Tony Killeen
Question:21 Mr. Killeen asked the Minister for Tourism and Trade if he has satisfied himself that SFADCo and the RTOs have sufficient power to co-ordinate spending on product development and tourist marketing in their areas. [4409/96]
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Tourism Development and Marketing Funds Expenditure.
Michael Ahern
Question:55 Mr. M. Ahern asked the Minister for Tourism and Trade the plans, if any, he has to give Bord Fáilte, SFADCo and the regional tourism organisations a co-ordinating role in the spending of development and marketing funds in their areas of responsibility. [4310/96]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 21 and 55 together.
In general the approval of European Regional Development Fund funds under the product development and marketing sub-programmes of the Operational Programme for Tourism is determined by independent management boards established under the programme.
The RTOs play an important role in encouraging grant applications under the sub-programmes of the Operational Programme for Tourism within their regions. They and SFADCo also have a direct input to the evaluation of each individual development proposal from their area seeking European Regional Development Fund assistance. This gives the regional bodies, which are responsible for tourism promotion in their areas, the opportunity to co-ordinate development proposals with regional marketing strategy at an early stage in both the design and the evaluation of expenditure proposals.
There are two marketing boards, one for the SFADCo area and the other for the rest of the country. Has the Minister received complaints about the decision to have one management board for the remainder of the RTOs? Many members of RTOs believe they do not have a sufficient input to decisions about major projects in their areas. Has he received complaints from Western Tourism, South West Tourism and Cork-Kerry Tourism about their apparent lack of success in attracting major projects which have to be assessed by the management board?
With respect, that is a separate question.
It is a fundamental question.
If the Deputy puts down a question I will give him the details of the approvals to date for each region. The report, which is now available, indicates a fairly even spread within and throughout the different regions involved. I received complaints from a variety of sources in respect of the regional tourism organisations, SFADCo, Cork-Kerry tourism and so on. I took the opportunity to meet all these bodies and we have sorted out the difficulties. The result is that the regional tourism organisations and SFADCo have a genuine input to lodging applications and arranging such applications for consideration for European Regional Development Fund funds. They have a specific responsibility in that regard and I know they take it very seriously.
I accept that the management boards were an essential element in the make-up of the structures for European Regional Development Fund funds but a number of difficulties have arisen which need to be addressed specifically. Does the Minister agree that some of the difficulties which have been made known to him by the regional tourism organisation cannot be addressed under the management board system and that there needs to be a fundamental rethink of the role of the management boards and, perhaps, of the policy which directs particular infrastructures towards areas which have not been enjoying high growth rates in tourism relative to other areas of the country?
We made a specific policy of encouraging applications from as many and diverse areas throughout the country as possible. The report on the distribution of grant assistance under the European Regional Development Fund programme is public information and very clearly indicates an even spread, in so far as that can be achieved, throughout the different regions. The Deputy will be aware that all applications for European Regional Development Fund funding have to be directed through the regional tourism organisations and SFADCo. From that point of view that regional tourism organisations and SFADCo have a direct input to the claims and proposals before they are determined ultimately by the independent boards.
In view of the experience with Celtworld in Tramore and, I understand, another aquarium project which has run into difficulties recently, does the Minister know whether there are certain projects which Bord Fáilte and the Department will not recommend for approval to the EU because of the fact that in some cases these facilities are already in the country? Does he know whether this information has been conveyed to the local authorities and the regional tourism organisations which are involved in developing projects for application?
This is an important point. It is very clear that quite a number of applications that come in to the regional tourism organisations and SFADCo prior to decision by the independent boards are turned down on the basis of assessment by the independent boards. In respect of heritage applications, for instance, where a number of these were grant aided under the original programme and where difficulties have been experienced because of falloff in visitor numbers or for other reasons, for these to be considered and approved, the local authority is now required to underwrite any operating losses to show the seriousness of its commitment in this regard.
The independent boards give very careful scrutiny to these applications and in quite a number of cases there have been rejections. However, rejections are not related to the geographical location of the proposal or anything like that; it is because of the independent assessment, analysis of commercial viability and potential to attract new and overseas business.
The question is whether there are some projects which will not be grant-aided. For instance, is it now the position that applications for the construction of major aquarium-type tourism projects will not be approved because of the number already provided?
I cannot speak for the independent board but I know it gives very serious consideration to these kinds of applications. A number of proposals, not only for aquarium type projects, have been rejected by the board for what it considers very good and valid reasons. That has been made perfectly clear to the proposers involved. We would all like to see only commercially viable projects, with long lasting tourism potential, approved. The independent board is there to attempt, in so far as possible, to safeguard that aim.
Is the Minister aware that Bord Fáilte has written to an individual indicating it will not sanction EU grant aid for any further aquarium projects?
Deputy Molloy is aware of the way the applications are processed. They are initiated through the regional tourism organisation and assessed by Bord Fáilte. If that assessment is positive it goes before the independent board. The board may or may not accept the recommendation either of Bord Fáilte or SFADCo. I am not sure of the individual to whom the Deputy refers, if he wants to give me details of the case I will give him a full response.
What is the position in regard to areas which have a deficiency of accommodation and need major tourism projects? What criteria will be used for them? Will they be treated in a different manner from the areas that already have an abundance of facilities?
Does the Deputy mean criteria in respect of the provision of facilities for a proposal under the European Regional Development Fund programme?
Yes.
The criteria are there for everybody to see. Applications come in from proposers, they are initiated through the regional tourism organisations and conditions in terms of matching funds and so on must be met. The independent board makes its decision based on the quality and adjudged commercial viability of the proposal and of its ability to attract new and overseas business. It is relevant to European Regional Development Fund funds and, therefore, the ability to attract new and overseas visitors is critical to final approval and grant aid. Deputy Ellis will be aware of a number of these in his own locality.