Vol. 577 No. 5
4 Mr. Deenihan asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism if progress has been made regarding the refurbishment of the Abbey Theatre; the expected timescale involved in providing the new theatre and ancillary facilities; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31732/03]
On 29 January 2003, the Government authorised me to invite expressions of interest by way of public invitation from the private sector in participating, on the basis of a PPP, in the capital redevelopment of the Abbey Theatre in or around the vicinity of the site of the existing theatre. My Department, with the Department of Finance and the Office of Public Works, is working to implement that decision.
To be compatible with the functions, profile and status of a national theatre and to address the acknowledged defects with the existing theatre, a redeveloped premises would need to meet certain requirements. It would need to be a signature development, representative of a national theatre in the 21st century. It would have to be in an appropriate civic setting and form part of the overall urban regeneration represented by the O'Connell Street integrated area plan and the north-east inner city plan. There would be three significant enlarged auditoria – the Abbey, the Peacock and a third multipurpose space. There would also have to be: a dedicated education and outreach facility; a publicly accessible archive; restaurant/bar; improved public areas; disabled access for audiences and artists; and best practice theatre production facilities.
For the Abbey and the Peacock to function efficiently, effectively and without compromise, their basic functioning must not depend on movement of goods and people by mechanical lift. In essence, this means that the stages of both the Abbey and Peacock theatres must be positioned at ground level. In addition, both theatres must have easy access, also at the same level, to the scenery store and the prop store. It is agreed between the management of the Abbey and the Office of Public Works that there is a requirement for a ground floor footprint that is considerably larger than now exists. For the theatre to stay in its existing location, therefore, it will be necessary to acquire properties adjacent to the existing premises.
The Office of Public Works has received a report from property consultants who were engaged to assess the property acquisition issues arising in this context. That report is now being considered. The ultimate timeframe that will apply to this development is not yet clear.
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. Given that the Abbey Theatre will celebrate its centenary next year, it is important to make progress on this issue. The Government decided four years ago to build a national stadium and as yet there is no stadium. I hope the Abbey saga will not continue for another four years.
Is the Minister familiar with the two reports commissioned and completed in 2001 by his predecessor? Would it be a good idea if he revisited the proposals contained in the report? Would it be possible for the report to be published? I understand the reports suggested that the problems now being faced by the Office of Public Works and the Abbey authorities regarding space could have been resolved by moving to Grand Canal Harbour.
In the context of providing a new national concert hall, surely it is not too late to consider the possibility of a joint venture between the National Concert Hall and the Abbey Theatre? There is a model for this in Sydney which some of us visited recently. The chief executive of the Sydney Opera House would be willing to advise on his experience in Sydney, having travelled throughout the world, including to Japan, America and Europe, looking at similar models where opera and drama are conducted under the one roof. This saves a lot of expense. There could be joint ticketing and a state-of-the-art facility. It could be an icon which would represent this generation. Before proceeding further, the Minister might revisit the reports. Perhaps he should get advice from people like the chief executive of the Sydney Opera House who comes from Lurgan. It is not too late to go forward.
In the event of the Office of Public Works getting the required space, when does the Minister propose proceeding to a formal invitation for expressions of interest in the event of a definitive decision being made to go ahead with the Abbey project on the existing site?
Obviously reports of this nature contain commercially sensitive information on properties and so on. Therefore it would not be desirable to publish them.
On the question of timeframes, the best I can do is take each step at a time. There is little point in speculating as to what timeframes might be involved because I do not know. If we are to have meaningful invitations for expressions of interest, it is important to have a realistic chance of attracting worthwhile responses. It is important at this point to get the process right from the point of view of securing a successful long-term outcome. Proper preparation must be done and, unfortunately, time is of necessity involved.
On Deputy Deenihan's suggestion in regard to the Sydney Opera House, I wish I could convince the Minister for Finance of the merits of the Deputy's suggestion. In the current climate, I am not hopeful of doing so. We are trying to proceed by way of a PPP.
