Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 21 October 2004
95 Mr. J. O’Keeffe asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources the position regarding the funds promised for the new pier at Bantry in west Cork; and when the work can commence. [25570/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraI refer the Deputy to the reply to Question No. 137 on 13 October 2004 giving the up-to-date position on the pier development proposed by Bantry Bay Harbour Commissioners, which I will now outline.
On 6 September 2004 a meeting took place between the commissioners and the former Minister of State at my Department, Deputy Browne. Following the meeting, the Minister of State wrote to the commissioners setting out his understanding of the outcome of the meeting and how to ensure the dialogue between my Department and the commissioners could be progressed in the future on a positive basis. The letter reiterated that the interruption in the dialogue between my Department and the commissioners and the referral of the matter to the Attorney General was a direct consequence of the unilateral decision by the commissioners to sign a contract in March 2002 for the construction of the pier while discussions with my Department on the viability of the project were ongoing. My Department has received advice from the Attorney General on the proposed pier development. However, no decisions have been taken by my Department on foot of this advice on the contract entered into by the commissioners.
The Minister of State's letter further indicated that from the discussions, which had taken place, it appeared that the commissioners believed that the business environment for the project had shifted from that originally envisaged. The projected costs had escalated since the consideration of Exchequer support of €1.9 million by the former Minister, Deputy Fahey. Furthermore, no progress appeared to have been made on the conditions contained in the former Minister's letter of 15 May 2002, which expressly instructed the commissioners not to enter into contractual commitments pending a report on progress on the two stipulated conditions. These conditions relate to negotiations with the terminal operator.
The Minister of State proposed in his letter to the commissioners that the project be reviewed in terms of its viability, the financial implications for the commissioners of increased borrowings for the project due to its escalated cost and the risks to the project posed by the dominant position of the terminal operator. To this end, my Department has invited the commissioners to submit for consideration a fully detailed updated proposal for the project, including a business plan with financial tables. The proposed course set out is a sound basis for progressing the matter and I look forward to my Department receiving for consideration the updated proposal from the commissioners in due course.
