xAnother row has broken out over spending on the Ferry Terminal in Liverpool, after claims the Treasury Minister contradicted claims that additional expenditure had been authorised.
Ministers have refused to disclose how much public money has been set aside for legal fees relating to an ongoing dispute.
Mr Thomas confirmed that Treasury had not received any formal request for additional money.
“I can advise that to date, Treasury has not received any business case to an internal fund or the contingency budget in relation specifically to legal and professional fees relating to any such dispute,” Mr Thomas told the House.
“Treasury understands that the Department of Infrastructure is managing these costs within existing funding streams.”
Authorised
The exchange became increasingly strained, with Mr Hooper noting that Infrastructure Minister Tim Crookall had told MHKs earlier that all expenditure had been authorised by Treasury.
“I’m really glad the minister just gave that answer,” Mr Hooper said.
“The DoI have made no request to any internal fund or any revenue bid. Nothing has come to Treasury in respect of these additional costs.
:It’s really interesting he says that, we’ve literally just heard from the Minister for Infrastructure that all of this expenditure has been authorised by the Treasury, the minister is saying that isn’t actually the case.”
Mr Thomas rejected the suggestion of a contradiction, insisting the questions related to different matters.
“The question is very specifically about covering legal and professional fees relating to this dispute. It’s not about the overall amounts involved,” he said.
“The minister, the questioner, has just elided it to questions and pretended they’re one and that there’s a dispute between the Infrastructure Department and the Treasury Department.”
Existing Budget
The minister later clarified that costs associated with the dispute were being absorbed within existing budgets.
“It is understood that the Department of Infrastructure continued to book the costs associated with any dispute to the capital scheme, of which some costs are underwritten by capital contingency until such time as the department has certainty on the final settlement,” he said.
Onchan MHK Julie Edge also intervened to ask about the contract type, suggesting this would determine where legal costs sit.
Mr Thomas confirmed it was an NEC-type contract but declined to provide further detail, instead referring members to two existing public documents, including a Public Accounts Committee report.
“The Public Accounts Committee is part way through having concluded but it still hasn’t published lots of information in terms of the Tynwald Public Accounts Committee investigation of this report,” he said.
Mr Hooper pressed again for a specific figure, arguing that if costs were being booked to the capital scheme, Treasury would have visibility of the amount.
“If all of the legal costs are being booked to the capital scheme, of which Treasury have full oversight, Treasury will know how much money has been set aside within the capital scheme to cover the legal and professional fees,” he said.
“Would he be able to please share that information?”
Mr Thomas refused, stating that some costs were “underwritten by capital contingency till such time as the department has certainty on the final settlement”.
Dispute
Earlier in the sitting, Mr Hooper had asked Infrastructure Minister Tim Crookall about the nature of the dispute itself. Mr Crookall declined to provide details, citing ongoing legal proceedings and confidentiality.
“The dispute is currently highly confidential, while legal proceedings remain ongoing,” Mr Crookall said.
He explained that the dispute related to “the recovery of costs spent on the Liverpool ferry terminal as a result of breaches and or negligence on behalf of those who were appointed on and advising the department on the project.”
The minister warned that disclosing information could have serious consequences.
“Disclosure of any more information in an open forum that is not protected by privilege and that is a matter of public record may put chances of recovery at risk,” he said.
“The impact of disclosing certain information that is being asked may have the following effects, adverse impacts on proceedings, which may include exclusion of evidence, adverse costs, where the departments would have to pay the other side.”
No Dispute?
When Mr Hooper asked how the minister could reconcile his position with that of contractors who reportedly deny any dispute exists, Mr Crookall declined to elaborate further.
“As I said, having said what I’ve said with legal advice, I’m not prepared to say any more on this matter,” he said.
The exchanges follow earlier revelations that the project’s approved budget of £70.676 million, plus £2.12 million from the capital inflation fund, has been fully exhausted, with Mr Hooper claiming the final figure is “somewhat north of £100 million”.