Jack Wall
Ceist:20 Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Defence the position regarding the acquisition by the Air Corps of new medium range helicopters; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11767/02]
Ceisteanna – Questions (Resumed). Priority Questions. - Defence Forces Equipment.
Alan Shatter
Ceist:22 Mr. Shatter asked the Minister for Defence the position concerning the purchase of the Sikorsky helicopters for use by the Air Corps; and the position concerning litigation taken by unsuccessful tenderers following his announcement of the awarding of the contract to Sikorsky. [11726/02]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 20 and 22 together.
On 17 January 2002 I authorised my Department to open negotiations with Sikorsky International Operations Incorporated, Connecticut, USA, for the purchase of three medium range helicopters – S-92s – for search and rescue purposes. The negotiations were also to include an option exercisable within three years by the Department for a further two helicopters for general purpose military transport.
The decision followed from a detailed examination of the original tenders received from the four companies – Sikorsky, USA; CHC Scotia, Scotland; E.H. Industries Limited, UK and Eurocopter, France – and an examination of the best and final prices submitted by them in December 2001. In this regard I decided to seek best and final prices from each of the four tenderers because of the expiration of the validity of all the tenders and taking into account the changed international situation after the terrible events of 11 September. Following the submission and examination of the best and final prices, I deemed that the offer from Sikorsky was the most strategically and economically advantageous tender taking account of the award criteria set out for the tender competition, which were: functional characteristics, technical merit, all maintenance and on-line technical support, after sales service and warranty terms on offer, cost and ready availability of spare parts, tender prices and life cycle costs over a nominal 20 year period. I am satisfied, on the basis of the facts presented to me, that the offer from Sikorsky would provide best value for money from the taxpayer's point of view. The timeframe proposed by Sikorsky would see the delivery of three search and rescue helicopters by the end of next year.
Following on from my decision of 17 January 2002, Eurocopter has now instituted judicial review proceedings contesting the decision to open negotiations with Sikorsky. The matter was up for mention in the High Court last Monday, 15 April 2002. The matter was adjourned by consent of all parties to Monday, 13 May 2002 for mention.
My Department is continuing to deal with the Chief State Solicitor's office on the judicial review proceedings. It is my intention to be as forthcoming as possible in this regard. However, as the matter is due to come before the courts again in mid-May, I do not wish to say anything further at this stage.
In relation to the matters raised on the last occasion he answered questions at Question Time, the Minister stated he had met a number of ambassadors and military attachés in relation to this matter. In subsequent media coverage it was stated there was a possibility that either a number of those meetings did not take place or the Minister may have overlooked some of the meetings which took place regarding such representations. Will he tell the House the number of meetings he had with the relevant ambassadors and military attachés of the countries of the companies which made the offers to his Department?
I had one meeting each with the American, British and Italian ambassadors. The French ambassador had a series of meetings but at least one with the Secretary General in my Department.
Was there any documentation exchanged, other than with the American ambassador, in relation to those meetings?
No.
Perhaps I misunderstood the Minister. I thought he would take Question No. 21 separately. We seemed to have headed into it.
We are dealing with Questions Nos. 20 and 22.
Yes, but the supplementaries seem to relate more to Question No. 21. I am anxious to pursue issues which arise under Questions Nos. 20 and 22, and want to come back to the other issue.
We will pursue Questions Nos. 20 and 22 now.
I want to come back to the other issue which has just been raised.
Will the Minister, in the context of where matters now stand, advise the House on the grounds upon which a judicial review is being sought by Eurocopter and indicate whether papers have yet been filed in the proceedings on the Minister's behalf opposing those grounds? Will he state the current position with regard to the formal signing of contracts with Sikorsky?
Obviously, there will be no formal signing of contracts until the judicial review process, which I hope will not take too long, is completed, but clearly I do not have control of these matters. We are anxious to proceed.
The matter of the judicial review process is being handled by the Chief State Solicitor's office. As I have indicated all along, I want to co-operate as fully as I possibly can and have produced all of the relevant documents which have been sought.
The case being made by the Chief State Solicitor on my behalf is clear. There were eight clear areas on which a decision would be based. I will not go into the details. Sikorsky was ahead in five, Eurocopter ahead in one and E. H. Industries ahead in two. In the essential area of price Sikorsky was ahead, which would leave us in the final analysis with a saving of €5 million by accepting that particular tender. The case on our side is sufficiently strong. It is very hard to make a judgment on what outcome will emerge in terms of withstanding any challenge, but we obviously have to await that outcome. We will be co-operating as fully as possible. No contract can be signed until these matters are cleared out of the way.
Do the proceedings brought by Eurocopter include a claim – which I appreciate the Minister may not accept – that the Minister or his Department failed to comply with Council directives co-ordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts? In other words, does the Minister accept that there was a failure to comply with the procurement directives of the EU? Do the proceedings include that claim?
Should Eurocopter be successful in that claim, will the Minister confirm that he will have to go to tender anew? Has the Minister any indication of when there is likely to be a full hearing of these proceedings? I assume the date given is an adjournment date for the finding of further documentation. I assume that as yet no date is fixed for the full hearing of the proceedings and that it is unlikely they will be fully heard until next autumn.
It is not yet clear whether it would ever proceed to that process. Clearly, it will be a matter for the legal advisers of Eurocopter to so decide at a certain stage. It may not move that far. I hope it will not on the basis of allowing us to proceed because these helicopters are essential to the services being provided by the Air Corps.
I reject as out of hand the contention by Eurocopter that we have not observed the EU procurement rules. In fact, we exhaust them so much at times that it can be a bit frustrating even for Ministers. We stick to the rules to an extraordinary degree. In this case, every aspect with regard to these matters was covered comprehensively. Incidentally, it would be quite extraordinary if Eurocopter or any other contender that failed to succeed found something fundamentally wrong with a procedure, having made absolutely no complaints about it when it was being exercised. I would expect the company or somebody representing the company to have told me at some stage that there was something wrong with what was being done. The company went into both tenders, exercised its rights, never objected and brought nothing to my notice suggesting that there was anything wrong. If there had been something wrong, it would have been useful for the company to have said so. It happened only after the date, when the ball was played, the game was over and when it had lost.
Given, as the Minister has already stated, the importance of these helicopters to the Defence Forces and the possible timescale of litigation in relation to the proposed cases by Eurocopter, is the Minister in a position to tell the House if an alternative in terms of leasing the helicopters to try overcome the timescale is being considered? Is it too early to consider an alternative?
We have tried in the past few years to increase the profile of the Department of Defence in every way. We now have a major contract, one of the biggest we ever had. There was enormous interest in it and very significant public relations efforts made by all sides to present their cases. We have never been in this position before.
I indicated to the House originally that I would start to talk about leasing once a contract was signed. I am obviously not in that position yet. In the meantime, the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources has assured me it is managing to cover the areas extremely well. It is not something in which I can engage until I have signed the contract. I intend to fulfil the promise I made to the House that I would address that matter as soon as I reached that stage.
The Minister would agree with me that it is urgently necessary that we acquire new helicopters for air-sea rescue purposes for use by the Defence Forces. Does he agree that the difficulties of recent months now look as if they will delay the acquisition date by a minimum of six months? Furthermore, does he agree that should contentious litigation continue into the autumn and later it will put back the acquisition of these helicopters for a far greater period than is desirable in terms of meeting the needs of the Defence Forces?
In the context of this litigation continuing and remaining contentious, has the Minister given any consideration to the possibility of retendering for acquisition of the helicopters with a view to bringing the litigation to an end and progressing the obtaining of the helicopters required for the Defence Forces?
I agree with Deputy Shatter that it is urgent and that we are losing time. Nobody can say how much, but that is certainly the case. I have not given the slightest thought to retendering. Everything we did in respect of the tender was above board, and I stand over our actions completely. One way or another, in the kind of world in which we live, somebody else should he lose the next one might start to engage in the same sort of practice. There is no guarantee that would not happen.
I would appreciate if all political parties supported the decisions that have been taken. The Deputy has challenged me in the House on a number of occasions. I have been able to answer not just truthfully, but comprehensively on every occasion, yet some people want to drag out the issue.
If we are interested in getting aircraft for the Air Corps, as I am and I think the Deputy is, the case has been made.
Alan Shatter
Ceist:21 Mr. Shatter asked the Minister for Defence the dates when the British and French ambassadors each met with him to lobby in favour of the Air Corps helicopter contract being awarded to one of the unsuccessful tenderers; the nature of the discussions that took place; and the correspondence and other documentation received by him from both the British and French ambassadors in relation to the tenders received. [11725/02]
I have outlined the current position with the tender competition for helicopters in the previous question. I hope the legal proceedings will be dealt with expeditiously with a view to moving the process forward and obtaining the much needed helicopters for the Air Corps at the earliest possible date. The Deputy is aware that I dealt with the issue of diplomatic representations and meetings in a comprehensive manner when answering Private Notice Questions on the tender competition for helicopters on 26 March 2002. I do not know what the Deputy hopes to achieve or what his reasons are for raising the issue again, but I will again endeavour to enlighten him.
I explained to the House on 26 March 2002 that there was an enormous interest in this tender competition. I, and many other Members of the House, received a plethora of representations from many quarters with regard to the competition. These included representations from diplomatic sources extolling the virtues of helicopters manufactured in their own countries. This is no more or less than what could be expected with a contract of this nature and is certainly not unusual. The representations emanated from all sides, including from members of Fine Gael and representations and standard courtesy calls through diplomatic channels. The Deputy is aware that courtesy calls made to me by ambassadors or military attachés are part and parcel of normal day-to-day life in Government in Ireland and in many other countries.
Specifically, I met with the British and Italian ambassadors at their request. While I did have an approach for a meeting from the French ambassador the meeting did not take place due to the pressure of other commitments at that time. However, I am aware that the Secretary General of my Department met the ambassador. These calls had no bearing whatsoever on the outcome of the tender competition for helicopters. I ignored all of them. They could not be and were not taken into account in any way. The award of contract criteria for the competition, which I outlined in my previous answer, were clear and unambiguous and were the only criteria used by me in arriving at my decision.
The decision I made to authorise the opening of negotiations with Sikorsky was taken on the basis that its offer was deemed to be the most strategically and economically advantageous tender, taking account of the award criteria set out for the tender competition. I made my decision in the interests of the taxpayer, strictly in accordance with the competition criteria. I stand full square behind that decision. There were no underhand dealings or back room collusion of any kind. This is the right decision for the country and for the Air Corps.
I am anxious to make progress on the contract negotiations but I have to await the outcome of the legal proceedings which come before the High Court on 13 May 2002.
Does the Minister agree in the context of the tendering process and his own statement in the House today, which he made previously, that the various meetings he had with ambassadors or the lobbying that went on did not influence him in any way and that with regard to a contract such as this, it is unwise to meet with people knowing that they will lobby in favour of a particular company? Will he acknowledge that this leaves him, to some degree, as a hostage to fortune in that he has met with some people but not with others or that some, such as the American ambassador, saw fit to resubmit to him a new bid previously submitted by Sikorsky, and this lays open the suspicion in the minds of other tenderers that he may be giving favourable treatment to one company rather than another in circumstances where, in fairness to the Minister, he may not be doing so?
Does he agree also that, should there be a similar tendering process in the future for any major equipment required by any part of the Defence Forces, he should let it be known that he will not entertain meetings in which such lobbying takes place due to the fact that he is open to misrepresentation? Finally, will the Minister agree, and I appreciate he was probably mistaken when he said it, that on the last occasion he indicated that he met all the ambassadors on a similar basis? I think the Minister will now acknowledge that he did not meet with the French ambassador. In so far as he met the French ambassador during the tendering period, I understand it would have been at a social function attended by some 200 other people.
To answer the last part of the Deputy's question first, I did not say that I met all the ambassadors on the last occasion. It was not only the French ambassador who had an opportunity to meet with the Secretary General of my Department; as far as I know, he met Secretaries General in other Departments. There was no question of the French ambassador not having access and an opportunity to make his case to whomsoever. He was not placed at any disadvantage, nor were his peers from the other countries placed at any advantage by meeting me. I said I ignored all of it. To be honest, I do not agree with the notion that the Minister should not meet anyone.
Just in this context.
One cannot be a Minister in a modern Government and close one's doors to people, some of whom will make representations or offer good ideas, some of which will be discarded. There is much nonsense heard today about transparency and accountability and it will reach the stage where one will not even open the door of one's constituency office because of who might come in, what they might say or what they will report. In a modern country moving forward, people will have meetings with industrialists, trade unionists, etc, and I hope they will always have the confidence to do that knowing that whatever advice is given or case made, they will make their own judgment on what is right for the country and for the taxpayer. We should not be afraid to meet people or to listen.
Question No. 22 answered with Question No. 20.