Vol. 395 No. 6
1 Mr. Dukes asked the Taoiseach if he will give a breakdown of the expenditure incurred in the leasing of the Gulf Stream III aircraft for use as an additional Government jet during the EC Presidency; if he will outline in particular the leasing costs and the costs, if any, paid by way of commission charges and other payments; and if he will name the person or company which received any such procurement payments.
2 Mr. Dukes asked the Taoiseach if he will explain the conflict between the recent statement to Dáil Éireann that the Department of Tourism and Transport made the leasing arrangement for the additional Government jet to be used during the EC Presidency and the public statement made by the official spokesperson at the Department of Defence the following week-end saying that that Department had hired the jet; and if he misinformed Dáil Éireann on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
The Government decided last October that, as part of our preparations for the Presidency, the Minister for Tourism and Transport should arrange for the leasing of an additional jet aircraft for the six months of the Irish Presidency of the European Community, subject to the Minister being satisfied that the aircraft could be properly serviced and maintained. It was subsequently agreed after an assessment of the situation by the Minister for Tourism and Transport that a joint committee, representing the Departments of Tourism and Transport and Defence at senior level, should be formed to progress matters. That committee drafted the specification for the aircraft and assessed tenders which, in accordance with normal practice in the procurement of aircraft for the Air Corps, were sought by the Department of Defence. Specific financial provision for the costs was made in the Defence Estimate for 1990.
The Department of Tourism and Transport played the major role in arranging for the aircraft. This included obtaining initial quotations on the cost range of aircraft available which would meet the Government's requirements. That Department's advice also covered the technical specification, evaluation and acceptance of the aircraft and the leasing arrangements, as well as consultations with a number of persons and organisations with knowledge of executive travel.
The role of the Department of Defence in effecting the contractual arrangements was clearly implied in my statement to the Dáil on 30 January that the Air Corps would operate the aircraft, while the Department of Tourism and Transport's involvement arises from their responsibility and expertise in civil aviation matters.
As I said in the Dáil on 30 January, it would be contrary to the well-established practice and the conventions of commercial confidentiality to give a breakdown of the contract price. I gave the Dáil then the overall cost of operating the aircraft for the six months of the Presidency. The Minister for Tourism and Transport has already indicated publicly that no payments by way of commission or fee or any such charge were made to any person or company from public funds in connection with the aircraft.
I should like to ask first why the Taoiseach did not give such a comprehensive answer on 30 January. May I ask why the Department of Defence are quoted as saying that tendering competition for the lease of the aircraft was done here. Why is there this apparent discrepancy of view between what the Department of Defence and the Minister for Tourism and Transport are saying? Why did the Taoiseach on 30 January refuse to confirm that the aircraft now used is not the one that was first sought out because, I am told, the one first sought out had been damaged in some way by a heavy landing in Senegal?
I really do not understand what this is all about. I have given the full details between my answer of 30 January and that of today as to exactly what happened. In my view the Government very sensibly asked the Minister for Tourism and Transport — who has more knowledge of these things departmentally than anybody else — to look into this whole question for us. He did that, came up with a recommendation which was then processed by the Department of Defence. I understand there was some statement by the press relations officer in the Department of Defence which was reported in the newspapers but I do not think that what that officer said is in any way in contradiction with what I am saying here. I am giving the full detailed facts of exactly what happened.
Could the Taoiseach again say why he refused to answer the question as to whether the aircraft now used was the first one that was found? Is it not the case that the first one found — which the Government were about to take on lease — had been damaged? May I also ask the Taoiseach why the information on the leasing cost of the aircraft is being kept a secret at this stage? Is it not perfectly in order for this House to know what is the leasing cost and what are the details I have sought? Why is there secrecy about these?
There is nothing secret about them. The Deputy should know from his own ministerial experience that it is not the practice to give this sort of confidential commercial information. All I am holding back at present is the actual breakdown. I have already given the House the full cost — £1.3 million. I wanted to do that because of the controversy the Deputy had raised about this matter; I wanted to give that information to the House but, even giving that information is slightly in breach of normal practice in this House over the years.
A Cheann Comhairle, may I——
Let us have brevity; I want to deal with other questions also.
Could the Taoiseach explain to me what commercial disadvantage would ensue for the company if it were known how much the Government had paid for the aircraft? Could the Taoiseach tell me what commercial or political disadvantage would ensue for the Government if the Government were to say how much they had paid the company for the aircraft?
I do not know; all I know is that down the years it has been the traditional practice in this House not to disclose confidential commercial details of this kind in respect of organisations or companies who did business with the Government. As far as I know, that practice is very much in the interests of the Government and the taxpayer, to make sure that they get the best possible value in transactions of this kind. As I have said, I have departed somewhat from normal practice by giving the House details of the overall cost.
Let us deal with Question No. 3.
I wish to ask the Taoiseach——
A very brief question, Deputy Dukes.
The Taoiseach has not set any new precedent by disclosing the cost to the House because this expenditure would have to be accounted for in the accounts of the Department of Defence.
Ceist.
Could I ask the Taoiseach, even if he is not going to give the break-down of the cost of this deal, if it would include details of a payment made either by the Government or by the lessor company to an agent who would find this aircraft?
It would not, and I think in all honour the Deputy should withdraw suggestions and allegations he has made in that context.
I withdraw nothing. If there is nothing to be hidden the Taoiseach would do far better for everybody concerned to reveal the information.
I told the Deputy before, and the Minister for Tourism and Transport has indicated that no payments of any such kind were made. In fact, although it is not my business, the corporation which supplied the aircraft has also made a statement to the effect that they did not pay any such fees.
