Vol. 713 No. 3
1 Deputy Olivia Mitchell asked the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport if she requested NSCDA to furnish her with information regarding the recent Supreme Court judgment involving the National Aquatic Centre in accordance with section 22 of the National Sports Campus Development Authority Act 2006; and if she will make a statement on the matter [27530/10]
The National Sports Campus Development Authority, NSCDA, took over the role and function of Campus and Stadium Ireland Development Limited, CSID, on 1 January 2007 and a fully owned subsidiary of the authority, NSCDA (Operations) Limited, now operates the National Aquatic Centre.
This matter relates to the previous operation of the National Aquatic Centre by Dublin Waterworld, DWW. A lease was signed between CSID and DWW on 30 April 2003. However, the tenant failed to comply with its obligations under the lease and this necessitated CSID to initiate legal proceedings against DWW in March 2005. These proceedings were initiated following advice received from the Office of the Attorney General which was in accord with the advice provided to CSID by its legal advisers. Accordingly, in February 2005, the Department wrote to CSID stating that it considered that it was not acceptable to allow the tenant to renege on the terms of the lease any longer and, therefore, it was necessary to enforce the rights of CSID under the terms of the lease. CSID issued an immediate notice to quit on DWW as well as a notice of forfeiture. A trial commenced in the High Court in July 2005 and concluded in November 2005. In November 2006, the High Court confirmed an earlier order of possession of the centre in favour of CSID, and the facility was handed back to CSID on 1 December 2006.
Among the outstanding obligations under the lease was the payment of VAT of €10,254,600. When the lease on the National Aquatic Centre was signed this VAT amount became due. CSID was liable for this amount and DWW was invoiced but failed to pay the amount. The failure to comply with the obligation to pay the VAT amount was included in the statement of claim against DWW. The High Court ordered that the VAT issue should be referred to arbitration. On 1 July 2005, the arbitrator found "that the amount of VAT of €10,254,600 charged by CSID on the capitalised value of the lease to DWW was correctly charged". At the commencement of the High Court proceedings on 26 July 2005, DWW challenged the arbitration award. The judgment given on 26 September 2005 upheld the arbitrator's finding.
The High Court judgment was appealed to the Supreme Court by DWW and the case was heard on 26 January 2010. Judgment in the case was delivered on 30 April 2010. The Supreme Court held that the arbitrator's award had to be set aside as a number of fundamental errors of law had been made by the arbitrator. In the court's view the arbitrator made an error in allowing CSID to use the formulae then available for calculating the capitalised value of the lease on the National Aquatic Centre. The court also held that the valuation provided by the Valuation Office was in the nature of evidence and should have been taken into account by the arbitrator. I understand that the NSCDA is considering the outcome of the Supreme Court judgment and I await further communication from the authority in this regard.
The subject of my ten to 15 questions to the Department was not the dispute between CSID and Dublin Waterworld, it was about the pursuit of the VAT issue on which the legal advice from both the Attorney General and the Comptroller and Auditor General is clear. They agreed that Dublin Waterworld was not liable for the payment of VAT and, therefore, the Department or CSID should not pursue the matter, yet the matter was pursued and as we know, ultimately, the case was lost in the Supreme Court.
My question is how much it cost. Have any calculations been done in that regard? The Minister has had fair warning in terms of the number of questions I submitted on the cost of legal fees. I do not know whether the defendant's costs were awarded against the Department or if a settlement was made. The case has dragged on for six or seven years. It is not cheap to bring a case as far as the Supreme Court. I presume the costs are significant. I would like to know how much they are.
I would also like to know how the decision was made to ignore the advice of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Attorney General. The Minister indicated that the NSCDA is considering its position but it was reported in the newspaper that the parties were going back to arbitration, that the authority is not giving up even yet and will continue to pursue the matter despite the fact that the advice has not changed and the facts remain the same.
The Minister is as well aware as I am of how short money is at the moment. We spoke this morning about the nonsense of public bodies wasting public money in vendettas. I do not know whether this is a vendetta or if it was a rush of blood to the head, a political row or just bad judgment but this happened for some reason and I would like to know why and how much it has cost the taxpayer to date.
A final figure is not yet available but I understand that to the end of last year the only money that has been paid out is €141,741 in connection with the proceedings to recover the outstanding VAT charge. I hasten to add that the expenditure is by the National Sports Campus Development Authority, not the Department. The amount does not include the costs incurred in the Supreme Court hearing, which have yet to be advised. I am sure one can add another significant sum to the figure indicated.
What was the €141,741 spent on?
It was for legal costs in connection with the proceedings to recover the outstanding VAT charge. That is what has been paid up to the end of last year but it does not include the cost of the appeal to the Supreme Court.
Does it include the High Court costs?
Yes. That is the advice I received in that regard but additional money will be required taking account of the High Court appeal. I have taken a briefing on the advice that was given and looked through the order of letter and advices that were given. The last correspondence from the Department to Campus and Stadium Ireland Development Limited indicates that it was seeking the advice of the Attorney General. In a letter from March 2005 the Department confirmed that a claim for the unpaid VAT and the lease should be included in any proceedings that had to be issued following service of the forfeiture notice and that this was advised by the Office of the Attorney General. Earlier correspondence stated that the Comptroller and Auditor General said it was not worth pursuing and that the Attorney General was inclined towards that advice but that in the context of a statement of claim being made in regard to a number of different issues where the lease was being breached, it was advised that then the VAT was also being included in that statement of claim. It was stated that this was advised by the Office of the Attorney General. It is not correct to say that the NSCDA went against the advice that was given at the time.
On the third question on what will happen now, I am not aware that the NSCDA has indicated it is going to arbitration. Its view is that it should not go back to arbitration but that it is checking out the situation in regard to Revenue. A final, formal decision has not been made in that regard.
In respect of the money that will have to be paid out in legal costs, we do not have any idea of how much it cost the Department in time, energy and whatever else was expended. We were told an operational subsidy for the National Aquatic Centre would always be necessary although it was built on the assumption that it would not be. Is it now anticipated that the legal costs will have to be borne by the Department or in a subsidy paid by the Department to the National Aquatic Centre or has there been any discussion about how costs will be carried?
Unfortunately, there has been too much expenditure on legal costs within various sporting bodies and organisations in recent years. There is no doubt that the money is coming from the sport it is meant to be supporting. The same is true in the case in question. Most swimming pools throughout the country tend to lose money so a subsidy will undoubtedly be needed for the National Aquatic Centre. In fairness to it, it is now ranked as the fourth most popular paying visitor attraction in the country. I am sure the Deputy has visited it. It is a spectacular place and is quite successful. In 2009, there were 724,000 visitors. I recently visited it when the American juniors' team was competing there. It is a very successful entity. The more success it has, the better it will be in that it will require an increasingly small subsidy. In so far as the money will have to come from somewhere, I presume it will have to come from any subvention the Department would make to it.
That is a sorry state of affairs.
2 Deputy Pádraic McCormack asked the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport when she will bring a report to Government on the feasibility of the General Post Office as a site for the national theatre; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [27200/10]
The development of a national sports facilities strategy and an audit of local sports facilities were commitments made by the last Government. Before commencing work on the strategy and audit, an expenditure review of the sports capital programme was undertaken. This was designed to assess the benefits that the investment had yielded to date and to identify any difficulties or inefficiencies associated with the operation of the programme.
The report of that expenditure review is available on my Department's website. Following the publication of the review, an inter-agency steering group was established to oversee the development of the strategy. This group comprised representatives from several Departments, the Irish Sports Council, the National Sports Campus Development Authority and the County and City Managers Association. As part of its work, it consulted a wide range of stakeholders and also considered existing national and international reports, studies and strategies relating to the provision of sports facilities.
A draft national sports facilities strategy for 2010-15 has been completed within my Department and was circulated to a number of Departments and other relevant bodies for observations prior to finalisation. The draft strategy has been amended to take account of the comments received and I expect to receive the revised strategy shortly for my consideration.
The aim of the strategy is to provide high-level policy direction for future investment and grant assistance at national, regional and local levels and to ensure a co-ordinated approach across the various agencies and Departments involved in supporting the provision of sport and recreational facilities. It aims to prioritise areas for future investment and will provide an improved policy platform for any future rounds of the sports capital programme. Any future rounds of funding will also be informed by the national audit of sports facilities that is currently being finalised.
Phase 1 of the audit focused on national and regional sports facilities and has been completed. Phase 2 involves the compilation of a list of facilities at local level, which is a more complex undertaking. Phase 2 commenced in 2008 with the assistance of local authorities in conjunction with an audit of arts facilities and an audit of community facilities that was being undertaken by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
The returns received from local authorities have been collated into a database of over 6,000 records and are currently being cross-checked against the Department's sports capital programme records. The mapping of the records has begun. The outcome of the audit will assist in identifying gaps in sports facilities and will, therefore, provide valuable information for any future rounds of sports capital funding.
The sports policy unit of my Department has responsibility for a number of areas of work including the national sports facilities strategy and the audit of existing facilities. One member of staff in this unit is involved with these projects, in addition to other areas of responsibility within the sports policy area.
I thank the Minister for her reply. I welcome the strategy. It is important that we compile all the information. The strategy has been in gestation since 2002, which is a very long time. Circumstances have been changing since then and I presume the strategy is being kept up to date. It needs to be published. When can we expect to see it?
There have been review groups, oversight groups, drafts, audits, amendments and revisions but we need to see the document and to be assured that any future rounds of capital funding will be based on the audit.
The Minister will be aware of a recent "Prime Time" programme that showed sports funding was less than transparent. An article in The Irish Times states:
In sports funding, the powerful are the Minister for sport and the Minister for Finance. Clubs in their constituencies receive more money in total, receive a greater amount per application, are more likely to make successful applications, and more likely to have more successful applications than others.
Overall, clubs in the Minister for Finance's constituency can expect to receive more than €70,000 in funding, compared with €63,700 elsewhere. Over €1 million in additional funding is made available to the constituency of the minister for sport and the minister for finance each year, or €2.5 million, compared with €1.5 million elsewhere.
This is what has been happening and these are the facts and the established information. The journalists were able to package this information and draw conclusions from it. We are waiting a long time for the strategy that will enable us all to see what is available and what gaps exist. We need a timeframe now. We had reviews, drafts and revisions but we now need the document.
The Deputy raised a couple of points. I accept the need for the strategy. It will guide our thinking on any future sports capital programme. We are not sure as yet whether there will be another in the near future. While the strategy will be able to map gaps geographically, I hope it will be able to map gaps in particular sports. As I stated this morning, there are a number of areas that do not have very good boxing facilities, yet we produced five medalists at the European Senior Boxing Championships. There are gaps, probably because the areas in question did not have the capacity to apply. Such gaps need to be examined.
The delay has been due to the fact that so much has been happening, as the Deputy outlined. Some €730 million has been spent on the sports side. Much was happening on the education side also. In some cases, arrangements are being made with local clubs, as it should be. Much was happening through the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs under the RAPID programme, resulting in the development of facilities. It is a question of an interdepartmental study and of devising a strategy based on it. Given that the strategy has been sent to other Departments for their observations, I hope it will be submitted to me over the summer months and that we will be able to consider it even further.
With regard to the "Prime Time" programme, in fairness to Deputy Upton, she put her finger on what is happening in that she stated information can be packaged in any way. In regard to areas that are very spread out, such as north-east Donegal and south Kerry, where one must travel miles and between peninsulas, of course it will appear on paper that there is duplication. The programme referred to expenditure in some counties. This had to happen because that is where the population grew. The Minister for Finance, be it the current Minister or his predecessor but one, happen to have represented or represent areas with the biggest growth in population. Naturally investment follows population growth. That was not taken into consideration in the programme, which just considered the matter from a political perspective and referred to Kildare and Dublin West. These areas were where the demand was. The strategy will guide our thinking on the provision of sports facilities.
It was more than a small coincidence that for each occasion, particularly in regard to sport and leaving aside education, many of the new developments took place in the constituencies in question. A number of swimming pools were built in certain areas whereas there is a severe shortage in certain other areas. One area of my constituency, which I referred to this morning, urgently needs its swimming pool to be retained. The Minister spoke about this today. We need the strategy in place and it needs to be absolutely transparent.
A national strategy is important but we must also have buy-in from the local authorities. They must be willing not only to providing funding but also to commit to maintaining the facilities. That is the position on swimming pools. In respect of three disadvantaged areas of Dublin city, the council needs to be able to ensure it has a mechanism to subsidise the pools using other income, particularly because it is now applying for more funding for new pools. It would be very wrong of it to ignore one set of constituents in order to promote a pool in another area. I have indicated that to them.
The swimming pool programme is one of our best programmes. As I indicated this morning, 42 of the 57 have now been built. Two further pools are going into construction this year and more are going to tender.
We have spent a bit of time on this one.
When would the Minister expect the document will be published so that we can see the distribution of the resources around the country, the gaps, as I stated, that need to be filled and the oversubscription, perhaps, in other areas? We really need to have that document in front of us.
I am advised, because I have not been involved in it to date because it preceded me and was moving around different Departments, that it will come to me in the next few weeks. We will certainly try to progress it after that.
3 Deputy Olivia Mitchell asked the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport her views on the ongoing downward trend year on year in visitor numbers to Ireland; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [27531/10]
After six years of successive growth — culminating in record numbers of overseas visitors in 2007 — the second half of 2008 saw a reduction in the number of overseas visitors coming to Ireland. This trend continued in 2009.
While the decrease in visitors to Ireland is disappointing, it must be understood in the context of a decline in tourist numbers internationally. Tourism worldwide has been deeply affected by global economic difficulties and loss of consumer confidence. To put our performance in context, OECD figures suggest that there was a higher reduction in 2009 in visitor numbers to Malta, Hungary, Cyprus, Greece and Finland, while the drop reported in France, Portugal and Spain was between 8 and 12%.
The exceptional weather conditions in the first two months of this year affected not only Ireland but also most of our overseas markets, while airports were closed again in April and May due to the volcanic ash cloud.
However, it is important to note that over 60% of holidaymakers normally arrive into Ireland between May and September and the industry and the tourism agencies are fighting hard for every bit of the available business for the summer and remainder of the year.
A number of euro zone economies are coming out of recession and these, of course, are important source markets for Irish tourism. Tourism Ireland is focusing on those major markets that are likely to deliver immediate returns this year, including Great Britain, Germany and the US, as research has shown these markets as our best prospects.
On 6 May, I launched a €20 million summer marketing campaign on behalf of Tourism Ireland which was designed to win as much business as possible in our key target markets during the peak and shoulder season. The new marketing drive was developed in conjunction with hundreds of tourism industry partners — hotels, bed and breakfast accommodation, self-catering establishments, cultural institutions, golf courses, visitor attractions as well as air and sea carriers — who have got behind the campaign with a range of value-for-money offers.
Fáilte Ireland is also working with the industry to engage the Irish holidaymaker with attractive and accessible offers highlighting the value and quality available within Ireland. It is encouraging that recent survey results have shown a significant increase in the number of Irish families that intend to holiday at home this year.
On the business tourism front, the opening of the national convention centre in Dublin in September will further enhance our capacity to attract international events.
In terms of the broader policy environment, the report of the Tourism Renewal Group published last October set out a clear plan for the survival, recovery and growth of Irish tourism, which the Government has been progressing.
Finally, as Deputies will be aware, the tourism services budget for 2010 represents a 3% increase on the 2009 provision. In the context of a difficult budgetary situation, this is a clear demonstration of the Government's belief that with the right policies and targeted investment, tourism can play a major role in Ireland's economic recovery.
We discussed this, or certain aspects of it, this morning already. The point I would make to the Minister is we are spending a great deal of money on tourism, and yet the target for this year was a modest 3% growth given that everybody thought that 2009 was a really catastrophic year but we would see green shoots in 2010. As the Minister stated, some countries are coming out of recession, they are our target markets and that is where we are spending the money. Indeed, the value of the euro has been falling vis-à-vis sterling. One would imagine it was beginning to get better, and yet in the first three months we have seen a drop in visitor numbers of a monumental 23%. One must think that is due to something other than the weather. It is easy, and extremely Irish, to blame the weather for the fall in the tourism figures, but it must be something more than that.
On Trip Advisor, when it recommended the various countries, certain towns and cities got some recommendation but in the top ten, we were not in the cultural and site-seeing destinations of the world, we were not in the emerging destinations of the world, we were not in the romance destinations of the world, we were not in European destinations chosen by Europeans and we were not in outdoor and adventure destinations of the world.
One must begin to wonder if we are doing something terribly wrong when we are spending so much money and getting it so monumentally wrong. Is the Minister worried about that?
I made the point, and my colleague, Deputy Upton, has made it too on many occasions, that we are fighting an uphill battle as an island nation and access is our most crucial issue. I am not saying access is everything but it is a necessary condition. It may not be a sufficient condition for tourism but it is a necessary one. If people cannot get here, we will have no tourist industry whatsoever.
I am looking at recommendations such as the survival action plans from the Minister's Tourism Renewal Group, and practically the primary one was get rid of the travel tax. The others were to look at local authority rates for hotels, and the cost of wages and the JLCs. All of those issues were mentioned in the survival plan and none of them has been implemented. I wonder is the Minister now looking more seriously at moving in the direction of taking the advice of her own advisers, the Tourism Renewal Group before we get further into the year. Alarm bells must to on in her Department when she sees a drop of 23% in the first three months.
Unfortunately, I suspect that the figures which will be announced tomorrow for April will also be bad due to the impact of the volcano. In fairness, this was an incident which genuinely impacted on us because Ireland was the first landmass to be hit by this and it had a very negative impact on our tourist numbers.
In fairness to Tourism Ireland, I am genuinely impressed with the way in which it is able to adapt and change and tap in to the new markets. As I mentioned earlier, I spent Monday of last week in Frankfurt meeting with the trade and media, doing interviews about the importance of the island of Ireland as being great value and easily accessible. They have a great interaction with Tourism Ireland.
We are using all the methods of marketing. We have joint partnership with the carriers — the airlines and the ferries; television advertising which catches the mass market; and website advertising, for instance, Tourism Ireland has 41 international websites in 19 different languages.
They cannot get here in any language.
They have not been able to get here at times during the year, but at least the strong message is getting out there.
Value is one of the issues. We have started, particularly this year, to offer better value: cheaper fares so access is good; cheaper accommodation; and better value for food, particularly for main meals and dinners, and for family holidays as well. Then there are new initiatives, which is also part of the Tourism Renewal Group. I refer to older people, the silver surfers — no single supplement, two for one, etc. — and the golden trekkers, those over 66. Many of the survival actions in the Tourism Renewal Group report, which we will be discuss again in a few moments, are the ones that are all being acted upon.
I accept what Tourism Ireland is doing and it is doing a good job. My point is that it is being spancelled by the absence of route access. As the Minister will be aware, as I think I said it to her in the Chamber, when Tourism Ireland went to conduct its marketing campaign in Germany it discovered that eight of the cities in which it was going to campaign had just lost their Dublin route.
Apart from the direct tourism jobs that are dependent on foreigners coming here, there are other big investments dependent on people having access to the country, for instance, Terminal 2 which is due to open early next year I think——
This year.
——this year, and the conference centre, which is due to open in September. The Minister has met Ryanair and the other airlines. Has she also joined forces with the Minister for Transport, for instance, who must be very concerned about T2 opening with the significant drop of 5 million passengers that Dublin Airport has experienced in the past year?
The Minister must look for help when she goes to Cabinet if she is to get the tax removed. It is a disincentive to Ryanair in maintaining routes and it is imperilling the future of Aer Lingus, which is even more important.
The Deputy is correct, in that air access is critical to the country. Well more than 80% of all tourists to Ireland arrive by air. It looks like the consolidation by airlines will result in fewer seats being available this summer than was the case last year. It would appear that summer air access will decline by 6% compared with the same period last year, comprising a 9% drop in tourists from the UK, a 2% drop from mainland Europe and an expected decline of 14% from North America. Arising out of my meetings with Aer Lingus, Ryanair and Aer Arann, I held an informal discussion with my colleague, the Minister for Transport. It was only yesterday that I met Mr. Michael O'Leary of Ryanair. I have tried to draw together the issues the airlines see as significant in the context of their decisions on which routes to use. The question of the air tax arose in that regard. On the other hand, strong growth of 87% in visitor numbers from the new and developing markets is expected this year. Air access is the crucial matter in bringing them all to Ireland.
4 Deputy Olivia Mitchell asked the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport the progress made to date on the feasibility of the General Post Office, Dublin, as a site for the national theatre; when she expects a report to be presented to Government on the issue; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [27532/10]
The renewed programme for Government contains a commitment to undertake a detailed assessment of the GPO complex with a view to locating the Abbey Theatre there in time for the centenary of the 1916 Rising. The development of a new national theatre project is a complex undertaking and a myriad of technical, procedural and legal factors must be addressed in making progress. Seeking to deliver a national theatre building at the GPO, with all of the history that embraces the building, adds to the complexity and calls for a particular sensibility.
A feasibility group involving the key stakeholders has been set up. Its membership includes representatives from my Department, the Office of Public Works, the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, An Post and the Abbey Theatre. The group has commenced an assessment of the GPO complex to ascertain if it is a feasible location for the redeveloped national theatre. Among the main considerations that must be assessed are the GPO's capacity to accommodate the brief agreed for the Abbey Theatre, the integration of theatre infrastructure into the streetscape and skyscape, the feasibility from a planning perspective of any redevelopment proposal, the cost of the construction, the nature of the title to the site, the terms and conditions of leases, indentures, mortgages, liens thereon, and so on, and the costs of lease termination and other commercial and corporate issues for An Post.
Significant progress has been made on the technical accommodation questions. The legal and corporate issues I mentioned must be considered. I anticipate that it will be the autumn before all of the elements of the feasibility study have been addressed fully.
I feel I have grown old with this project. I do not know how many times the proposal has crossed the Liffey. I am dizzy from it. Some years ago, the late Mr. Seamus Brennan announced with great fanfare a design competition for the Abbey Theatre. As much as a year later, possibly during the tenure of the subsequent Minister, Mr. Martin Cullen, the design of the design competition was announced. Subsequently, we heard of judges being appointed. The next we heard was that the competition was being called off because the project had moved from the docks to the GPO. While the GPO would be a good location for it, the Minister, Deputy Hanafin, used phrases like "myriad of technical, procedural and legal factors" and "a report will be brought to Government in due course" the last time I heard her discuss the matter. When I see words like those put together in a sentence, I see a long finger emerging. I suspect that, in the Minister's heart, she knows the project will not go ahead. If that is the case, please let it be known.
I would love to see a flagship project in 2016, but I must ask myself whether this is the project that Ireland needs most. The Grand Canal Theatre is open and the conference centre is a fantastic stage and venue.
Does the Deputy have a question?
I will not pillory the Minister if she decides to pull back, since we could invest our money elsewhere, for example, in capital expenditure on schools or the maintenance of venues built under the Arts and Culture Capital Enhancement Support Scheme, ACCESS, many of which are in dire need of even basic maintenance. Has the Minister really made up her mind and, if so, will she let us know?
No, I have not made up my mind, as I have not seen the feasibility study. It is not just a case of using phrases like "myriad of technical, procedural and legal factors", since those are actual issues. For example, the fact that there are tenants in the arcade means a commercial element is involved. There is probably a view that the GPO should continue to be used as a post office in some form or other. I agree because it was a general post office in 1916. Good designs and plans can incorporate all of this.
When examining the feasibility of trying to accommodate everything that is required for the Abbey Theatre, namely, a larger theatre, a smaller studio and a new project theatre, one must consider the costs. I do not accept the argument that work on iconic buildings should be set aside to invest in the maintenance of other buildings or to transfer money to other Departments. For example, the schools budget this year is approximately €589 million.
Does the Minister have a budget at all?
The capital budget for schools is approximately €589 million.
I meant for the Abbey Theatre. There is no budget.
That is what I am saying. It all comes out of the same capital fund. I do not agree that money that could be earmarked for an iconic cultural building such as the National Concert Hall or the national theatre should be transferred to other Departments for their use. The Grand Canal Theatre and the convention centre are magnificent, but they are not the national theatre and not every play in the Abbey Theatre would fill the 2,000 seats in either of them. Taking pride in its culture says something about a country. Above all others, Ireland should do this.
The honest answer is that I have not decided yet. I have not seen the feasibility study. The project will be examined in terms of how possible it is and whether it is the best decision for the Abbey Theatre. Then we will need to fight the financial argument, but something should be done with an iconic building for 2016.
Does the Minister see why I am becoming a little sceptical? If it is decided that the GPO will not be the venue, where will we go then? Will we return to the docks or the original site of the Abbey Theatre or will we cross the Liffey a few more times? This could go on forever and all it would do is cost us money for which we would have nothing to show. I do not dispute that a flagship Abbey Theatre would be wonderful, but if this is a time wasting exercise, we should just admit it.
There is no doubt that the Abbey Theatre needs more space. It needs to be more accessible than it is. This year, it faced difficulties in terms of access for the disabled. The theatre set out a general accommodation plan on the size it requires and is experiencing considerable success with some of the work produces. We would like the theatre to accommodate such work and be a flagship project, not just as a building, but as something that can produce Irish theatre. It has planned an exciting international programme for 2011, particularly in the United States of America. Since I have not seen the feasibility study, I am not in a position to make a determination on it.
5 Deputy Olivia Mitchell asked the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport if she has had discussions with the Arts Council regarding the preparation of a new arts strategy to follow the Partnership for the Arts 2006 to 2010 strategy; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [27534/10]
At its 2010 annual policy meeting, the Arts Council devoted most of its time to the planning of its successor strategy. The strategy will take into account the changed environment since 2005 and the distinctive role the arts can play in contributing to the national recovery. In the development of its new strategy, the Arts Council will enter into discussions with my Department and me over the coming months. It should be noted that the Arts Council is a statutorily independent body funded by my Department. It is independent in its day-to-day operations and funding decisions.
Government policy on the arts is set out in the renewed programme for Government and is elaborated on further in my Department's statement of strategy. My policy is to move the arts centre stage in our economy and to increase access to and participation in the arts. A country like ours survives and prospers on the talent and ability of its people. Modern goods and services require high value added input. Some of this comes from technology and financial capital, but much of it comes from people who have the ability to innovate and a capacity for lateral thinking.
Creative human capacity is our primary wealth. Creativity is enhanced by interaction with arts. The perception abroad of Ireland as a country that values creativity has undoubtedly assisted in attracting companies such as Google, eBay and Apple, whose cultures place a high value on creativity. This provides an economic rationale for making the arts an integral and valued part of our national life.
The global economic forum at Farmleigh recognised the arts, culture and creative industries as our foremost calling card internationally. The Arts Council needs to take the momentum from that engagement and reflect it in its strategy. The new strategy should be built on the achievements of its forerunner, especially in participation, venue animation, engagement with young people, supporting our art forms of real strength — especially literature and drama — national, regional and local festivals and supporting the international marketing and promotional work of Culture Ireland. The context for the new strategy must take account of the more limited resources available from the Exchequer and it must look to build on synergies with the other agencies under my Department, especially Tourism Ireland and Fáilte Ireland.
Perhaps my question was not well worded. I was more interested in the funding that flowed from the Arts Council and how that might be prioritised so that its value is maximised. I spoke to the Minister this morning about the need to refocus on the sad state of contemporary literature. I refer to the loss of publishing houses and the real danger that there will be no Irish publishing as a result of the reduction in support for writers and library grants, which guaranteed a certain amount of Irish publishing every year. We cannot live on the past forever. Seamus Heaney was great but we must consider who will be the next Seamus Heaney. We must bring along new writers and one cannot be nursed along if there is no opportunity to be published in this country.
One hears about the Cork Opera House closing for a couple of months and the Temple Bar gallery and studios closing its exhibition space. Venues around the country may not be closing but are closed for many days during the week as a result of cutbacks. Is there any way of tracking job losses and closures as a result of cutbacks? This is not to apportion blame but to identify what can be done in the new strategy to deal with the fact there is not as much money even though we have all these venues and artists seeking funding. How can we sustain employment in the lean times and protect investments that have been made in the good years?
The Deputy's question concerns funding and at this stage it is too early to indicate what funding will be available next year. This year, the allocations is just short of €69 million. This is a substantial increase on the sum in 2002. The Department was aiming for €100 million. At the height, in 2007, it was €83 million but the sum of €69 million is a significant advance on the sum of seven or eight years ago.
Like every other area, it had to be cut. I am not aware of many redundancies. People generally took pay cuts or had to cut back on activities but, no more than in the tourism sector, the arts community has the ability to draw in volunteers to work and organise. I visited theatres in Monaghan, Longford and Birr and the people involved have a creative ability to make do. I am not aware of people who lost their jobs as a result of these cutbacks.
Deputy Mitchell's point in respect of literature is very fair. It is the artform for which we are best known. Capital funding for the Dublin Writers Museum highlights that point, as does the Dalkey book festival. It is not true to say they are all people who belong in the past. Consider the success of Joseph O'Connor with his new book or Colum McCann.
He was not published in Ireland.
They were not published in Ireland but are very much identified as Irish writers. The tradition carries on. Literature receives less than €2 million.
They had to go abroad to be published and to have success. We must bring on our own writers.
The Arts Council allocates less than €2 million for literature but I will ensure it remains at the heart of the new strategy.
