Vol. 445 No. 6
51 Mr. Molloy asked the Minister for Tourism and Trade if he will give details of the significant differences between the EU funded Operational Programme for Tourism, 1994 to 1999, and its predecessor; and Bord Fáilte's role in regard to approving applications under the new operational programme. [574/94]
52 Mr. Deenihan asked the Minister for Tourism and Trade the function and role of the management boards which he is about to establish for the final assessment and approval of grants under the tourist operational programme; the extent to which these management boards will take over certain functions of Bord Fáilte; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [717/94]
I propose to take Question Nos. 51 and 52 together.
There is a number of significant differences between the Operational Programme for Tourism, 1994 to 1999 and its predecessors.
These include: the increased investment targets. Total investment is forecast at £652 million compared with about £380 million in the last programme. The EU contribution has more than doubled from about £170 million to £369 million; while all the constituents areas of the programme have secured increased resources, the greater emphasis on marketing in the new programme is evidenced by a trebling of resources. EU funds for marketing have increased from about £18 million to £15 million; in the capital development area, new features include a specific emphasis on securing large scale projects, on enhancing the tourism angling product, on developing a range of cultural tourism projects and on improving small to medium sized hotels on a selective basis; in training, programmes include the training of early school leavers and the unemployed for a career in the tourism industry, as well as enhancing the skills of those already employed. The industry may now also seek direct support for tourism training, where suitable courses are not already provided by CERT or the Department of Education, and the arrangements for administering the programme will differ, as described in the following paragraphs.
As before, the Department of Tourism and Trade will be responsible for the overall management of the operational programme and it will exercise creative and strategic role in fulfilling this task. Bord Fáilte remains an implementing and operational agency in the areas of product development and marketing in the same way as CERT does for training and Shannon Development for product development in the mid-west. As was the case with the last programme, these organisations have considerable administrative and technical expertise in the areas involved which should be utilised to represent significant inputs in the decision-making processes.
Decision-making authority will be exercised on this occasion by separate product development and marketing management boards, which will each comprise up to two relevant agency persons, one official from my Department and three independent business-professional members. The decision to approve or reject individual applications will be made by the boards alone, who will take into account, inter alia, the advice of Bord Fáilte and other agencies in making their decision. These management boards, when appointed, will establish their own internal arrangements for processing grant applications.
These new structures are fully consistent with my approach since becoming Minister for Tourism and Trade of encouraging greater private sector involvement in securing the future of Irish tourism. They are also consistent with long established and widely respected models used by other agencies, for example, the IDA, in dealing with grant applications and approvals. The idea is to bring some broader practical business and professional experience to the process to augment — and perhaps even contest — the limited institutional and tourism-related views which the various organisations alone could bring to bear on the various projects. Accordingly, by combining equal representation from the public and private sectors, the overall decision-making process will benefit, as will the quality of investment itself.
All arrangements are of course subject to review in the light of whatever decisions I may take on the AD Little report which examined the role and functions of Bord Fáilte.
Will the management boards, to which the Minister referred, which henceforth will have a role in deciding individual applications for funding under the EU Operational Programme, be established on a statutory basis and will the necessary legislation come before the House? If so, the House will have time to debate such a proposal. If not I would be concerned about the Minister's proposals in regard to management boards because I can foresee other developments.
As I said in my reply, the management boards will decide individual applications. These management boards will not be set up on a statutory basis and——
Thank God.
——neither are the relevant grant applications boards of the IDA and of many other agencies.
More rings around the Labour Party.
This is in line with what the IDA and other agencies do in regard to grant applications where outside professional expertise is brought in. As I said in my reply, it is better to have a broader range of experience in deciding applications from the specialised tourism sector. The persons I will be appointing will be renowned in their own right as independent professional business people. That is in line with what the IDA has done and has worked well.
The Minister must think I am a bigger fool than I am. I am astonished at the information he is conveying. Is it true that this decision is being made to circumvent the provision that existed under the previous operational programme for tourism whereby Bord Fáilte was appointed by the EU Commission to vet and make decisions on the applications which came before it under the programme? To circumvent that is it true that the Minister in proposing management boards is seeking to put hand picked people appointed by the political master — presumably himself and the Taoiseach — in a position where they will make the decisions on the applications. This will open up the whole area of the distribution, allocation and investment of this substantial sum of money from Brussels to political patronage, something on which this House has to take a stand. I ask the Minister to stop, rethink and consider bringing forward legislation to set up these boards, if necessary under a statutory instrument of this House, not in the ad hoc manner he proposes which smells of political patronage.
The Deputy has 30 years experience of political patronage. He was particularly good at that when he was a member of my party. I fail to see why he is astonished in this regard. I do not recall him expressing astonishment when his colleague, Deputy O'Malley, was the Minister charged with responsibility for the Industrial Development Authority. The scheme worked well in respect of those agencies and it will do so again.
Under statute of this House.
What the Deputy has said about political patronage is a load of codswallop.
The Minister should tell the Labour Party that it is a load of codswallop.
We will soon reach the stage in Irish politics when we will not bother to elect people to Dáil Éireann or to Government.
That is what the Minister would like.
Many other types of bodies will be involved and it will be pointless having elected politicians.
Bluff, bluff, the Minister will not get away with this.
In respect of EU money allocated to other Departments, the Minister responsible decides how it will be spent.
That is nonsense.
Deputy Molloy——
This is disgraceful.
It is not true.
Deputy Molloy, please allow the Minister to reply.
The Minister is misleading the House.
The Minister is accountable to this House.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I demand that the Minister retract that statement.
Deputy Molloy was a Minister at various Departments and he knows that Ministers make decisions.
On a point of order——
The Minister is in the process of answering a question and I will not hear a point of order while he is doing so.
Is the Chair biased in that he will not hear a point of order?
The Chair resents and rejects that remark from the Deputy.
Of course it does, but the Deputy resents the way in which the Chair is treating him. The Minister has given wrong and misleading information to the House and I ask him to correct that immediately.
To what wrong and misleading information is the Deputy referring? There are a number of ways of approaching the matter of grant applications, for example, the method operated under the last programme, the method I propose under this programme or the Minister responsible deciding on the grant applications, which I have not done. The method I proposed is better than that which operated up to now as it will incorporate expertise from the public and private sectors. This system has been tried and tested by other Government agencies and has worked well. Those were the options available to me. I selected the one outlined in my reply and I make no bones about that.
The time for dealing with Priority Questions is exhausted.
It is dangerous to set a precedent whereby approximately £652 million will be put in the hands of a body which will not be accountable to this House. I tabled a number of questions today regarding the tourism operational programme, nine of which were sent back to me. I was told the matters raised in the questions should be raised with Bord Fáilte or SFADCo. Is it not a contradiction to take away one role from Bord Fáilte while at the same time stating that questions should be referred to it? It appears that the Minister does not have a clear vision regarding the future role of Bord Fáilte.
I reject what the Deputy has said. Questions in respect of the day-to-day operations of Bord Fáilte are not answered by the Minister. That has been the position in this House for many years. Ministers do not answer questions relating to the day-to-day operations of commercial or other agencies. I did not invent that rule.
If these matters are taken out of the hands of Bord Fáilte, to whom shall we refer?
There is no accountability to this House. The Minister is adopting a cavalier attitude to spending taxpayers' money.
As the time for dealing with Priority Questions is exhausted we will deal with Question No. 53 as an ordinary question.
