Jimmy Deenihan
Question:2 Mr. Deenihan asked the Taoiseach when work will commence on the National Conference Centre in Dublin; if a site has been decided on for the centre; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - National Conference Centre.
As I mentioned in the House on 2 March 1993, the Royal Dublin Society was asked to produce detailed proposals for the design, construction and financing of the National Conference Centre.
In broad terms, 50 per cent to 75 per cent of the capital costs of the centre could be made available from the Structural Funds and the promoter will have to meet the balance. Regrettably the RDS has not generated sufficient matching funds and it has now been informed that unless the complete financing package is in place by mid-November, proposals from other promoters will be explored further.
I would like to confirm that the Government is committed to developing a major conference centre, capable of accommodating up to 2,000 delegates, in Dublin. It is included in the National Development Plan 1994-1997 at a projected cost of £50 million. This investment could generate each year over 30,000 visitors, £29 million per annum in foreign revenue and support 1,500 jobs in the tourism sector. The Government is determined that Irish tourism will benefit from this new and highly lucrative segment of international business.
Will the Taoiseach indicate if the reduced level of Structural Funding will affect the overall figure of £50 million earmarked for this project? What are the specific percentages of Exchequer, Structural and private funding? Has a private investor been identified for construction of the conference centre? In the event of no investor being found in Dublin will the Taoiseach consider other locations for this project, such as Shannon?
I will deal with the series of questions raised by Deputy Deenihan. The funding for this project will not be affected by funds being in short supply as suggested by Deputy Deenihan. I stated that 50 per cent to 75 per cent of the capital costs of the centre could be made available from the Structural Funds. One never says in advance exactly what the allocation will be.
That is the joke of the year.
That is right.
One never does.
Deputies should listen to the reply.
If the Deputies opposite are that anxious and so full of confidence, why are they postponing the confidence debate? It is a fundamental rule in politics that if Opposition parties have no confidence in the Government they should proceed with a vote of no confidence and not postpone it.
That remark is scandalous.
It is not scandalous. We are here all evening.
The Taoiseach really rigs them.
In view of the questions he raised earlier, I do not believe the Deputy knew what business was being discussed.
(Interruptions.)
It is a Government proposal that a debate be held on Northern Ireland.
This question should not give rise to acrimony or disorder of any kind.
If the Deputy would elaborate on the two questions he raised I might be able to reply.
It is my understanding that it is a Government proposal to have a debate on Northern Ireland to which the Opposition has agreed.
I am dealing with Question No. 2. I am not concerned about what may have been said. I call on Deputy Deenihan.
The Taoiseach is pretending that the postponement of the confidence debate is due to the Opposition proposing a debate on Northern Ireland. That is not the case.
The Taoiseach is making a total fool of himself.
That type of heckling from a seated position is not good enough. If Members wish to make a point they should rise in their places.
The Taoiseach is making a total fool of himself.
I am disappointed my question gave rise to this type of response from the Taoiseach. I thought I was specific in the questions I asked the Taoiseach but obviously he does not wish to reply. If the Royal Dublin Society does not accept this project and another investor is not found in the Dublin area, what will be the Government's policy in respect of the centre?
The initial selection of the RDS was based on a private consultant's recommendation that it be chosen from the three applications submitted. If the RDS does not fulfil its obligation in respect of the centre by November we will consider the other applicants. I understood Deputy Deenihan's first question was whether this project would suffer from a shortfall; I stated it would not and neither will any other project he may inquire about.
The Taoiseach did not answer my question.
That is not true.
Will the Taoiseach confirm that if the centre is not located in the RDS it will be located on another site in the Dublin area?
I stated there were three applications for construction of the centre. The application submitted by the RDS was selected by the independent consultants and if it does not fulfil its obligations we will consider the other two applications.
Is the Taoiseach aware that some organisations are planning large scale conferences in the anticipation that this centre will be available? There is a long period before those conferences are due to take place and the uncertainty expressed by the Taoiseach in respect of the proposed National Conference Centre would be of concern to the organisers. When does the Taoiseach expect the work on the centre to start and when will it be completed? I am aware of an international conference being organised on the premise that the proposed National Conference Centre will be available within a short timespan. Dublin will be bereft if that conference is not held here. Will the Taoiseach give details of the timescale for the construction of the centre and when does he expect it to be completed?
It is premature to inquire when the centre will be completed until the company selected to construct it is in a position to sign a contract. When that stage is completed I will inform the House of the timescale involved.
Will the Taoiseach inform the House of the other two centres who applied for construction of the project?
The Deputy should table a question on that matter.
It appertains to the question raised.
I am proceeding to priority questions for which 20 minutes is provided under Standing Orders.
On a point of order, it might be useful for the House to know that, in view of the latest revelations in respect of how little money there is, I tabled a priority question to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry about proposed spending on agriculture as outlined in the plan. That question was transferred to the Minister for Finance. I now find that the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry has agreed to take Question No. 29, in the name of Deputy O'Donnell in respect of the funding of the plan. I do not object to the Minister taking Deputy O'Donnell's question, but is this another example of the "spin the bottle, pass the buck" game that is going on between the Government Members, where responsibility is being shunted from the Taoiseach to the Tánaiste to the Minister?
The Deputy is raising this at a very inappropriate time. We are dealing with Priority Questions to which a fixed time limit applies. Let us not erode that precious time.
Can I take up this matter of the Minister's apparently random reallocation of questions with the Committee on Procedure and Privilege?
The Chair has no control over such matters, and never had.