Vol. 537 No. 4
3 Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation the reasons for the delay in announcing the details of the tourism development grants as outlined in the national development plan; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16288/01]
The new tourism product investment scheme will be implemented by Bord Fáilte, in line with sub-measures 1 to 3 of the tourism measure within the regional operational programmes. The overall objective of the scheme is to develop the tourism product in a sustainable way that widens the spatial spread of tourism, diverts pressure from the highly developed areas and increases the under-performing regions' share of overseas tourism revenue.
Tourism sub-measures 1 and 2 are to be co-funded by the European Regional Development Fund and their operation must, according to the Community Support Framework document (paragraph 2.5.1), for Ireland be fully compliant with the provisions of the Treaty establishing the European Community, all instruments adopted under it, and with Community policies and actions, including the rules on competition.
Detailed guidelines for project promoters have been drafted by Bord Fáilte in consultation with my Department. They will be finalised once state aids clearance of the scheme, by the Competition Directorate of the European Commission, is secured. While this is the "third round" of European Regional Development Fund and Exchequer capital investment in the tourism sector, it is the first occasion on which formal state aids notification and clearance has been required for each individual measure before the scheme can be launched. Under the new state aid arrangements, Ireland changes from being a single "A" region to being composed of one "A" region – the BMW Region – with aid limits of 40%, plus 15% for small and medium enterprises, in the 2000-06 period, and five "C" regions – in the S&E region – where, by 2004, the maximum aid limits will range from 17.5% to 20%, plus 10% for small and medium enterprises.
In terms of the time scale of developments to date, and with due regard for the European Com mission's guide to the Community rules on state aid, my Department has contributed to the development of the regional operational programmes – approved by the European Commission last December – the programme complements, that is, the documents setting out the detailed elements at sub-measure level which are currently being finalised by the regional assemblies, who are the managing authorities for the 2000-06 period, and the detailed operational guidelines referred to earlier, which are being drawn up by Bord Fáilte for project promoters.
Meanwhile, the tourism product investment scheme is still being examined, under the state aids rules, by DG Competition of the European Commission, to whom the scheme was formally notified as required by the relevant regulation in October 2000. A meeting at official level is scheduled for next Wednesday, 6 June, and I am hopeful that these discussions will enable the Commission to give the necessary clearances to allow for early publication and implementation of this scheme.
The Minister may need to clarify what he said. I understand that the measures in question are now applicable from 2002 to 2006 rather than from 2000. Can the Minister explain why, some 18 months after the announcement of sub-measures 1, 2 and 3 in the national development plan, funding has not yet been allocated for those measures and cannot be drawn down to date? Does he agree that the development of major attractions, the special interests pursuits and the tourism environmental management programmes are of fundamental importance to the development of tourism in this country? In view of the damaging impact of the foot and mouth crisis on the tourism sector, does he agree that these three sub-measures should now be expedited and funding made available as soon as possible? When will the funding be made available and why has it taken so long? Other Departments have got approval from the EU in relation to other measures in the NDP. Why is there such a delay on the tourism measures?
I agree with the Deputy. I would like to see those measures brought forward and implemented as soon as possible. There is a meeting on 6 June which may, I hope, clarify some of the matters to which the Deputy has referred. In order to get these measures up and running, particularly the large measures, developers need an adequate time frame to draw down funding and put plans in place. On the State aids issue, it is a matter for the EU to make inquiries with regard to the specific details. For example, I have been trying to have a provision included for grant aiding small family run hotels. The Commission has a period of two months within which to reply but if, in the interim, we submit additional information, or they request further details which we have to forward to them, the two months period then runs from the date of that new communi cation. Correspondence, or perhaps red tape, can therefore delay the process. That is how it is set out in EU law, which I can read out if the Deputy wishes. I hope I have explained some of the reasons for the delay. At the meeting on 6 June, I am hopeful that we will come close to finalising the entire package.
How has it taken 18 months to get this matter resolved with the EU? It is now 18 months since the decision was taken to provide the funding for these much needed projects. May I also ask the Minister what is the status of the agri-tourism and marine tourism budgets which are of fundamental importance to certain sectors?
The last operational programme in 1994 also took 15 months to become operational and the state aids issue had not arisen then. Also, in the last budget, we brought in a measure whereby hotels which were grant aided could not have the double capital loans arrangement. All those matters had to be discussed in great detail. I am as anxious as the Deputy to get the programme up and running. Funding for the tourism sector is partly under European Regional Development Fund funding and we have to abide by that set of regulations also.
Question No. 4 cannot be taken, as the Member concerned is not in the House.
In relation to Ceist a 4, Deputy Deenihan wishes to apologise to the House for his unavoidable absence.
