Vol. 599 No. 5
9 Ms O. Mitchell asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism the number of tenderers being considered for the procurement of a national conference centre in Dublin; when a preferred tenderer will be selected; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9200/05]
17 Ms O’Sullivan asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism the position regarding the construction of a national conference centre; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9185/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 9 and 17 together.
On 17 February 2005, I informed the House that detailed tender documentation for the procurement of a national conference centre in Dublin was issued on 10 December 2004 by the Office of Public Works to each of the three previously short-listed consortia. I said also that one of the three candidate consortia had indicated it would not, in all probability, proceed. The candidate in question has now informed the Office of Public Works that it does not intend to submit a tender for the project. Accordingly, the competition for the provision of the centre is proceeding with two tender candidates.
As I informed the House previously, the national conference centre project team, which is headed by the Office of Public Works, is engaged in a process of consultation with the tender candidates. The process is intended, inter alia, to enable the OPW to provide clarification and, where appropriate, take account of issues raised by the candidates to ensure the submission of good quality, robust tenders. Allowing for the provision of sufficient time for engagement with the candidates, it is hoped a provisional preferred tenderer will be selected by mid-year. The contract will be awarded on receipt of Government approval.
The provision of a national conference centre is a necessary precursor to the expansion of the business tourism sector which is worth €250 million a year. While I must accept the grinding complexity and necessarily time-consuming nature of the procurement process, the provision of a national conference centre remains a priority.
Is the Minister aware that the number of business tourists fell from 890,0000 per annum to 750,000 per annum between 1999 and 2003? Business tourism has fallen from 15% to 12% as a proportion of overall tourism figures. Is the Minister aware that during his or her stay, a business visitor spends approximately 70% more than an ordinary holidaymaker? A national conference centre sited in Dublin would boost the economy by approximately €50 million and create approximately 3,000 jobs.
With the exception of Dublin, every European capital has a dedicated conference centre. Dublin does not have an opera house and its national theatre is outdated. Despite the wealth and the economy we have created over the last ten years, Ireland's infrastructure remains inadequate. I would like the Minister to be more specific about when he will decide on a preferred candidate. The term "mid-year" is not very clear and is implicitly flexible.
Representatives of the Dublin Chamber of Commerce made a presentation to the Joint Committee on Arts, Sport and Tourism recently. Does the Minister agree with it that the private sector experience of the bureaucratic tendering process represents a case study in inefficiency and indecision? This issue has been ongoing since 1994. Surely, it is time for completion. While the matter has not always been in the Minister's hands and I acknowledge that he has made some progress, he must now make a decision. Can he be more specific?
While I appreciate the kind comments Deputy Deenihan made towards the end of his contribution, he could have been kinder.
What does Kerry think?
The horse that does the work should get the oats.
We have made more progress in recent years than was made for many years previously. Deputy Deenihan will be well aware that successive Governments have made several attempts to provide a national conference centre in Dublin without result. Given that we should be in a position sometime in mid-year to declare a preferred candidate, we are doing pretty well.
As I have acknowledged at all times, we are necessarily involved in a very complex procurement process. The procedures involved in a public private partnership arrangement are not only complex but require to be undertaken in accordance with very strict guidelines on the provision of infrastructural capital investments. For example, as part of the procedural requirements of the process, a public sector benchmarking exercise and benefits assessment had to be carried out before the detailed proposal stage could even be initiated. In addition, the preparation of the detailed project contract documentation required was demanding and, to say the least, time consuming. The details required very careful scrutiny and consideration.
Deputy Deenihan will be aware that it is essential to ensure the procedures and guidelines pertaining to the process continue to be observed. Nothing should be done which jeopardises a successful outcome. A mid-year objective is reasonable in the context of the complexities I have mentioned. I cannot be any more definitive.
Does the withdrawal of one of the consortia imply a problematic legal scenario involving only two candidates? How many candidates were there originally? Is it clear that it is legitimate to declare a preferred candidate from the current two thereby facilitating a mid-year conclusion? Have all legal questions arising from the withdrawal of a candidate been investigated and settled?
When the documentation issued to candidates in December 2004, the date set by the OPW for receipt of tenders was 18 March 2005. The clarification and consultation process engaged in by the national conference centre project team and the candidates has resulted, as expected, in a number of changes to the tender requirements. In other words, Deputy Wall is correct and we have had to be extremely careful.
In light of the changes and to facilitate the submission of good quality, robust tenders, the national conference centre steering committee which is responsible for the procurement process, considered it appropriate and reasonable to provide candidates with additional time to consider and, if necessary, amend their proposals. Accordingly, the deadline for receipt of proposals has been extended to 22 April 2005. The objective, however, remains to ensure the selection of a preferred candidate by mid-year. It was necessary to undergo the process outlined to dot the i's and cross the t's.
This is a serious project which has the potential to stimulate significant growth in tourism in the Dublin region. Given that business tourism is already worth approximately €250 million to the State, Deputy Deenihan was correct to state that the provision of a dedicated national conference centre could be worth approximately €50 million.
Why does the Minister not simplify the procedures? Does he set down the procedures?
Has the National Treasury Management Agency approved the project? I am sure it has, but it is no harm to clarify if that is the case. If a successful tenderer were to be approved by May, what schedule would the Minister envisage for the possible commencement of work on this important project?
I always said it was hoped we would have a national conference centre in place some time during the year 2007. With regard to the procedures being followed, to the best of my knowledge, all of the procedures we are obliged to follow have been followed to date. Every effort has been made to try to ensure there can be no criticism in that regard at the end of the process.
It is difficult for me to be definitive with Deputy Deenihan on precise dates. However, it is not possible for me to change the procurement process when it is a public private partnership for the reason that I am subject to the Department of Finance interim guidelines for the provision of infrastructure and capital investments through public private partnerships. Anybody familiar with the Department of Finance — no offence intended — will be well aware that it does not exactly cheer when people try to unilaterally amend its guidelines.
What about the National Treasury Management Agency?
As I said, whatever procedures we are required to fulfil will have been fulfilled.
10 Mr. Gogarty asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism if there has been a study into the viability of upgrading the Abbey Theatre at its present location through the purchase of adjacent buildings; if the Government has considered re-erecting the original entrance foyer or vestibule in view of the fact that the numbered stones are still available to the State in good condition, free of charge; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9165/05]
25 Ms McManus asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism the position in regard to the proposed relocation of the Abbey Theatre; the recent discussions he has had with the board and director of the theatre in this respect; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9168/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 and 25 together.
I refer the Deputies to my answer to Priority Question No. 4.
I noted the Minister's comments to Deputy Deenihan in response to his priority question. Given that he alluded to possible Supreme Court action in regard to the Carlton site which may delay proceedings further, when the Minister said the existing Abbey Theatre location would not be suitable for a new facility for various reasons which included cost and time, would that not bring the existing site back into the running if a timeframe could be agreed? Is the Minister following up that possibility as well as exploring the site at the docks and sites in other areas to provide a definite site for the new Abbey Theatre during the lifetime of the Government? Is it possible at this stage or will the Minister have to consider expanding the existing site as the best of all the available options?
We will have a site for the new national theatre during the lifetime of the Government. Four sites are in play at present. While the existing Abbey Theatre is on a very good site, were we in a position to acquire the necessary footprint, the reality of the position is that the expense of doing that and the possible delays involved do not make it a viable proposition. We ran into difficulty with the Parnell Square site because we could not buy the property we required at a market value or a reasonable amount. We could not subject taxpayers to paying an inordinate amount of money for a site that was not worth what the prospective vendors were seeking.
The Carlton site is subject to a possible judicial review and there is also the possibility of a Supreme Court appeal. This brings us back to the Dublin Docklands Authority site located at George's Dock, with which Deputy Gogarty is familiar. As of now, the position is that preliminary consultations have been entered into between the Office of Public Works and the Dublin Docklands Development Authority. These negotiations are taking place without any commitment by either side.
In truth, every effort is being made to acquire the site. I accept that it is a frustrating experience but I hope we will be able to resolve it in the not too distant future.
Written answers follow Adjournment Debate.
