Vol. 476 No. 4
2 Mr. Power asked the Minister for the Marine the steps, if any, he will take to ensure that Irish interests are protected and given equal treatment in the award of contracts for helicopter services for emergency sea and air rescue. [7327/97]
Under Government contracts procedures and EU public procurement directives, it is not possible for any public contracting authority, including my Department, to give favourable treatment to Irish nationals or interests or to discriminate against non-nationals.
Contracts placed by my Department, if in excess of the relevant financial threshold in the EU directive, must be processed and awarded in accordance with the relevant EU directive which sets legal obligations on the contracting authority; violations can give rise to serious legal and financial sanctions. Given the value of search and rescue helicopter contracts, the provisions of the EU Services Directive 92/50/EEC must be complied with. This procedure does of course ensure that Irish interests are protected and given equal treatment. I assure the Deputy that my objective is to deliver the highest achievable standards of reliability and quality of search and rescue helicopter services while ensuring the best value for State resources.
Are Questions Nos. 2 and 3 being taken together?
I received no such indication.
In the past, there were objections to taking questions together. For that reason, I do not propose to do so.
Irish companies are not seeking favours. They are concerned with receiving equal treatment. In the tendering process used for the renewed air/sea rescue helicopter contract for the west coast, the Department of the Marine allowed the successful company to introduce a penalty clause subsequent to acceptance of the tender document. I understand the auto-hover was to have been fitted by the end of last month but it was not. Am I correct in that?
Is the Deputy referring to a particular Irish company?
No, the Scottish company which was successful.
The Deputy referred to Irish companies not having a fair say.
I am not seeking any favours for Irish companies. I acknowledge that, within a European context, we are obliged to seek tenders whether from Scottish, French, German companies or any others. Irish applicants merely want to be treated similarly.
To admit new entrants and give them a fair chance of competing we decided to allow up to six months from the awarding of the contract for the successful contractor to meet the auto-hover requirements. During the first eight months of the original contract awarded to Irish Helicopters Limited no auto-hover was fitted to its helicopter and no problems were reported. In this instance, in order to give everybody a fair chance and have an auto-hover, we allowed tenders be submitted to end February to give new entrants a chance of having an auto-hover fitted to any helicopter being provided. It was not discriminatory, it was a question of being fair while allowing new entrants into the field. It would not have been physically possible for anybody to have provided an auto-hover within a shorter timescale.
At the time 51 per cent of the shareholding in Irish Helicopters Limited was owned by Bristow UK and 49 per cent by Petroleum Helicopters Incorporated, USA. The three companies that tendered were West Air Aviation, which is Irish, Brintel, a subsidiary of Canadian Helicopter Corporation, and Bond Helicopters Limited based in Scotland. We were meticulous in examining tenders, engaging independent people to examine the quality and cost of service. I have a responsibility to the taxpayer to ensure that whoever is awarded a contract provides the best service at the cheapest possible rate, which was the criterion used in this assessment. Everybody was given the same chance. All we had to do was ensure that we were not excluding others by placing an unreasonable time limit on the provision of an auto-hover.
The Deputy's assertion that an auto-hover was not available by end February is incorrect. It has been fitted to the relevant helicopter. Delay arose because of a technical hitch in electronics, in terms of wiring in the helicopter itself. This was discovered in the course of trials, which had to be discontinued on account of the prevailing bad weather. The contractor who had been providing a very good service since being awarded the contract allocated another helicopter, making two available in the event of an emergency which might necessitate the use of an auto-hover.
I assure Deputy Power there was nothing strange about the awarding of that contract. The negotiations were conducted entirely fairly and openly and afforded everybody a chance to tender. I am glad to report that the helicopter in question, with an auto-hover fitted, will be operational between the middle and end of this month.
My purpose is not to represent any company, whether Bond Helicopters Limited, Irish Helicopters or any other. Safety must be our sole and primary concern. One of our leading marine safety campaigners, Joan McGinley, has expressed some concern about the awarding of this contract to the company concerned. While not wanting to appear to make political capital out of this issue, I must draw the Minister's attention to an emergency which occurred since the beginning of this year involving a trawler operating off the Kerry coast when the helicopter located at Shannon was unable to respond and a man lost his finger. While the Minister appears to be happy with the awarding of the contract, I am merely reminding him that some concern has been expressed and that there is room for much improvement. Perhaps he would re-examine and clarify the position.
While wanting to assist the Deputy in eliciting information, we must proceed by way of question.
It is important to place on record — in view of inaccurate statements made here — that the company awarded the contract is a highly respected one providing an excellent service about which there have been no complaints. Since being awarded the contract its capabilities to perform any task requested have been well proven. I should not like anybody to be of the impression that it is incapable of providing an excellent search and rescue service. It would be unfortunate to allow the message go out from this House that there is something wrong with the company, or that it is providing a second-class service, which would be totally inaccurate. There was a slight technical hitch in the provision of a helicopter fitted with an auto-hover which will be sorted out within 14 to 21 days of the prescribed date. That had nothing to do with the auto-hover. It was purely a technical matter and caused by delay in trials because of the bad weather in February. The House will be aware that the tests — insisted on by the civil aviation authorities and others — to which these helicopters are subjected are very rigorous bearing in mind the extraordinary conditions in which they must operate. Because of the weather prevailing it was not possible to fully carry out those tests.
The Deputy should not attach any credence to anybody telling him that, as a result of this contract being awarded to Bond Helicopters Limited, we have opted for a second-class service at a cheaper price. This is definitely not the case. I read the article to which he referred and it is not correct. We are not skimping on funds. We have endeavoured to obtain best value for our tax-payers, all tenders having been examined in great detail by professionals who advised me and my Department on the successful applicant's suitability and capability to provide the service we required. Having advertised for tenders and obtained a competitive price we are now in a position not only to have a medium-load helicopter on the west coast but also one on the east coast, the south-east being covered by the Air Corps, thus ensuring that our coastline is adequately covered by search and rescue helicopters. Twelve months ago we had a search and rescue service on a permanent basis in only one location on the west coast. We are now in a position to provide a rescue service all round the coast. I appreciate the Deputy is repeating what he has read or heard but what I am saying is factual. If the Deputy wishes to have further information or to examine the files, I will make them available to him. I do not want anybody to think we are providing a second class service simply to save money. That is not true.
It is important from my point of view——
There is a time factor involved and we have dwelt over long on this question. The subject matter of Priority Questions Nos. 2 and 3 are related but have not been taken as such. I wish to proceed to Question No. 3. We cannot debate the matter now.
I am not trying to scaremonger. Joan McGinley has campaigned on the issue for a long number of years.
I would prefer if names were not mentioned.
I am merely echoing the concerns she has expressed.
3 Mr. Molloy asked the Minister for the Marine the reason his Department opted to change the sea and air rescue helicopter company; if he has satisfied himself with the new company's current performance; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7328/97]
Subject to EU procurement and following a detailed tender process undertaken by a high level expert group in my Department I announced on 2 August 1996 that the Government had awarded a contract to Bond Helicopters (Ireland) Limited, for the provision of a marine emergency helicopter including search and rescue based at Shannon Airport. The contract commenced on 1 January 1997, on the expiry of the previous contract with Irish Helicopters Limited, and is for a minimum period of two and a half years with an option to extend for up to five years.
In awarding the contract to Bond Helicopters (Ireland) Limited my objective is to deliver the highest achievable standards of reliability and quality of service while ensuring the best value for State resources. The contract was awarded to Bond Helicopters (Ireland) Limited, on the basis of its ability to provide the relevant performance, equipment, training, experience and back-up, at the most competitive price. During the tendering process strict guidelines were adhered to and my Department complied fully with national Government contracts procedures and the relevant EU public procurement directive relating to the Co-ordination of Procedures for the Award of Public Service Contracts 90/50/EEC of 18 June 1992. The three tenders received were evaluated by a multi-disciplinary, expert helicopter contract working group and were assessed on an equal basis. I am fully satisfied that my Department's conduct of the tender and its evaluation was ethical and in compliance with EU public procurement procedures.
Bond Helicopters (Ireland) Limited advised my Department on 20 February 1997, in accordance with its contractual obligations, that the fully compliant helicopter with auto-hover which was to be delivered to Shannon by 28 February 1997, is expected to be in service by mid to end March 1997. The delay in the delivery of this helicopter arose from an electrical design fault identified during a recently completed independent quality check. Adverse weather conditions have also hampered flight testing. The fault has since been remedied and flight testing has resumed. The Bond helicopter development programme, which commenced after the contract award in August 1996 and has been the subject of close monitoring and regular review by the Department, was fully on schedule up to this recent development.
A fully serviceable marine emergency helicopter is already in permanent operation by Bond from Shannon. This helicopter has been providing marine emergency response since 1 January 1997 and has carried out 12 successful rescue missions to date. It has rescued or assisted 22 people including the rescue in extreme weather conditions of 13 fishermen from a fishing vessel which caught fire at a location 150 miles off the coast of Galway on 1 March 1997. It has all the features of a fully compliant helicopter, with the exception of an auto-hover system. The absence of an auto-hover makes winching from a small vessel at night difficult but not impossible. Otherwise the helicopter is fully equipped for 24 hour marine emergency response.
Bond Helicopters (Ireland) Limited has made available, with effect from 1 March 1997, a second helicopter to improve the capabilities of the existing helicopter at night time and in bad weather conditions. Crews and specialist lighting devices have been provided to support the operation of two helicopters on a rescue mission. Bond Helicopters (Ireland) Limited has been providing a satisfactory search and rescue service which will be underpinned by the early entry into service of an auto-hover equipped helicopter.
My Department will continue to monitor developments closely and will review all matters relating to the service, including contractual obligations, on a week to week basis.
I am grateful to the Minister for his reply but it does not provide the information I am seeking. My interest in this matter is to establish whether the EU procurement requirements have been properly complied with. Did the advertisement include a clause requiring the helicopter sea rescue service to be in place by 28 February? Is it true that at least one of the applicants inquired whether a penalty clause would be acceptable if it was not able to meet the 28 February delivery date? Is it true that the Department wrote to the company informing it that a penalty clause would not be acceptable and that if it was not able to meet the 28 February delivery date its application would not be accepted? Is it true that company disqualified itself because of the answer it got to that question, that the company awarded the contract did not meet the 28 February delivery date and that the Department subsequently entered into a penalty clause after the contract had been awarded and has now indicated it will not apply the penalty clause? The Minister will note that many questions arise in regard to whether the EU procurement requirements have been fully complied with and whether the matter has been dealt with fairly, particularly bearing in mind——
That should be adequate. The Deputy has asked a series of questions. We might now hear the Minister's reply.
I reject the assertion that the tendering procedure was not fair, open and transparent.
Answer the specific question.
I reject that my Department has said we are not doing anything about the possible breach of contractual obligations. We are monitoring developments on a day to day basis. The contract was for a helicopter service to be provided as and when from 1 January 1997 and that a helicopter with auto-hover would be available from 1 March 1997 onwards. Due to an electrical design fault it has not been possible to have the helicopter with the auto-hover in operation from 1 March. If the Deputy considers that in some way the rules were changed half way through I would like to have the evidence because that is not the case. The closing date and requirements were specified. An independent committee was set up to assess the tenders and on the professional advice available to me, those who tendered and provided the service required at the cheapest price were awarded the contract. There was nothing behind the scenes. As long as I am in the Department, that is the way it will continue. People are entitled to know where they stand. If they tender and are unsuccessful, I cannot do anything about it. The Government has an obligation to the taxpayer to ensure we get the best service at the cheapest possible price. That was done in this case.
Did West Air offer a penalty clause if it could not meet the 28 February deadline and was it informed in writing by the Department this was not permitted and that the deadline had to be met?
The company awarded the contract stated that it would supply a helicopter with an auto-hover by 1 March. Because of a technical hitch in the electrical design, bad weather and inability to test, it is 14 to 21 days late in delivering it. We were satisfied, on the advice of the independent committee, that it could provide it by 28 February. In the meantime a service is being provided with a helicopter without an auto-hover. The company in question has provided a second helicopter to ensure the best possible search and rescue service is available to those who find themselves in difficult circumstances.
There is no question of changing the rules or dealing with Bond differently to West Air or Irish Helicopters. In the tendering process applicants were told they had to show they could provide a helicopter with an auto-hover by 28 February. The expert group was satisfied that Bond, one of the biggest companies in the world, was in a position do so.
The Minister is repeating himself in long replies to use up the time available. I asked a specific question. Did West Air offer a penalty clause and was it informed by the Department that this was not permitted and a helicopter had to be supplied by 28 February? If so it disqualified itself from the competition and despite this, the Minister proceeded to accept a tender from a company which has failed to meet this requirement. Did the Minister inform West Air in writing that he would not accept its offer of a penalty clause and that if it could not deliver a helicopter by 28 February, it was out?
That was a condition of the contract——
The Minister changed it.
I did not; the Deputy should not accuse me of doing so.
Did the Minister not give the company in question a penalty clause opt out?
On one occasion the Deputy made allegations against a Member of the House and suffered the consequences. If he makes allegations against me, he will suffer the same consequences.
I asked a straight question.
Let us listen to the Minister's reply.
The Deputy's experience of making accusations against Members of the House is not a good one. He may recall Mr. Tully. He should not quote from letters or allege that I changed the rules. I did not.
The Minister should answer the question.
I did not change the rules.
What did the Minister state in the letter he sent to West Air?
In the tendering process it was made clear that a helicopter with an auto-hover had to be provided by a certain date. The company concerned stated it would do so.
It failed to meet that requirement.
I have explained the reasons. I have explained to it that we are looking at the contractual obligations on a day by day basis——
The Minister gave it an opt out. He did not give any of the other applicants, including West Air, an opt out.
If the Deputy wishes to see the file and the correspondence we received from West Air, I will make it available to him but he should not allege that I changed the rules in favour of one company. He should not assert that any official in the Department did so. They are civil servants who are paid a salary to do a job and they do not have a vested interest in the matter. It is inaccurate to imply that favouritism was shown towards one company. I will not stand for it.
The Minister changed the rules.
The Deputy should be called before the Committee of Procedure and Privileges, as happened on a previous occasion when he made wild accusations against a Member of the House.
Deputy Molloy rose.
This cannot continue.
If the Deputy wants to get tough, I will be twice as tough.
The question I have asked has not been answered.
The Deputy has not asked a question, rather he has made an allegation. That is typical of his style.
If the Deputy is dissatisfied with the Minister's reply, he can take the matter up at another time, not now.
The filibustering tactic has been used by the Minister.
Unlike the Deputy, I do not spend my time making allegations against others.
Did the Minister write the letter?
Does the Deputy have a vested interest in the matter? Why is he so concerned about West Air?
I am interested in fair play.
Is the Deputy asserting there was no fair play in this case?
I am trying to establish what happened. The Minister's performance is disgraceful.
The Deputy is a disgrace. The party of which he is a member goes on and on about the public finances and services to the public.
