Vol. 460 No. 4
14 Mr. Andrews asked the Minister for Tourism and Trade the reason for the cancellation of the planned competition to select a group to build and run the national conference centre; the plans, if any, he has to compensate the groups that have spent large sums of money on making submissions; and if the cancellation of the competition has any cost or legal implications for the State. [1555/96]
36 Miss Quill asked the Minister for Tourism and Trade the current position regarding the proposed national conference centre. [1478/96]
39 Mr. E. Byrne asked the Minister for Tourism and Trade the current situation regarding the proposed conference centre; the number of responses to his Department's advertisements inviting plans for such a centre; if the process is on course for site work to commence in December 1996; the number of jobs which he expects to be created during construction and when the centre is operational; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1450/96]
82 Mr. Callely asked the Minister for Tourism and Trade the progress, if any, made in relation to developing a national convention centre; the time schedule of the various stages for such development; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1542/96]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 14, 36, 39 and 82 together.
The open tendering competition organised by Bord Fáilte on my behalf to develop the national conference centre terminated because, in the considered opinion of the Bord Fáilte assessment team and the independent product development management board, none of the 13 candidates was prepared to participate in the development of the centre within the parameters set out in the project invitation document. They concluded that while individual submissions failed to meet requirements under various headings, the key area of deficiency to emerge was in relation to funding proposals for ongoing operating costs, including proposals relating to revenue from casino gaming which is currently prohibited by Statute in Ireland. I do not anticipate that any legal or cost implications will arise for the State from termination of the competition. In line with standard practice on grant applications under the tourism operational programme, the cost of preparing submissions is borne by the applicants.
I have now asked Bord Fáilte to pursue further a proposal from the Royal Dublin Society to develop a national conference centre at their Ballsbridge site. As a non-profit making body the RDS will seek EU assistance at the higher aid rate reserved for public bodies and they intend to operate the centre without subsidy from external sources. At this stage it is too early to state the number of jobs which the construction and operation of the national conference centre will provide. I expect to be able to keep to the original time sequence which envisaged commencement of work on site by December 1996.
I am shocked and horrified that the Minister did not express the slightest remorse or apologise to the 14 groups, excluding the RDS, at the manner in which this competition was called off. Groups which made submissions in this competition have been treated in an appalling way. They entered the competition in good faith and believed they were being asked to explain how the national conference centre could be achieved. Many of the groups feel they complied with the spirit of the parameters and reject the claim that they have not done so. Instead of being a genuine competition, it appears it was a figment of the Minister's imagination. It was a phoney competition and the groups which applied were given false parameters. Given that under the parameters they were required to put entire teams in place, does the Minister plan any remedies?
Can we proceed by way of direct questions?
Because this is a matter of fundamental importance, it was necessary for me to lead up to a number of questions. The Minister made the point that there was no legal or cost implications. Has he taken legal advice on whether what he is doing complies with EU law? My advice is that what he is doing is in breach of EU public procurement rules.
The Minister has singled out only one group which he believes can do the job. It is questionable that none of the other 12 or 13 applicants could do the job. If an action is taken on the matter, it could be set aside by the High Court under the remedies directive. Will there be a comeback in the context of EU rules and regulations? Is it the Minister's intention to compensate these people? In one case in excess of £200,000 was spent preparing the documents required. Will the Minister answer these questions on this serious situation?
It is important to note what has happened. I listened to Deputy Andrews earlier this week when he spoke of shock, horror and dismay at the termination of this stage of this proposal. I received a Government authorisation on 26 May last year to invite tenders from the private sector based on 50 per cent grant support under the Operational Tourism Programme for the provision of an international conference centre in Dublin. That was advertised in the normal way through official channels and there were 14 applicants under that scheme. One dropped out subsequently and 13 were fully assessed. These applicants were assessed not only by Bord Fáilte's professional assessment team but also by the Independent Product Management Board which Deputy Andrews referred to as being appointed by me but which was in fact appointed by my predecessor, the Minister for Tourism and Trade at the time, Deputy McCreevy, who was a member of the same Cabinet as Deputy Andrews. This is an independent board with very reputable people and they, in their wisdom, asked Bord Fáilte to consult the applicants to satisfy themselves that they, the applicants, were in accordance with the criteria of the tender documentation. It transpired as a result of those investigations that none of the 13 being then fully assessed could comply with the criteria of the tender documentation in that they required either a Government subsidy on an ongoing basis or revenue from a casino gambling operation. I had no option, therefore, but to conclude that stage of the process.
The Independent Product Management Board then recommended that an alternative strategy should be pursued, which is what I am doing. There is nothing underhand about this. It was an above board official tender operation designed so that the tender process would be done in stages. What was involved here was the pre-qualification stage so that companies wishing to apply would not be put to the expense of submitting final documentation. They were asked individually if they were happy with their tenders. This is a normal business plan. Nowhere in the Operational Plan for Tourism is there a case where defraying of costs for application to tender for such a project is considered. As far as I am concerned we are now awaiting a series of proposals from the Royal Dublin Society in respect of seeking aid as a public body to provide this centre.
We are almost half way through our priority time. Perhaps Deputy Andrews could ask a concluding question.
I have a number of questions.
We have 20 minutes to deal with this and there are five questions from five Deputies. We must endeavour to facilitate all colleagues during this 20 minutes.
Is it true that since the scrapping of the competition a number of the participants have revealed they suggested means of funding the conference centre other than a casino or straight Exchequer funding, thus operating within the so-called parameters set out in the project invitation document? What the Minister is saying is that most if not all the groups were seeking day-to-day subsidies. My information is to the contrary. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nobody is suggesting any wrongdoing or anything sinister in connection with this. What we are concerned about is the manner of the scrapping of the competition and the damage that has done to the groups who in good faith put forward their views. It seems extraordinary to scrap the competition and pluck one of the competitors from the group of 14 and give it special consideration. That is the main concern. Why, after the competition was scrapped, was the RDS alone invited to submit a proposal on the national conference centre? Is it true that as a result of all this the competition rules of the European Union have been breached, and that the 75 per cent EU funding the Minister suggests may come to the RDS by virtue of the voluntary nature of their make-up will be endangered as a direct result of the non-competitive aspect of what the Minister is now doing?
This was an independent operation. I was mandated by Government to trawl the public sector in respect of expressions of interest in this conference centre, the idea for which has been around for quite a long time. The professional assessment team of Bord Fáilte, and the independent board, which has nothing to do with me, found that none of the 13 applicants who were fully assessed was able to comply with the requirements of the tender documentation in that they required either a Government subsidy on an ongoing basis or revenue from a casino gambling operation, which is prohibited by statute.
That is not true.
If the Deputy has evidence to the contrary I would like to have it. I am categorically assured by the Independent Product Management Board, which is a very reputable body appointed by my predecessor——
Nobody is questioning anybody's integrity.
——that each of the applicants who submitted tenders was asked specific questions, and on no occasion was any of them in a position to proceed without some form of subsidy. I was not, therefore, in a position to offer any such subsidy or revenue from gambling. On that basis I took the advice of the Independent Product Management Board and am awaiting proposals in respect of this matter being dealt with by a public body. Apart from that, no decision has been made. If and when proposals come before me, they will be fully costed and analysed. They will then have to go before the Government for approval before proceeding to the European Commission for further approval. If they are approved the RDS will then have to put them out to public tender.
We have exhausted 13 of our 20 minutes on this question. I will allow Deputy Andrews one brief question, in deference to other colleagues.
I accept that — I do not want to be selfish. In the light of the importance of this question and paying tribute to the RDS for what they have done in the context of the Spring Show, the Dog Show and the Horse Show over the years——
And the Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis.
Taking account of all that, what special competence do these wonderful people in the RDS have that the other groups do not? This concept of a conference centre has been going on in the minds of Bord Fáilte since 1978, 1979 and 1980. Is the Minister telling the House that we are now reaching a stage where it might be a white elephant? I hope not.
Deputy Andrews is perfectly clear on the difference between the two things in question. The tenders which were invited from the private sector were based on receiving 50 per cent grant aid from the Operational Programme for Tourism. There is a facility within that whereby a public body or a voluntary body deemed for this purpose to be a public body could avail of up to 75 per cent grant aid. The RDS believes it is now in a position to meet these requirements.
I hope so.
From that point of view it made the point, initially, that it has been working in this area of exhibitions and conferences for many years, and that a great number of the requirements for international conference centres are already in situ. On that basis I have asked it to submit its proposals, which I await. That is based on the clear understanding that there will be no annual Government subsidy and no revenue from casino gambling which is prohibited by statute at this time.
We will pursue it again. These were only the opening shots.
