asked the Minister for Transport and Power whether any building has been erected at Dublin Airport for the purpose of car air-ferry service; and, if so, (a) the date upon which the erection of the building was completed, (b) the cost of erecting such building, (c) whether tenders by public advertisement were invited for the erection of such building, and, if not, why, (d) whether such building has been made available to any person, and, if so, the conditions upon which it was so made available and for what period, (e) whether a subsidy or other financial inducement was offered to the person to whom the building was made available, and, if so, the amount thereof, (f) the number of cars which have used the building since its erection and the use to which it is now being put, and (g) the financial gain derived from the expenditure incurred in the erection of the building.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Dublin Airport Car-Ferry Building.
A car ferry terminal was erected at Dublin Airport, the completion date being 23rd April, 1960.
It would be contrary to normal practice to disclose the cost of the building and it would not be in the public interest to do so.
The time available for the planning and construction of the building did not permit of the preparation of detailed tender documents, which are necessary when tenders are invited by public advertisement. Tenders were, therefore, invited from selected contractors known to have the requisite organisation and equipment to execute the works in the short time available. The lowest tended was accepted.
The car ferry terminal was leased to BKS Air Transport Limited, London, from the 25th April, 1960 to 24th April, 1961 and thereafter from year to year subject to termination on six months' notice.
No subsidy or other financial inducement was given in respect of the building for which the full economic rent is charged, nor was any subsidy paid to the occupant from the Vote for the Department.
3,224 cars have been handled through the building, the tenancy of which is still held by BKS Air Transport, Ltd.
The cost of the building is being recovered by way of economic rent charged to the tenant.
In the circumstances where the unusual procedure of not publishing a request for tenders is adopted, is it not desirable that the cost of the contract should be made known?
It is not usually the case because of the fact that, if we were to publish the prices at which contracts were made, it could quite easily result in increases in expenses to the Department on the various tenders as a result of the prices being known.
Surely that is perfectly valid where there is a public advertisement for tender and the Department is in a position to say, having opened tenders, that the lowest was accepted. But where that procedure was not adopted and there was no public advertisement for tender, where a select group of firms were asked to tender, then surely a different situation arises?
We consulted the Government Contracts Committee and they were satisfied that, in the circumstances, it was the best procedure to adopt. I see no reason to publish the prices in view of that.
Is the Minister aware that this procedure was very severely criticised by the Committee of Public Accounts of this House? It was pointed out by the Committee on Public Accounts, if my memory serves me well, that where there was no general invitation to tender, the contract prices should be published, whereas where there was a general invitation to tender, it was sufficient to say that the lowest tender was accepted and, if not, the reason why it was not accepted.
I shall examine the report of the Committee on Public Accounts in that regard.
Perhaps the Minister would look into it?