The main point at issue in this matter is why the Government has placed a contract for the supply of an executive jet with a British company for the duration of the EU Presidency when an Irish company has tendered and is suitable and cost effective. The EU Presidency is the attraction holding the Government together — the political super glue for the three parties who have more interest in perks than the welfare of Irish companies. Every effort should be made to ensure that Irish companies derive maximum benefit and exposure from the prestigious EU Presidency.
While it is a direct insult to Wester Aviation to have been treated in such a cavalier fashion, it also illustrates grave insensitivity to the needs of Irish companies that the Government chooses to be ferried around Europe under the flag of another State while jobs which could be created in an Irish company based at Shannon are spurned. Wester fears a threat to its existing business by this signal from Government. Prospective customers will wonder what is the problem. I have taken the trouble to check with some of its customers and they have no complaints. However, the Minister must also clarify the issue.
It is strange that tenders were sought as the service is only to be used on an "if and as required" basis. The Government could have shopped around and made use of available services as the UK company will do.
The second point at issue relates to the specification which accompanied the Department of Defence tender documents. Item 7 required full details of the proposed crews and item 12 sought the date when the aircraft would be in the tenderer's possession. My information is that the successful UK company, Hunting Aviation, does not own or operate any executive jets. How will it comply with these conditions? It will have to sublease whatever aircraft may be available and whatever crew can be obtained.
During the last Irish EU Presidency a US jet was chartered and crewed by the Air Corps. Other States when leasing jets for Government work get over the difficulty posed by EU competition laws by inserting a security clause which effectively subjects crew members to a state security check and, generally, favours their own nationals. Was it too much to ask that the Government do likewise? Does the national interest mean anything anymore?
On the specifications, the main question is whether changes were made when the process of tendering was completed. Were concessions made to a UK company which were not granted to Wester? I hope the Minister will clarify the matter and withdraw any perceived slight on Wester.
The third point at issue is the reasons offered for rejecting Wester. First, it was indicated that its executive jet was unsuitable as it was restricted at some airports from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. and, second, it was stated that no back-up was available. Neither requirement was mentioned in the tender specifications nor raised in discussions with Wester. Neither posed an insurmountable difficulty and if other contract conditions could be breached to accommodate a UK company, Wester should have been given the same opportunity. One wonders about the likelihood of flights during the restricted hours and on the rare occasions they might have occurred, Wester could have provided a suitable jet. The fact that back-up was available was known to the Department.
When these two reasons for awarding the contract outside the State began to run aground, a new one surfaced — that the contract was awarded to the company which could provide the best value for money. I have established that the cost differential in favour of Wester, as opposed to a major UK company, for a flight to Heathrow, comparing like with like, is approximately 60 per cent — £3,100 for Wester as against £8,000 for the UK company. This arises mainly because of extra costs due to positioning aircraft from a UK base.
Would the leader of any other EU state use an Irish registered jet to fly his Ministers around Europe? Is it too late in this case for the Government to support the Irish company? The Minister should examine the matter thoroughly and ensure this does not recur.
