Trevor Sargent
Ceist:6 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism the position regarding the roll-out of the nationwide audit of sports facilities. [26955/06]
Other Questions.
Sports Facilities.
The proposed nationwide audit of sports facilities is being carried out in stages to help speed up the availability of information. The first phase of the audit will establish a record of national and regional sports facilities and is being carried out within my Department.
The work being undertaken is a data gathering exercise in conjunction with the main sporting bodies and local authorities to identify the facilities for inclusion in this phase. Having identified in excess of 100 sports facilities of national or regional significance funded under my Department's sports capital programme since 1999, my Department has written to 16 of the main sporting bodies seeking their input before finalising this list of national and regional sports facilities.
This draft list, which will also include details of third level educational institutions and swimming pools, will be sent to local authorities for their input before it is completed. Following this, a detailed questionnaire seeking the necessary information on the sports facilities will issue to facility owners and managers, and this will be used to establish a comprehensive database. Work has commenced on the content of this questionnaire, which should be ready for issue by the end of the summer.
It is expected that the detailed information to be provided in response to the questionnaire will be collated and stored on a database by the end of the year. By ascertaining and mapping what is already in place at a national and regional level, an important part of developing a strategic approach to future facility provision is put in place.
This is also of critical importance in the context of maximising opportunities around the London Olympics in 2012. It is clear that decisions on where to locate their final pre-Olympic training camps are likely to be taken by many of the leading sporting teams over the next two to three years. The president of the Olympic Council of Ireland, Mr. Pat Hickey, has advised me that he has already received inquires from several high profile countries.
In addition to key national facilities such as the National Aquatic Centre, Morton Stadium and national centres for other sports such as rowing, basketball, hockey and tennis, this first phase of the audit will also include universities. The location of a wide range of sporting facilities, along with living accommodation in a campus style setting, may be an important requirement for visiting teams.
The enormity of completing the audit of sports facilities, even in this initial phase, should not be underestimated. Given the experience of other countries, it is likely to take a number of years to complete. The benefits will be considerable, and in establishing the level of need that still exists in the sports sector and helping to determine future priorities, it will underpin a strategic approach to facility provision.
This question arises from promises in the programme for Government, and the audit was to be carried out. When is the expected date for its conclusion and publication? I appreciate that considerable funding has come from the Minister's Department, which has been helpful. For example, a swimming pool in Skerries would not be built, along with many other projects, only for such funding. I also acknowledge co-operation with the Department of Education and Science to ensure that facilities are used to their maximum capacity.
Nevertheless, there is a growing reliance in communities on private funding for facilities. As long as facilities are provided, any funding is good funding. There are a number of projects that slip through the net. Speaking to constituents, the Minister and I know how fairly basic facilities, such as a skateboard park costing approximately €40,000, are not in place. They seem to be plentiful in other European countries. In this country it is different. One is being built in Drogheda, but there is none for Dundalk. There is one planned for Swords, but none for Balbriggan.
There is a selective and insufficient provision of quite basic facilities, which are important in the first instance because of the issue of childhood obesity, but are also important for the basic quality of life we expect for people. Does this fall through the net, given the Minister's comments about the Olympics and other high level sport activity?
There was a promise when the Minister's predecessor, Deputy McDaid, was responsible for such matters, that there would be an indoor athletic area in Santry for people who depend on Santry's stadium at the moment. Many of those athletes now have to go abroad. One of our top athletes, who was from Donabate, was tragically killed in a road accident abroad recently. There are many athletes — although not many of her high standard — who have to go abroad for training. Appropriate indoor training facilities do not exist in this country.
Is that a priority? When the audit is done, will there be a priority on the absolute needs, especially based on promises made and which badly need to be fulfilled? Morton Stadium does a fantastic job, but an indoor athletic arena is badly needed.
It is difficult to know when an effective and comprehensive national audit of local facilities will be completed. It is a major undertaking. The Sports Council in Northern Ireland embarked on a similar exercise in recent years, and it has taken between two and three years to identify the facilities. I am pleased with the progress of the sports capital programme since 1998. We have now financed approximately 5,600 projects in every city, town, village and parish in the country. That has improved facilities enormously.
With regard to other facilities, criteria which I outlined earlier are used by the Department's officials in assessing various applications. This year, more than 700 applications were successful from a total of almost 1,400. That equates to an approximate 50% success rate. Regional grants have not yet been announced but we hope to announce them in the not too distant future.
The indoor arena to which Deputy Sargent referred is obviously a concept in which I have a great interest. Phase one of Abbotstown should be completed by the end of 2010 or thereabouts, and I certainly hope the question of an indoor arena can be addressed in the context of the next phase of Abbotstown.
What about skateboard parks?
To the best of my knowledge, skateboard parks, playgrounds etc., are under the remit of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government or the Department of Health and Children.
It is a sport.
My Department's objective is to provide infrastructure for competitive sport.
Skateboarding is competitive.
Will the Department's audit include the level of facilities available in primary schools throughout the country? If not, why? Facilities in schools are important.
It will.
We all agree with and fully understand the reason the amount of funding that has been provided through the national lottery for facilities right around the country. Will the audit check that those facilities are being used to maximum effect or will it merely state there is a facility in Athy, in Killorglin in Kerry or wherever? Will it go further than the basics of noting the facilities or will the questionnaires of which the Minister spoke involve an audit into participation in the context of the facilities? Is it an audit of existing facilities or of the use made of the facilities?
The audit is to ascertain what is available at present, and then to identify any facilities which are lacking in various areas and any existing gaps. This, in turn, will enable the Minister to fill those gaps.
National Stadium.
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:7 Mr. Quinn asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism his views on the decision of Dublin city councillors to seek advice on preserving a building due to be demolished under the plan to redevelop Lansdowne Road; if this development will delay the redevelopment of the stadium; his further views on whether the building can be preserved without altering the design of the stadium; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26928/06]
Jimmy Deenihan
Ceist:25 Mr. Deenihan asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism if progress is on schedule regarding the new Lansdowne Road stadium; the deadline for a decision from Dublin City Council on the planning application; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26964/06]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:40 Mr. Quinn asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism the position on the redevelopment of Lansdowne Road as the new national stadium; if the project remains on schedule despite objections to the original planning application; the concerns expressed by local residents; the dispute between the IRFU and Wanderers RFC; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26929/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7, 25 and 40 together.
In January 2006, the Lansdowne Road Stadium Development Company — LRSDC — the company charged with delivery of this project, submitted a planning application to Dublin City Council and then provided a detailed response to questions raised by the city council about that application. In the process of preparing the planning application the company engaged in extensive consultations with relevant interests and specialists, including local resident groups. The application lodged endeavoured to address, to the maximum extent possible, the issues identified by expert advisors and the concerns expressed by those groups consulted.
The issue raised by the Deputy relates to the house at No. 70 Shelbourne Road, which it is proposed to demolish in order to allow for a new access point to the stadium. I understand the company had this house surveyed and was advised that it was not listed and, indeed, is of insufficient heritage value for listing. Further, it was the opinion of the heritage architect expert consulted that the house has no special architectural merit, as it presented only a veneer of authenticity and did not contribute to the streetscape in a positive manner. I understand that in discussions with Dublin City Council there was no indication to the contrary as regards this issue.
It seems that recently a number of local councillors, through the local area committee, have objected to the demolition of the house and have intimated they will seek advice and attempt to have this house and the terrace in which it stands listed. This is a matter for the councillors concerned and for Dublin City Council and it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the initiative.
The deadline for a decision from Dublin City Council on the planning application is also a matter for the council, although a response to the planning application is due by the end of July.
The dispute between the IRFU and the named football club, as I have indicated previously, is a matter between the IRFU and the club in question. It is clear that ultimately the issues must be resolved by the parties directly involved. Discussions between those parties are still ongoing.
To date, the project has proceeded on schedule and while no one can say what length of time will be required to obtain planning permission, I am hopeful the planning process will not delay that schedule. I believe a solution will be found to the dispute between the IRFU and Wanderers Football Club and, equally, I am hopeful the local residents will not delay the redevelopment of the stadium. I put my views on the record on a number of occasions that if this project does not go ahead at Lansdowne Road, it might ultimately result in other, and perhaps less attractive, developments on the site.
With a view to resolving the dispute between the IRFU and Wanderers Football Club, I may have to intervene in the matter. If I can help, I will do that.
On this record of protected structures, according to The Irish Times the executive manager within the council’s planning department stated there could be a legal issue raised by the stadium developers if the councillors added the affected properties — initially, it was stated Nos. 4 to 70 Lansdowne Road were being determined here and now there is probably only one building which may be preserved. If a legal position will be taken by the stadium developers and also an independent opinion will be sought from the Civic Trust and An Taisce, it must be a cause of concern. Can something be done to alleviate the concerns of the councillors involved or is there any part the Minister can play in trying to overcome a problem which could develop into a long legal action if these houses or, in particular, the house at No. 70 Shelbourne Road, is recorded as a protected structure?
I have given Deputy Wall my Department's perspective. However, a group of councillors operating through the local area committee does not agree with this and they have intimated that they will seek to have the house and the terrace on which it stands listed. Of course, their efforts so far have been unsuccessful, as the council heritage architect agreed the house was not of sufficient heritage value to be listed.
The council legal executive has taken legal advice on the matter and advised the councillors concerned that they should have the backing of a technical architectural statement before continuing. This group has now asked the executive to commission An Taisce and the Civic Trust to carry out another heritage study and I understand that Dublin City Council is due to respond to this matter on or before Monday next.
It is not for me to comment on all of these matters other than to say that we are just trying to build a world-class stadium at Lansdowne Road. It seems there are people who, for one reason or another, are seeking to prevent that happening. They should carefully consider the alternative again. The alternative is a concrete jungle, which is what will go into Lansdowne Road if the stadium does not go in. Many of the people actively pursuing objections today may well be sorry in the future that they did not listen now.
Will the problem with this particular house hold up the planning process? Will the council be able to grant planning permission and at the same time not consider the status of this house?
Can the city council look for further information at the end of the month or has the time for seeking further information expired? Will the decision, whether or not to grant planning permission, at the end of the month be the final one? That is an important factor because that is the timeframe envisaged by the company set up to provide the stadium. If further information is requested and the process is protracted, the entire project would be thrown off schedule.
I must take it that Dublin City Council will listen to its own heritage architect and determine whether this particular issue should interfere with it in deciding whether to grant planning permission, and what conditions might apply. As far as I am concerned we, or at least the development group, replied to the issues which were raised by Dublin City Council. Those replies were comprehensive. I look forward to a decision from Dublin City Council by the end of this month. If planning permission is granted, I assume an appeal will be made to An Bord Pleanála but that has been factored into the timeframe. We remain on course for construction to commence in 2007 and it is estimated to take 29 months. I do not have a crystal ball but every deadline has been met thus far.
National Theatre.
Shane McEntee
Ceist:8 Mr. McEntee asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism the position regarding the relocation of the Abbey Theatre; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26672/06]
Paul Connaughton
Ceist:19 Mr. Connaughton asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism if the examination of the possible PPP procurement models for the redevelopment of the Abbey Theatre at George’s Dock has been completed; if a report has been sent to Government on the preferred option; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26678/06]
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:21 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism the timetable for the redevelopment of the Abbey Theatre on a site in the Dublin docklands; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26937/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8, 19 and 21 together.
In July 2005, the Government authorised investigative surveys to be carried out at the George's Dock site to inform further decisions on the development of the theatre there. At my request, the Office of Public Works arranged detailed examination of the site, including archaeological, geotechnical and structural surveys. On the basis of the favourable conclusions emerging from these studies the Government in December 2005 approved the redevelopment of the Abbey Theatre at George's Dock and agreed that my Department, in conjunction with the Minister for Finance, the OPW and the National Development Finance Agency, would examine possible procurement models, including PPP options. KPMG was commissioned to carry out a cost effectiveness study of the proposed relocation of the national theatre under various procurement options. The conclusions of the KPMG study are being evaluated by my Department in consultation with the other agencies to which I have referred and I expect to report back to Government on the issues in the very near future. I am not yet in a position to specify commencement and completion dates.
What procurement model will be adopted? It is decision time regarding the proposed new national theatre because the existing theatre is outdated and the facilities are very poor. The saga surrounding the provision of a new building must reach a conclusion sooner rather than later. We profess and boast about being a modern country and, therefore, a building that represents the progress we have made, as the Minister has often said, is needed. Further delays cannot be tolerated regarding the procurement model that should be used and a decision should be made. A site has been secured and while a number of people have issues with it, it is generally agreed this is the best location, particularly since the Carlton Cinema site and other sites were not available. A timescale should be set down. What procurement model might be used? What are the expected commencement and completion dates? The Minister stated previously the project would cost €180 million. Is that estimate still valid? Was construction inflation factored into the estimate?
KPMG has been commissioned to carry out a cost effectiveness analysis of the proposed relocation of the national theatre, the key objective of which was to establish the most effective way to achieve the redevelopment of the Abbey Theatre at George's Dock. In February, KPMG provided an outline of its report, which we made available to the NDFA and the OPW. The outline, inter alia, examines a number of procurement solutions, including a DBFM-PPP structure and traditional procurement assessed against the key procurement objectives of cost effectiveness, value for money, time and design requirements and operational control.
I cannot outline a timeframe but consultations on the issue are continuing with a view to the circulation of a memorandum to the Government seeking approval to bring the project to procurement stage at the earliest date.
With regard to the capital cost of redeveloping the theatre based on its current accommodation brief, which is 12,500 sq. m., the estimate is between €150 million and €155 million, using a conventional model, exclusive of car parking. It is proposed to proceed on the basis that the new theatre will not provide car parking facilities, given that adequate car parks exist within the vicinity of George's Dock.
Tourism Promotion.
Joe Sherlock
Ceist:9 Mr. Sherlock asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism his views on the establishment of a tourism product and business innovation fund to facilitate innovation and research and development in the area of tourism, in line with the recent Irish Tourist Industry Confederation report; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26939/06]
Róisín Shortall
Ceist:11 Ms Shortall asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism if his attention has been drawn to a new report by the Irish Tourist Industry Confederation on competitiveness in the tourism industry; if his attention has further been drawn to its conclusion that pricing is one of the factors adversely affecting the competitiveness of the tourism market; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26938/06]
Gay Mitchell
Ceist:14 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism if he will introduce a soft loan scheme as outlined in the recent ITIC report, Ireland’s Competitive Position in Tourism; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26671/06]
Bernard J. Durkan
Ceist:342 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism the cost factors currently affecting the development of the tourism industry; if he has in mind proposals to address the issues; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27615/06]
Bernard J. Durkan
Ceist:343 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism if he is satisfied that tourism locations here are sufficiently competitive with similar locations in Europe and worldwide; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27616/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 9, 11, 14, 342 and 343 together.
As I have often said, maintaining and growing competitiveness is the major challenge facing the tourism industry. The industry operates in a fiercely competitive environment and faces major challenges if it is to remain on the path of sustainable and well dispersed growth. Tourism policy has been reviewed and re-invigorated following the report of the tourism policy review group in autumn 2003. The challenges facing the industry have been well described and the path towards addressing them laid out in the New Horizons report on Irish tourism policy. New Horizons identified the restoration of competitiveness as one of the greatest challenges facing the industry. It set out a practical action plan with more than 70 recommendations. Good progress on the implementation of these recommendations was reported on in the final report of the tourism action plan implementation group, which was published in March 2006 and is available on my Department's website. The Irish Tourist Industry Confederation was closely involved with the work of the implementation group.
I have welcomed the Irish Tourist Industry Confederation's Report on Ireland's Competitive Position in Tourism, which is an intelligent contribution to the debate on the state of Irish tourism, as it reflects many of the issues and challenges that surfaced in the New Horizons report. The ITIC report puts forward a useful agenda for the tourism industry to lift its game and the various players involved need to give it careful attention. The tourism strategy implementation group, which I have recently appointed, will work with the industry and Departments and agencies to address a number of key areas, in particular, competitiveness, productivity and skills, sustainability, regional spread and product development. ITIC is closely involved with this process.
As for specific recommendations in the ITIC report on a tourism product and business innovation fund and a soft loan scheme, I will await the outcome of the work of Fáilte Ireland on its new Tourism Product Development Strategy 2007-2013, which is being finalised by the high level group set up by the body and chaired by Mr. Dan Flinter and which will be a valuable input to the work of my Department on the next national development plan. The tourism agencies continue to monitor Ireland's competitiveness as a tourism destination. Overall Ireland is not perceived as an expensive destination to get to but that there are issues about the relative cost of some on-the-ground amenities.
In 2005, Tourism Ireland undertook a pilot project that focused on benchmarking Ireland's availability on-line against our key competitors in the top four markets — Great Britain, the USA, France and Germany — regarding cost availability and choice of flights, hotels and car hire. Overall Ireland is very competitive in these sectors in the on-line arena. Fáilte Ireland's visitor attitude survey shows that the area of value, price and good all-round value for money remains an important prerequisite for visitors when considering Ireland as their holiday destination, as does the availability of reasonably priced accommodation and competitively priced air and sea fares.
The reality is that Ireland is not a cheap or low cost destination. The economy operates on a partnership basis and tourism is a services industry, which relies heavily on labour. Economic and social policy operates on the basis of seeking to ensure those in employment are paid fair wages, which impacts on costs. No one wants to turn back the clock in this regard. Nevertheless better management can secure greater productivity and more efficient uses of resources employed with a knock-on benefit in operating costs. Fáilte Ireland has a range of programmes to help the industry in this area.
At more than €140 million, Exchequer support for tourism is at unprecedented levels this year. The needs of the industry are increasingly reflected in Government policies and analyses across a wide spectrum. In addition to its economic benefits, tourism plays an important role in supporting the peace process where it is the leading area of North-South economic co-operation. Despite all of the shocks and uncertainties in the international marketplace over the past four years and the destructive nay-saying that is all too common in certain media circles, Irish tourism has managed to weather the storm and continues to grow. The official CSO tourism and travel figures for the first four months of 2006 reflect the healthy state of the industry. Visitor numbers increased by almost 13%. This follows on a record visitor number performance in 2005 with almost 7 million overseas visitors. However, despite the record performance, we cannot be complacent.
The industry, not the Government, delivers visitors. The industry has to aim, at all times, to operate at optimum competitiveness and to seek to deliver value for money and a good visitor experience. The Government has given an unprecedented level of commitment and support for the Irish tourism industry. It is working in partnership with the industry to help it meet its current challenges and will continue to do so in the future.
The report mentioned in the question states an estimated €1 billion is required for the lifetime of the development plan. What is the situation regarding such figures compared with the last development plan? In his press release of June 20 the Minister stated he would call on all players identified in the report to give careful consideration to the actions proposed.
During the past week the "Morning Ireland" programme on RTE has had a regular investigative spot on tourism. The overall picture is that in many instances local authorities fail regarding signposts and tourist facilities. How can we relate the international marketing worth €325 million to what is required at local level? Local authorities have a major role to play. How does that bill compare with what we spent previously? How will the Minister, local authorities and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government try to improve basic tourist facilities such as signposting and the cost of food? According to "Morning Ireland", these issues upset tourists.
We spent €325 million on marketing and €210 million on developing tourist spots and other products. How will those amounts be related and is it feasible? What is the breakdown for local authorities? A proposal was made regarding development and training involving an amount of €175 million. A need for training was also mentioned during the debate on "Morning Ireland".
The Minister stated he must wait for Fáilte Ireland's proposals. How realistic are these figures in terms of the national development plan? What connection can be made between the Departments of Arts, Sports and Tourism and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and local authorities to implement this package which would give us a competitive edge in tourism?
I will answer the final question first. The group established to examine the tourism industry and bring forward specific recommendations made more than 70 recommendations in its final report, New Horizons for Irish Tourism An Agenda for Action. This includes the question of interaction with State agencies, including local authorities, with a view to improving the product which also includes signage.
The implementation group I subsequently established engaged with the authorities, agencies and Departments concerned with a view to progressing the recommendations contained in the original report. I recently appointed a new implementation group which will not be as intensive as the previous group but which, nonetheless, will monitor progress to ensure the recommendations are implemented.
The previous implementation group had a considerable degree of success and I expect the same level of success from this group. Therefore, a group is in place which has the objective of liaising with State agencies, local authorities and Departments to ensure the recommendations contained in New Horizons for Irish Tourism An Agenda for Action are implemented. It is pointless to have such an elaborate report if it is not implemented. It is a waste of time and money. This report is being implemented. It is good value for money and is not a waste of time.
Regarding how the request for €1 billion in the ITIC report compares with the past, I imagine during the past ten years between the public and private sectors anything up to €4 billion was spent on building up the Irish tourism product. That is a ballpark figure. The figure mentioned by ITIC may not be achieved in the context of what will be provided in the new national development plan. However, we will seek to have an elaborate tourism policy and strategy and funding for it contained in the plan.
It is important for the outcome of the analysis taking place to be input into the plan before we state precisely what we seek. Our plans will be ambitious and we will seek to improve the product considerably. We do so because we face increasing competitiveness from eastern European countries in the immediate future. If we are to continue with the progress we have made, and I am encouraged by the early results for this year which show a 13% increase, we must continue to improve and provide a quality holiday experience.
Is the Minister concerned that according to recent figures, the US market seems to have decreased and the trend of bed night losses in the west seems to be continuing? In that context, the ITIC report specifically mentioned business tourism. At present, one does not pay VAT when one attends a business conference in Northern Ireland. However, one does so in the Republic of Ireland. Will the Minister entertain proposals put forward by the industry for a VAT refund for business tourists who come here? It is a lucrative market and we do not fully capitalise on it.
Regarding the soft loan proposal, a large number of our tourism products have gone stale. They need upgrading and to be made more interesting, and they require the use of modern technology. Many of them were put in place in the 1980s and 1990s when we did not have the same methods of presenting products and holding exhibitions. Those centres need a grant scheme and they may also need a loan scheme. It should seriously be considered. In 2004 the west coast region had 3.2 million or 3.3 million fewer holiday bed nights than in 1999. How will that be addressed?
I stated I was very pleased with the Central Statistics Office figures published earlier this month which showed a double digit growth in overall visitor numbers for the first four months of the year, driven by the British market which represented a growth of 12% or 127,000 visitors, which was quite considerable. The number of European visitors increased by more than one fifth, leading to an additional 97,000 visitors during the same four-month period. It is simply not correct to state the North American market was down for the first four months of the year. In fact, the year to date has shown an increase in the number of North American visitors of 1.7%. It was particularly pleasing that in the last month of the four month period examined by the Central Statistics Office, the increase was a whopping 12.6% from North America.
These figures overall confirm a pick-up of considerable proportions and even long-haul markets were up by over 3% after a slow start to the year. I am not saying these figures are reflected in every region but we are showing continued strong growth for the first four months of the year. That is not reflective of a stale product or one which people reject. It is the opposite. It is reflective of a product chosen by discerning visitors because of its quality. I have never denied the need to improve that. As I said to Deputy Wall, we will seek to do so through the new national development plan but we should not talk down our product.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.