Amendment No. 5 is an alternative to amendment No. 4 and both may be discussed together by agreement.
National Tourism Development Authority Bill 2002 [ Seanad ] : Report Stage (Resumed).
Acting Chairman
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 8, line 34, after "Government" to insert "(including policies of the Government relating to the Irish language and culture)".
In general terms I accept the thrust of Deputy Deenihan's amendment. I reflected on the matters in our most recent debate. During the Second Stage debate in the House, I was struck by the number of speakers who referred to the need to develop in a sensitive way the tourism potential around our language and associated culture. This amendment, while not strictly necessary, could send a useful signal in this regard.
The number of people who wish to visit Ireland for cultural purposes is often forgotten. A study some years ago in Scandinavia ascertained that a large number of people wished to visit the country for cultural reasons. This obtains in other countries as well. I am minded to accept the broad thrust of Deputy Deenihan's amendment for the reason that it could send a signal in regard to the recognition of culture as a valuable tourism asset.
I join in welcoming our friends from the Czech Republic. It is good to see tourists coming from there. A large number of Irish people, especially young people, travel to the Czech republic for weekend breaks. It is obviously a good reciprocal arrangement.
I thank the Minister for accepting the thrust of my amendment. As I pointed out on Committee Stage, Gaeltacht areas are an important part of our Irish tourism product. Many people come to Ireland because of the experience they get in areas such as the Donegal, Connemara and Kerry Gaeltachts and because of the difference in culture and the attractiveness of the language. If the new body is to set up tourist offices in these areas it is important that the people providing tourist information will be able to speak Irish and to give information through that medium. This provision would, hopefully, ensure that these people would be bilingual. It is a contradiction if someone seeking information regarding accommodation or local attractions in a Gaeltacht area has to deal with somebody who cannot interpret what they are saying through Irish.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 5 not moved.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 8, after line 42, to insert the following:
"(2) The Minister may establish a permanent inter-departmental review group comprising representatives of the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism, the Department of the Environment and Local Government, the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, the Department of Finance, the Department of Agriculture and Food and the Department of Education and Science, as well as such other public bodies, as the Minister may from time to time determine, whose function shall be to advise the Minister and the National Tourism Development Authority on tourism policy especially in relation to the role of their own departments.".
I moved this amendment on Committee Stage. The reason I move it again is that a number of reports on tourism have been published over the past six to 12 months. The reports highlight the fact that not enough attention is being given to tourism and that not enough State agencies are concerned about its value. This provision would ensure that the various Departments that have a direct influence on the development of tourism and all of the main stakeholders at Government level would be involved, in some way, in the decision making process.
This would be a cross-departmental approach. The Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism would be the driving force. The Department of the Environment and Local Government would also have a major responsibility in regard to signposting which is a major issue for incoming tourists. There is a low standard of signposting across the country which is a cause of frustration to large numbers of tourists. People get lost on a daily basis coming into Dublin alone. They find it impossible to get out of Dublin port whether heading north, south or west.
Infrastructure is another important issue in regard to roads and the provision of sanitary facilities in tourist resorts. Planning is also an issue. The Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources has a critical role to play. It has responsibility for our coastal areas to which tourists are naturally attracted. The potential of these areas for the development of tourism is considerable but it will not be realised unless the Department is in the decision making process.
The Department of Finance also has a critical role to play. ITIC published a report last September which stated that Irish tourism had lost its competitiveness and was pricing itself out of the market. The Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism advised at the time that the industry should reduce its costs. It is basically costs imposed on the industry by both Government and local authorities that create this lack of competitiveness.
Lobbying was ongoing from September up to budget time for a reduction on the VAT rate on tourism products from 12.5% to 10%. It was expected that the Minister would make a move in that direction but instead the rate was increased by 1%. Now, at 13.5%, it is one of the highest VAT rates in the euro zone. In France, Portugal, Spain and Italy the average VAT rate on tourism products across the board is about 5%. The VAT on the charge for a €100 room in those countries would be €5 but here in Ireland it would be €13.50. We have lost competitiveness in that area instantly. The Department of Finance has a critical role to play in tourism policy and should be involved in the type of structure I propose.
The Department of Agriculture and Food should also be involved. It is the food producer for the country and the food visitors eat is produced on our farms. Agri-tourism is under-capitalised and under-exploited. The Department of Education and Science has a role to play through the school system and the tourism courses it provides to students. It is training many of the leaders of the industry for the future.
The Minister rejected this proposal on Committee Stage but it is warranted now. There are similar structures in place to help other Departments both here and in other countries. It would give a more focused approach to tourism policy in the country. It would be more inclusive and would involve all the stakeholders at Government level. It would be an effective and helpful mechanism for the Minister and Fáilte Ireland. I urge the Minister to accept the amendment.
This amendment is unnecessary. This legislation is about the setting up of a tourism authority and not about my wider ministerial role. If I wanted to set up a committee, if that were appropriate, along the lines suggested by Deputy Deenihan, I could do so without recourse to legislation. In those circumstances I do not propose to accept the amendment.
With regard to VAT rates, these are a separate issue and have no place in this legislation. VAT is a percentage of the total cost of a product and the higher the cost of the product, the higher the VAT. Recently I had the pleasure of launching, in conjunction with the Irish Restaurants Association, a new value-for-money menu for lunches and dinners in Irish restaurants which have signed up to this concept. The menu provides meals ranging from €10 to €30. This will be welcome in the context of the value for money debate in this area.
There is no point in us burying our heads in the sand. We have Bord Fáilte surveys which suggest that an increasing number of visitors perceive that the value for money we offer is not what it used to be. It would be foolish to ignore that. I have chosen not to ignore it and have advised the industry on the precise position and asked it to become more competitive. I am happy to say that the industry has responded positively and we are becoming more competitive. It is a tough world and we should be under no illusion but that competition in the marketplace is fierce.
A visit to the recent world fair in London illustrated for anybody interested that more countries, in particular developing nations, are entering the marketplace. If one does not have a lean and hungry product some of the market share will disappear. It is as simple as that. Any comments I have made on the need to maintain competitiveness and to offer value for money have been offered in good faith in the interests of the industry. I am pleased the industry has responded in the food area. I sincerely hope there will be a similar response in the drinks area and that there will be a greater degree of competition in the marketplace. That is of immense importance.
More than 90% of visitors to Ireland express satisfaction with the visit here. More than 80% say they would recommend it to a friend while a majority of the same visitors here perceive that value for money in Ireland is not what it used to be. If we are to maintain our share of the marketplace and increase it, we have to ensure our product is competitive. I will take whatever measure is required to ensure this happens. There has been a very positive response from the food sector and I sincerely hope a similar response is forthcoming in the not too distant future from the drinks sector.
The Minister did not address the thrust of my amendment. In the context of finance I mentioned the importance of VAT to tourism competition but he availed of the opportunity I afforded him to make a contribution about competitiveness and what is happening in the restaurant industry. Obviously the Minister will not accept the amendment. If something is enshrined in legislation it would have to be put in place, otherwise it would be up to a particular Minister to put in place the type of structure I am recommending. If in the future the Minister considers this would be a useful or an appropriate structure, in the event that tourism continues to experience challenging times as at present, I suggest he look at it as a way of bringing all State agencies together which may make a contribution to tourism.
There have been such committees in the past. The real issue is whether such committees have added value. Experience in that regard is not exciting.
This is a different type of committee and a different composition.
Sometimes we get far more out of a direct bilateral engagement with individual Departments responsible for issues which affect tourism than from such committees. Once our institutional reform package is completed we will focus on engaging more closely with a couple of other Departments on other issues critical to tourism. For example, the issue of access is of immense importance. If we are to be effective we will have to draw on the expertise and insight of a strong national and regional tourism development structure. That will be a critical part of the authority's work. Tourism is part of a complex web of interaction. There are many things which happen outside of tourism which impact on tourism and which need attention. I understand this is a theme which is emerging strongly in the review group on tourism policy which I set up some time ago. Out of that work I hope we can get a consensus on the priority areas so far as tourism impact is concerned and the priority outcomes which the tourism sector requires.
Once we have those, I and my Department, the authority and the industry, can adopt a unified approach with the key players to raise the awareness of tourism needs and to secure the best outcome for the Irish tourism industry from their decisions. It would be wrong at this stage to prejudge the outcome of the review group's work or to anticipate its recommendations. There is little doubt it will have its own views on the best way to proceed. I look forward to the group's deliberations which I sincerely hope can be given effect in so far as the recommendations will serve the best interests of the industry.
Acting Chairman
If Deputy Deenihan wishes to reply briefly, he may do so.
I welcome what the Minister has said about communication with other Departments. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is one that should be involved in any process because the licensing laws which were designed to facilitate tourism are having the opposite effect. Certainly the extension of the licensing laws is giving us a bad reputation as visitors see what is happening on the streets late at night when young people pile out on to the streets. This is an issue about which the Minister should have serious discussions with his colleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Although he does not claim to be responsible, it was the Minister present who introduced the new licensing laws. Rather than make a positive contribution to the image of the tourism product they have the opposite effect and are not presenting a positive image for Ireland due to the mayhem on the streets late in the evening, in front of tourists, when young people come out on to the streets drunk and there is a major public order problem.
May I respond to that?
Acting Chairman
Fan go fóill. I allowed Deputy Deenihan back in because it was his third time to speak. I will allow the Minister a brief opportunity to contribute.
Thank you for the opportunity. I will be brief. The reality is that the licensing laws are a separate issue. They were agreed to by all sides of the House. An Oireachtas committee dealt with the legislation and brought forward recommendations which were implemented unanimously by the House. As I recall the legislation going through the House, many Members wanted the laws to be more liberal but I did not relent. I understand there is a report from the Intoxicating Liquor Licensing Commission which will point the way forward but I am not aware of any radical recommendations in that report in relation to the actual licensing hours. The difficulties which Deputy Deenihan pointed out exist. It is important to recognise that the legislation was introduced in the main at the behest of an all-party Oireachtas committee and agreed unanimously by the House.
Acting Chairman
While it is unusual, I will allow Deputy Wall to contribute if he makes a very brief comment.
I fully understand the Minister's position and the party of which I am a member supported the decisions on the licensing law changes. I am sorry I did not make a stronger case at the time in respect of the continued opening hours on Sunday between 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. This has major implications for family life and sporting life. This is particularly evident in rural Ireland where there is a problem. It is good to have the benefit of hindsight. Obviously, in this case a major mistake has been made. I accept what the Minister has said that an all-party Oireachtas committee made the recommendations and that some Members sought greater liberalisation of the laws. I honestly believe we should reflect on that part of the legislation to see what can be done. It is having an effect on rural Ireland, family life and sports clubs, especially small rural GAA, soccer and rugby clubs, where there is a difficulty in maintaining numbers to sustain the club's existence. As we progress we should try to see whether it is possible to change that section of the Act.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 9 is an alternative to amendment No. 7 and both may be discussed together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 11, line 44, after "members" to insert "of which 5 or more shall be women".
This Government and its predecessor have a very poor record regarding the appointment of women to State boards. When I was a Minister of State I had responsibility for two State boards, one of which was Bord na gCon. It was emphasised to me that at least 40% of the membership of that board must be women and I appointed three women. The Minister recently appointed one women to that board and it now consists of six men and one woman. Despite the guidelines which were put in place in 1991 and the commitment given by the Government at that time to implement the recommendations of the second commission on the status of women that Ministers and Departments should "ensure that at least 40% of all nominations to State boards would be women", the last two Governments have consistently failed to implement these guidelines.
The National Women's Council of Ireland recently produced an important document, Irish Politics – Jobs for the Boys. It outlines clearly the number of women who serve on State boards. Of the boards that are important to tourism the board of Aer Lingus has 12 members and one woman, Aer Rianta has nine board members and one woman, Bord Bia has 15 board members and three women and Bord Fáilte has eight board members and two women. Bord Gáis Éireann has eight board members and one woman, Dublin Bus has nine board members and one woman, the Central Bank of Ireland has 12 board members and no woman, the Dublin Transportation Office has 15 board members and one woman, the Food Safety Authority of Ireland has ten board members and two women, IDA Ireland has 12 board members and two women, the Medical Council has 29 board members and six women, Teagasc has 11 board members and two women and Údarás na Gaeltachta has 20 board members and two women.
That is not a complete list of State bodies but it clearly indicates a trend. Ministers have given numerous assurances in answer to parliamentary questions that the Government is striving to put gender equality in place, but it is not. I quote from the NWCI publication:
However, the poor record of previous Governments and nominating bodies would suggest that what is ultimately needed is legislation making it compulsory for each Minister to ensure that 40% of members of each State board are women.
That is what this amendment does. I will put this amendment to a vote if the Minister does not accept it. At least five members of the board should be women but the number need not be confined to five.
The tourism industry is driven by women at hotel level and in decision making. Most of the people at tourism industry conferences are women. The enthusiasm of the industry comes from women and some of the industry's greatest leaders, even in my own and the Minster's county, are women. That enthusiasm is not reflected on the various industry boards because women are not given the opportunity to display it. My amendment will guarantee that opportunity in legislation.
I know the Minister agrees that it is important to include women in the decision making processes of this industry. Tourist numbers are divided equally among men and women and women's needs must be taken into consideration at macro and micro level. They must be considered when broad policy decisions are made as well as when accommodation, attractions and facilities are being provided. For example, golf is very successfully promoted as one of our greatest tourism products. However, no attention is given to the golfer's wife who is not a golfer. No attention is given to providing something for her to do in a place where there might be nothing but a golf course. In the provision of swimming pools and gymnasia consideration is seldom given to the provision of creche facilities so that a woman who wants to work out in a gym can do so while her children are looked after. A large number of issues related to the needs of women are not being addressed in our tourism industry, principally because not enough women are putting forward their case at decision making level. This is true throughout the industry, from national to local level.
The Minister would make a very good statement by accepting this amendment.
When I spoke on earlier stages of this Bill I said I broadly welcomed the idea of putting the two organisations together but that my party would not support the Bill because it is fundamentally flawed in terms of integrating the tourism experience. As Deputy Deenihan has pointed out, unless the issues of road and rail access, waste, litter and justice are linked and unless a tourism body is given some clout in dealing with Departments the measure will not work.
I support Deputy Deenihan's amendment because it attempts to put some common sense on to a highly flawed document. The Green Party recently called for a 40-60 gender balance on all State boards and among nominated members of local authorities and Dáil candidates.
The Minister has tabled an amendment saying he shall, "in so far as is practicable, endeavour to ensure. . . an equitable balance between men and women". That balderdash is an insult to women who, in many cases, have driven the tourism industry. Is the Minister saying there are not sufficient women with the necessary business and life experience to play a meaningful role in the development of tourism policy? Either there are qualified women available for the job or there are not. Many State boards and prison visiting committees consist of political appointees whose appointments are merely a reward for a job they did in the past but who do not have relevant qualifications. Qualified women are available in spades in the tourism industry. They include people who have set up their own businesses, who employ people in the tourism industry or who have families and know what a struggle it is to transport children from one place to another. Any of these could play a valuable role in developing tourism policy.
I support the amendment. Women can play a role. If the Minister is serious he should support this amendment. It is practical to have at least 40% of women on the board of the new body. They have the necessary experience. If the Minister does not support this amendment he will send out a dangerous message to women at a time when the economy is in difficulty and we must add value to our tourism product. Tourism is often referred to as a product. Ireland has many visitors from abroad because of its tourism experience. I put it to the Minister that men and women being different but equal, women are much better at getting across the idea of Ireland being a tourism experience rather than a bland product. The Minister should have the courage of his convictions and support this amendment rather than putting in a wishy-washy alternative?
I fully support the amendment. It is time we put actual numbers into the legislation rather than an aspiration as is proposed in the Minister's amendment. Aspirations are fine but the Minister of the day may find it difficult to initiate an investigation as to the best possible constitution of the board. Usually people are appointed who are known to staff within a Department or are known to members of various associated bodies. There is no in-depth investigation to ensure there is a representative cross-section.
I agree with Deputy Deenihan that women have led the charge in regard to tourism. This is evident in all aspects of tourism, from hotel ownership to promotional work and even in regard to travel companies. Women have been to the fore in advancing tourism. I cannot see why it is not possible to specify the number. It is said that politics is a numbers game but appointments to State boards should also be a numbers game. We should be committed to achieving a gender balance to ensure that women have a say in regard to this important area. The Minister has said, time and again, both in the House and outside it, that the appointment to this authority is one of the major investments in tourism. He said that he wants to have the appointments made before the tourism season starts, with which I agree. We should not accede to his amendment. We should have the courage of our convictions and stipulate a number rather than merely having an aspiration in regard to this aspect of the legislation.
Deputy Deenihan referred to a number of State boards which have a low percentage of women on them. Last week I got a response from the Minister in regard to the appointment of people with disabilities to State boards. It appears that there are very few. While I agree with the case being made for women, the case should also be made for people with disabilities. In many respects Ministers only rubber stamp the appointments. In future, will the Minister appoint people with disabilities?
In view of the dependence of the west and south of Ireland on tourism, will the Minister and the Government resist the intervention by Europe in regard to the bilateral agreement for Shannon? If the open skies policy is introduced and Shannon is bypassed, the future for the south and west of Ireland is bleak.
It is my wish that there would be as many women as possible serving on State boards. Some years ago a directive was issued to the effect that 40% of members of State boards should be women. While this objective has been reached on at least some boards, it is also fair to say that there are boards where it has not been achieved.
I agree that it is of immense importance that there be a gender balance on boards, particularly on one such as the National Tourism Development Authority, which is why I proposed an amendment to Deputy Deenihan's amendment. His amendment provides that there would have to be five or more women on the board, but it does not state that there would have to be five or more men, which could give rise to the argument that Deputy Deenihan is being discriminatory against men—
They do not have a problem with it.
—in not insisting that they have an equivalence of representation with women on the board.
That is no argument.
That is not a valid argument.
It is ridiculous.
I am explaining the amendment as it is written. There is nothing ridiculous about it. It is a fact.
It is pedantic.
What I am proposing in the legislation is reasonable. I am ensuring that it will be incumbent on the Minister of the day to endeavour to the best of his or her ability to ensure that among the members of the authority there is equivalence in terms of gender balance. That is reasonable. There is already a statutory imperative on the Minister of the day to ensure that there will be equivalence. No Minister can ignore that and if he or she does ignore it, he or she can be brought to account in this House for being in breach of statutory obligations. The Minister can be asked to account for how he or she endeavoured to comply with the statutory requirement. That is reasonable.
It will be too late then.
It is not the only provision of this kind. There is a similar provision in regard to the Food Safety Authority of Ireland Act 1998 and also in the Industrial Development (Enterprise Ireland) Act 1998. The problem with Deputy Deenihan's amendment, aside from the difficulty which I have already outlined, is that it is far too rigid and does not allow the necessary degree of flexibility.
In formulating the National Tourism Development Authority, I will do everything I can to ensure there is a gender balance, in so far as that is possible. I do not think a subsequent Minister would be foolish enough to ignore the statutory provision I am proposing which allows a certain degree of flexibility but which demands that the Minister of the day endeavours to ensure there is a gender balance on the board.
Unless it is enshrined in legislation, it will not happen. This was pointed out by the National Women's Council of Ireland. The Minister referred to the board of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland which currently only has two women out of ten while IDA Ireland has only two women out of 12 on its board.
The regional tourism authorities, which are important for the development of tourism at a regional level, confirm that women are playing a small role in decision making. Dublin Tourism has five women out of 25; the midlands-east region has two out of 21; the north-west region has three out of 19; the south-east region has six out of 17; the south-west region has four out of 16 and the western region has four out of 16. This confirms my argument that it needs to be enshrined in legislation, which was demanded by the National Women's Council of Ireland. The Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, might do it but who knows what will happen after that. The women of Ireland will not be happy unless it is enshrined in legislation.
I was careful to ensure that there were three women on the board of Bord na gCon in 1997 but subsequently there has been no woman on the board. If it was enshrined in legislation that 40% of board members had to be women there would still be three women on that board. I am making the argument because of my past experience of being involved in this process. That is why I put forward the amendment and I will put it to a vote.
Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.