Vol. 482 No. 1
5 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation the current position regarding the National Conference Centre; the recent communications, if any, his Department has had with the EU regarding the centre; when a final decision will be reached regarding location; if the centre will be built by the year 2000; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17313/97]
The current position with the National Conference Centre project is that, following a Government decision, a new tender procedure has commenced, administered by Bord Fáilte under the aegis of the independent management board for product development. The new tender procedure, which will be conducted in accordance with EU Council Directive 93/37/EEC, followed from consultations between the Department of Tourism, Recreation and Sport and the relevant EU officials. It is open to private or public sector applicants and in accordance with the requirements of the Operational Programme for Tourism, 1994-99 the centre will be located in Dublin.
The first step in the new tender procedure was the publication of a prior indicative notice — PIN — in the Official Journal of the European Communities on 6 September. This was followed by the tender procedure notice, which was published in the Official Journal on 13 September. The notice was also published in the Irish daily newspapers on 16 September. It invited applicants to submit requests to participate in the tender procedure by 5 p.m. last Monday, 20 October. By 31 October, invitation to tender documentation will be dispatched by Bord Fáilte to selected applicants, following which those applicants will have three months to submit their tender, i.e. by the end of January next year. Tenders will be assessed at that time.
With regard to the related issues of EU funding and the likely completion date, I refer Deputies to paragraph 4 of the tender procedure notice which points out that while the "final date for taking account of expenditure" for projects under the Operational Programme for Tourism, 1994-99, is 31 December 2000, there is provision for a member state to request the Commission to extend the time limits by not more than one year. If an extension of more than one year is requested, a formal Commission decision is required. No expenditure incurred after the agreed end date may be taken into account for the purposes of Structural Fund assistance.
The maximum amount of that assistance is 33 million ECUs with an aid rate of up to 50 per cent for private sector projects. In the case of a public or similar body, there is provision for the aid rate to be reviewed by the monitoring committee for the Operational Programme, with the maximum aid rate possible in this category being 75 per cent. As I stated on a number of occasions, I personally and the Government as a whole attach a very high priority to the establishment of a national conference centre, as set out in the Government's joint programme, An Action Plan for the Millennium, and I will do everything possible to ensure that this crucial piece of tourism infrastructure is progressed to completion.
In view of the fact that the approximately 350 conferences attracted to Ireland each year bring in the region of £100 million into the Exchequer, I cannot understand why the Minister decided to scrap the process put in place by his predecessor. That process was at an advanced stage and the indications are that it was attracting approximately 75 per cent in grant aid. What were the Minister's specific reasons for scrapping that process and beginning the procedure again? Taking account of the tendering period and the time given over to planning, etc., will the Minister guarantee that the funds available at present will remain available when the first stone is laid on the foundations of the new centre?
The Deputy will be aware that any financial backers must be satisfied, otherwise they will not provide funding. The EU is backing this programme and it was not satisfied with the manner in which it was progressing. I have put the programme back on the rails. I am glad the Deputy supports the idea that conference centres are a major mechanism for attracting revenue. Had I not interceded at the point at which I did, we would have lost the conference centre forever. Unless we are able to find a solution by spring of next year and proceed with the centre under the current provisions — we have been flexible in making those provisions as acceptable as possible — I fear we will lose both the funding and the massive revenue the centre will generate. This is the last chance. The boat will be put out after this and we will lose the project. Applications will go through the Product Management Board which, I hope, will be able to come to a conclusion. I hope, for the benefit of Ireland Incorporated, that this will not proceed along the other lines, that we will get this conference centre and that the unsuccessful applicants will realise that they will benefit ultimately.
We all agree on the importance of a national conference centre for the national tourism industry. Will the Minister shed more light on what he has just said, particularly his suggestion that Dublin would be the preferred location? Has he a particular location in Dublin in mind? Is he talking about the RDS or the Phoenix Park, or is there an alternative location in Dublin? Having read the files and considered the work that was done over the past number of years, has the Minister formed an opinion or has he been given guidelines as to whether it is possible to have a national conference centre as a stand-alone project? Is that feasible or viable? Is that the basis on which we are going forward, or will the centre be part of a larger complex?
The stipulations in the operational programme stated categorically that it has to be in Dublin. That document was drawn up in the 1994-99 programme. It is the major financiers who will make that decision.
What about the location in Dublin?
That will be entirely a matter for the Independent Product Management Board. As to whether it will be a stand-alone project, that also will be a decision for the Independent Product Management Board.
Has the Minister a view on it?
Before the election the Minister's party gave a promise that the conference centre would not be linked to a casino. Is he of the same mind now?
Perhaps the Deputy would read the stipulations involved. It is stated in the applications that the conference centre must be in accordance with the legislation currently in existence here. That speaks for itself.
Ceist 6 in the name of Deputy Sheehan.
Deputy D. Carey rose.
I am sorry, Deputy Carey, but four questions have been answered and I have called the next question.
I am entitled to ask a question.
It is outside the time. We have had a number of supplementaries and I have called the next question.
It concerns my constituency and I would like to ask a question.
I appreciate that, but I have already called the next question.
That is very unfair.
I do not accept it is unfair. A number of Members have tabled questions and they are entitled to expect an answer. I am moving on to Question No. 6.
The Chair does not want me to ask what might be a political question, but I will give it to the local newspaper that he put me off.
Why did the Chair allow Question No. 5 to be taken but not Question No. 4? I was anxious to contribute on it.
It has been drawn to my attention that only four questions, not five were answered. The reason Question No. 4 was not taken is that the time for Priority Questions was exhausted, and when the time for Priority Questions is exhausted, only the fourth and fifth questions can be taken in ordinary time.
They can all go on together.
There is a Standing Order covering that. I will get it for the Deputy.
The Chair allowed the fifth.
The fourth and fifth are allowed. The third is not.
I was not allowed the fourth.
That was the third priority question.
I am still entitled to an answer.
One of my Priority questions was eliminated due to an error and now I am refused the opportunity to put another.
The Leas-Cheann Comhairle should get the Standing Orders right.
There are five Priority Questions. Twenty minutes are allocated for them. When the time for Priority Questions is exhausted, only the fourth and fifth Priority Question can be taken in ordinary time. Standing Order No. 38.2 covers that.
The fourth was not answered.
The fourth Priority Question is Question No. 5.
My Question No. 4 was third on the Order Paper.
The third cannot be answered outside Priority Time.
The Chair's ruling is correct but Deputy Carey has a very important supplementary question and should be allowed to ask it.
I will be glad to give the Leas-Cheann Comhairle publicity in The Clare Champion.
This is like a game of snakes and ladders.
