Vol. 604 No. 2
1 Mr. Deenihan asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism if the problems between a company (details supplied) and the Campus and Stadium Ireland Development Limited regarding the National Aquatic Centre, have been resolved; if this company will continue to run and manage the centre; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20408/05]
Legal proceedings have been taken by Campus and Stadium Ireland Development Limited in the commercial court against Dublin Waterworld for breaches of the lease on the National Aquatic Centre. As this issue relates to proceedings before the commercial court at present, it would be inappropriate for me to make any further comment or statement on these matters.
However, I take this opportunity to indicate my disappointment that Campus and Stadium Ireland Development Limited has been left with no option but to instigate these proceedings to ensure compliance with the obligations of the lease on the National Aquatic Centre. I had no part in the awarding of the contract for the operation of the National Aquatic Centre, the contract for which was placed prior to my appointment as Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism. The awarding authority was CSID and the contract was signed early in 2002. The award of the contract for the National Aquatic Centre was the subject of an investigation by the Attorney General in March 2002 and the report was discussed at meetings of the Committee of Public Accounts during that month. However, as soon as it was brought to my attention that the lease obligations were not being fulfilled, I decided that legal proceedings should be initiated and fully support the course of action taken by CSID in my role as shareholder of the company.
In developing the National Aquatic Centre at Abbotstown, the State undertook a very worthwhile and necessary investment. The capital expenditure of €62 million excluding VAT on the provision of the facility represents money very well spent. In addition, €3 million was spent on the original sports campus project on site preparation and surveys of the land at Abbotstown. This work has already proved very useful in the preparation of a development control plan for the site and will be further drawn upon when work on the wider campus concept begins. This is the total capital sum spent in connection with the development of the sporting facilities at Abbotstown. The notion that €200 million was wasted is simply nonsense. The National Aquatic Centre has been fully operational since 20 May when extensive repair work to the roof was completed, following the storm damage that occurred on 1 January 2005.
What lease obligations were not fulfilled by Dublin Waterworld? How did the €10 million VAT liability arise? Why does Dublin Waterworld have to pay this liability? Is the Minister satisfied this VAT was owed?
One of the reasons Dublin Waterworld refused to pay rent was because it claimed the building was defective. It has forwarded a number of defects in the building to Campus Stadium Ireland Development Limited. The company had sought in the past to have these defects corrected and it refused to pay rent until the issue was resolved. The rent money was held in a fund and now some of this money is being paid. Can the Minister clarify that the building was defective in some aspects? Who supervised the design and construction of the centre on behalf of the Government? Who signed off on the design and construction of the roof on behalf of the Government? The judge in the case made reference to Dublin Waterworld not being a substantial company. Why did CSID sign a contract with such a company at that time? Did Dublin Waterworld fulfil all the criteria? Were the proper procedures followed through? It seems Dublin Waterworld won the competition set out by the Department.
I am limited in what I can say because there are matters before the commercial court. I am advised that it would be inappropriate to make any comment which might prejudice the outcome of a matter which is sub judice. CSID has instituted proceedings against Dublin Waterworld Limited, which is due to the failure of Dublin Waterworld to fulfil fundamental obligations of its lease. These have included the failure to pay rent and insurance, failure to provide audited accounts, failure to provide to establish a sinking fund, failure to agree a capital maintenance programme, as well as failure to discharge a VAT bill on the lease of over €10 million. Following repeated requests for payment, CSID began legal action against Dublin Waterworld to seek redress.
There is a sum of €10, 254,600 due on the grant of the lease. The issue has been referred by the court to Mr. Dermot O'Brien, deputy president of the Institute for Taxation, for arbitration under clause 10 of the lease. My view on the repair work is that the taxpayer should not be asked to foot the bill for any repairs carried out to the National Aquatic Centre. These are issues of liability between various parties. The Government rejects any liability for damage to the aquatic centre. All of these issues must be resolved in proceedings which are taking place in different fora.
The usual contracting parties normally find that differences arise in the interpretation of contracts and these issues are resolved by the courts or by arbitration. I await the outcome of the proceedings and I have little else to add.
Is Dublin Waterworld still officially the tenant? Is the National Aquatic Centre operating to its full capacity? Are the elite swimmers being accommodated by Dublin Waterworld in the centre?
Until the proceedings are determined, the provisions of the lease will continue to apply. As I already said, the National Aquatic Centre re-opened for business on 20 May 2005.
2 Mr. O’Shea asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism if he has met with representatives of the Abbey Theatre to discuss the theatre’s €900,000 losses for 2004; the consequences of this loss of money for the future of the national theatre; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20407/05]
I have no statutory responsibility for the Abbey, which is operated by the National Theatre Society Limited, a private company limited by guarantee. My Department maintains liaison with the Abbey at various levels, and I have been briefed on recent developments regarding the theatre's finances and financial accounts. State subvention to the Abbey is provided by the Arts Council, which is a statutory agency under the aegis of my Department, independent in the disbursement of its funds under the provisions of the Arts Act 2003.
The Abbey is a key part of Ireland's cultural fabric, and it is imperative that it be placed on a sustainable basis for the future. This was the background to the decision of the Arts Council late last year to allocate an additional €2 million to the theatre. The release of this funding was conditional on the implementation by the Abbey of a wide-ranging change management programme as agreed with the council. Good progress is being made on many fronts with the delivery of this programme. I was very disappointed to hear last month of the shortcomings in the Abbey's financial management system to which the Deputy referred in his question and on which my Department was given a courtesy briefing by the chairman of the board of the theatre and the Arts Council. I welcome the decision of the board of the theatre to engage independent financial expertise to carry out a root and branch evaluation of the Abbey's finances. I understand a report should be available by the end of the month. The report will be discussed with the Arts Council and appropriate corrective action will then be taken.
Does the Minister agree that, in its centenary year, the national theatre, which was the theatre of Yeats, Synge, O'Casey and Lady Gregory, got into a very sad state? Has a decision been reached on the restructuring of the Abbey's governance structures, which the Minister described as Victorian in character? Does the Minister propose to make changes to the Arts Council's role in funding the Abbey Theatre? He was quoted as considering direct funding of the theatre rather than its funding through the council. Does the Minister intend his Department will play a more hands-on role on the monitoring of the theatre's finances?
I take it the report to which the Minister referred is that which was presented as the report of an independent consultant charged to consider why there was such an overrun from touring plays which travelled internally and to the USA and Australia last year.
I confirm that I described the governance arrangements at the Abbey as Victorian. The theatre is owned and operated by the National Theatre Society Limited, a private company limited by share capital whose shareholders are the nine members of the board of directors and no fewer than 23 others who are now collectively termed the advisory council. The term "shareholder" when used publicly refers generally to advisory council members, which is to say those shareholders who are not members of the board. The shares issued are purely nominal and have no economic value.
It is necessary to change the governance which obtains at the Abbey, in which context I await recommendations from the Arts Council. I am very conscious of the need to retain the independence of the Abbey in the context of its artistic contribution and have no wish to interfere with a heavy hand. While I considered direct funding of the theatre in the aftermath of the discovery of an increased deficit, on further consideration and in the final analysis it is probably best for the Arts Council to continue to fund the Abbey. The council has greater discretion in the funding it can provide from time to time. With the independence of the theatre in terms of its artistic contribution to the forefront of my mind, I consider that the arms-length principle should be retained.
Future governance arrangements will be brought before the Government after discussions have been completed between the Arts Council and me and it is anticipated there will be change. I hope it is change everyone accepts for the better. Having given a great deal of consideration to future practice in the keeping of accounts, rather than become directly involved in the funding of the Abbey, it would be better to appoint an officer of the Department to the finance committee of the national theatre to ensure there is no recurrence of previous events.
I am very disappointed at what happened, which did not represent the most professional accounting performance I have witnessed. I have no doubt, having had dealings with them, that the two gentlemen who have departed operated in good faith at all times. Unfortunately, there were errors in the theatre's accounts which came to light.
While I understand the Minister's points, it is difficult to understand how a shortfall of almost €1 million created by the tours of seven cities and towns in Ireland last June and July, Australia in September and America in October did not come to light until May 2005. The systems in place must be appalling to say the least to allow that to happen. While I have no doubt the Minister is right that the people at the Abbey acted with the greatest honesty and integrity, it is incredible how such a substantial shortfall could go undetected, especially when the finance and audit committee met more than monthly during 2004.
I agree fully with Deputy O'Shea's observations. I cannot defend the errors, nor do I seek to do so. My aim is to ensure there is no recurrence of such errors and I feel sure that in placing an official of my Department on the finance committee I am making a positive contribution. In addition, we have asked consultants to examine the procedures which were extant at the Abbey with a view to amending accounting practices. I assure the Deputy that things will be done more professionally in the future.
3 Dr. Cowley asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism the position regarding an application (details supplied); if his attention has been drawn to the need for completion of this project and to the amount of work carried out to date by the community in association with his Department; when funding will be granted to this group to enable it to plan completion of the project; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20424/05]
The national lottery-funded sports capital programme administered by my Department allocates funding to sporting, voluntary and community organisations at local, regional and national level throughout the country. The programme is advertised on an annual basis. Applications for funding under the 2005 programme were invited through advertisements in the press on 5 and 6 December last and the closing date for their receipt was 4 February 2005.
A total of 1,362 applications were received before the deadline, including one from the organisation in question, all of which are being evaluated against the programme's assessment criteria. The criteria are outlined in the guidelines, terms and conditions of the programme. I intend to announce grant allocations under the programme as soon as possible after the assessment process has been completed.
While I thank the Minister for his reply, I had hoped for a more specific answer. I accept he is still reviewing the applications. Ballycroy is a Mayo village which has suffered very heavily from depopulation to the extent that it has lost half of its people over the years. The community is fighting hard to come back and has done trojan work to reclaim from a bog a sports pitch that has been rolled and seeded. The community is a great tribute to the country. The work needs to be completed and while the community has done its best to raise funds, further help is required.
Essential off-pitch facilities require plumbing for toilets and electrical and carpentry work. I will give the Minister an idea of how essential is the work. I attended the recent sad occasion of the death of the referee Mr. John Mulligan, to whose commitment to the GAA and hard work over the years I pay tribute. While Mr. Mulligan's passing was inevitable in the circumstances, it would have been better if the off-pitch facilities had been available to provide some privacy.
I hope the Minister will look favourably on the application in question. There is one toilet at the field whereas seven are needed. All sports are played in the field and I hope the Minister will support people who have done their best.
I remind Deputy Cowley that Ballycroy field management was allocated a grant of €30,000 under the 2002 sports capital programme to help fund the construction of a multi-purpose sports area, clubhouse and installation of floodlighting.
The grant was fully paid early in 2004. It applied unsuccessfully under the 2004 programme and I understand it has made a new application under the 2005 programme which is or will be measured against the criteria in the Department and assessed. I understand the estimate of the cost of the new works is €99,600 and that the amount sought is €71,680.
I thank the Minister for that. I invite him to see the wonderful work that has been done for the little funding that was received.
Another application in my area concerns Bangor Erris where wonderful work has been done by the Bangor Hibs football club. I hope the Minister will look at its application.
Deputy Ring suggested this morning that I am seen more often in his constituency than in the House. I will be in Ballinrobe next Tuesday night and if I have no winner after the first three races we will drop out and have a look at the place. In any event we will give it consideration.
4 Mr. Deenihan asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism if a decision has been made regarding the suitability of the site offered by the Dublin Docklands Development Authority for the relocation of the Abbey Theatre; if it is the only site being considered; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20409/05]
As I have previously informed the House on a number of occasions, I was authorised by Government 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 and-or around the vicinity of the site of the existing theatre. With successive proposals for redevelopment of the Abbey Theatre at its existing location, at the site of the former Carlton Cinema in O'Connell Street or on the former Coláiste Mhuire site in Parnell Square having to be ruled out for a variety of reasons, options for progressing the project were clearly narrowing.
Against this background, I authorised negotiations with the Dublin Docklands Development Authority in connection with its offer of a site for the theatre at George's Dock. The Office of Public Works engaged in detailed discussions with the DDDA over recent months to clarify issues around the availability of this site. These consultations have progressed to the point where I am in a position to say that a potentially suitable site at George's Dock capable of satisfying the accommodation brief for the Abbey Theatre is now on offer subject to clarification of some points of detail with the DDDA.
My Department has been in contact with the chair of the board of the Abbey Theatre to seek confirmation of the detail of the accommodation brief preparatory to a submission to Government requesting formal approval to proceed with the redevelopment project at George's Dock.
I welcome this significant and potentially historic announcement by the Minister. I hope it will not be a re-occurrence of the unfortunate announcement on Coláiste Mhuire. I recognise that this announcement is important. Like the Minister, I would have preferred if the Abbey Theatre could have been reconstructed on its current site or relocated to the Carlton site on O'Connell Street but that was not to be.
Nevertheless, I consider George's Dock a fitting location for the new Abbey Theatre. It will be a landmark building that will make a statement about our nation and how we have progressed to this stage. It is right in the centre of the most vibrant and exciting part of the city and the country. It will make its own statement as regards the success of the Financial Services Centre over the years. It is an ideal location approximately 300 m from O'Connell Street and around the corner from the current location of the Abbey Theatre. I compliment the DDDA and thank it for offering this building to the nation. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that the site has been offered more or less free of charge. It is a welcome announcement that will be positively greeted by the arts community. We can ensure we will have a theatre that will compare with any theatre in the world, that we will have new governance over it, and that the Abbey Theatre can have proper funding in future.
I welcome Deputy Deenihan's comments. I hope we will be in a position to go to Government shortly to seek a final decision in this regard. I am grateful to the Office of Public Works and the Dublin Docklands Development Authority for their work. If the site is finally approved I would consider it an appropriate one for what is a great national cultural institution.
I have said on many occasions in the past that while this generation of Irish people is among the most creative and imaginative we have ever had, there is no public architecture which gives expression to that same imagination and creativity. This may well provide us with an opportunity to do that.
5 Ms C. Murphy asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism if he will consider making a formal request to his British counterpart for the return of the documents that were removed from Dublin Castle in 1922. [20423/05]
In 1922, the departing British authorities removed considerable quantities of records from the Chief Secretary's Office in Dublin Castle to the Irish Office in London. While some of these records dated back to the mid-19th century, it is believed that most were concerned with the early 20th century. Unfortunately, it is understood that a large portion of the transferred records were destroyed as a health risk in the mid-1930s following the flooding of the basement in which they were held. Other records, including the Fenian papers, were returned to the State Paper Office in Dublin and are now held in the National Archives. Records remaining in England are now held among the records of the Colonial Office in the British National Archives at Kew, near London. Many of the most important of these records were published on microfilm in the 1990s. Copies of the microfilm publication are available in our National Archives in Dublin.
Prior to the development of modern information technology a strong case existed to seek the physical return of some of the records held at Kew. However, as it is increasingly the case that archival institutions worldwide are publishing their most important holdings in digital format, the physical location of the original material is not of as much relevance to historians and other researchers.
The National Archives is currently engaged in a number of major digital publication projects and, once these are well advanced, has undertaken to investigate the possibility of a co-operative digital publication programme of the early 20th century records it holds from the former Chief Secretary's Office and those records held in the British National Archives. I will endeavour to facilitate such a co-operative programme.
The Minister has responsibility for the National Archives. There is also tourism potential for some of the material held as there would be long lists of records relating to the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police.
I accept the point that new methods of technology allow for material to be looked at in remote locations. I have come across fascinating information on going through most of the boxes in Kew. My interest was in family history. However, a significant amount of the material I encountered, some of which was confiscated, would not transfer well to microfilm or CD-ROM. Some of the material is quite amusing. Song books feature among seditious material. Some of the information and records would be considered low level.
For a long time we were not in a position to request this material as there was not a normal relationship between the two countries. Now that the relationship has normalised, some of those records could usefully be returned. Does the Minister have any knowledge of the timeframe that Kew is working to in regard to microfilming or transferring these documents to an accessible format? The Public Record Office has an extensive and ongoing programme for First World War records.
The British National Archives at Kew is working to its own timeframe. Does the Minister know the timeframe to which it is working in respect of the Irish records? If they are to be available in the format that has been specified, the timeframe will be important. An important anniversary will fall next year and in this regard the records would be quite useful to students of history. I am sure the history curriculum will reflect this and the primary source of information should be available to students who may well want to look at the relevant documents.
I will inquire into the intentions of the British National Archives regarding this matter and find out what it has done. It is fair to say that prior to the development of modern technology, there was a very strong case for the return to Ireland of at least some of the records of the chief secretary's office now held in the British National Archives at Kew, although this was always likely to have been resisted by the British authorities, mainly because they would have felt it would set a precedent setting in train requests for the return of records from many other British colonies that obtained independence in the mid-20th century. If I may put it as kindly as possible, there may have been what I would describe as a run on the cultural bank.
It is increasingly the case that archival institutions across the world are publishing their most important holdings in digital format, either on CD-ROM or on the Internet. Once this is done, the location of original archives will be of very little importance to historians and other researchers. However, I appreciate Deputy Catherine Murphy's point that it is important that records be made available in the format she specified so people can have access to them. I will inquire whether this has been done in respect of the documents in question and, if not, when it will be done and how long it will take.
