Vol. 566 No. 5
3 Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Defence the way in which he can justify replacing the Government jet with two jets, in view of the fact that aviation experts agree that the G4 ought to have, under normal circumstances, many more years of productive life; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13293/03]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3, 28 and 45 together.
Under Standing Orders, priority questions cannot be grouped with other oral questions. We will take Question No. 3.
Thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
The Government has decided to replace both the Gulfstream IV and the Beechcraft King Air in the ministerial air transport role. The Gulfstream IV is not being replaced by two jet aircraft, as stated by Deputy Gormley. The decision to replace both aircraft was necessary to meet the ever-increasing demands of Government business, not least in the context of a significantly enlarged European Union. The Gulfstream IV has played an integral part in the operation of the ministerial air transport service since it was acquired in December 1991. The aircraft is in a fully airworthy condition and remains in service.
The decision to replace the aircraft is based on the increased demands on the ministerial air transport service. The tender competitions for the acquisition of the two aircraft are now in train. The closing date for the receipt of tenders for both competitions is Friday, 30 May 2003. The tender competitions allow for the submission of both new and pre-owned aircraft. All options such as outright purchase, lease and lease purchase will be considered. The highly competitive nature of the aviation market at present should result in competitive packages being offered. In tandem with proposals for the supply of the aircraft, tenderers may also outline offers for the Gulfstream IV aircraft as at the proposed date of handover of the tendered aircraft or in mid-July 2004, following the EU Presidency. Offers for the Beechcraft King Air will also be considered in tandem with proposals for its replacement.
The acquisition of the aircraft will be the subject of a detailed cost benefit analysis, including value for money and comparison with costs associated with alternative arrangements. The responses to the tender process will determine the most advantageous system of payment. The actual cost of the acquisition of the aircraft can only be defined after the tender competition, particularly in view of the fact that pre-owned aircraft are a consideration. It is expected that the new aircraft should be available for operational service by 1 October 2003.
Does the Minister agree that at a time when we are witnessing hospital bed closures and people are being treated in rooms that normally store dead bodies, this represents a scandalous misuse of taxpayers' money? Does he accept that the Gulfstream IV would under normal circumstances have 13 more years of productive life in it, and that what this is really about is vanity? We have already seen the vanity of the Government, with the Taoiseach spending hundreds of thousands of pounds on make-up. Even the Queen of England travels in the first-class section of a commercial aircraft on occasion. Why can this Government not do the same?
Is it true that representatives from Airbus are currently in town, wining and dining the Government with the aim of winning this contract? Can the Minister outline in some detail what is actually going on in relation to potential contractual arrangements with these customers?
Nobody is wining and dining the Government. The business of the procurement will be done under the tightest of scrutiny and in the safest way I can achieve for the benefit of the people. In 1991, when this country faced horrendous unemployment problems, when the health service contained only a fraction of the number of people that currently work there, a forward-looking Government acquired the Gulfstream IV for ministerial transport. It has paid for itself over and over by providing a flexible facility to do the kind of business that is done by forward-looking governments in the interests of the people they represent.
The Deputy will be quite surprised, when this process is over, to see that despite all the craw-thumping and pretending, the acquisition of this aircraft will not in any way have affected the provision of our health services, into which we have put considerable additional funds and staff. The Deputy and others talk about the problem of elderly people for Ireland in the future. As a result of better housing, better nutrition and better health services, people are living considerably longer. This is thanks to the advances that have been made in our health services and the people who work in them, although that is not to say that there are not difficulties and problems to be overcome.
As far as the tender process is concerned, we expect these tenders to be in on 30 May. The process to determine the most satisfactory outcome and the way in which it will be financed will be exacting. This will be done in the most beneficial way for people. There will be no wining and dining or preferential treatment for anybody in this development.
Have representatives of the Airbus company not been in town talking to representatives of the Government on this matter? Will the Minister clarify if that is the case. He should forget the term "wining and dining" if he does not want to use that expression. That is the term I have heard from an aviation expert, but if the Minister chooses not to use it that is fine. Have those representatives not been arguing that France and Italy have similar aircraft and they are trying to use that line to persuade the Government to take an Airbus?
Why is the G4 not satisfactory? It still has productive life in it. Is it not the case that the aircraft was subjected to uses of travel that wore it out to some extent? It was used as a taxi service and that is not how it should have been used, hopping from here to there, flying to Kerry for instance and on other such journeys. We must be a little more careful with the way we treat our aircraft in the future.
The Deputy cannot have it both ways. He cannot say the aircraft is in perfect condition and then make the argument that it was used in some way that has exhausted its capacity
I did not say that its capacity is exhausted.
It is a reliable aircraft. I do not know what the outcome to the tender process will be, whether it will be sold in that context or whether it will be retained, but we will find the best possible path to give the taxpayer value for money and at the same time enable the Government to do its business in a progressive and businesslike way. People interested in selling aircraft may come to this town and meet people. I have not met nor will I be meeting anybody in this connection.
Representatives of the Government have met representatives of the Airbus company?
If the Green Party got its way, in a modern business world we would not talk to nobody.
I just want to know the position.
We would not do any business. We hear views all the time and we will continue to hear them and neither the Deputy nor anybody like him will paralyse us. We will do this in a proper way for the benefit of the community.
