Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 16 Nov 2000

Vol. 526 No. 2

Other Questions. - National Conference Centre.

P. J. Sheehan

Question:

7 Mr. Sheehan asked the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation the actions he has taken to provide a national conference centre; and when one will be available. [25905/00]

Ivor Callely

Question:

10 Mr. Callely asked the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation the progress with regard to the development of the national conference centre; the time schedule and deadlines associated with the development; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25987/00]

Michael D. Higgins

Question:

22 Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation the latest position regarding the development of a national conference centre; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25958/00]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 7, 10 and 22 together.

As stated in my reply to Parliamentary Questions Nos. 9 and 11 on 10 October last, the Operational Programme for Tourism, 1994-1999, included a provision towards the construction of a conference centre in Dublin capable of handling up to 2,000 delegates. In November 1998 the European Commission gave its approval in principle for a grant of 33 million ecu, or £26 million, subject to a number of conditions, including the compatibility of any preferential tax regimes for the project with State aids rules. Subsequently, having secured Commission approval for an extension of the permissible time limits within which the grant could be drawn down, contract documentation was agreed and signed by Bord Fáilte and the developer, Spencer Dock International Convention Centre Limited, by the end of December last year.

Planning permission for the development issued by Dublin Corporation in August 1999. It was appealed to An Bord Pleanála which, in July last, issued a decision granting planning permission for the national conference centre element of the overall development but not for the bulk of the surrounding development. The developers have been considering their options in light of this planning decision and I have confirmed to them that the public procurement process through which the Spencer Dock proposal emerged and the grant offer of £26 million was made must be adhered to by all the parties to the process. I have asked the developers to continue to consider with Bord Fáilte how to proceed within the context of the terms and conditions of the existing grant offer.

Has progress been made on the development of the national conference centre since I raised this issue in the House some weeks ago? Does the Minister agree that a vital key requirement in the sustainable development of tourism, namely, a national conference centre, is now almost a dead duck? What negotiations or discussions have taken place between Bord Fáilte and the developers since our last discussion in the House on 14 October? What has Bord Fáilte reported back to the Minister about this project? Is the conference centre a dead duck or will it proceed?

The Government is fully committed to a national conference centre. A contract has been signed between Bord Fáilte and Spencer Dock International Convention Centre Limited. It may have met Bord Fáilte but I met the developers. In the light of the decision by An Bord Pleanála I advised the developers that I wanted an indication on whether they were going to proceed. They have not said yes or no. The contract involving Bord Fáilte remains in force until 31 December. I cannot go beyond its terms because it was provided that the grant of £26 million would be given under specific conditions. That is the current position. It is for the developers to decide, but the Government is fully committed to the national conference centre.

Is the Minister saying the developer has four or five weeks to make a decision, that if no decision is made the contract is null and void and the conference centre a dead duck? Does he have a fall-back position? Has he considered any attempt to salvage the RDS project, which he scrapped and which would now be built? Given that we are within four to five weeks from the termination of a contract for a key project for the sustainable development of tourism, does he have an alternative plan?

There is no alternative plan, nor will there be while a contract exists between two parties to proceed with the conference centre. It is not a dead duck. The grant aid of £26 million has been secured, subject to the terms and conditions under which it was allocated. If we had proceeded with the RDS proposal it would have reverted to the EU.

There can be no alternative plan when a contract is in force. Why would an alternative be provided? Planning permission has been granted for the construction of a national conference centre. The developers have until the end of the year to make a decision on it.

Will the Minister confirm that if the developers decide not to proceed there will be no conference centre, now or in the foreseeable future? Will he explain the snail's pace at which this matter has proceeded over the past two to three years? The Minister lost the run of himself at the outset when he scrapped the RDS project and pursued this one, which is now going slowly up a cul-de-sac.

If we had proceeded with the RDS project we would have lost the grant aid of £26 million.

How could we have lost it?

The grant aid and the terms of the contract are still available for the Spencer Dock development to proceed, a contract has been signed and the parties to it have until 31 December to decide on whether to proceed.

The Minister is contradicting himself.

Does the Minister agree it would be helpful if this project could proceed independently of, and without being tied to, Treasury Holdings and the Spencer Dock group who, as profiteering speculators, have no regard for the local community? They appear to be motivated solely by greed and the need to maximise their profit rather than by the proper concern for the sustainable development of this traditional docklands area. Does the Minister agree that is the reason the conference centre has not proceeded?

Will the Minister indicate if, at the end of the year, the contract with Spencer Dock is finished or is CIE permanently involved with Treasury Holdings? Most of this site is in State ownership under CIE. Will the Minister also indicate if, at the end of the year, it is possible for the Government to extricate itself from its connection with these property developers and proceed with the development of this site in a sustainable way and in co-operation with the local community?

The docklands area was chosen by an independent project management board as a result of a competition. Three, four or five different developers were involved and the Spencer Dock development was by far the most favoured proposal. It was not the Government but an independent body who chose the docklands area as a site for the centre. The Government is committed to ensuring that the docklands site is developed, I hope with the co-operation of the local community.

A contract has been signed between Bord Fáilte and the Spencer Dock developers which is due to expire at the end of the year. I cannot comment on a contract where the developers have not indicated whether they will or will not proceed. With regard to the CIE site, there is ongoing discussion on the nature of the contract that has been signed between CIE and the developers. It is for the legal people involved to decide what happens if the developers do not proceed. It is a legal matter.

The Minister is incorrect to say that if the RDS development had proceeded we would have lost £26 million of EU funding. Does he stand over that and, if so, will he explain what he means? There is still no conference centre in the docklands area, the grant aid of £26 million available from the EU has been diverted elsewhere and the centre is now dependent on Exchequer funding.

I must refresh the Deputy's memory. When the RDS was involved in the process there was a legal objection by members of the consortium involved, which had to be decided at EU level. The indications from the EU were that the other consortia involved had a legal point in fact.

A legal point to answer?

In such circumstances the RDS project would not have proceeded. I did not scupper the RDS, it was a matter for the EU. If we had not done something a time limit would have been imposed and we would not have been able to secure the funding of £26 million. The Deputy is aware that this funding was not lost. It was not returned to the EU because it was legitimately diverted to another project.

That is what I said.

The grant aid of £26 million still remains to be availed of by the Spencer Dock developers.

The Minister agrees with me.

If there is no legal notice of a termination of a contract an extension can be sought. Is there an extension of the 31 December deadline on this contract and do the developers have a legal right to seek an extension? It would be unwise for a contract of this size not to contain such a provision. Is the Minister aware of this?

I am disappointed that the Minister has no alternative plan. It looks bad if the Spencer Dock developers bring the Minister to the deadline on this contract without making any commitments.

If the Deputy understands contracts he will realise that they will hold until they expire.

What about a time extension option?

Exchequer funding is involved. I would be disappointed if the contract did not proceed. Planning permission was granted for the development of the national convention centre in the docklands area and I hope it will proceed. There are no other options open to us until the current contract expires.

Does the Minister agree that he may be remembered for building a national stadium which is not required and for failing to build a conference centre, which is?

That question will be answered in the future. There are many Opposition Deputies, in the Deputy's party and others, who have a huge interest in sport and who are not as vehemently opposed to the building of a national stadium as he is. I am not sure that Fine Gael Deputies in general are not as opposed to the stadium as he is.

The Minister should worry about himself, not about the Fine Gael Party. He should worry about his failure to prioritise the provision of proper sports funding and to build a national conference centre.

The Government Buildings, Dublin Castle and many other fine developments were also called failures.

At least Government Buildings are being used.

Ireland is now a modern sophisticated European country whose citizens are very proud of its achievements.

Top
Share