Vol. 475 No. 8
7 Mr. Andrews asked the Minister for Tourism and Trade if his attention has been drawn to the fact that arising from a complaint to the EU Commission, EU funding for the proposed national conference centre at the Royal Dublin Society, Dublin 4, may be delayed and may push the project out of the Structural Funds timetable; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6075/97]
8 Mr. Molloy asked the Minister for Tourism and Trade the current position regarding the arrangements for the building of a national conference centre at the Royal Dublin Society grounds, Dublin 4; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6054/97]
222 Mr. Callely asked the Minister for Tourism and Trade the benefits of a national convention centre in Dublin; the consideration this issue has been given over the past two years; the likely progress and timescale in this regard; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6423/97]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7, 8 and 222 together.
As Deputies are aware, the Operational Programme for Tourism 1994-9 makes provision for European Regional Development Fund support for a large dedicated conference centre capable of handling up to 2,000 delegates to be built in Dublin. The tourism potential of a national conference centre has long been recognised and the first Operational Programme for Tourism 1989-93 contained provision for such a development. No progress was made, however, at that stage.
In September-October 1995, Bord Fáilte organised an open tendering competition seeking interested parties to submit proposals for grant assistance towards the development of such a centre and 13 consortia submitted full proposals. These were rigorously assessed by a Bord Fáilteled assessment team and considered by the independent Product Development Management Board set up under the operational programme to consider such projects. None of the applicants met the criteria which had been set and the tendering competition, accordingly, self-terminated.
Following the failure of the open tendering competition to produce an acceptable private sector proposal, an alternative strategy was pursued whereby Bord Fáilte, under the aegis of the Product Development Management Board, examined an outline proposal from the Royal Dublin Society, RDS, which, as a voluntary body, is potentially eligible for consideration for a higher rate of capital assistance normally reserved under the operational programme for public and similar bodies.
Upon completion of its examination of the RDS proposal, Bord Fáilte, on the recommendation of the Product Development Management Board, commissioned an independent cost-benefit analysis which is required under the operational programme in the case of all large projects. This was undertaken by an experienced UK consultancy firm which was selected by Bord Fáilte on the basis of a competitive tendering procedure. The results were favourable to the RDS proposal.
The Government, having taken into account a number of factors, including the recommendations of the Product Development Management Board and Bord Fáilte and the results of the costbenefit analysis, agreed on 5 November to make a submission to the European Commission recommending formal approval of the proposed development by the RDS. The Government is recommending approval of 75 per cent capital grant aid subject to the existing financial provision for such a project in the current operational programme. The proposal has been submitted to the European Commission for approval as required under the operational programme for projects of this scale and the Commission's response is awaited.
A specific timetable for commencement or completion of the national conference centre project cannot be determined until the proposal has been formally approved by the European Commission and matters such as planning permission are in place. There is, however, no reason to believe the project cannot be developed under the operational programme in accordance with the permissible timeframe.
The potential benefits of the proposed national conference centre are considerable. Europe caters for more than 350 major conventions each year and it is estimated that a minimum of a further 15 such conferences, representing an extra 30,000 delegates, can be secured by developing the proposed centre. When account is taken that international conference delegates to Ireland typically spend slightly in excess of £1,000 per head, the proposed centre would have the capacity to generate additional tourism revenue of approximately £30 million and support more than 1,500 extra jobs in tourism. It would also help to improve the seasonality of tourism.
Will there be a requirement to seek planning permission for the proposed national conference centre at the RDS before the go ahead is given? Will the Minister agree it is seen in the operational programme as a flagship project? Is he aware that an objection has been lodged with the European Commission by one of the unsuccessful tenderers? Has he received any documentation on public procurement procedures and, if so, will he furnish me with a copy or place it in the Library of the House? Will he agree that should the Commission decide to investigate the matter the net effect would be to stall or obstruct the project and in those circumstances the position is fraught with danger? If the application to the European Commission is successful can he say with certainty that the RDS will obtain 75 per cent grant aid which he states it is eligible to apply for because of its status as a voluntary body?
This is seen in the Operational Programme for Tourism as a major flagship project which would have the capacity to generate substantial income from successful conventions and to support a significant number of permanent jobs in tourism. The viability of the project depends on the availability of 75 per cent grant assistance from the European Commission. The Royal Dublin Society, as a voluntary body, is potentially eligible for consideration for capital assistance at this rate.
It will not be necessary to seek planning permission in advance and it has not been applied for as a response to the Government's proposal is awaited from the Commission.
I am aware from newspaper reports and correspondence to the Department that a complaint has been lodged with the Commission. The relevant papers were forwarded to it last November. I have not received any formal complaint, although I understand Commissioner Monti who has responsibility for the internal market is to write to the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs in respect of the public procurement procedures. I await this letter with interest. I have no doubt, however, that Bord Fáilte, as the responsible body in this case, complied with the procedures laid down.
The Minister will recall that he indicated in response to previous questions about the proposed national conference centre that he expected construction to commence by the end of 1996. He will agree that we are no nearer to it now. Do the objections relate specifically to the public procurement procedures and are they third party objections? Has the European Commission raised any questions in regard to the eligibility of the project to receive operational programme funds?
The Government submitted its proposal to the European Commission last November. It recommends approval of 75 per cent grant assistance for the RDS project. The relevant documentation has been lodged. I have not received a formal complaint, although I understand Commissioner Monti is to write to the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs shortly in respect of the public procurement procedures.
I am aware from newspaper reports and correspondence to the Department that a complaint has been lodged in respect of the procedures adopted by Bord Fáilte for the original tendering competition as part of which consortia were invited to submit proposals. I am awaiting Commissioner Monti's letter to which we will reply as fully and as comprehensively as possible.
The Minister has clarified that the formal complaint is about procurement. Has the EU Commission raised any questions or doubts about the eligibility of this project for EU funding, irrespective of the procurement issue?
I had a meeting with Commissioner Wulf-Mathies some months ago when she was examining regional projects here. I discussed with her the question of the national conference centre. All she would commit to at that stage was to replying when she had fully and comprehensively evaluated the proposal. This complaint or submission has been made to the EU but I have not received any formal complaint nor has the EU Commission complained to me.
It is not a submission or complaint but an objection. That is how serious it is. We have warned the Minister about the fraught nature of this proposal for the RDS as a conference centre. I have said and will continue to say with the greatest of respect to Bord Fáilte that it is in error on this matter.
God save this country from consultants and consultancies. People seem incapable of making decisions themselves and deal with problems by sending them to some wretched consultancy outside the jurisdiction. If we are to give consultancies, could we give them to our own people?
In the meantime, the Minister uses expressions such as the RDS being potentially eligible for 75 per cent European funding. There is no certainty in that. Can the Minister be sure that it is certain to receive 75 per cent funding? Does he agree that complaints have been expressed in the public domain, especially by the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, about the slowness in processing the application for this conference centre? Would the Minister send some of his civil servants to Europe to find out what exactly is the status of this objection? If it is objected to, this proposal will again be delayed and we will be outside the 1999 operational programme limit.
I share Deputy Andrews's views on consultants and many could be bypassed. However, in matters as important and as serious as this, one must follow the procedure to the letter of the law.
I am in no position to state that this project will receive 75 per cent grant assistance. Under the rules and regulations of the operational programme, proposals of this nature supported by bodies such as the Royal Dublin Society are potentially eligible for 75 per cent funding but I do not make that decision and neither does the independent management board. This is a matter for the European Commissioner and I do not speak for her. The same applies to the independent product management board.
It was a recommendation of the A. D. Little group that European moneys should not be made directly available to the Minister or Bord Fáilte for dissemination but an independent board should make decisions upon it. The same applies in the case of the Commission.
As Deputy Andrews will be aware, the reason there is such slowness is because of this correspondence. It is necessary that people be able to follow through on their legal rights. These complaints or objections, on which I am not clear as I have not been formally presented with them, have been circulating within the legal section of the European Commission for some time. I am anxious and have communicated to the Commission and its representative here that we should be presented with this complaint quickly so it can be dealt with. I share Deputy Andrews's view that it would be preferable to proceed with this matter as quickly as possible but one can only do so in full compliance with the procedures laid down.
The Minister will accept that it is of enormous importance for the development of tourism to have a national conference centre, albeit located in Dublin, which is probably the best location because the centre will be national and because of its size. Does the Minister accept that anyone witnessing the slow pace of this project could not but be alarmed that we may lose out and funding may not be available? Those who are responsible, the Minister, his officials, Bord Fáilte and the European Commission, seem dilatory in the manner in which they are handling this major project. It is of no concern to those in Brussels whether money goes to this project or to some other in Spain or Italy. It is of great concern to us that money is allocated and used for this project and that, at the end of the operational programme in 1999, we have in situ the facility which has been long promised under the operational programme. There is a danger of losing this facility and the necessary funding. Surely the Minister should be more active in pursuing this. He has the full support of the Opposition parties. He should be on the next plane to Brussels to find out what is the delay, clear it and proceed with the project. He should show some action.
I would like to think I have the support of all the parties.
Not for inactivity.
Members of some parties might not fully support me. When this matter was brought to my attention in the beginning, we separated the issue of the conference centre from the casino which had become linked with it. The Government concluded its arrangements in respect of making a final proposal for the centre last November and a response is awaited from the European Commission. If the Government had the final say in this, it would be under way but one must await the response of the European Commissioner because she will decide whether to accept or reject this proposal. Its viability depends upon a 75 per cent grant level for which it is potentially eligible.
The Minister has accepted the Opposition claim that his reputation as a doer and a mover is at stake and that it is not looking good for him. We appeal to him to pursue this project and get it approved. He should contact the individuals responsible, find out what is the problem and get to the core of the matter. Too many of these major European projects are delayed in Brussels because of the disinterest, lack of concern or lack of action by Ministers and officials. We are in danger of losing the national conference centre and funding for a major sewage treatment plant in my constituency. It is another example of Government ineptitude.
I thank Deputy Molloy for his compliment that I am a mover and a doer.
The Minister's reputation is at stake.
I communicated my concern to the European Commission representative prior to the national monitoring committee here last week. I would like to see the nature of this complaint and have it presented to us so we can deal with it. I am as anxious as any Deputy that this matter should be off the agenda and that Ireland should have a first-class state of the art conference centre——
The Minister should find out what is going on.
Let us hear the reply.
——capable of generating huge income and a substantial number of permanent jobs in the tourism industry.
If 75 per cent funding is not approved, does that mean this project will be shelved? Will 50 per cent funding be sufficient for a conference centre in the RDS?
The original competition was based upon a 50 per cent level and none of the 13 consortia which applied met those criteria.
That is a matter of opinion.
The viability of this depends upon a 75 per cent grant level. I have no reason to doubt that Commissioner Wulf-Mathies will approve the proposal supported by Government and that we will proceed with this with an approved 75 per cent grant level. I respect her authority and she must wait until it is presented to her for decision. I hope that will take place quickly.
We have expended too much time on these questions. As we have exhausted the time for priority questions, we may, in accordance with Standing Orders, take the remaining two questions in ordinary time. As the time for dealing with priority questions is exhausted, in accordance with Standing Orders, we may take the remaining two priority questions as ordinary questions.
