Vol. 491 No. 1
14 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation if he will make a statement on his failure to make a final decision regarding the national conference centre in view of his commitments to have reached a decision by now; and the implications, if any, for EU funding arising from the delay. [11457/98]
15 Mr. Ferris asked the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation when the evaluation committee established to assess the tender submissions for the national conference centre is expected to report; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11460/98]
The tender procedure for a national conference centre is being organised by Bord Fáilte under the direction of the independent management board for product development and is being conducted in full compliance with the EU Council Directive 93/37/EEC concerning the co-ordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts.
The full tender procedure notice was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities on 13 September 1997 and in the Irish media on 16 September. It invited applicants to submit requests to participate in the tender procedure by Monday, 20 October. Bord Fáilte received 12 responses within the deadline set for receipt of applications to tender. On 31 October 1997 invitation to tender documentation was dispatched by Bord Fáilte to seven qualified applicants, six of whom confirmed their intentions to submit full tenders before the deadline of 14 November. The closing deadline for receipt of tenders was 5 p.m. on Monday, 2 February.
Full tender submissions were received from five consortia and the Bord Fáilte led evaluation teams immediately commenced their assessment of these submissions. I understand that at the management board's meeting of 14 April 1998, the board considered these assessments and concluded that the tenders submitted were not such as to enable it to make a recommendation at that time.
The process has now proceeded to the negotiated procedure stage provided for in Article 7 of the directive, to be conducted by an independent team of technical experts. The intention was that these experts will report to the board and provide it with the necessary technical advice to make a recommendation. As the House will be aware, one of the tenderers has sought a judicial review of the decision to go to negotiated procedure and as this is now sub judice I cannot comment further on this aspect.
As to procedures, the tender process is being organised by Bord Fáilte and the independent management board. Under the terms of the tourism operational programme, the agreement of the Government and the EU Commission on foot of a cost-benefit analysis conducted in accordance with Community law will be required in respect of any final selection. The final date for taking account of expenditure for projects assisted under the Operational Programme for Tourism 1994-1999 is 31 December 2000, as defined by Article 5 of Commission Decision C(94) 1972 of 29 July 1994, subject to paragraph 4.6.7 of the Community Support Framework 1994-1999 which states:
.at the request of the Member State, duly made before expiry of time limits and supported by information establishing the justification for such a change, the Commission services may extend the time limits by not more than one year. If the extension requested is for more than one year a formal Commission decision is required. No expenditure incurred after the end date, as extended where appropriate, may be taken into consideration for the grant of assistance from the Structural Funds.
This venture has the potential to become an expensive farce for the taxpayers. The term "judicial review" sets alarm bells ringing. The Bord Fáilte management board for product development rejected the recommendation of the 14 member evaluation team and the matter was sent to a third body for consideration. Did the Minister meet any of these groups or take any initiative to overcome this problem? Different groups are threatening legal action. The Minister instigated this by scrapping his predecessor's initiative which had almost come to a positive conclusion with the Commission. Does the Minister feel he has a responsibility to show some leadership in attempting to avoid what could become an expensive legal farce with the potential loss of £25 million of EU funds?
The Deputy says that I scrapped the last competition. However, the competition was off the rails. The EU would have upheld the objection and the matter would have been finished. I did not meet any of the groups concerned because it is an independent assessment process and I cannot meet any of them.
I agree that it is becoming a legal farce. This was never going to be a case in which the opponents shook hands, swapped jerseys and wished each other well after the match, so to speak. There is always the potential for litigation in such processes. There appear to be many interests with plenty of money who can hire barristers as we might buy toys for our children. If there is enough ability to buy legal advice one can get the advice one desires. I have not interfered in this process in any way. I understand from the grapevine that there are six different legal opinions on this process. It goes to show that one can get the legal advice one requires.
The Deputy is right that there is a serious danger of losing the conference centre. There are fundamental questions that must be answered and which the report of the project management board has indicated to me. They must have answers. All those involved must meet the criteria. That will not be done through PR or media hype. The EU is the banker and has the final say. All the contenders must meet the objective criteria.
However, at this point we are in the courts. A conference centre could be a major asset to the economy. We are the only major city in Europe which does not have a conference centre, yet we are in the courts. I can do nothing about that. If the conference centre is lost because we are unable to meet the objective criteria then so be it, but let us not lose it in the courts.
I remind the Minister that it is not the Taj Mahal that is in question, just a conference centre. The Minister set up the procedure and he is responsible politically for seeing it through. He has been in Government for almost 12 months and he admits it is a legal farce. He is responsible and it is incomprehensible that he has not met the management board for product development or the evaluation team. He tells us he hears what is happening on the grapevine. Will he meet the groups to try to reach an acceptable conclusion? He must take the initiative and not let the matter descend into a legal wrangle in the courts whereby the EU funds will be lost.
If I had met any of the groups concerned the conference centre would have been lost long since. The Deputy is aware that the criteria state that an independent board, in conjunction with Bord Fáilte, is responsible for the project. The Minister is outside that. Although the Deputy is aware of those matters he is making political points.
I have received a report from the product management board which indicates that there are fundamental questions to be answered because they are matters which will have to be accounted for to the EU. We have set up a negotiated procedure, for which Bord Fáilte is responsible, and I do not understand why any of the interests are afraid to avail of it to allow the matter to proceed. It is in line with the directive. Why are they afraid to meet and negotiate so that the conference centre will not be lost? Instead the matter has been taken to court. I understand the courts are closing on 29 May until 16 June, and I have to make a decision by 31 June. Let the parties come to the negotiating procedure instead of risking losing this, not on the playing field, but in court.
The Minister stated that certain questions have to be answered and that the management board for product development gave him a report setting out certain issues that have to be addressed. What are those issues?
The issues are a matter for the management board. All the clients have been made aware of the procedures available. This is independent of my office. I am doing my best to ensure we get this conference centre. All this is a legal quagmire as a result of which this country is in danger of losing the conference centre. We grasped the nettle in relation to Luas. There is money available for the conference centre. We could lose the money relating to Luas, but perhaps we can redirect that. However, we will certainly lose the conference centre if common sense does not prevail.
If the Government grasps the nettle it will be doubly stung because we will have neither the Luas nor the conference centre. It is amazing that the Minister has a report but will not disclose what the issues are.
We cannot have a debate on the matter.
To clarify the matter for the Deputy, the management board's report is for the EU Commission.
That is pure hogwash. This is going down the tubes, like the Luas.
