Does the Taoiseach condone and stand over the secret deal done regarding facilities at Punchestown? Almost €15 million in grant aid was approved by both the Ministers for Finance and Agriculture and Food for a project in the Minister for Finance's constituency. Is he aware the deal was approved for 100% grant aid within seven days and, when costs doubled, funding was subsequently approved within 14 days? Is he further aware that no cost benefit analysis was carried out; Department of Finance guidelines were not followed; no independent technical advice was sought in regard to running costs or long-term benefit; no research was conducted on the need for such a facility; no other potential providers were asked for their views of expressions of interest; and that it was not even referred to the legal advisers in the Departments of Finance and Agriculture and Food?

Does the Taoiseach condone such activity? Does this not show blatant contempt for the efforts of thousands of people who day in, day out attempt to raise moneys as part of their percentage of funding for boxing clubs, tennis clubs, football pitches and other community pitches? Does it not show blatant disregard for elderly people and those with disabilities who must provide tax and medical certificates to qualify for a shower under the disabled person's grant scheme? Does it not make a mockery of the procedures relating to primary school projects, which must go through six phases and take between three and five years for approval in the first instance while, in some cases, parents must raise a 25% local contribution?

The Minister for Finance railroaded the project through his own guidelines. The Estimates will be published shortly and he has issued a warning to the Secretary General of every Department to scrutinise every euro of expenditure for value in the public interest, yet a situation like this can apply for the rich so that the Ministers for Finance and Agriculture and Food can gain political kudos and stay in with the horsey set. How can the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste, who stated the Government must learn lessons from this, stand over it? How can they stand idly by while this happens?

I have been looking back at the file on this because I understood something new had come up late last week but this project was discussed by a select committee on 7 June 2000 and included in an Estimate before the House on 27 June 2000. It was raised again on 13 June 2001, 27 June 2001, 20 March 2002, 26 March 2002, 21 May 2003 and 27 June 2003.

The Taoiseach is making a laugh of this issue.

I have read comments by senior members of the Deputy Kenny's party. They said they were delighted to see that in subhead E5, funding is providing for the establishment of a national agricultural show and international eventing and competition centre at Punchestown. They said they were pleased to see this in the Kildare North constituency.

Will the Taoiseach stand over it?

Some thought quite a deal of money had been provided under the subheads. Others referred to the resources provided under the relevant subheads for a national and international agricultural show centre at Punchestown and hoped that, next year, funds would be allocated to Clones greyhound track – I do not know if that happened. Others acknowledged the intrinsic value of the project. That took place over the last number of years.

With regard to the history of the project, the Punchestown organisation – I understand it is a trust body – wrote to the Department of Agriculture and Food in November 1999, proposing the development of the location as an event and exhibition centre for national events. It subsequently indicated that, following more detailed consideration, it proposed to make significant structural changes, as it did. This revised proposal cost an additional IR£6 million.

On 3 October 2001, the Punchestown trust requested further funding to meet Kildare County Council planning requirements, a sewage treatment plant, additional car parking and other ancillary costs. All of this was highlighted in a major way, both locally and nationally. No other promoter made an approach to the Department to provide facilities for such a centre in the country. That is understandable in the context of the scale of the facilities required, particularly the large land bank which nobody else was able to provide. Events and exhibition centres do not generally make profits, as is well known, and have to look towards a long-term investment in the infrastructure. The letters and details of relevant dates are attached to the report.

In his report, the Comptroller and Auditor General said the proper tender procedures were observed in connection with the placing of contracts and the Department had satisfactory controls in place with regard to processing and payment claims, site inspections and administrative checks. However, he expressed concern as to the adequacy of the valuation in the form of an agreement and stated that, in view of reservations with regard to deficiencies in the form of the agreement, the relevant papers are being examined by the legal services unit of the Department for legal consideration as to whether a new agreement is necessary.

This centre is now up and running. It is regarded as a considerable national asset in the agricultural sector, has already hosted a number of important events and I hope it will continue to go from success to success.

Deputy Kenny, without interruption.

The Taoiseach would win an award on any version of Ripley's believe it or not. Not once did he refer to the procedure followed, which is the issue in which I am interested. Was there a public tendering process for this project? If the public has paid 100% of the cost of the centre, does the public own it, or will it own it in due course? As it happened, I was Minister for Tourism when Punchestown was awarded the world equestrian games but had to withdraw due to inability to live up to any of the conditions set out at that time.

The Government's code of conduct for office holders sets out that they should act only by reference to the public interest and dedicate the resources of their offices in furtherance thereof; that they should not be influenced in their official duties by personal considerations and should be accountable for their decisions. As Deputy Rabbitte pointed out at a meeting of the Public Accounts Committee, the Secretary General of the Department of Agriculture and Food said this was a matter as between Minister and Minister and he, as an official, could not comment on ministerial responsibility.

The Taoiseach is in charge of those Ministers. As I see it, the Minister for Agriculture and Food and the Minister for Finance have blatantly disregarded every guideline laid down for projects of this magnitude. There was no regard for the public interest, only public kudos. The Taoiseach and the Tánaiste, who said we must learn lessons from this, sat or stood and watched those two big dippers into the public purse. They stood idly by, like Bonnie and Clyde, watching the public purse being plundered, without any regard to the guidelines they have espoused so strongly in respect of every Department.

In publishing the Estimates this week, the Minister for Finance has specified that every Department Secretary General must scrutinise every euro of expenditure. He should say that to the parents and teachers of school children who need €300 million for primary schools which are falling down, the community groups which are seeking community centres, boxing and tennis clubs, the small organisations which are breaking their backs in an effort to raise a few miserable euro to qualify for a pittance of a grant. How can the Taoiseach sit and watch the approval of €14 million, within a matter of three weeks, with no regard whatsoever to value for money?

The Deputy has gone one and a half minutes over time.

Deputy Kenny asked if proper procedures were followed. The project was examined in detail by the Department of Agriculture and Food; a letter of offer, with 17 conditions, was issued on 1 August; Punchestown accepted the Department's offer by letter of 9 August; the formal exchange of letters was taken by the Department and Punchestown as a binding agreement, as is normal practice in grant-aiding projects by the Department; a separate subhead was provided for the project in the Estimates for the Department of Agriculture and Food for all years while the project was under way. Accordingly, the provision of funding for the centre was open and transparent. Each year, the Department's Estimate was scrutinised by the relevant Oireachtas committee. It is nonsense to suggest it was hidden or not transparent.

The Comptroller and Auditor General stated in his report that proper procedures were observed in connection with the placing of contracts and the Department had satisfactory controls in place for processing and payment of claims with regard to site inspections. As to the aspect on which the Comptroller did not agree, he expressed reservations about possible deficiencies in the form of agreement. Those papers have been referred to the legal services for examination of that issue and to consider whether a new agreement is desirable or necessary. That is an issue to which the Minister will return again.

The Punchestown organisation is a non-profit trust. Although I am not familiar with the deed of trust, I understand that a number of reputable people from different walks of agricultural life are involved in that trust. Part of the requirement for a national centre was to move elements of agricultural exhibitions away from the Royal Dublin Society to a suitable alternative location. It did not relate only to equestrian events but also to agriculture. Those are the issues.

As I said, the project was welcomed wholeheartedly by all who spoke on the matter at all stages. I cannot find any negative comments on it. It is now a resource for everybody and every organisation to use, as they are doing.