent of the cost of the wider Abbotstown national stadium project, which is now on hold. CSID says the structure of the contract was "standard practice" in development contracts for professional fees. The fee was capped in January 2001 and the board is discussing a new payment structure.
Yet the more expensive the project, the higher the fee paid to Magahy & Co? In the first instance, yes, although that contract will be changed to provide for payment on a pro-term basis.Incidentally, a termination payment of up to £1 million (€1.27 million) would be paid to Magahy & Co if its contract was to be cancelled.
What happens next? The Government must respond to Mr McDowell's final report. Only then will Mr Teahon know whether he is to be reappointed chairman of CSID. As the Government pointed out this week, that process is not automatic. Either way, a full-time chief executive and a finance director will be appointed to CSID.
ARTHUR BEESLEY