Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 20 Mar 2002

Vol. 550 No. 4

Written Answers. - Ferry Services.

Alan M. Dukes

Question:

559 Mr. Dukes asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage Gaeltacht and the Islands the reason her Department has continued to contract with a company (details supplied) which has not complied with all terms of the contract; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [8460/02]

Minister of State at the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands (Ms Coughlan)

My Department has been informed by the company to which the Deputy refers that the vessel concerned is fitted with a roll-on/roll-off side loading ramp.

Alan M. Dukes

Question:

560 Mr. Dukes asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage Gaeltacht and the Islands the number of tenders received by her Department in 1992 to provide a ferry service from Galway to the Aran Islands; the name of the consultants who advised on the awarding of the contract; the reason the contract was not resubmitted for public tender in 1994 (details supplied); and if she will make a statement on the matter. [8461/02]

Minister of State at the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands (Ms Coughlan)

In 1992, a contract was agreed between the Minister for Tourism, Transport, and Communications and a shipping company to provide a passenger and cargo ferry service between Galway and the Aran Islands for the five year period from 1 September 1992 to 31 August 1997. A total of ten tenders was received for the provision of this service. The consultants, Ashford Marine Limited were employed to generate interest in the tender as well as to advise the Department in the evaluation of tenders for the service.

The initial annual cost to the Exchequer of this contract was €603,000, £475,000. However, this was later increased to €698,000, £550,000, with effect from 19 April 1994 in order to take account of inflation, extra operational costs and the cost of essential equipment required for the service. A once-off capital payment of €127,000, £100,000, was also made to the company in 1994 as a contribution towards the cost of additional operational equipment required for the service, extra sailings provided under the contract, the disruption caused by pier improvement works on the islands and extra initial requirements on the vessel used to provide the service.

Prior to the granting of this additional funding, the company had indicated to the Department of Tourism, Transport and Communications that, in the absence of a cash injection from the Department, they would be obliged to terminate the ser vice within two to three weeks. It was felt by the Department at the time, based on their experience, that if this were allowed to happen it would not be possible to have a replacement service in place for at least four to five months. This, the Department considered, would be unacceptable and would, in effect, devastate the local economy and, in particular, tourism on the islands at enormous cost to the islanders themselves and ultimately to the Exchequer.

Furthermore, it was evident that the residents of the three islands would expect any replacement service to be at least comparable to the service being provided at the time by the company concerned. In the circumstances, the Department was satisfied that it would not be possible to provide a comparable service at a lower cost than the company's revised proposal and that the option of terminating that service and inviting tenders for a new one was not, therefore, a realistic one.