Vol. 692 No. 3
101 Deputy Frank Feighan asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism his plans for the development of a sports campus in view of the recently granted planning permission to the National Sports Campus Development Authority; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37453/09]
As the Minister has previously stated in response to recent questions on the overall development of the national sports campus project, he is currently engaged in discussions with the National Sports Campus Development Authority, NSCDA, as to how we might best advance matters in the medium term taking into consideration the current difficult economic constraints. Notwithstanding these constraints, I am pleased to report that planning permission has recently been obtained for phase one of the National Sports Campus. As the Deputy will be aware, the planning permission includes provision for a multi-sport national indoor training centre to provide world class facilities for more than 20 sports; sports science and medical facilities; accommodation for sportsmen and women; all-weather synthetic pitches for community recreational access; and a national field sports training centre catering for rugby, soccer, Gaelic games and hockey.
Meanwhile, refurbishment work on the former central meat control laboratory has recently been completed and this will provide a headquarters for the Irish Institute of Sport. The provision of further funding for the National Sports Campus project is now being considered as part of the Estimates process for 2010.
The budget this year for the National Sports Campus is €4 million or thereabouts, I understand. The McCarthy report wants it abolished altogether. I do not agree with that as I believe we need a national sports facility, to supplement the moneys we have spent on local sports facilities. As the Minister of State says, it now has planning permission and there is a budget of €4 million.
Under a freedom of information request it has come to my attention that the National Sports Campus has a contractual commitment of €9.5 million for project management and design for phase one of the project, but there is no budget whatsoever for that. On top of that it took over the Abbotstown lands this year and the maintenance costs for this is an additional €1 million for which there is no budget. The international benchmarking report, last year, said that the aquatic centre alone would need an annual subsidy of €1.5 million, and there is no budget for that either.
Can the Minister of State say what meetings have taken place between the Minister and the sports campus, to discuss the fact that it has contractual commitments? What consideration is being given to the fact that it may have to withdraw from these contractual commitments? What will the cost be, not just the financial cost, but in terms of the loss of expertise in standing down the design team and the lost momentum in providing these facilities? It is catastrophic as far as this facility is concerned, and in terms of the Government's annual budget, let alone the budget for sports.
The Deputy will appreciate that I do not deal with sports matters. I do not have that information to hand and I will communicate with the Deputy.
Will the Minister of State say whether the planning permission is for a five year period or longer? If it is only for five years, what realistically are the prospects of getting this started and in place within that timeframe? Is this just another large "Bertie" white elephant legacy that we are now inheriting, with substantial amounts of money already spent, and absolutely no return? All types of promises were made to the effect that we would have a state-of-the-art facility for the Olympics. Usain Bolt was to come here, according to the Minister, Deputy Martin Cullen, but the Jamaican team is now going to Birmingham, for example. Realistically, what is happening to it?
Perhaps the Deputy might table a parliamentary question in this regard, if the information is not available.
I would not speculate on what will or will not be completed within the period. On a more general issue, over many years there has been a tendency to politicise this project in respect of a former Taoiseach. However, at its core are some very worthwhile facilities that are worth providing.
Is it not just a case of spending a great deal of money with no outcome?
Does the Minister of State believe it would ever be acceptable for a Department or Government agency to withdraw from a contract pleading inability to pay? Is that feasible? Has it ever happened in history that a Government agency has been forced to withdraw from a contract claiming that it cannot pay for it? This is the position in which the sports campus finds itself.
To get this information the Deputy would need to submit another parliamentary question.
I have submitted a question. I appreciate that the Minister of State is at a disadvantage.
I am not an expert in contract law. However, normally contracts are binding unless the contract provides — as it sometimes does — a method of withdrawing from it.
It is inability to pay.
I could not tell the Deputy what precedents exist.
Very few.
102 Deputy John Deasy asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism if he has completed his review of new funding opportunities for the horseracing sector; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37441/09]
110 Deputy Jan O’Sullivan asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism the date of publication of the horse and greyhound review; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37389/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 102 and 110 together.
Since 2001, Government support for the horse and greyhound racing industries has been provided under the horse and greyhound racing fund, which was established under the Horse and Greyhound Racing Act 2001. In 2004, the Government put in place regulations to increase the limit of the horse and greyhound racing fund from €254 million to €550 million to continue the fund for a further four years to 2008. By the end of 2008, a total of €545.8 million was paid out of the fund. The remaining balance in the fund at the start of 2009 was €4.2 million. Some €68.1 million has been allocated to the fund for 2009 and a regulation which increased the level of the fund by €63.907 million has been made.
Funding of both Horse Racing Ireland and Bord na gCon supports two very important productive industries and helps to sustain the important role of horse and greyhound breeding and training enterprises in the development of the rural economy. These industries together account for an estimated 27,500 direct jobs, generate very substantial economic activity and make a vital contribution to the rural economy, including farm incomes.
The funding given to the greyhound racing sector helps in sustaining a tradition that has existed for hundreds of years and in underpinning the economic activity in what are in many instances less affluent regions of the country. The funding has also contributed significantly to the almost €90 million that has been invested in the improved facilities now available at greyhound tracks around Ireland.
The funding has allowed Horse Racing Ireland to undertake a capital investment programme that has underpinned growth in the sector. The funding has allowed Ireland to develop into a world centre of excellence for horseracing.
A review of the fund has been completed and is currently being considered in the context of deciding on the future funding options for these industries. The level of funding to the horse and greyhound racing industries in 2010 will be dependent on overall budgetary conditions taking into account the significant contributions that these industries make to the economy in general and the rural economy in particular.
This year's budget for the horse and greyhound racing fund is €68 million of which I believe it is estimated €31 million would come from the betting tax. That was the forecast at the beginning of the year and I suspect that the outturn is considerably less. One way or another, the Exchequer was going to invest considerable money into the industry. All sides of the House would accept that this is not sustainable. I believe the industries themselves recognise it is not sustainable. They want as much as we do for the industries to provide the tax to support them.
For some time the Minister has been saying that he is considering alternative forms of tax. However, he says that one month and the next month he comes in and tells us how difficult it is to find an alternative form of tax and particularly to capture the on-line betting. Given that the review is complete, is it possible to bring forward a form of tax to ensure these industries can survive? I note that the submission of the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism to the Department of Finance offered savings as a result of a new form of tax. Therefore, can the Minister of State confirm that a new form of tax, including perhaps capturing on-line betting, has been found?
I cannot pre-empt what further decisions will be made on either tax or funding in the context of the budget and Estimates. I am certainly well aware of the arguments the Deputy has put forward. If she is expecting me to mark her card as to exactly what will happen, I regret I am unable to do that.
The Minister promised the review of the funding of the industries. The review has taken place. My understanding from the Committee Stage debate is that it was to be discussed in the House. We have not had that opportunity. We are lining ourselves up right beside the budget and there is no decision. We have all agreed that it is a really important industry that needs to be supported. However, from where will that funding come? I understand the Minister of State may not be able to answer that question today. There has been total failure to tax Internet gambling. The Government has also capitulated on taxing bookies. There are aspects that can and must be addressed. There are opportunities. It does not need to come from the Exchequer's standard tax take. It is really important for us to know the plan prior to the budget.
I wish to confirm that the Minister gave a commitment to bring the matter to the Dáil to give us the opportunity to discuss it. As the Minister of State is a Tipperary man, I know this important industry is close to his heart. It is an export service industry and a regional industry that provides jobs in areas where there are very few other jobs. It is of great value to the economy. I can envisage it being put on the long finger and then the opportunity will come to stop the funding because of the financial situation facing the Government. I am sure there are opportunities to capture tax from these industries to fund horseracing and greyhound racing. I want the Minister to outline to the House the details of the findings of the review. I ask the Minister of State to bring that to the Minister to ensure that it happens between now and the budget.
I can really only note what the Deputies have said and report it back to the Minister. Of course the equine industry is very important to the entire country. As the Deputy observed, it is particularly important to County Tipperary. Together the two industries employ approximately 27,500 people with approximately 80% in the horse industry and 20% in the greyhound industry. I was formerly a nominee of the Irish Thoroughbred Breeders Association when I sat in the Assembly that Deputy Mitchell's party apparently wishes to abolish.
We are moving off on a tangent.
103 Deputy Willie Penrose asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism if he will establish cultural apprenticeships to ensure that the best of the emerging artists here have an opportunity to remain here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37379/09]
I presume the Deputy is referring to the commitment in the programme for Government in the context of retaining existing jobs and supporting viable but vulnerable businesses. This commitment is to continue the apprenticeship programmes at the national cultural institutions. The national cultural institutions operate various internship, apprenticeship and placement programmes, having regard to the individual institution's requirements and facilities. These programmes will continue notwithstanding the moratorium on public service numbers. Any costs borne by the individual institutions, as heretofore, would be met from their annual grants-in-aid.
The National Gallery of Ireland is involved in graduate internship programmes, whereby graduates are taken on in the education, library and visitor services departments on short and long-term voluntary internships at different times during the year. It is also sponsoring a year-long internship in conservation, funded by the Heritage Council, during 2009-10. The gallery and the National Museum are involved in various transition year student placements during the year. The Chester Beatty Library offers a short–term and a one-year internship in conservation and from time to time makes places for internships in other areas, when possible, but it is a less formal arrangement than the conservation placements.
The Crawford Art Gallery has several different internships running at any one time, in collaboration with colleges in Ireland and also the University of Trento. These include a student who is currently working on a gallery signage design; and a post-doctoral researcher from California on a six-month internship, researching meta-data tagging, website development and collections management software. The Crawford Art Gallery is the Irish national correspondent for Association Pepiniere, a cultural network based in Paris that organises residencies for artists throughout Europe. There are currently three artists in Cork on six-month residencies under the auspices of this programme. They will be exhibiting their work at the Crawford Art Gallery at the end of their residency period. There are two students from the University of Trento due to arrive under the auspices of the Leonardo programme.
In regard to the National Archives, this institution has had a conservation scholarship or internship programme in operation since 2006. Most recently, two conservation scholars have been awarded contracts for services for the 12 months commencing in September 2009. The scholarships are open to graduates in paper or archives conservation who graduated in either the current year or the previous two years, and are awarded on foot of a competition. The arrangement is mutually beneficial as the scholar gains essential work experience while we gain skilled conservator services.
The National Library has operated a studentship programme for some ten years now. Under this programme, four 12-month placements are offered in the areas of library studentship, archives studentship, Irish history research studentship and conservation internship. One would expect that the effect of these projects would be to foster and develop the talents and expertise of those involved in assigning them in their chosen fields into the future.
I thank the Minister of State for his comprehensive reply and I welcome the commitments. What prompted the question is that it is a particularly tough time for emerging artists right across the spectrum of arts and culture. We have to be proactive in providing opportunities for them, keeping them in productive employment and improving their skills while they hope to get into full-time employment.
104 Deputy John O’Mahony asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism his plans for the future structure of the National Archives, the National Library and the Irish Manuscripts Commission; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37470/09]
The Deputy will be aware of the 2009 budget announcement of the rationalisation of agencies under the aegis of this Department to include the amalgamation of the National Archives and the Irish Manuscripts Commission into the National Library of Ireland to become the National Library and Archives of Ireland. In the case of this merger, the structure will become clearer when the necessary legislation has been finalised. This will require substantial amendment to the National Archives Act 1986, the National Cultural Institutions Act 1997 and the Heritage Fund Act 2000. The memorandum and articles of association of the Irish Manuscripts Commission, and its position as a guarantee company, will be extinguished while the functions of the commission will be transferred into the new body, mutatis mutandis. As the Minister has previously stated, the Department has considered the corporate and legislative position of each of the institutions in order to draft proposals for the appropriate legislation to give effect to the decision to merge these bodies.
That merger will take place in the context of a federal-type structure whereby the different bodies would keep their identity. To take one example, I would be very familiar with the Irish Manuscripts Commission, which does fantastic work. I can think of a couple of productions last autumn which the Taoiseach launched at Birr Castle, including the 800 to 900 page Ross papers, covering the period from the 1640s through to the mid-20th century. These contained fascinating material both about the Confederate wars and Sir Lawrence Parsons, who later became Earl of Rosse, was admired by Wolfe Tone and was a leading anti-Union member of the old Irish Parliament.
More recently, I reviewed for The Irish Times three volumes of the journals of the Irish House of Lords, which were again fascinating. Deputies might not be aware that the origin of the free envelopes scheme is the mid-17th century. It was a measure designed against Charles I to allow free correspondence between MPs and the people, and its effect was extended to Ireland during the Cromwellian period. Few of us think of that scheme as having its origins back then. An interesting feature of that scheme is that not merely could MPs, now TDs, send post free of charge to their constituents, but their constituents could send letters to them free of charge. Somewhere in the past 300 years, the reciprocal nature of this arrangement has gone missing. Whether it would be worthy of revival or whether we have enough post to deal with is a matter for debate.
That is fascinating, although I hope the Minister of State has not eaten into my speaking time. I appreciate that some further consideration along the lines of a federal arrangement between the Irish Manuscripts Commission, the National Library and the National Archives is taking place. However, the keeping of an archive is a State function and I do not believe it should be in a semi-autonomous body like the National Library. Be that as it may, my key concern is when any of this is going to happen. The Minister of State knows, as I do, the state of the National Archives, including the building where it is located and the way it is managed at present. It is in an extremely difficult position because of the uncertainty about when the legislation will be introduced. Staff are leaving and not being replaced, and the whole institution is running down and beginning to moulder.
When is the legislation likely to come? Will the Minister of State agree something must happen in the National Archives given the huge problems caused by staff leaving and not being replaced? Quite apart from the cultural tourism element, the National Archives is part of our heritage, yet is being kept in a biscuit factory. The current arrangement is neither sustainable nor acceptable. After many years of the Celtic tiger, nothing has happened, which is a disgrace. I am sure the Minister of State would agree, if he could do so privately. Is there any hope of bringing forward the legislation so that some new direction is given?
I am particularly concerned with the National Archives, although I realise the Irish Manuscripts Commission will be included in any arrangement that is made. My problem is that nothing is happening. I examined the legislative programme and this legislation is dealt with in the back pages, where it is impossible to give a timeline. Can the Minister of State enlighten me as to when the legislation will be brought forward?
Broadly speaking, I accept the points being made by the Deputy, in particular, that the National Archives is under pressure, although it has had tremendous successes, for example, putting the 1901 and 1911 censuses online — the website has apparently had 125 million hits.
I wish I could give the Deputy a timeline for when the legislation will be ready but I cannot add to the information she already has from the legislative programme. My main concern is not just with what one might call institutional organisation questions, which consist at the top level of some kind of overarching co-ordination and management and, at the bottom level, shared back office services, which obviously make sense. The proper conservation of our archives and access to them is also important. Brilliant work is being done by historians on the basis of the archives, and new archives are becoming available all the time, such as the Bureau of Military History and the IRA military pension files, which will be available by 2016. For the sake of the economic, social and cultural history of the country, I would dearly like the Land Commission records to be made available to historians.
I am not questioning the quality of the work being done, which I agree is incredible given the conditions in which staff are working. I accept that the Minister of State is not responsible for bringing forward legislation in the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism, but will he convey to the Minister the degree of urgency attaching to this issue?
The policy decision is made by the Department concerned — in most of the cases we are discussing it is the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism — after which the Office of Public Works comes into play in terms of finding solutions, particularly space solutions and so on. A considerable amount of work has been done in the background in the past two or three years. The main issue, as with everything else, is funding.
There is a statutory requirement for the National Archives to have a fully appointed board, but that requirement has not been met for some years. It is a rudderless organisation.
I am not disputing the Deputy's point.
In that case, will the Minister of State ask the Minister, Deputy Martin Cullen, to do something about it?
There was an indication in the last budget that the institutions in question were to be merged, but the relevant legislation remains on the C list. Earlier this week, however, regulations from the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism were placed before us to allow for the time trials for a debutante greyhound to be reduced by 0.3 seconds. That can only make one wonder about the Department's priorities.
Bodies such as the National Archives do not move with quite the same speed as greyhounds.
105 Deputy Pádraic McCormack asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism the position regarding the national theatre project; his views on the feasibility of the proposal to relocate the theatre to the General Post Office, Dublin; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37476/09]
108 Deputy Michael D. Higgins asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism the progress regarding the relocation of the Abbey Theatre; the implications of the revised programme for Government commitment to relocate the theatre to the General Post Office, Dublin; the amount of money spent to date on the original relocation; if this is to be abolished; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37376/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 105 and 108 together.
The development of a new national theatre project is a complex undertaking, with a myriad of technical, procedural and legal factors to address in making progress on it. The successful delivery of this project is a priority for my Department and the Government in the renewed programme for Government and the national development plan.
Arising from the original Government decision to relocate the Abbey Theatre to a site provided by the Dublin Docklands Development Authority at George's Dock, an inter-agency steering committee was set up to oversee the project. The committee is chaired by my Department and comprises representatives of the National Development Finance Agency, Office of Public Works, Abbey Theatre and Dublin Docklands Development Authority. A project team, chaired by the Office of Public Works and comprising representatives of the same agencies as the steering group, was also established and met on more than 20 occasions. A considerable amount of technical, legal and financial due diligence was undertaken to ensure this project was progressed and that the best solution possible was put in place.
To date, €219,590.32 has been expended on design, engineering, architectural, financial and legal fees. Significant progress had been made in finalising the accommodation brief, international design documentation, financial stress testing, technical and engineering feasibility and layout, the majority of which are project as distinct from site specific, in the event of decisions being taken by Government to procure the new Abbey Theatre on an alternative site. In that regard, the Office of Public Works, in conjunction with my Department and the Abbey Theatre and with relevant external technical input, has commenced an assessment of the GPO complex to ascertain its feasibility as a location for the redeveloped national theatre. The Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and An Post will also be engaged in this process. There are many technical issues involved in such an assessment and a full report will be brought to Government in due course.
This project certainly seems to be a complex undertaking. The preparation for a design competition has been ongoing for years and three Ministers have been involved in the process, but no decision has been made. There has been a substantial outlay in money and time and various experts have been enlisted to provide the design completion specification. The question is whether that specification is site-specific, in which case the GPO proposal, which would have been most welcome five or six years ago, is nothing other than a red herring if it would require us to go back to the drawing board.
Everyone would agree there is a critical decision to be made in this regard. A considerable degree of pressure has been taken off the Abbey Theatre following its recent refurbishment on the existing site. I understand the board is satisfied that the theatre will be able to continue for the next five or six years until a new site is developed, hopefully in time for the centenary of the Rising in 2016. As I said in my reply, the vast majority of spending associated with this project to date — I mentioned a figure of some €219,000 — is project specific as opposed to site specific. In other words, the vast majority of it could be transferred into the GPO if that is the decision. It is important to note that while the programme for Government declares an interest in going down that road, all the complexities of the proposal will have to be fully explored and identified in order to ascertain whether it is feasible.
It is amazing that this process has gone on for so long until now, quite suddenly, we have had an about-turn. From where did the impetus come for this about-turn in terms of relocating the theatre to the GPO? Will there now be a requirement for more consultants to be engaged to look again at the GPO? Even after such evaluation has taken place, is there still a chance that we will revert to plan A?
The concern is that the proposal is merely a time wasting exercise.
I make no attempt to deny that there has been a shift in the Government's position on this matter. I participated in a debate on this issue in the Seanad in June 2008 at which point the clear course being pursued was to locate the theatre at George's Dock. Since then, there has been a shift in thinking of which I became aware at a meeting with the Taoiseach, the Minister and the Secretary General last June. Once I was aware of that, I instructed officials in the Office of Public Works accordingly. I understand the GPO was considered some years ago as one of four or five options, so limited work had already been done on it. On the question of consultants, the vast majority, if not all, of the work is being done in-house by the Office of Public Works.
To clarify, will the Minister of State elaborate on his indication that he has given instruction to the Office of Public Works?
I have instructed it to examine the feasibility of locating the plans as they have been developed for the Abbey Theatre in the GPO as opposed to George's Dock.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
