Vol. 549 No. 4
20 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage Gaeltacht and the Islands the options which have been considered in relation to the new Abbey Theatre; and the weighting in relation to the use of the Carlton Theatre which was given in this evaluation. [6873/02]
24 Mr. Broughan asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage Gaeltacht and the Islands if, regarding her announcement of 20 February 2002, she will outline the Government's plans for the development of the Abbey Theatre, Dublin 1; the discussions she has with the board regarding these plans; if it is expected that the Abbey company will have to relocate during the period of redevelopment; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [6791/02]
230 Mr. O'Shea asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage Gaeltacht and the Islands if she will outline the Government's plans for the development of the Abbey Theatre, Dublin 1; the dis cussions she has with the board regarding these plans; if it is expected that the Abbey company will have to relocate during the period of redevelopment; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [6790/02]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 20, 24 and 230 together.
The Government has approved the capital redevelopment of the national theatre in order to provide enhanced premises and facilities for the theatre. The agreement of the board of the National Theatre Society will be sought for the redevelopment of the theatre on the existing site. The Government has decided that a public private partnership arrangement should be initiated in this context.
I met the chairman and members of the board of the National Theatre Society last week to explain the terms of the Government decision, which the chairman welcomed. The matter will be progressed from here on in close consultation and co-operation with the board. Details of whether and for how long the Abbey may have to relocate will be worked out later. In this context, I will be happy to request the Office of Public Works to give any assistance possible to the Abbey in terms of locating an alternative premises at the appropriate time.
A number of city centre options, including the Carlton site, were examined. However, in arriving at a decision in the matter two important considerations were that the present site is already in the possession of the National Theatre Society, and it was considered that the Abbey's links with the existing historic site should be maintained if at all possible. Immediately following the Government decision last week officials of my Department met officials of the Office of Public Works to discuss how best to secure procurement of the project through a public private partnership. These discussions are continuing and, as I have already indicated, the theatre authorities will be fully involved in the process.
Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil leis an Aire as an freagra a thug sí. Was the Carlton site considered prior to the finalisation of the Office of Public Works report or was it mentioned subsequent to its publication? Will the Minister publish the report, as it would be of interest? The speculation surrounding the report is not helping matters and it would be good to base our discussion on it. Is there a possibility of the Abbey Theatre securing an alternative location during construction? How much consideration has gone into that? Is it possible at this stage to consider the large body of opinion, including architects, who feel the Carlton site would enhance not only theatre but the standing of O'Connell Street and the redevelopment of that area?
The Deputy can be assured the reports were examined and considered very care fully before any decision was taken. My view has always been that the Abbey Theatre should be housed on the existing site but I did not proceed with that until I had seen the other reports. I then reached my conclusion and put proposals to Government, which were accepted. The report on the Abbey site, as I pointed out when I replied to a similar question earlier, is price sensitive and, therefore, I do not intend to publish it.
Contrary to what people read in The Irish Times, there has been a genuine welcome for the Government decision on the Abbey Theatre and that was evident in other newspaper reports over the weekend. I referred to the construction of the new building and what will happen to the theatre during that time in my reply earlier. It is a matter for the theatre to decide whether it wants to go on tour. I do not wish to promote any view on that. That should and will be a decision of the board and director of the theatre. However, if the company is looking for additional space during that period, I have undertaken to ask the Office of Public Works to be of assistance to us in locating other sites and that will be done, if necessary.
Can I take it from the Minister's reply that the Carlton site was not considered prior to the publication of the Office of Public Works report and is, therefore, not mentioned in it? I acknowledge she has considered it in her mind and she has read reports but can we take it the report does not include consideration of the Carlton site? Will she extract the price sensitive information from the report so that it can be published? Apart from sending the Abbey on a grand tour, are any sites being contemplated as a temporary measure?
Can the Minister give us an estimate on the construction period? Why does she consider the PPP model to be the most appropriate in this instance?
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Given that this project has been planned for years, has the Minister not made a ham-fisted job of it if she is only now considering the relocation of the Abbey Players? They could migrate like swallows and stay away for longer than normal and return in a few years. Does she know how long it will take to erect the building? A decision has been made to rebuild the Abbey Theatre and nothing has been done in the meantime to replace it temporarily.
Perhaps it should be moved to Carlow.
I disagree with the Deputy. He would be the first, and rightly so, to accuse me of interfering in an artistic decision of the Abbey to go on tour, for example. There is no question of me sending the Abbey on tour. It is a matter for the theatre and I will not interfere in that decision. I reiterate for the third time that if the decision of the theatre is to stay at home during construction it will need extra property to carry out its work and I am happy to ask the Office of Public Works to facilitate the theatre in finding such a premises. That is the proper way forward.
I refer to the consultation period and the time necessary for the project. This is a major project that has been welcomed by the Abbey. Significant facilities are required and a radical approach needs to be adopted, as a national theatre will be developed on the site.
There are different options available under public private partnerships and since the announcement of the Government decision my Department has contacted the Office of Public Works to examine them. The Abbey will have the final say as to the kind of approach to be taken on the PPP and what best suits it. It will not be signed off without the agreement of the Abbey. It is disingenuous to say this will take time. We all know it will take time because it is a massive project. That is why the Government has taken a very clear stand in stating that we want to see a complete redevelopment of the Abbey and we are prepared to carry that through by way of a PPP with such arrangements signed off by the Abbey.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
