Vol. 588 No. 4
1 Mr. Deenihan asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism if a survey is being carried out on the Carlton site by the Office of Public Works regarding its suitability for development as a new location for the Abbey Theatre; if so, when such a survey will be completed; if such a survey shows that the site is not suitable for development, when he will be in a position to examine other possible venues; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19623/04]
The resolution of the issues surrounding the redevelopment of the National Theatre, are complex. As I have previously informed the House, the Government authorised me last year to invite expressions of interest by way of public invitation from the private sector in participating, on the basis of a public private partnership, in the capital redevelopment of the Abbey Theatre in and/or around the vicinity of the site of the existing theatre.
My Department, with the Department of Finance and the Office of Public Works, has been working to implement that decision. As An Agreed Programme for Government commits the Government to ensuring the development of the Abbey, I maintain regular contact with all of the parties involved and ensure that the Government is kept fully abreast of all developments. I circulated my last progress report to my colleagues at this week's Cabinet meeting at which Ministers again affirmed their support for the redevelopment project.
It has been accepted that at whatever location is eventually selected for the Abbey, the new building must satisfy the following requirements if it is to be compatible with the status, profile and functions of a national theatre: to be a signature development, representative of a national theatre in the 21st century; to be in an appropriate civic setting and form part of the overall urban regeneration represented by the O'Connell Street integrated area plan and the north-east inner city plan; it must have three significant enlarged auditoria for the Abbey, the Peacock and a third multipurpose space, a dedicated education and outreach facility, a publicly accessible archive, restaurant-bar, improved public areas, disabled access for audiences and artists, and best practice theatre production facilities.
For the Abbey and Peacock to function efficiently, effectively and without compromise, their basic functioning must not depend on movement of goods and people by mechanical lift. In essence this means that the stages of both the Abbey and Peacock theatres must be positioned at ground level. In addition, both theatres must have easy access, also at the same level, to the scenery store and the prop store. It is agreed between the management of the Abbey and the OPW that there is a requirement for a ground floor footprint that is considerably larger than now exists. The larger ground footprint is non-negotiable if the redevelopment is to achieve its objectives.
I am advised that redevelopment of the Abbey at its existing location would entail the acquisition of adjacent properties — a process which would be likely to prove very costly and problematic regarding timescale. Accordingly, my Department and the OPW are now actively considering other possible alternative locations for the redevelopment. This exercise will include an assessment of the suitability and availability of the Carlton Cinema site for this purpose. The Deputy will be aware of the legal issues arising in connection with that particular site.
I am currently awaiting a report from the OPW on these issues and assure the Deputy that I remain determined to have decisions taken on the redevelopment of the Abbey Theatre in this its centenary year.
Given that the centenary of the Abbey is on 27 December decision time is rapidly approaching. I am pleased the Minister has, more or less, today given a definitive response on the suitability of the present Abbey Theatre site and has ruled it out and also that he took my advice on getting the Office of Public Works to carry out an assessment of the Carlton Cinema site. In the event of the Carlton Cinema site not being suitable the Minister indicated that other sites are being looked at as well. Will he advise the House of those sites? Coláiste Mhuire in Parnell Square and Grangegorman were mentioned. Will the Minister confirm if these sites are being actively assessed as regards their suitability? I am sure the Minister will agree it is important that a conclusion be reached on a new site for the Abbey Theatre as soon as possible and preferably before 27 December 2004.
The difficulty, as outlined, is that there is a problem in regard to the cost of acquisition of properties adjacent to the present Abbey Theatre. There is also the question of the timescale that would be involved in acquiring properties there. The problem with the Carlton Cinema site is that it is embroiled in legal issues at present and it is not known when these issues will be resolved. In addition, it is not known if our proposal would be attractive to the developer. In those circumstances the Office of Public Works will be examining alternative sites in the city. When the Office of Public Works has reported back to me it is my intention to go back to the Government with the alternatives put forward.
At this point I do not intend to rule in or rule out any site for the theatre except to say that all the options, which the Office of Public Works put forward will be carefully considered. I am anxious that the theatre would be located in the city and that we would be in a position to map the way forward this year given that it is the centenary of the theatre.
Will the Minister agree the timescale is important and that this must not become a long running saga like the National Stadium. Will the Minister clarify what timescale he envisages for the Office of Public Works to report definitively on its preferred site to house the Abbey Theatre?
I am anxious that we should be in a position to make some announcement in this the centenary year of the Abbey. Therefore, it is important that the Office of Public Works would come back to us at the earliest possible opportunity so that I can outline the way forward. I am anxious, as is the Deputy, to ensure we have some news on where we are going with the theatre this year.
2 Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism; his views on whether high production costs are a deterrent to foreign filmmakers coming here to make their films; the consequences of this for the film industry here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19826/04]
4 Mr. Deenihan asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism his views on recent statements from leading film producers, carried in media reports in recent weeks, that Ireland is losing its attractiveness to international film production companies due to increased costs and to increased competition abroad; the measures he will take to restore Ireland’s competitiveness as a destination for film production; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19622/04]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 and 4 together.
The market for international film finance is global and extremely mobile, with financiers carefully weighing up what competing locations have to offer. Final decisions are usually based on a mix of factors rather than on one particular factor. In this context, I am aware of the concerns expressed by the Irish film industry about the competitive implications of wage costs that are high compared to some competing locations and of the current euro-US dollar exchange rate. However, I am also aware of the positives that Ireland offers, including good locations, qualified and experienced personnel, the fact that English is widely spoken, and a positive approach to the industry by Government.
I am satisfied that the Government has met its responsibilities regarding maintaining the attractiveness of Ireland as a film location. In particular, in his last budget speech the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, announced that the section 481 tax incentive, which gives tax breaks to those investing in Irish film production, will continue until at least 2008, with the amount that can be raised increasing from €10.48 million to €15 million from 2005.
The Irish Film Board is charged with the development of the Irish film industry and with marketing Ireland as a location for international productions. The board provides a range of supports and assistance to producers and is independent of Government in day-to-day terms. I was able to provide an increase of 10% in the board's funding in 2004. It is up to the industry to address those factors within its control that are considered to render Ireland less attractive for film production.
The newspaper reports that Ireland is being shunned as a production base for major films and that costs have rocketed for those films, which are in production, are of deep concern to us all. Has the Minister had a meeting with the Irish Film Board on this matter? What action has the Minister's Department taken to assure major film industry players that the section 481 tax incentive has been restored and that we want major productions to come here? "Saving Private Ryan", "Braveheart" and films of that scale have been of major benefit to the economy and to employment levels within the industry and among actors and actresses.
What meetings have taken place, what action has the Department taken since the budget and what has the Irish Film Board done since it was given the boost for which the Minister must be congratulated? What has been done to reverse the shunning of Ireland by the major movie giants and production teams?
It is not correct to say the Irish film industry is being shunned. Ireland is an extremely attractive location for incoming film producers and productions. As Deputy Wall pointed out, Ireland has hosted some serious and major films in recent years and I anticipate that we will do the same in the not-too-distant future. While wage costs appear to be a difficulty, the matter must be dealt with by the industry itself. There is very little one can do about exchange rates and the value of the euro against the US dollar. I have no control over fluctuations on the money markets.
The Irish Film Board provides a considerable level of assistance to incoming producers as well as to the indigenous film industry. Its record is very strong. On occasion, I meet the chairman of the board to discuss the future and I have over the last year and more been in regular contact with people involved in the industry generally with a view to advancing the cause of Irish film. The best news the industry has received in many years was the extension of the section 481 relief into 2008 and the increase of the cap to €15 million. These measures are regarded by the industry as the most important lift it has received in a very long time. The industry anticipates and I am confident that the benefits will be seen in the near future.
I am sure the Minister will agree there is cause for serious concern and action. Surely, the fact that no feature film has been shot in Ireland in the first six months of 2004 makes its own statement. There must be a reason for this circumstance. Neil Jordan and Morgan O'Sullivan, two of our most eminent film producers, have said that Ireland is no longer an attractive location in which to make films which highlights the need for corrective action.
Is the Minister aware that New Zealand, Hungary and the Isle of Man have improved upon Ireland's incentives? The global film industry is becoming more competitive while Ireland is being matched by countries many of which have raised the ante to compete for film productions. It is a serious scenario.
When Deputy de Valera was Minister, she established the Kilkenny group which reported in 1999. Developments in film industry work practices and the impact of the rate of exchange constitute only a small part of the problem. Will the Minister revisit the report and perhaps reconvene the group, which previously suggested major solutions to review events in the film industry over the last five years?
While the Minister mentioned section 481, a significant problem has been the uncertainty generated around it over the last year. The wrong signals were sent to the film industry. While the section has been restored, nothing more has happened to incentivise the Irish film industry. We cannot take this serious difficulty lightly. I understand the only major film which will be shot in Ireland this year is the "The Honeymooners" which compares poorly with the level of production of a few years ago.
I disagree with Deputy Deenihan. The outlook for the Irish film industry is bright. The extension of the section 481 relief to 2008 will massively encourage incoming producers. The definite incentive of the increase in the amount which can be raised under the relief from €10.48 million to €15 million from the start of 2005 could not send a stronger signal to the international film community about Ireland's intention to develop the industry and our desire to attract inward investment.
We can only control those things, which are under our remit and maintain the highest standards in those areas in which we have power. We can expect the industry to go from strength to strength. While it is true that concern was expressed about wage costs and the exchange rate between the euro and the US dollar, these are factors over which I have little or no control, unfortunately. Through section 481, we have incentivised like no other Government in the history of the State.
Given its importance to the film industry, will the Minister lead a trade mission to the USA in conjunction with the Irish Film Board to talk to the heavy hitters such as Disney to create interest in Ireland and attract the major players? We have a workforce which is as knowledgeable as any in the world when it comes to producing major films, and actors and actresses who are well able to support international stars. We also have the tax incentives which seem to make the difference. Now is the time to put Ireland back in the film market. What is being done to communicate with the heavy hitters and ensure that Ireland is put back in its rightful place among the main players in film production?
Now that the Irish film industry has been placed on a sound footing with the renewal of section 481 up to 2008 and the increase in the cap on the amount that can be raised from €10.84 million to €15 million from the start of 2005, it is appropriate that we seek to market Ireland on whatever stage we can. In the circumstances, I intend to try to organise a trade mission to the western side of the United States of America with a view to promoting Ireland as a destination for film production. I am anxious to meet the larger production companies to assess their interest in coming here. I will take up Deputy Wall's suggestion and try to move on it soon.
I suggest the Minister speak to the Disney organisation during his visit as it has expressed grave concern about the attitude it found within the Irish industry recently. I remind the Minister that Ardmore is empty at present and the only film of any significance that will be made here this year is "The Honeymooners". Other countries are successfully upping the ante and it is time for the Government to review what others are doing in the international film market.
Will the Minister revisit the Kilkenny report and its recommendations? Will he reconvene that group and seek its advice on the situation and a way forward? Section 481 is not the reason for the demise of our film industry, although it contributed to it. Other factors of which people are not aware have come into play and have not been fully considered by the Minister.
I will not speak of a demise because I do not believe there is one. I would like to watch how the new incentive develops over the coming year. The current section 481 incentive is progressive and competitive. I spoke with people from the Disney organisation during the course of discussions on the renewal of section 481. They impressed on me the need to renew the incentive and to provide certainty. I have done that by extending the provision until 2008 and by increasing the cap on the amount that can be raised. Let us see how this progresses. I expect the Deputy will find it progressive and that we will see a considerable number of major films made in Ireland in the not too distant future.
3 Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism his views on whether the April 2004 overseas travel figures from the Central Statistics Office suggest that a gap is widening between persons who are leaving here to go abroad when compared with the relatively smaller increase in visitors to Ireland; the remedy he will put in place to address the issue; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19926/04]
Internationally, more people are taking holidays and doing so more often. Over the past ten years or so, there has been extraordinary growth in the short urban break market as an international phenomenon. Irish people are not immune from these trends.
Owing to the phenomenal increase in Irish prosperity in recent years, the increased availability of competitive access to foreign markets and the increasing number of those who own foreign holiday homes, Irish people are travelling abroad in greater numbers and with greater frequency. I do not necessarily regard this as a negative phenomenon because, looked at globally, we find that the reverse side of the coin is that an increasing number of overseas visitors are visiting Ireland.
The latest CSO visitor figures for 2004 show Ireland continuing to perform strongly in a highly competitive international market. The number of overseas visitors to Ireland in the first four months of this year increased by more than 7% compared with last year. The latest Revenue figures for 2004 are also positive, with overseas visitor earnings increasing by more than 5% in the first quarter of this year compared with 2003. These early results are in line with the growth targets set by Tourism Ireland and Fáilte Ireland for the year as a whole and, in relative terms, compare favourably to the performance of some of our competitor destinations.
The overall number of inbound visitors continues to exceed that of outbound visitors. That said, it is apparent from CSO figures in the recent past that Irish visitors abroad spend, in total, marginally more than overseas visitors spend here. That increase in outward spend is because more Irish people go abroad more often.
To get a more accurate picture of trends across tourism, the tourism and travel survey to which the Deputy refers needs to be considered in conjunction with the CSO's household travel survey. The agency's tourism and travel survey does not, for instance, include domestic tourism. The latest available figures from the household travel survey, covering 2003, show expenditure by Irish people on domestic trips growing by 14% to €971 million, compared with 4% growth in expenditure by Irish people on international trips. Even making allowances for inflation, this represents a significant increase in expenditure. While Irish people may now spend more on international trips, the CSO survey clearly indicates that domestic tourism is benefiting disproportionately from the increased spending power of the Irish population.
Taking the two CSO surveys together, it would appear that our tourism sector is winning market share, both at home and internationally, in the face of the stiffest competition ever in this sector. In that context, we need to maintain our focus, get the product right, get the message out, give real value for money and ensure we continue to deliver on the promise. It is important for the Irish industry to realise that the more frequently Irish people travel abroad, especially within the eurozone, the more conscious they will be of relative value for money. It is essential our industry continues to focus on increasing its competitiveness.
Looking at 2004, the two tourism agencies, Tourism Ireland and Fáilte Ireland, are rolling out a comprehensive range of programmes and activities in conjunction with the industry and overseas trade to build on the momentum generated to date and achieve their ambitious targets of more than 4% visitor growth. Their programmes are supported by an unprecedented level of Exchequer investment in tourism services through my Department, especially for marketing purposes, totalling well over €110 million this year.
As for the medium to long-term future of the sector, significant progress is being made in advancing the recommendations of the report of the tourism policy review group through the tourism policy implementation group chaired by Mr. John Travers. The ultimate goal is to ensure that Ireland's competitive position is optimised to take full advantage of the expected upturn in international tourism over the next decade.
I thank the Minister for his interesting reply. Does the Minister agree that many Irish people, some of whom may have foreign holiday homes — perhaps the Minister will let us know how many, if he has the figures — choose to holiday abroad because they feel they get better value for money? It is the same old story of this being "rip-off Ireland", as it is sometimes called. People feel that public transport, eating out, car hire, etc. do not provide value for money. Is that a factor and is the tourism policy review group examining the issue? The issue arises both anecdotally and in actual responses from those who holiday here.
Has the Minister information as to why Irish people who go abroad spend more when abroad? With regard to the 14% increase in expenditure on domestic trips, has he qualitative data on what domestic tourists find attractive about staying at home? What is it they like about Ireland as a holiday destination?
It is encouraging that the domestic market has increased so significantly. The 14% increase is remarkable given the current level of competition on the international market. We have stressed the issue of value for money over the past two years and this has paid dividends. For example, the Irish restaurant association introduced a very successful value for money menu for visitors. The Irish car rental market is as competitive as one will find anywhere and value for money offers are provided by almost all our major outlets and many of our medium and smaller outlets. All this is extremely encouraging. This is reflected in the figures. The fact that the domestic market increased by 14.3% is a tribute to the response of the industry, and I hope this response continues — it is important that it does.
With regard to people who travel abroad on holiday, the Irish economy has improved in leaps and bounds in recent years, people have more disposable income and, as a consequence, more people take holidays abroad. The figures in this regard were up 4%, but we must take that figure against the 14% plus increase in the domestic tourism market, which is, to say the least, most encouraging.
The implementation group, which is overseeing the implementation of the policy review group, is progressing with its work. It is due to report to me in August of this year. That report should be interesting and should give us further indicators. If there is further information on data or statistics Deputy Gormley requires, I will be only too pleased to communicate them to him.
The Minister touched on two areas, eating out and car hire, and said services in those areas are improving. However, there is one area where there has not been an improvement, namely, that of public transport. Anyone who has travelled by train to Cork or elsewhere will have seen tourists on the train and, more likely than not, it will have been packed. The standard of our public transport is appalling and it gives a poor image of this country. Is this an issue about which the Minister is concerned?
In regard to public transport, in recent days in Dublin in particular the availability of public transport has increased beyond recognition, something everyone will greatly welcome. There is further room for improvement in our public transport system, of that there is no question. When I spoke about 14% growth, I was referring to expenditure.
Question No. 4 answered with QuestionNo. 2.
