Mr. Kevin Kelly:

It is probably fair to say there are many instances of constructive and collaborative engagement between Galway County Council and the island communities. There is a lot of dialogue, although there is a divergence of opinion on this particular issue. I would not in any way classify it as a question of being right or wrong. A democratic decision was made in the context of having an increased cost for a facility and, in straitened times, how that might be paid for. Galway County Council had a budget of €160 million prior to the demise of the economy, but the figure is now €105. In a scenario where the Government had provided for the capital cost of the infrastructure, there was an increased cost which had to be paid for. The democratic decision was that part of that cost would be paid by users of the facility. It was always expected that cost would be passed on to the passenger. I want to be clear that the cost for islanders and every regular visitor to the island would be €5 per annum, not 80 cent per trip. Anybody going there regularly, for any reason, be they islanders or not, it would cost them €5 per annum.

Significant figures have been quoted in the recent discussions concerning the number of regular trips for islanders as a proportion of the total. Members of the committee have expressed surprise over the size of the contract. Due to its nature, however, it was not a fixed price contract. It had to be a measured contract which involves building a significant facility in the Atlantic Ocean. Therefore, the costs were significant. One can talk at any level of detail about the facilities but it is essentially a harbour. Those costs are derived from the type and scale of activity, and its location. Indeed, there are plans for other facilities and, no doubt, cost will become an issue there in due course.

Of course, Galway County Council would prefer if it did not have to impose charges. However, in the instance it did so, the court cases that followed were not instigated by the council but needed to be defended by it, having undertaken a democratic process in order to uphold the democratic right of elected members to make a decision on by-laws, and not simply roll over in the face of opposition particularly in the context of an individual operator.

I think Ms Ní Ghóill will agree that there was a lot of discussion on the by-laws from the outset. If memory serves me correctly, when they were first mooted in September 2010 within weeks there was a public meeting on the island where the discussion started. Over the 13 months of the process, there were a number of changes. Members have mentioned that there were various other avenues for charging and all those were discussed. There were many other charges in the by-laws which were removed as part of that consultation process, including consultation with the islanders. Therefore, significant changes were made to the by-laws and the amount of money that could be derived from them is substantially less now than it would have been at the initial iteration of same.

I do not have an accurate figure for the costs pre-the new harbour and post it. However, as regards the figures outlined, it is not an increase of €100,000. As I have outlined, at the early stages of the process, the estimated costs were between €150,000 and €200,000 per annum. During the court case, the estimated costs were €176,600. The actual costs, outlined in the context of costs incurred over the period 2012 to 2015, are between €118,000 and €204,000 for direct costs, including the harbour master and the general operative costs of insurance, electricity and materials. There are additional costs which we also need to provide for at this stage.

The Chairman mentioned the foreshore lease, in particular. That issue is currently under discussion and consideration. However, the figure that was given to us as an annual fee for the foreshore lease was €35,000 or an option of a once-off capital payment in excess of €400,000. That is an issue of concern to us and if we were able to eliminate such a cost it would significantly improve our scenario. It should be clear that no matter what emerges from the discussions, or if there ever had to be any discussions in the first instance, the amount of revenue generated by the by-laws was only going to be a portion of the annual running costs. The costs have nothing to do with the construction of the harbour itself. As I outlined earlier in the submission, part of those costs relate to significant ongoing maintenance costs and equipment replacement due to the harsh environment of the facility, which included navigational aids, public lighting and safety ladders.

Galway County Council's policies in respect of the islands are very positive. I would like to think that while we are having a discussion here on a particular issue over which there is disagreement, and Ms Ní Ghóill and I have discussed it on a number of occasions, the policies of the council towards the islands are supportive in the context of our current resources. Perhaps Ms Ní Ghóill will talk about why the State has no service to Inis Mór. It is not something that I can comment on.

A significant amount of money has been spent on the legal process. When one spends 11 days in the High Court and then goes on to the Supreme Court, it is a significant cost. Those costs are currently with the accountants and the Taxing Master. A significant amount of money is due to Galway County Council arising from that court case and the fact that the findings were in the council's favour in both courts.

Island Ferries Teoranta has clearly indicated that having regard to the financial issues which pertain, though the arrears of fees due for the period from 2012 to 2015, plus the significant legal costs which are due to Galway County Council, plus the fee-----