Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 12 Dec 1989

Vol. 394 No. 4

Supplementary Estimates, 1989. - Vote 35: Tourism and Transport.

I move:

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £1,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1989, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Tourism and Transport, including certain services administered by that Office, and for payment of certain grants and grant-in-aid.

The main purpose of this Supplementary Estimate is to provide an additional £3 million for tourism marketing and promotion. The additional expenditure will be totally offset by increased receipts under appropriations-in-aid.

It is both logical and sensible to make this additional money available for marketing and promotion at this time when potential visitors are making their holiday plans for 1990. Agreement has been reached between Bord Fáilte and the industry on a joint marketing campaign before the end of 1989 and for the early part of 1990. The campaign will thus help to ensure maximum exposure for Ireland at a crucial time. I am confident that this will give a significant boost to the drive to attract additional visitors and foreign tourism revenue which is vital to sustaining and creating employment in the tourism sector.

The £3 million will be met, pound for pound, by the tourist industry. I greatly welcome the fact that, in recent years, the industry have agreed to supplement Exchequer moneys for promotional purposes. I propose to continue this method of financing.

A similar initiative was taken last year and the effect on our 1989 tourist numbers has been dramatic. Based on market estimates for the first three quarters of 1989 and market intelligence since then, Bord Fáilte estimate that visitor numbers this year will be in the region of 2.8 million, a 15 per cent increase over 1988. When compared to 1986 this shows a 48 per cent increase or over 900,000 visitors.

Marketing by both Bord Fáilte and the industry has taken on a new sense of direction and purpose over the past three years. The marketing initiatives introduced by the Government have resulted in a positive awareness among the industry of the need for increased active participation on their part in the marketing effort. This approach must be continued in the future in order to build on the excellent work of the past few years.

The success of our marketing strategy over the past three years, emphasising the joint involvement of the State agencies and the industry as well as the increased concentration on market segmentation, has prompted me to consider how the strategy can be maximised in the longer term.

I have very recently invited the industry to sit down immediately with Bord Fáilte with a view to devising a marketing and promotional programme for the three-year period 1991 to 1993. I have asked that the joint programme should include detailed costings, setting out what would be financed by the State and what would be financed by the industry itself. I have committed myself to fighting for the necessary resources should a satisfactory joint programme emerge. My invitation has been taken up. I understand that negotiations between Bord Fáilte and the industry are already under way.

These are indeed exciting times for Irish tourism. There is an unprecedented aura of optimism and confidence about the future of the sector. The increased level of investment in the tourism product and in marketing, allied to lower access transport fares and our improved cost competitiveness, will facilitate further significant growth for Irish tourism in the run up to 1992 and beyond and should achieve a substantial increase in sustainable employment opportunities for our young population.

As the House will be aware, the Programme for National Recovery set challenging growth targets for the tourism sector, including the creation of 25,000 new jobs. Now approximately halfway through that programme, the industry is on course for meeting those targets which seemed over-ambitious to many at the time of its initiation. We are on target not just in the jobs area but also on revenue and tourist numbers. Therefore, we are on target under all three headings.

However, we must not become complacent. I should inform the House that in the nineties it will be difficult to continue to meet the targets set. I am still confident we can do so but it is becoming increasingly difficult. We must examine our marketing approach to establish whether we are reaching all potential visitors. We must also examine the level of investment in the development of tourist attractions and facilities, particularly those based on our natural, cultural and heritage resources.

As the House will be aware, tourism has been selected by the Government as a central axis for development under the National Development Plan, 1989-1993 and will be a major beneficiary from increased EC Structural Funds over that period. The plan provides for an investment programme of almost £300 million by the public and private sectors in a wide range of existing and new tourism attractions and facilities. EC Structural Fund assistance for the tourism programme will total more than £146 million over the five years, that is, £52 million on infrastructural project by State and local authorities, £28 million on training and £66 million to support private sector product development and marketing. I expect to be in a position shortly to announce full details of this programme including the nature of the projects which will be assisted and the levels of anticipated grant support. I should inform the House that that figure of £300 million is but part of the picture. For example, if one takes account of the EC Structural Funds — the estimated private sector investment they would induce — Bord Fáilte's own budget, particularly the increasing business expansion scheme budget now constituting a major mechanism for investment in the tourist industry, if one includes the industry itself, estimating the potential investment in their industry over the next few years and the Investment Fund for Ireland, one arrives at a figure of up to a £900 million investment in the tourist industry over the next four to five years. If I can put that figure in perspective — as I have endeavoured to do publicly many times recently — I might point out that arguably that represents more than has been invested in the industry over the past 20 years taken together. Therefore, when I say we are on the brink of a major investment in the tourist industry I do not exaggerate because the figures are there to demonstrate that fact.

The additional £3 million being provided for tourism is available due to buoyancy in revenue from aviation sources. As the House will appreciate, this is a transfer within the Vote rather than additional funding which I am seeking in this Estimate. The growth in air traffic in Ireland and world wide has produced a surplus for Ireland in receipts from en-route charges.

Restrictions on air traffic, due to inadequate system capacity because of unprecedented traffic growth, have recently been a regrettable feature of air travel. I would stress however that most of the restrictions as they affected travel to and from Ireland were due to capacity problems elsewhere. As Deputies are aware, we are in the middle of a £30 million investment programme to upgrade and replace the air navigation facilities. We are also strengthening our manpower resources; 27 extra staff were recruited to the air traffic services in 1989 and further recruitment is planned over the next four to five years. Indeed I would like to take this opportunity of thanking the staff concerned for their dedication and commitment in recent years. Again I would reiterate an announcement which I made publicly in the last few days, that in regard to Ireland's Presidency of the EC, I have already put the whole question of air traffic control on the agenda of the Transport Ministers and one of the first items I will be discussing with them is the whole question of air traffic control.

The additional funds under subhead A7 are required to meet the increased contribution to the Eurocontrol Organisation which have been given the task of establishing a central flow management unit. Work on setting up the unit has commenced and it will greatly facilitate the smooth and orderly movement of air traffic in western Europe when fully operational in a few years' time. It will make a significant contribution towards completion of the internal market. I would also remind the House that in the past few days £15 million of equipment has been commissioned in Dublin Airport in the area of radar and other equipment relating to air traffic control which will greatly improve the position in the air.

The completion of the internal market also creates a challenge for Ireland in moving goods in a cost-effective way and expeditiously into the continental markets. Deputies might like to know that I have decided to commission a major feasibility study on the development of air and sea freight links between Ireland and the rest of the Community. This study which will be carried out with financial assistance from the EC, will help identify the new and expanded services that are necessary and how the needs of our exporters can be best met. I have placed that assignment in recent days. In the course of these remarks I have focused on the main aspects of the Supplementary Estimate. I will of course be addressing policy issues in a broader perspecitive when the 1990 Estimate for my Department is being taken in the New Year. I will conclude by commending the Supplementary Estimate to the House.

If the House agrees, I would like to give three minutes of my time to Deputy Reynolds.

If the House agrees to that I cannot dissuade the House from it. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The first thing I would like to say about this report is that it makes a nonsense of any planning or alleged planning in the whole tourism industry for the Minister for Tourism and Transport to announce yesterday that £2 million is being returned by Bord Fáilte and today come into this House to seek to give them £3 million to top up the funds they have. The Minister said there will be a plan from 1991 onwards and that next year might be "becoming increasingly difficult". There is no plan for 1990 in this book and, from what we heard yesterday, there is no plan for 1989 either. Today's editorial in The Cork Examiner states that whatever explanations are offered, it is difficult to understand how £2 million in Government funds, intended for the tourist industry this year, was never spent. I echo that.

It appears that the £2 million was returned because there was confusion as to when it could be spent. The tourist board and the industry understood the money was secured for the autumn of this year and the spring of next year and it is only in the last few days that it has emerged that it should have been spent by the end of this year. What sort of planning is going on in the Department of Tourism and Transport when there is £2 million worth of confusion and the Minister then comes in here with a Supplementary Estimate for £3 million which he has taken from other State agencies? How could you place confidence in any sort of planning within the tourism sector with that sort of nonsense going on? It is extremely difficult to understand. The Minister should explain to this House why that confusion arose and how £2 million can be left lying around because of confusion. Is it any wonder there are doubts about how the industry might develop next year? The Minister should explain that to the House. It is true, as has been said by people within the tourism industry, that ad hocery seems to be the order of the day in the Department of Tourism and Transport when it comes to planning for proper spending of money. The return of £2 million yesterday and the introduction of the Supplementary Estimate here this evening clearly indicates that that is the case.

I have a very short period of time available to me and I want to use it as best I can. In the Minister's speech he said that a 15 per cent increase in tourists to this country will be experienced this year over 1988 and that, when compared to 1986, this shows a 48 per cent increase or over 900,000 visitors. I dispute those statistics. I would like to know how they are calculated. Is it true that the compilation of tourism statistics is under review? The reason I ask this is that if a poor unfortunate person who has to emigrate to London or somewhere else has the good fortune to be able to return home three or four times a year, it is shown as four visitors. That person is not a tourist. How many of these people are beneficial to the tourism industry? For instance, how many of them stay in hotels? What is the increase in the hotel bed occupancy? How many cars were hired out? Most of these people come back here and stay with family or friends. I dispute these statistics. The Minister should tell the House if a review is being carried out of the way tourism statistics are compiled.

There has been some success in recent times in building up again the number of tourists coming to this country from Britain but it has not been helped by the gutter journalism we have had to withstand from some of the tabloid newspapers printed and published in Great Britain. To be fair, most of the media in Great Britain give fair coverage. An editorial in today's Daily Express states that Fine Gael, in and out of Government, have a solid tradition of opposing Provo violence and they say that they have also. Since when have the Daily Express got a great record of opposing Provos? Are they not the people who have been the recruiting agents for the Provos? Are they not the people who have caused most trouble for us in fighting off the Provos? Are they not the people who have done most damage for this country, when those of us who have tried to deal with the Provos and the terrible problems facing this country have had our backs to the wall, with their editorials and their front page anti-Irish racist outbursts time and time again? They have made it difficult for tourists coming to this country from Britain, which in turn has made it difficult for us to find the money to spend on security to deal with the Provos. Secondly, they have made it difficult for the Irish community living in Britain, most of whom are tourists communiting back here from time to time.

If the Daily Express and journalists writing for those gutter type newspapers want to do something for this country they can do so by getting off our backs and allowing us to get on with our affairs. They should stop running the sort of front page stories they have been running purely for profit motives to the benefit of a murderous and extortionist gang, the IRA, and the owners of the Daily Express. Nobody else has benefited from the garbage which has been printed by some of these tabloids. As James Dillon said: what can you expect from a sewer but sewage? It is time the British media started to look at their standards and what they have been doing to this country by the stories some of their newspapers have been running. I understand that recently they got together to set a standard on the invasion of privacy. Perhaps it is time they were called together and asked to set a standard on the racism which is being printed by some newspapers. Is it any wonder the Guildford Four and other groups could not get a fair trial when the media who report these events are not fair? We can hardly expect fair reporting from some of these tabloids.

This is my ninth year as a Member of this House and for most of that period I have avoided saying anything about Northern Ireland or Northern Ireland affairs, but from the point of view of tourism much damage has been done to our country because of the reports which have been carried in those tabloids. This has not been helped by some of the suggestions made by the present occupant of No. 10 Downing Street. It is time all this stopped. My party, in and out of Government, have taken a very strong stand on the IRA and we deserve the support of all people in our fight against the IRA. Nobody should be allowed to make out that this country is in any way an unsafe place for heads of Government or State to visit. This matter should be pursued immediately. I await the outcome of the examination carried out by the Director of Public Prosecutions into the matter before I pursue it in another way, if I have to. I reject any suggestion in the editorial that either I or any member of my party has anything in common with the Daily Express in opposing Provo violence.

The sum of £13,000 being provided in this Supplementary Estimate for regional airports would not buy stationery, and I do not believe it is of any significance. The Minister made a big deal about touring the regional airports. I did a tour of the regional airports and had a look at their facilities. I am very proud of the developments which have taken place and are taking place. A sum of £13,000 is paltry and the Minister should provide a reasonable sum so that those regional airports can be made safe and secure. He should also be assisting them to develop the best way they can. I do not think £13,000 distributed between regional airports will buy anything other than stationery.

There are many other points I should like to make but I shall wait for a longer debate later. With the permission of the House I want to give the remainder of my time to Deputy Reynolds.

Deputy Reynolds has three minutes.

I find it very difficult to understand why the Minister allowed £2 million to be returned to the Exchequer. We have heard about the development of our tourism industry, and the people in this industry need as much funding as they can get. I want to refer to one area where I believe the Minister could spend this money.

I hope he is aware of the discrimination which exists against small family businesses in the tourist industry. No grant aid is available for people who own hotels with fewer than 45 bedrooms and who wish to provide leisure facilities. This is a very unfair and unjust system. If a person wants to get grant aid to provide leisure facilities, he has to have more than 45 bedrooms in his hotel. There are only 122 hotels with more than 45 bedrooms, while 428 of the hotels registered with the Hotel Federation have fewer than 45 bedrooms. This leaves much to be desired when grant aid is being given to a minority rather than the majority. The Minister should consider changing the system to cover everybody involved in tourism. Not alone do we want to get the big hotels involved, but we also want to get family businesses involved. Family businesses can create employment and make good returns to the Exchequer. I hope the Minister will consider changing the present system. The International Fund for Ireland has been working well in the Border area from which I come and grant aid is given for leisure facilities. This scheme has proved very successful. Many small hotels have availed of this funding and are able to promote the leisure facilities they provide in their hotels. Small hotels should have the same facilities as larger hotels so that they can get an extra share of the tourism market. The present system is very discriminatory.

I would like to refer to the rod licence. I do not intend to go off course but a number of people promoting this industry do not know where they stand at present. I know the Minister does not have responsibility for this area but I would ask him to help to bring about a solution to this problem. It is creating difficulties for the people involved because they do not know what to say in the brochures they send to Britain and elsewhere.

Because of time considerations I will have to restrict the Deputy's licence.

I regret that less than an hour is being devoted to discussing this very important industry. This debate is much too restrictive and I am sure half the Deputies in the House have an interest in this industry.

I will be opposing this Supplementary Estimate. This industry has potential to create wealth and jobs for this country. I believe there are three fundamental guidelines for a successful tourism industry — aggressive, intensive, marketing and promotion of the excellent product we are very lucky to have; good standards and competitive prices for both air and sea transport into Ireland and, most importantly, value for money should be given by all sectors in the industry. If any one of those three factors is missing, it will militate against the aspirations and targets the Minister has set out tonight. We should have regard to the fact that £1 invested in tourism promotion brings a far greater return to the economy than £1 invested in any other sector of the economy. We have to seek out the markets which will give the best return — for example, the British market, the traditional market, has been the most successful and profitable for the Irish tourist industry down the years. Unfortunately the troubles in the North caused a reduction in that market which is now only being gradually won back. The Minister and everybody else concerned with the industry will accept that the tourist industry is very sensitive and that one single act of violence, one kidnapping or one hijacking can totally distort the anticipated number of tourists who will come to this country and, as happened in the past, will do very considerable damage to the financial interests of our tourist industry.

There is immense potential in Germany. At present we attract in the region of 100,000 tourists from that country but I do not see any reason we should not set a target of 250,000 people. Germans who visit this country are very satisfied with the activity holidays we have in such abundance. They are keen on boating, fishing, horse riding and mountaineering. I should like to impress on the Minister the importance of penetrating the German market because it is from such countries that we will get the best monetary results.

There is no reason we should not develop the French market, and we could make a start in that direction by improving the air service between the two countries and reducing air fares to a reasonable rate. For years we have looked on the US market as the backbone of our tourist industry because of the number of high spending Americans who visited this country, but that is not the case any more. The US market has proved disappointing. A country with 42 million ethnic Irish if properly marketed should be capable of returning to the homeland many more people for annual visits. It is important to bear in mind that between seven million and eight million Americans visit Britain each year. I accept that Ireland is not a primary tourist resort like Britain but we have many facilities to offer tourists, particularly those who have roots here.

I am opposing the Estimate because our marketing and promoting services are inadequately financed and inadequately personalised. I should like to congratulate Bord Fáilte on a job well done with limited finance and manpower. They are in a position to highlight the many pluses as far as Ireland is concerned but they must deal also with the many minuses. Those involved in the tourist industry are familiar with the criticisms of the high cost of petrol, the high cost of car hire and the high cost of drink. The Minister must adopt an aggressive attitude at the Cabinet table and seek additional finance for the industry. He must point out the scope that exists to create employment in that industry and its ability to earn foreign currency. We must do something about the price of petrol which is so much dearer than in other countries. Many people fill their tanks before they board car ferries for Ireland. That high cost is doing great damage to the tourist industry. The reduction in revenue to the Exchequer arising from a substantial reduction in the price of petrol would be offset by the return from an increase in consumption.

When I had responsibility in the Minister's Department I heard arguments for a reduction in the VAT on accommodation and food from 23 per cent to 10 per cent. The argument was that that reduction would have to be made if the industry was to survive. The Government at the time acceded to that request but there was no loss of revenue to the Exchequer. The Minister should take into consideration those pertinent factors. Much of the accommodation is not up to the standard that will be required by tourists in the nineties. The absence of accommodation grants is a vital defect in the efforts being made to prepare for the nineties. The provision of good accommodation and wholesome food are the two greatest factors in giving satisfaction to our tourists. We have a friendly people, a wonderful environment and unpolluted waters, but if our standard of accommodation does not meet the anticipated growth in numbers we will fall down and we will have more complaints. It is unfortunate that many of our complaints relate to the high cost of petrol, of car hire and of drink.

Although the details of this Estimate are fairly non-controversial The Workers' Party, like the Labour Party, will be opposing it, as this is the first opportunity we have had to register in the House our disapproval of the Minister's disgraceful decision to rob Aer Lingus of three profitable air routes and hand them over to the privately owned Ryanair. We will be opposing it also to protest at the Government's failure to provide an adequate public transport system in our urban areas, especially in Dublin.

Part of this Estimate relates to additional money for regional and local airport development. We welcome the development of a network of regional airports over recent years, but we deplore the decision of the Minister in September last not just to order Aer Lingus to get off several profitable international routes and hand them over to Ryanair, but also to grant Ryanair exclusive rights for all direct services between Irish regional airports and the UK and continental Europe. The Minister is a great advocate of free competition, but as a result of his decision Ryanair will have no competition on any of these routes. How can this be considered to be in the interests of Irish tourism?

The fact is that these moves are an indication of the growing pro-enterprise bias of Fianna Fáil which has become even more pronounced since the party entered coalition with the Progressive Democrats. What other explanation can there be for giving such favourable treatment to a company, the main shareholder of which stands to make up to $20 million tax free this year from his other interests in Guinness Peat Aviation?

The Government have constantly called on the State companies to become more efficient in the marketplace, but the Government's decision on the air routes will clearly inhibit this. Such an attitude to Ireland's national airline could pose a threat to its viability in the EC open market after 1992, and if not reversed could damage the morale of management and staff in this vital State company.

I want to refer also to the shameful attempt by the Minister to wash his hands of all political responsibility for the fine of almost $1 million imposed by US courts on Aer Lingus, allegedly for supplying aircraft parts to Iran. Can the Minister tell us did he raise with the US authorities in any way this victimisation of the Irish national airline? Many other airlines were involved in supplying similar equipment to Iran Air but court action was taken against Aer Lingus only. In addition, whatever technical breaches of US law may have been involved when a subsidiary of Aer Lingus supplied nonmilitary equipment to Iran, they were very minor compared to the actions of the US Government, which was involved in secretly supplying missiles and other lethal weapons to the same country.

What is even worse is that a number of those involved in the supply of US weapons to Iran, including President Reagan's National Security Advisor, travelled to Tehran using forged Irish passports. The US Government never provided any explanation for this illegal act, or took any action against those involved. In the light of the fine imposed on Aer Lingus the Government should now insist that action is taken against those involved in the illegal use of Irish passports.

There is no questioning the potential of Irish tourism to create jobs and earn wealth for this country. Neither can it be disputed that, despite the progress made in recent years, much more remains to be done before its full potential is realised.

Bord Fáilte is not without fault but neither can it be denied that it has been the powerhouse of tourism and without it we would have made considerably less progress. I am concerned at what appears to be a move away from strong central planning in tourism and an increasing tendency to leave it to the private sector. European Community money applied for under the Government's national development plan is dependent on it being matched by private sector moneys. Given that only yesterday it emerged that £2 million of the £5 million grant to this industry for this year has been returned unspent, this policy does not give any great grounds for optimism.

The practice of asking private investment to match Government investment effectively precludes local authorities, who could and should be playing a major role, from getting involved. Most of the local authorities do not have the money to even tar roads and they can hardly be expected to come up with money to match private enterprise, yet it is the local authorities who are often ideally suited and placed to determine what is required in the tourism area. Dublin City Council are only too well aware of the tourism potential of the medieval city, yet we have no role to play on the tourism front.

In addition, many parts of this country outside of the established tourist areas have considerable tourism potential, yet there must be a fear that private funds will go mainly or largely to the established areas where it may not be urgently needed. I would like to see the Government provide a special financial allocation to local authorities to allow them play a far greater role. For many people coming to Ireland the country's attractions are its relatively unspoilt nature, its lakes, wide open spaces, relatively clean air and uncrowded countryside. As far as these advantages are concerned, we are simply living on borrowed time, unless we get our act together on the environment. Environmental disasters, such as the continuing smog problem in Dublin, and the increasing destruction of our rivers do not go unnoticed by tourists and can do incredible damage to the attractiveness of Ireland as a tourist destination.

There is a fine balance to be struck between the demand for development and the need for conservation. We have to ensure that the sort of development that takes place will add to the attraction of Ireland as a tourist destination and not detract from it.

Finally, I would like to refer to the disastrous traffic conditions in Dublin. It is no exaggeration to say that traffic is currently choking the city to death, largely because of the failure of the Government to promote public transport in the city and because of the preferential treatment being given to private transport. The fact is the introduction of one-person buses has been a disaster for most people who depend on public transport. It has led to increased journey times and delays at bus stops which have led in turn to further traffic problems. The success of the DART shows what can be achieved with imagination and when money is spent on public transport.

We welcome the belated decision to provide a commuter rail service to Clondalkin but it is deplorable that the Government have refused to extend it to Tallaght where 80,000 people live. This is all the more reprehensible given the fact that the Government refused to avail of EC structural funding to provide Tallaght with a rapid rail transport system. Unless we get more cars off the road and more people to use public transport the quality of life in this city will continue to deteriorate. The way to do this is to give people an efficient and economic public transport system.

As I only have five minutes in which to reply, unfortunately, I will not be able to go into great detail on many of the points raised. As Deputy Mitchell said, we can do so when we discuss the Estimates in the new year. I will touch on them briefly.

In relation to the £2 million which has been returned, I want to make it clear that in the autumn I agreed to provide £5 million for a special marketing programme, to top up their existing moneys. This does not form part of Bord Fáilte's ordinary day-to-day expenditure. There is no question of normal funds having been returned. It is a special marketing campaign——

Was the same thing done in previous years?

I did not interrupt the Deputy——

The Minister should be allowed to reply.

It is a special fund of £5 million which I made available on the clear understanding that the industry would match it, pound for pound. I told the industry that I would let them have £5 million if they would match it. Unfortunately, in the short time available — I do not believe this was the fault of the industry or indeed of Bord Fáilte or anybody else — it was not possible to arrange for all of it to be matched by the industry. I was not prepared to break the agreement I had entered into. In any case, as the Deputy is well aware, the Government's accounting year ends at the end of December. Unspent funds at that point have to be returned. That is all that is involved here. The industry and Bord Fáilte were not in a position to match the additional £2 million.

Let me say at this point that in order to make up for this I have already told the industry that I intend seeking some of these funds again next year but this time earlier in the year to ensure there will be no overall loss, taking two years together. I will have to talk to the industry about this to see if this can be arranged. I would not like the impression to go out that Bord Fáilte could not spend this money. They could spend a lot more money, just like any other agency, if it was available to them. Unfortunately, as this was a specialised marketing campaign, it was not found possible to arrange matching funds from the industry in time.

Deputy Mitchell asked how the statistics were compiled. The figures I have given were supplied by the Central Statistics Office. The source of visitors is obtained by carrying out surveys. I have asked that the way these figures are compiled be reviewed, as like everyone else I wish to find out if certain people are excluded or included and what is a tourist. This is the reason I told the industry recently that I do not want to rely on numbers. The Deputy may have heard me make those comments. I do not want to rely on numbers alone, I also want revenue and job figures. We are now beginning to get those and these will give us a much broader picture.

In relation to the figure of £13,000 for regional airports, I could explain it if I had time but it is a technical matter. It is not that we are spending £13,000 on regional airports this year but rather it has been included for technical purposes. EC structural funding, which I will be announcing immediately after Christmas, will amount to many millions of pounds for regional airports over the next four years. The Deputy can rest assured that the figure runs into many millions and is not £13,000.

Deputy Reynolds raised the question of refunds but I have already answered that question. I take the Deputy's point in relation to accommodation grants but I should say to him that there is excess bedroom capacity already. Therefore we do not propose to grant-aid accommodation because of over capacity.

I also take Deputy Moynihan's point on the potential of the German and United States markets. I am sure that they are concentrating on those markets but I will direct Bord Fáilte's attention to his comments. The Deputy was also quite right to put emphasis on access. When it comes to the expenditure of EC Structural Funds we will have to be sure that we make the correct investment.

I was surprised to hear Deputy Byrne plead for competition. I understood that that is precisely what I am doing. In relation to the Aer Lingus-Ryanair decision, I am trying to ensure that we have two airlines in the country. It does not take much imagination to figure out that if there are two airlines there is more competition. I did not hear the Deputy——

They are not competing on the same routes.

Acting Chairman

The Minister should be allowed to continue.

I was surprised by the Deputy's pro-competition speech which I approve of. Second, I was disappointed that the Deputy did not refer to the 500 jobs provided by Ryanair. No doubt this slipped his mind but I wish to bring it to his attention now that that company provide 500 jobs, and that they too are worthy of consideration by any Government. I should also draw the Deputy's attention to the fact, which he omitted to mention, that I have just given the go-ahead to Aer Lingus for a £35 million hangar and that we are providing £189 million for them, including funds for the purchase of new aircraft. We have secured access into Los Angeles for Aer Lingus who have the full support of this Government. They are the national airline and I and the Government are committed to their development. There is no threat to that company from anybody, nor would I tolerate a threat to Aer Lingus from anybody. In general, Aer Lingus are poised for very significant development and they are well able to take on the chin the small adjustment that was made because they are a very fine organisation. They have my full support.

I have given a short example of the type of development they are involved in. No doubt the Deputy omitted to mention these developments but it is important that he realise these developments are going on and that Aer Lingus have the full support of this Government.

Acting Chairman

Is the Supplementary Estimate for the Department of Tourism and Transport agreed?

Deputies

No.

Acting Chairman

As it is now 7 p.m. I am required to put the following question in accordance with the order of the Dáil today: "That the Supplementary Estimate for the Office of the Minister for Tourism and Transport is hereby agreed to."

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 70; Níl, 21.

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Barrett, Michael.
  • Brady, Gerard.
  • Brady, Vincent.
  • Brennan, Mattie.
  • Brennan, Séamus.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Clohessy, Peadar.
  • Connolly, Ger.
  • Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Cullimore, Séamus.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • Dennehy, John.
  • de Valera, Síle.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Fahey, Frank.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
  • Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
  • Flood, Chris.
  • Flynn, Pádraig.
  • Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Haughey, Charles J.
  • Hillery, Brian.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Wallace, Mary
  • Wilson, John P.
  • Hilliard, Colm.
  • Hyland, Liam.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Kelly, Laurence.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • McDaid, Jim.
  • McEllistrim, Tom.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Morley, P.J.
  • Nolan, M. J.
  • Noonan, Michael J.
  • (Limerick West).
  • O'Dea, Willie.
  • O'Donoghue, John.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Keeffe, Ned.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Malley, Desmond J.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Quill, Máirín.
  • Reynolds, Albert.
  • Roche, Dick.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Stafford, John.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Woods, Michael.
  • Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

  • Bell, Michael.
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • Ferris, Michael.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Gregory, Tony.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • McCartan, Pat.
  • Mac Giolla, Tomás.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • O'Shea, Brian.
  • O'Sullivan, Gerry.
  • O'Sullivan, Toddy.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Ryan, Seán.
  • Sherlock, Joe.
  • Spring, Dick.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Taylor, Mervyn.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy; Níl, Deputies Howlin and Ferris.
Question declared carried.
Top
Share