Written answers

Wednesday, 31 January 2007

Department of Transport

National Conference Centre

8:00 am

Photo of Jim O'KeeffeJim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 1269: To ask the Minister for Transport the arrangements entered into between the Dublin Port Company and a group (details supplied) submitted for ministerial approval in May 2005, by letter of 18 May 2005 as detailed in the draft heads of terms enclosed with the letter. [2869/07]

Photo of Pat GallagherPat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As outlined in replies to previous questions from the deputy on this topic, most recently on 11 October 2006, Dublin Port Company wrote to me as Marine Minister on 18 May 2005 seeking ministerial approval for the company to enter into an arrangement with the Anna Livia consortium, as detailed in draft heads of terms enclosed with the letter.

The proposed arrangement was in essence that in the event that the consortium was successful in the National Conference Centre competition, and subject to the Minister's consent, Dublin Port Company would make a site available to facilitate the consortium's proposal for a National Conference Centre. Following approval by the Government, the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, John O'Donoghue, TD, announced in November 2005 that Spencer Dock International Conference Centre Consortium was being invited to become the Provisional Preferred Tenderer for the provision of a National Conference Centre in Dublin.

On 31 August 2006, that Minister further announced that this consortium was being invited to become the Preferred Tenderer in this regard. Since the consortium with whom Dublin Port Company signed the heads of terms was not successful in the competition, the Ministerial approval requested by Dublin Port Company on 18 May 2005 is no longer required. Furthermore, as per standard commercial arrangements between contracting parties, the draft heads of terms referred to in this reply are, by their nature, considered to be commercially sensitive.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.