Vol. 705 No. 2
59 Deputy Fergus O’Dowd asked the Minister for Transport the reason for the decision to terminate the facility management procurement process relating to terminal 2 at Dublin Airport; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13065/10]
60 Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Transport if he will report on his recent decision to allow the Dublin Airport Authority to operate terminal 2 within the benchmark set by the Commission for Aviation Regulation; the reason he initiated and then dropped a facility management procurement process to find an operator for terminal 2 and thereby incurred a significant cost to the State; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13025/10]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 59 and 60 together.
The May 2005 Government decision on the construction of the second terminal at Dublin Airport provided for the selection of the operator of the terminal through an open tender process organised by an independent group. Consultants were appointed by my Department in 2008 to advise in the first instance on an appropriate facilities management procurement process. Having considered the consultants' report at the end of this first phase, I mandated the consultants to proceed to organise the procurement process.
The formal procurement started in July 2009 with pre-qualification submissions received in late September 2009. Following the evaluation of the pre-qualification submissions, the consultants reported that none of the candidates had met the minimum requirements for pre-qualification. Furthermore, having completed a market debrief process, the consultants concluded that there was a low probability that the process, if restarted, would prove successful. Unfortunately, I had no option but to terminate the procurement process in light of this advice.
Following the decision to terminate the facilities management procurement process, I announced, on 10 March, that I was mandating the Dublin Airport Authority, DAA, to operate terminal 2, while requiring it to demonstrate that it could do so within a benchmark set by the Commission for Aviation Regulation, CAR. In this context, the Dublin Airport charges determination for 2010 to 2014, made by CAR in December last year, has set very specific and stringent operating cost targets for operating an efficient terminal 2. I have asked the DAA to report back to me within three months on its capacity to operate terminal 2 satisfactorily with effect from November 2010.
It is my understanding that the DAA did not participate in the pre-qualification competition and was not asked to do so. It seems the DAA was effectively taken into the winners' enclosure while others were excluded. Why was the authority not required to take part in the pre-qualification procedures? In respect of those companies that did partake in the process, did the consultants make any recommendations? The Minister indicated that none of the applicants qualified, but did the consultants make a judgment as to whether any of the companies, despite not qualifying, had the capacity to deliver the requirements they did not meet on technical grounds?
The DAA participated in the process in the sense that it was involved in consultations on standards and so on in regard to the second terminal. However, it did not participate in the tender procedure. The process that was recommended to me was that the DAA would submit a benchmark for the operation of the terminal. The idea was that when we decided which facilities and so on would be managed, the authority would submit a price in a sealed tender document. That was one part of the process. The applicants we invited to tender formally would then submit their prices for running the terminal. If any of those prices were better than the benchmarked price set by the DAA, then that company would win the tender process. However, it did not get to the stage of benchmarking because none of the applicants was found to be qualified.
Does the Minister not agree that this looks to the public like he has simply blown away €700,000? First, the Department spent €200,000 directly on a process which did not seem to offer any type of result. I understand three companies — Goodbody Corporate Finance, Matheson Ormsby Prentice and Mott MacDonald — were involved in that. Did they fail completely to offer any type of basis for a competitive tender? Were they at fault in this regard? Second, the Department allocated €500,000 to the DAA for providing what amounted to some type of a benchmark. Did the Department not already have from CAR the Dublin aircraft charges determination for 2010 to 2014? Did the Department spend money twice in order to obtain the same result in each case?
In regard to the pre-qualification tenders, did the major companies in Europe with which we are familiar, including Ferrovial, British Airways, Servisair and so on, participate? Will the Minister indicate which companies put in any type of tender bid to operate the terminal? Has this entire process merely been a €700,000 scam to enable the Government to come forward and say to workers in the airport that their wages must be slashed by 40% or 50% because terminal two cannot afford them at existing rates? Does the Minister agree he has gone through an elaborate charade that cost the State €700,000 and which next year my colleagues and I in the Committee of Public Accounts will be investigating? The €700,000 squandered is in addition to the Minister's ongoing bill of some €110 million.
Once again the Deputy has provided some lovely rhetorical flourishes.
I have set out the reality.
The decision in regard to the running of the second terminal was made prior to my time as Minister for Transport. I was required to implement the Government decision to put forward an alternative for running the second terminal at Dublin Airport, which had been requested by most people both inside and outside the industry, as well as by most Members of this House with the exception of Labour Party Members. I do not have available to me within the Department the expertise, skills and knowledge to conduct that process but I had a Government decision which said I must do so.
Therefore, we employed consultants to advise us, first, on how we might go about such an unusual process. It was originally envisaged that it would be fairly straightforward to put a new operator in place in the new terminal. However, significant complications arose from a legal standpoint in that the DAA owned the land on which the facility was built and thus might be found to own the terminal. The cost of hiring the consultants was partly met by us and partly by the DAA itself. The function of these consultants was to guide the process in order to secure the best possible deal and the most effective and efficient terminal 2. As it turned out, there were seven or eight bids, as I recall, but none met the minimum standards.
Can the Minister name the bidders?
I cannot do so. I am not even sure I should be——
I shall submit a freedom of information request.
The Deputy may do so if he wishes. I do not have the information.
That is what is wrong.
I saw the list at the time but do not have it with me. From recollection, most of the companies that are involved in this type of business were represented in the tenders.
The key point is that some of the companies that tendered are multi-billion dollar companies which run airports throughout the world and have larger budgets than the DAA and better qualified staff. Yet they were excluded from this process on technical grounds. The DAA was never in the race until the race was over, and it got the job without having to undergo proper due process. The authority got a sweetheart deal which facilitated a State monopoly at Dublin Airport to the detriment of consumers. Costs at the airport will be higher as a result. The Minister does not know what the DAA will charge, having given it three months to come up with God knows what figures.
We want competition, choice and reduced costs. Is it not a fact that the whole process was a con job to put the DAA in charge of the airport as a State monopoly, and to put the maximum burden on taxpayers as a result?
The Deputy is absolutely incorrect in his assertion. The fairest way of doing this was to get the DAA to put in its price at the appropriate time, and then give everybody else the opportunity to put in their prices. If there was a cheaper price than the DAA price, it would then have been taken. Unfortunately, if people do not comply with a tender document, whether for technical reasons or otherwise, as the Deputy is implying, we cannot ignore the process. The Deputy would have me before the Committee of Public Accounts and the Comptroller and Auditor General if I interfered with a tendering and procurement process——
Was the DAA in a tendering and procurement process? It was not.
——in any way at all. The Deputy made the assertion that this will cost taxpayers, but that is not the case. When this process was finished, CAR issued a recommendation on prices at Dublin Airport that is very stringent and that will keep the cost very tight for Dublin Airport.
I have the request for tenders in my hand that the Minister issued in April 2008. It is a very unusual document as it states that the Minister reserves the right to terminate the assignment after the end of the first phase. This means that there would only be a pre-tendering phase, which is something I have not seen in similar documents. Does this not confirm the point that we went through a kind of charade? Why was this necessary when we knew that the Commission for Aviation Regulation was making its own determination of airport charges?
Terminal 2 is a wonderful investment. It is a magnificent building and a wonderful piece of infrastructure for the nation. I commend those who designed and organised it. I do not believe that people should be flying out of a greenfield site without normal comforts when they are about to go through very stressful travel. I commend those people, but it is important that the terminal be efficiently run. Aer Rianta International was a proud standard bearer for our country and competed successfully for many airport management contracts in places such as Birmingham and other places in the US and Europe, so why did the Minister not ask the DAA to put its best case forward, given that it has competed freely and successfully before?
The DAA was going to get the opportunity to put its own best case forward. That was part of the process.
That was the end of the process, not the beginning.
It was part of the process. The consultants came forward with the proposal that it should be a two phased thing and should be benchmarked. The right to terminate the competition at the end of the first phase was included in the document just in case there was no second phase, so that we would not fork out €800,000 to the consultants for a phase of work that they were not going to do.
The Government spent €700,000 instead.
61 Deputy Fergus O’Dowd asked the Minister for Transport the reason he has decided to downgrade Waterford search and rescue helicopter service to a 12-hour service; the impact this will have on an emergency situation; the savings that will be made; if he will provide details of the new contract for 2012; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13067/10]
A procurement process for the Irish Coast Guard helicopter search and rescue service is currently taking place. As the process is ongoing, there are constraints on what I can say, but I will be as helpful as possible. The request for tender, which was drawn up with the assistance of various stakeholders, aims to improve the service nationally through the provision of modern helicopters that are safer and more effective than the current 40-year old Sikorsky S61s.
Bidders were required to quote for a number of alternative options in which the target level of service could be provided. Among these were a 24-hour operation at four bases; a 24-hour operation at three bases; and a 24-hour operation at three bases and a 12-hour operation at one base, the choice of which was to be made by the bidder.
A preferred bidder has now been nominated. The annual cost will increase very substantially as a result of the provision of modern helicopters, but will deliver a marked improvement in the capacity, range, speed and capability of the service. This has enabled the Government to select the option which involves 24-hour availability from three bases and 12-hour cover from one base, while still delivering the required level of service. As a result, the additional funding that will have to be found to meet the cost of the service is somewhat reduced.
There will be no change in the 24-hour availability from the Waterford base before July 2013. While a 12-hour contract is to be negotiated for the subsequent period, the Government is committed to keeping this position under review in the light of the operational requirement at Waterford and the availability of funding.
A 24-hour service at four bases that costs €27 million per annum will be changed for a 24-hour service at three bases and a 12-hour service at one base, which will cost €50 million. That is unacceptable, particularly to the people of the south east. Why is the Minister doing this? Why is the Minister reducing the time cover? Notwithstanding that we will have a different calibre of helicopter, surely it will take longer to go from Dublin to Waterford and from there to a distressed ship. If there is a 24-hour service already in existence, why should people have confidence in a 12-hour service? It is not acceptable. The savings come to €1 million per annum, but the Minister wasted most of that on the DAA competition, so surely he could provide a 24-hour service at four locations for safety reasons.
The Deputy is incorrect in stating that there will be a 12-hour service anywhere along the coast. There will be a 24-hour service right around the coast. The Waterford base could go to a 12-hour service after 2013, but there will be a 24-hour search and rescue service in all parts of the coast. The reason we can do this is that the helicopters involved are 55% faster than the current helicopters. They are much larger and are much more capable of manoeuvring around clouds and at night, so the service will be improved. That is reflected in the fact that we are nearly paying twice the current rates.
The question of whether Waterford will be a 12-hour or 24-hour base will not arise until after 2013. It will be kept under review at that stage. The contract negotiations are ongoing and we will try to get the best value possible. The important thing is that we will have a 24-hour search and rescue service all over the coast.
The Minister's decision is wasting money and putting lives at risk. If there is a 12-hour service in Waterford, then the helicopter will come from elsewhere for the other 12-hours. No matter how fast it is, it will not get five miles off the Waterford coast by the time a helicopter in Waterford could do so.
The south-west coast of the UK is currently served by the AW139 helicopter, which is basically the Air Corps helicopter. If that is good enough for the UK, why is it not good enough for Waterford and for Ireland? Was the Air Corps asked to tender for this process? The Air Corps helicopters can provide a 24-hour service and the same safety that is provided by the British authorities. It is not good enough.
The Deputy is absolutely right. It is not good enough. The UK service is not acceptable at all to me, nor is that kind of helicopter. The reason we are going for this helicopter — the newest of the Sikorsky models — is precisely because the other ones are no longer suitable.
They are being used in the United Kingdom.
I do not care where they are being used. The helicopters we are bringing in are the best for this. They are purpose built and are safer if they have to make a crash landing.
They will not get there on time.
They can carry more personnel, have a longer range and are much better and more effective.
They will not get there on time.
The Deputy says he wants that helicopter in the UK. He should consult with his Members down there. They do not want an inferior service.
They do not.
I am not going to give them one. I am going to give them a better service.
Ceist sesca dó. I want to move on to the next question.
If the 12-hour one is there, the fact is that it will not be there for 24 hours. The final point is who owns the helicopters? At the end of this period the Canadian company will have the helicopters, whereas if the Air Corps had them it would have them for ever. That is the other point; the Minister is wasting good money.
Please Deputy, I must call the next question.
The Air Corps was asked about this and it does not want anything to do with search and rescue.
Were the Air Corps asked, or the Department of Defence?
The Air Corps, specifically.
I do not believe it was.
Ceist sesca dó, le do thóil.
62 Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Transport if he will publish in full all reports he has received into the collapse of the Broadmeadow railway bridge, Malahide, County Dublin; if he has met Irish Rail and the Railway Safety Commission to discuss this matter; the steps that he is taking to address the gaps in the railway safety monitoring system and the perceived loss of corporate memory in Irish Rail; if he is reviewing the level of funding allocated to the RSC in 2010 as a result of the Broadmeadow viaduct collapse; if he has requested a full report on all bridges on the permanent way; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12768/10]
The Railway Safety Act 2005 put in place a strong and modern legislative and regulatory framework for railway safety in Ireland. The legislation established an independent safety regulator in the Railway Safety Commission and an independent office to investigate accidents, the Railway Accident Investigation Unit.
In accordance with the statutory framework, an independent investigation is being carried out by the Railway Accident Investigation Unit into the collapse of the Malahide viaduct. I am aware that Irish Rail carried out its own internal investigation and recently published a summary of this report. The company has also submitted the report to the Railway Accident Investigation Unit.
The Railway Accident Investigation Unit is required to publish its report not later than 12 months after the date of the incident. Until this statutory investigation is complete, it would not be appropriate for me to make any comment on the causes of the collapse or the actions that are required as a result, notwithstanding the fact that Irish Rail has published its own internal report.
It should, however, be acknowledged that significant progress has been made in the past ten years in improving safety on the railway network through the investment of almost €1.2 billion in Exchequer funding over that period. In 2010, notwithstanding the difficult Exchequer funding environment, a further €96 million has been allocated to Irish Rail as part of the continuing investment in railway safety.
The Railway Safety Commission is funded by a combination of Exchequer funding and a levy on railway undertakings. The budget for the commission and the accident investigation unit in 2010 is €2.53 million.
All we have is a summary of the Irish Rail report. Although we only have a few pages of summaries and recommendations, it highlights an appalling failure by Irish Rail management and the Minister to look after the permanent way. Only for the bravery and courage of a driver, and the warning we got from the Malahide sea scouts, Deputy Dempsey would certainly not be here today as Minister for Transport. In addition, the management of Irish Rail would have changed dramatically. We came within a hair's breadth of a desperate tragedy.
The findings of the report are astonishing. It mentions a misunderstanding and says that as time progressed, the importance of maintaining the weir profile was no longer fully appreciated. In other words, the Irish Rail engineers did not realise that the Malahide viaduct comprised a series of piers built on top of an underlying structure. They had forgotten the basic structure of one of the key bridges in the rail network. Is that not an appalling indictment of maintenance in Irish Rail?
Since the disaster, the Railway Preservation Society of Ireland has informed me that original drawings of the Malahide viaduct and other drawings over the past 150 years are available in the society's office in Heuston Station. I have a photograph taken 30 or 40 years ago of a train crossing the viaduct. The relevant information was clearly there, yet the report's astonishing finding is that people in the company had forgotten basic maintenance procedures.
I agree with the Deputy on one thing — that a very serious incident was averted by the quick thinking of the driver in question. We should all be grateful for that. I have two roles concerning rail safety, which are to ensure that the policy is correct and to provide as much money as possible for that. In both of those duties, my predecessors and I have discharged our functions as we should. I agree with the Deputy that what is contained in the Iarnród Éireann report, about forgetting in some ways what they should have been doing concerning the maintenance of the viaduct structure, is frightening. I certainly hope that the lesson has been well learned by the company itself. I do not propose to make any further comment on the specific findings because once we have set up the statutory body, the report of which will be public, the proper time to comment is when we have all the facts.
When will we get the full report and the other two reports that I understand are in train? The Minister has a responsibility nonetheless. The Railway Safety Commission has only four inspectors for 2,000 km of permanent way, which we are beginning to add to now. It is an astonishingly small resource to monitor all that work. The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport was told that the Railway Safety Commission has never examined this bridge.
That is right.
They had not looked at Rogerstown. Has the Minister asked Irish Rail's management to make specific changes concerning maintenance and the management of maintenance? Has he asked the company if all the major railway bridges in the country have been inspected, including Rogerstown, Malahide and elsewhere?
From inquiries I have made, I am aware that the company has reviewed all its procedures in this respect. It has examined similar structures. The Railway Safety Commission is not meant to do the job of the railway company. The inspectors are supposed to spot check, but the rail company and its linesmen are involved in ensuring that the track is up to date.
They did not know it either.
I await with interest the report as to why they did not know that, if they are the experienced people in this area.
63 Deputy Shane McEntee asked the Minister for Transport if he will provide a detailed assessment of the €180 million cost for repairing damage caused by the recent weather conditions as estimated by county councils; the details of the cost involved for each county council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13069/10]
I will provide a table setting out the returns received from county and city councils. It covers the estimated cost of the response to the recent flooding and severely cold weather, and of road repairs arising from those weather events. The total estimate is almost €198 million. This information is being assessed by my Department at present.
When deciding on the allocation of over €412 million in Exchequer regional and local road grants for 2010, my priority was to protect the existing investment in the roads network and to target carefully resources to address, on a priority basis, the most urgently required repairs resulting from the extensive damage caused by the recent severe weather. With that in mind, I simplified the grants structure and gave more flexibility to local authorities to direct funding to these priorities.
These grants, which supplement expenditure by local authorities from their own resources, represent a very significant investment at a time when public finances are under severe pressure. They bring the total Exchequer investment in regional and local roads since 1997 to over €6 billion.
|
County Council |
€ |
|
CARLOW |
7,633,815 |
|
CAVAN |
5,784,678 |
|
CLARE |
9,325,000 |
|
CORK |
22,117,530 |
|
DONEGAL |
9,878,179 |
|
DÚN LAOGHAIRE/RATHDOWN |
2,140,078 |
|
FINGAL |
3,160,000 |
|
GALWAY |
6,143,682 |
|
KERRY |
12,490,880 |
|
KILDARE |
3,606,000 |
|
KILKENNY |
5,645,000 |
|
LAOIS |
3,082,239 |
|
LEITRIM |
4,270,407 |
|
LIMERICK |
2,810,000 |
|
LONGFORD |
750,160 |
|
LOUTH |
1,726,430 |
|
MAYO |
6,924,393 |
|
MEATH |
4,666,459 |
|
MONAGHAN |
8,255,377 |
|
NORTH TIPPERARY |
3,177,435 |
|
OFFALY |
2,810,000 |
|
ROSCOMMON |
14,792,453 |
|
SLIGO |
3,391,197 |
|
SOUTH DUBLIN |
1,205,953 |
|
SOUTH TIPPERARY |
6,167,911 |
|
WATERFORD |
10,355,038 |
|
WESTMEATH |
2,995,370 |
|
WEXFORD |
8,692,850 |
|
WICKLOW |
14,641,320 |
|
Total |
188,639,834 |
|
City Council |
€ |
|
CORK |
7,254,663 |
|
DUBLIN |
418,597 |
|
GALWAY |
334,826 |
|
LIMERICK |
694,230 |
|
WATERFORD |
580,000 |
|
Total |
9,282,316 |
I thank the Minister for his reply. The question concerns getting more money, but it is not easy to obtain. Last Saturday, I visited Kerry, which is the last of the counties I have visited over the past three months. The last time I was there was in 1991. People all over the country are saying that they will spend their holidays at home this year, given the value offered by hotels. In addition, improved roads to Galway, Cork, Limerick, the south east and Belfast now have shorter journey times. One can nearly do such journeys in half the time due to the fantastic road network. However, money needs to be invested in a lot of smaller county roads where holidaymakers go. Many accidents take place on these roads.
We have had a good month or six weeks of repair and much work has been done in county councils around the country. Is there anything more that can be done? We have a new Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport; I have no doubt she will do a great job and I wish her well in it. People will be spending holidays at home this year and we do not want to lose any lives because of potholes or bad upkeep of verges on the roads. Can €2 million or €3 million extra be given to each county to make sure our roads are safe, so that when people decide to holiday at home they will come back with only good memories?
Like the Deputy, I encourage as many people as possible to take their holidays at home. The answer to his question about whether there is any more money for local or regional roads is that I do not have any more money. I have provided the maximum amount of flexibility and the feedback from local authorities, obtained from my talks with officials, has been positive. They have been given the freedom they need and the system is working well. If the local authorities require further changes within the allocations provided, I will try to be as flexible as possible without compromising other aspects of the roads programme. However, I do not have extra money and I do not expect to.
Before we reach the peak holiday time — perhaps in three months time — the Minister might review that.
I will always be delighted to receive extra money from anybody.
Which we will spend at home.
That concludes Priority Questions.
