Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 13 Oct 2005

Vol. 607 No. 4

Priority Questions.

National Conference Centre.

Jimmy Deenihan

Question:

1 Mr. Deenihan asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism the position regarding the process of evaluating bids to deliver the new national conference centre; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28421/05]

Tenders for the provision of a national conference centre in the Dublin area were received from two consortia by the Office of Public Works on 20 May last, the deadline for the receipt of tenders. The rigorous assessment and evaluation of these tenders has now been completed and the report of the evaluation panel submitted to the national conference centre steering group. I expect a provisional preferred tenderer to be designated shortly. Subject to the outcome of the negotiations that will follow designation of the provisional preferred tenderer, it is envisaged that a decision on the award of the contract will be brought to Government at the earliest opportunity in 2006.

In the meantime, the Deputy will appreciate that I am constrained in what I can say at this stage in the process, and while I share the frustration of the House at the complex and exacting procedures involved, I am obliged not to jeopardise the competition and its successful conclusion by any departure from the strict rules and procedures involved.

It is clear the Dublin Port Company and the Anna Livia consortium have entered an arrangement regarding a site near the Point Depot. Is the Minister satisfied the Dublin Port Company followed all the proper procedures of public procurement in making this site available for the Anna Livia consortium in its bid for the national conference centre?

Issues regarding the sites proposed by the tenderers for the national conference centre are matters for their respective owners and parent Departments. Beyond that I cannot comment.

One of the central requirements of the laws governing public procurement is that if a site is available it should be put up for tender. In this case it seems the Dublin Port Company did not first put its site up for tender in order to protect the interest of the taxpayer. Surely what has happened here does not abide by the laws governing public procurement. We do not want another legal action, which could arise if all the procedures are not fully complied with in the case of the national conference centre.

I fully agree with the Deputy that we do not want a legal quagmire surrounding the national conference centre, which is why I repeat that any issues regarding the sites proposed by the tenderers for the national conference centre are matters for their respective owners and Departments. The procedures involved in a public private partnership are complex.

As part of the procedural requirements a public sector benchmark exercise and a benefit assessment were required before the detailed proposals could be initiated. In addition the preparation of the detailed project contract documentation was demanding and time consuming with details requiring careful scrutiny and consideration. The issue of the tender documentation to tenderers was followed by a lengthy process of consultation with the tenders intended, inter alia, to enable the OPW to provide clarification and where appropriate to take account of issues raised by tenderers thereby helping to ensure the quality and robustness of the tenders to be submitted. More recently the tenders received were required to undergo a rigorous and thorough assessment and evaluation. However, the report of the evaluation panel has been submitted to the steering group and we expect a provisional preferred tenderer to be designated shortly.

Is the Dublin Port Company and the Anna Livia consortium bound by the rules of public procurement in this instance?

Everybody is bound by the rules which apply to this tender. The strict rules and procedures of the competition are such that I am not in a position to elaborate on the nature or substance of the steering group's works. However, it is intended to have a provisional preferred tenderer designated very soon.

Appointments to State Boards.

Jack Wall

Question:

2 Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism the basis on which he reappointed a person (details supplied) to Bord na gCon; if he gave an undertaking to six representatives of the greyhound industry at a meeting in December 2004 that this person would not be reappointed; the reason the person was subsequently appointed; if, when reappointing the person in question his attention has been drawn to the very critical comments made regarding the person in a judgment delivered in the High Court in 2003; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28425/05]

Under the terms of the Greyhound Industry Act 1958, as amended by the Greyhound Industry (Amendment) Act 1993, I appoint the members of the board of Bord na gCon which consists of seven members, a chairman and six ordinary members. Ordinary members are appointed to serve for a three-year term on the expiry of which they are eligible for reappointment for a further term.

All appointments made by me to State boards are on the basis of the experience, knowledge and expertise that an individual can bring to the board and are in accordance with the provisions of the relevant legislation. While I do not consider it appropriate to disclose the contents of private discussions which I may have from time to time prior to making appointments to the various boards for which I have responsibility, I can confirm that in the case referred to by the Deputy I sought and obtained advice from the Office of the Attorney General that there was no legal impediment to his re-appointment.

I have observed the upbeat approach of the Minister to the greyhound industry and have supported him at every turn. I am amazed this appointment was made given that a number of interested bodies in the industry had made representations to the Minister. What section of the industry does this person represent? The Minister received a letter from the stud owners' representative and secretary to the industry committee, the professional trainers' representative, the chairman of the Irish Greyhound Owners and Breeders Federation, the chairman of the Dublin Greyhound Owners and Breeders Association, the bookmakers' representative and the private greyhound stadia representative. Given the Minister received such a letter expressing concern at the appointment, what aspect of the industry could the Minister then claim the person represents?

I was deeply concerned at the letter sent to the Minister on 10 March. I have fully supported the Minister's efforts to assist the industry and no one would deny that he has had an upbeat approach. Given the number of associations concerned about the appointment and the effect it will have on the board, was the Minister not also concerned? Did the Minister give an undertaking to these associations, as they claim, that he would not reappoint this person to the board?

All appointments to State boards I make are based on the experience, knowledge and expertise of the individual being appointed. In this instance that knowledge, experience and expertise is acknowledged by people across the spectrum. The person brings that experience, knowledge and expertise to the board. I would not make an appointment if I felt he were in any way restricted from serving on the board. I was advised he was not so restricted. At the time of the reappointment of the person there was no restriction on him from being a member of the board. I have no intention of getting into the detail of private conversations which I may have had with individuals in the consultative process. The person was appointed in the basis I have outlined and had been appointed to the same position by the previous Minister responsible for appointing this board.

The Minister has not answered my question. If so many organisations were opposed to his appointment and wrote to the Minister on 10 March, what added value could the person bring to the board? I am involved with greyhounds but I do not know another aspect of the industry that is not represented by the five people who wrote to the Minister expressing concern. If all aspects of the industry were against the appointment, what aspect of the industry could that person represent?

Irrespective of whom one appoints, that person will have supporters and detractors. It is no different in this case. The individual in question has been a member of a board that has been eminently successful. Bord na gCon has invested a considerable amount of money in building up its facilities and the integrity of the sport as well as increasing prize money over the past few years. We are seeing record attendances, prize money and sponsorship along with a record number of dogs in training. Given all the circumstances, I would have expected Deputy Wall to congratulate Bord na gCon on its great success. Young people are flocking to greyhound race meetings right across the country. The greyhound racing fund set up under the 2001 legislation is proving a great success. We have vibrant plans for the industry at several locations in the future.

The individual is a member of a board that has been greatly successful. There was no restriction on that person's appointment. It falls to me as Minister to make a decision in these matters. I did so in good faith and nobody has brought forward anything to suggest there was any legal impediment to the individual's participation on the board.

The Minister is unfair in saying I do not support Bord na gCon. In my opening statement I said the Minister was upbeat on all occasions, and I supported him in that regard.

Tax Code.

Paul Nicholas Gogarty

Question:

3 Mr. Gogarty asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism the position regarding the artists’ exemption scheme; if a cost and benefit analysis has been applied to the scheme; his views regarding the ongoing retention of the scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28423/05]

I have consistently argued that the tax exemption for artists has very positive effects on the arts in Ireland. The scheme was innovative and imaginative from the outset, and the benefits are many. This scheme increases the level of artistic activity, encourages artists to stay with the arts rather than moving to more lucrative occupations, makes Ireland a more attractive place for artists to live and enhances our image throughout the arts world internationally.

For most artists, the questions of milking the system or making vast dividends from the scheme simply do not arise. Earnings in the arts, unfortunately, are low, and the issue facing most artists is that of economic survival. It is clear that most of those benefiting under the scheme are very low earners. Revenue's own figures for 2001 show that more than 50% of beneficiaries had earnings of less than €10,000 per annum and 90% had less than €50,000 per annum. The very low-income figures available from Revenue for this scheme must be viewed in the context of very uneven earnings profiles. An artist who earns €50,000 in a given year may earn little or nothing in years either side of it. Annual earnings can be very much lower when averaged out.

It has validly been pointed out that 2% of beneficiaries account for 58% of the exempted income, indicating that there is a small number of people who make very large amounts of money on which they do not pay tax. However, while equity suggests that capping the scheme would correct this, much of these earnings are foreign income which simply will not come here at all if the exemption goes. The really high earners are predominantly musicians, and research carried out in 2002 indicated that 97% of the income of the top twenty music recording artists is from foreign sources.

Essentially, the anticipated benefits of adjusting the scheme are likely to be outweighed by the negatives. I have made these views known to my colleague, Deputy Cowen, the Minister for Finance, and officials of our two Departments have had detailed consultations on the issues, which are continuing. It will ultimately be a matter for the Government to decide on the continuation of this and other tax concessions in the context of its consideration of the outcome of the general review of tax concessions initiated by the Minister for Finance.

Has the Minister for Finance confirmed that the artists' exemption scheme was not among the 30 such schemes being reviewed? Has the Minister for Arts, Sports and Tourism made his views known to the Minister for Finance in terms of the secondary benefits to the country? For example, personalities such as Bono, Neil Jordan, Jim Sheridan and even Cecelia Ahern may earn large amounts of money in a particular calendar year but perhaps not earn money in the previous year or the year after. They still earn large amounts of money, and the media tend to portray this as money for artists rolling in on the back of State subvention.

Does the Minister agree it would be beneficial to carry out a cost benefit analysis based for example on the spin-off employment created by the members of U2 remaining in Ireland, with Japanese tourists for example coming to meet their heroes, to meet the writers who inspire them? Such an analysis, possibly commissioned by the Arts Council, would back up the Minister's valid argument that the exemption scheme has benefitted the artistic community in this country. If it could be proven that the scheme provides great economic benefit as well as the social capital, the analysis would put an end to any talk of toying with a cap on the scheme.

I wholeheartedly agree with Deputy Gogarty in his assessment of the situation. My understanding is that the Minister for Finance initiated a review of tax reliefs which would include the artists' exemption scheme.

It should be recalled that the exemption is for works that are creative and artistic and that they must have cultural and-or artistic merit. These hurdles must be cleared before the work concerned qualifies for the exemption in the first instance.

The vast majority of people in the arts community earn very low salaries and in many cases their income is quite sporadic. As I said earlier, on either side of a good year they can have very bad years. The argument is made that the exemption should be capped at a certain level because 2 per cent of those involved seem to get 58 per cent of the benefit. However, this must be understood in the context that much of the income derived by those at the top of the scale comes from foreign sources. The argument can be very cogently put that these are funds which would not arrive in Ireland if the exemption was not there. One can also argue, as Deputy Gogarty has done, that the people concerned assist in giving the country a very high profile and it is difficult to quantify the benefit for the overall economy in that context.

The exemption sends out a very positive image of the arts in Ireland, of artists working in Ireland. Its introduction was imaginative and innovative. It portrays the country internationally as one which nurtures the arts. Since its introduction it has provided a positive image for Ireland. Tinkering with the scheme will achieve very little in the final analysis. I do not believe in implementing ideas solely on the basis of a principle. There must be a pragmatic, tangible return if one is to become a legislator for principle, and in this instance I do not see the return.

I thank the Minister for his reply. Certain exemption schemes involve holiday homes, or stallion services, and nobody can say that the work of a stallion is of any intrinsic artistic merit. Could the Minister give a commitment before the House that he will ask the Arts Council to commission a cost benefit analysis so that the intrinsic social and economic benefit to this country of this scheme, even for high earners, can be finally proven, and that when the silly season comes around again we will not see the same stories scaring the life out of the poorer section of the artistic community?

I have received voluminous correspondence about the scheme from people involved in the arts, and Deputy Gogarty is correct in saying they are very worried about the future of the scheme and in general terms support the retention of the scheme in its entirety, irrespective of their income. Regarding the artistic merit of a stallion, it all depends whether one bets on a winner or a loser.

Abbey Theatre.

Jimmy Deenihan

Question:

4 Mr. Deenihan asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism the progress regarding the development of a new theatre building for the Abbey Theatre; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28422/05]

After proposals for redevelopment of the Abbey at its existing location or at the site of the former Carlton Cinema in O'Connell Street or on the former Coláiste Mhuire site in Parnell Square were ruled out for a variety of reasons, 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 the availability and suitability 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, is now on offer.

In July 2005, the Government authorised investigative surveys to be carried out at the site to inform further decisions on the development of the theatre there. The Office of Public Works has arranged detailed examination of the site, including archaeological, geotechnical and structural surveys. These studies are scheduled for completion shortly and at that point I will take the project to the next phase.

Will the Minister confirm if the site is available to the State free of charge? When does the Minister expect to present a memorandum on the project to the Government? According to a recent media report, the Minister intends to do so shortly. Will the process involve an international architectural competition? I anticipate problems arising with a public private partnership approach to the national conference centre. The Minister accepts that too. It is a complex procedure. Does the Minister envisage a public private partnership being utilised to build the Abbey Theatre?

It is my intention to bring a proposal to the Government shortly. I can confirm that the only site under consideration at present is the George's Dock site. I expect the full report from the OPW shortly, probably in a matter of weeks. At that point the proposal will be brought to Government. I expect that the construction of a new national theatre would result in an international competition.

Whether it will be a public private partnership is a matter to be decided by the Government. There are arguments for and against. Some argue that if it were a public private partnership and if other commercial considerations were involved, it might be a success. Others argue that if it is to be a stand-alone project, it could not possibly succeed as a public private partnership. In any event, the Government must come to a decision about the site and I expect it to consider that within a short period. I will not waste a moment when I have the report from the Office of Public Works. I understand that the site is available free of charge.

I congratulate the Minister on appointing Judge Bryan McMahon to chair the Abbey Theatre. It is a great honour for Listowel and Kerry. Will the Minister confirm if a price has been put on the existing Abbey Theatre building? The Minister cannot say definitively what the new building will cost but there have been suggestions that it will be €150 million. Can the Minister confirm if it is envisaged that the new building will cost that amount? It appears exorbitant.

No valuation has been sought for the existing national theatre. It is not, at present, envisaged that it would be put up for sale. I do not know what will happen in the context of the construction of a new theatre. The preliminary estimated cost of a new Abbey Theatre is between €170 million and €180 million.

Will the Minister indicate when work might start and its duration? When can Dublin and Ireland expect to have a new theatre that will meet with international standards and, as the Minister has said, would be a flagship for artistic merit in this country?

If the Government were to agree to the George's Dock proposal, it having been cleared by the Office of Public Works as a suitable site, the next step would be to hold a competition, after which the planning permission issue would arise. I envisage that if all were to go according to plan and if approval were forthcoming, construction would commence during 2008.

Tourism Industry.

Jack Wall

Question:

5 Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism if his attention has been drawn to the growing concerns that visitors here for next year’s Ryder Cup golf tournament will be exploited by hoteliers and retailers significantly increasing prices to take advantage of the influx; the efforts he will make over the next 12 months to combat this; if his attention has further been drawn to the negative impression of Ireland this will convey to many visitors; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28426/05]

The Ryder Cup 2006 will be one of the greatest sporting events ever to come to Ireland. It will be a landmark not just for Irish golf but for Irish tourism generally, with 40,000 people attending the K Club each day along with 2,000 members of the media and 1 billion people worldwide watching the event on television.

It is already nearly impossible to book accommodation for Ryder Cup week within 80 miles of the K Club. This provides the clearest possible indication of the appeal of the event and I trust that all these enterprises and other tourism service providers will do Ireland proud on this great occasion and give Ryder Cup visitors a traditional Irish welcome and a quality experience to remember. The value of word of mouth publicity cannot be underestimated and we want our visitors to return home with glowing reports about their stay here and confirmation that the hospitality and friendliness for which we are renowned really does exist. More importantly, we want them to be able to say that the golf was excellent, that they received value for money and that they want to come back again.

I am aware of concerns being expressed by some about the risk of excessive prices being charged by certain elements of the Irish tourism and hospitality industry during next year's event. The State tourism agencies are being particularly vigilant in this area and in all their dealings with the industry are taking the opportunity to encourage a commonsense approach to the pricing of our tourism product. Notwithstanding the operation of free market forces, I particularly urge service providers to take a long-term perspective on the benefits of the event. These will only come about from positive word of mouth when our visitors return home. Golf tourism is important to us, which makes it all the more necessary that there should be no short-term or opportunistic exploitation of our visitors. It is my intention to raise these issues, as appropriate, in my regular contact with the industry in the build up to the Ryder Cup.

I believe that Ireland will deliver value for money during the staging of the Ryder Cup. The vast majority of visitors will have purchased packages that have been priced now for quite some time. Furthermore, all approved accommodation providers will have published maximum prices that they cannot legally exceed. I intend to ask the Director of Consumer Affairs to undertake a special initiative around the time of the Ryder Cup to ensure that price lists in restaurants and public houses are displayed prominently.

All sectors of the tourism industry are acutely aware of the value for money issue and the available research from Fáilte Ireland through its visitor attitude surveys suggests that, in an overall context, the consumer is satisfied with the cost of accommodation and the cost of the golfing product in Ireland. As the level of overseas competition continues to grow, I am assured that there is no complacency around the issue of value for money and that the tourism industry fully recognises that if we do not look after the consumer, we will lose market share.

I welcome the thrust of the Minister's reply and the action he has outlined to ensure that the tourism industry does not suffer following this world famous event. We have seen the figures quoted in magazines and newspapers about the cost of houses and accommodation close to the course. That can be damaging. Keeping a watching brief on this is of utmost importance. I hope that through the various agencies, especially overseas and in the American market, the Minister's remarks today about conducting price analyses of what is provided will be emphasised. Every effort should be made to produce progress reports from the Minister, Tourism Ireland and Fáilte Ireland that will appear in golf magazines and tourism brochures outlining the situation and assuring people that there will not be a rip-off.

Not only will the K Club and adjacent golf courses benefit from this, it is an ideal opportunity to create a golf haven. We generally hear that Portugal and Spain are the golf havens of Europe but this tournament provides an opportunity to ensure that Ireland is included in that group. I hope the Minister, his Department and the agencies will do everything possible to promote that concept, especially on the American and European markets from where most of the followers of this event will come. What efforts will be made by the Department and the agencies to develop accommodation and other facilities for this world famous event?

Every effort has been made to remind the industry of the need to offer value for money and the industry is responding. It remains a cause of concern that while the majority of visitors still say they really enjoyed their visit and would recommend Ireland to a friend, nonetheless, issues such as the cost of drink and eating out are still regarded as not giving value for money. The Department has made this point to the industry and it is responding.

Golf tourism is important to the country. In the last year for which figures are available, 2003, 133,000 visitors came to play golf and they generated a revenue of €126 million. A golf visitor is worth up to three times more than an ordinary visitor because they stay longer, an average stay being 13 nights and they go to several locations. Last year Ireland was voted the number one golf destination in the world. The country contains one third of the links championship courses in the world. I do not play golf but some would argue that the whole country is a golf course because more than 400 golf courses are affiliated, which is a record for the size of the population.

The time for Priority Questions has expired. I remind the House that supplementary questions and answers are limited to one minute.

Top
Share