I move:
That Seanad Éireann takes note of the White Paper on Tourism Policy.
White Paper on Tourism Policy: Motion.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I would remind Senators that motion No. 4 — the Third Report of the Joint Committee on Small Businesses: Tourism, Catering and Leisure — is being discussed with this.
I welcome the opportunity offered by the debate on these motions to talk about the development of the tourism industry. Indeed, the joint committee's report made a very useful contribution to the overall tourism policy debate in the lead up to the publication of the Government's White Paper on Tourism Policy some weeks ago. It is, therefore, timely that this debate should now be taking place. Additionally, it is very useful that we should be discussing tourism and its development in the light of the very encouraging preliminary results for the 1985 season which were announced during the last few weeks.
First, let me say that I welcome the committee's very comprehensive report which is, in effect, a wide-ranging review of all the various segments and sectors that make up our tourism product. To my mind the report clearly underlines the importance of tourism and its tremendous potential for economic growth and job creation in this country. Significantly, in my view, it endorses the Government's view in its National Economic Plan and more recently in the White Paper that competitiveness is one of the essential issues that must be tackled if this potential is to be achieved.
I have no doubt whatsoever that the White Paper on Tourism Policy, which is effectively a blueprint for the co-ordinated development of Irish tourism, will contribute enormously towards the achievement of this end. The Government's objectives and policies for the industry have now been clearly defined. As Minister John Bruton said in his introductory statement on the White Paper, this is the first time that any Government in Ireland has published such a document on tourism. For the first time ever tourism will be a central part of Government policy-making. In future all Government Departments must take tourism considerations into account when bringing forward policy proposals in areas where their activities might impinge upon tourism. In addition special measures have been taken to bring about the highest possible level of co-operation between Government Departments in tourism affairs.
I know that the joint committee in their report did express some concern at the fact that in the past the industry did not appear to have been given priority at a level appropriate to its role in the national economy when policy decisions were being taken. I am confident in the light of the Government's new approach that any such criticisms will have no validity in the future.
One of the things in the White Paper that particularly pleases me is the Government's commitment to giving priority to tourism in their efforts to tackle unemployment. I have no doubt that tourism development can and will make a real contribution over the next few years towards tackling this enormous problem. The new strategies and policies now being pursued will, I am confident, create the type of climate within which the industry can expand and provide more jobs for our growing population.
The key elements necessary to achieve this growth and the problems that need to be addressed by Bord Fáilte and the industry as a whole are clearly set out in the Government's policy document. For example, the development of facilities and all-weather amenities to attract younger visitors from overseas is seen as a priority.
As a tourist destination we need to recapture our share of younger visitors. At the direction of the Government, Bord Fáilte are urgently considering new and innovative strategies aimed at expanding this all-important segment of the market.
As outlined in the White Paper the whole approach to promoting and marketing by the industry is being given a new lease of life:
—Increased emphasis is being put on getting more of our commercial operators out into the overseas marketplace,
—Bord Fáilte will arrange their promotional activities so as to facilitate their joint financing with commercial operators,
—Three new branded groupings of small to medium-sized hotels is to be established with Bord Fáilte support,
—Bord Fáilte and the other State agencies in tourism are introducing maximum flexibility into their marketing to enable them to respond quickly to sudden changes in the market place,
—Innovative strategies have been implemented to promote the shoulder season and extend the peak season; the special promotional package introduced by the industry to generate increased export traffic next Spring is an example of what can be done.
I think that Senators will agree that the range and extent of these new marketing initiatives will inject increased momentum into our marketing drive. The need for brand marketing overseas by small hotels was, of course, recognised by the joint committee in their report. I am pleased to say that Bord Fáilte are now actively examining how best this marketing concept can be extended to other tourism products.
Access transport matters were given particular attention in the Tourism White Paper. The Government recognise fully the vital importance of access transport to the Irish industry. They acknowledge, as did the joint committee in their report, that this country's island location does pose particular problems for tourism development. For this reason the Government have undertaken to pursue policies that will actively encourage the provision of reasonably priced access services of sufficient capacity and acceptable standards. The Government are committed to a range of measures to bring this about. Most important of all, I feel, is the new co-ordination arrangements between the Departments concerned which will ensure that major proposals in relation to access which impinge upon tourism will be considered fully before final decisions are taken. To my mind these new arrangements will bring about a much improved access regime and I hope relieve the concerns expressed in the joint committee's report.
I do not propose to dwell at length on all the many other aspects of policy covered in the Government's policy document. In my view, however, the policies and new initiatives in the White Paper will give a new sense of direction to the tourism industry as a whole and lead to significant expansion and growth in this major national industry.
The performance of export tourism this year reinforces this view. Projections based on preliminary returns for the first nine months suggest that 1985 will be an all-time record year in terms of foreign revenue earnings. Estimates indicate that total foreign earnings will amount to £712 million. This is an increase of £121 million or 14 per cent in real terms on 1984. These figures also reflect real term revenue increases in all our overseas markets.
This is a feature of the 1985 returns that is particularly pleasing. So often in the past Bord Fáilte have been criticised — often unfairly in my view — for concentrating on boosting tourists numbers rather than on the generation of revenue. I would hope that this year's and future performances will put that particular criticism to rest once and for all.
Within the figures I quoted there are some very impressive performances this year that merit particular mention. The highlight of the year has, of course, been the spectacular rate of increase in North American business. Revenue from this market will be close to £200 million, representing a 35 per cent increase in real terms. The number of North Americans at 426,000 will be 24 per cent ahead of last year. Undoubtedly this will be the best ever year for North American traffic.
Similarly the Continental European market will record significant growth this year. The projected revenue return of £80 million represents a real term increase of 15 per cent on 1984.
These results in my view demonstrate that the measures taken by the Government in the National Economic Plan to bring about a reduction in inflation, coupled with the VAT reductions on most tourism services in the last two budgets, are restoring competitiveness to Irish tourism.
In the light of this year's performance and the innovative strategies outlined in the White Paper, I look forward with considerable optimism to significant growth over the next few years. I am particularly hopeful that the recently announced grant scheme for hotel reconstruction will encourage many more of our smaller hotels to become more actively involved in overseas marketing. The scheme, in effect, is designed to complement the White Paper's strategies aimed at:
—getting more of our smaller hotels marketing overseas,
—extending tourism in the shoulder and off-peak seasons, and
—providing all-weather facilities for younger visitors in particular.
I recognise, of course, that the significant steps taken by the Government since coming into office to boost the industry have not met the expectations of everyone in the industry. However, within the constraints of the State's exceedingly tight budgetary position of the last few years I feel that considerable progress has been made. The Irish tourism product is now more competitive than it has been for years as the revenue receipts for 1985 have so dramatically demonstrated. I am hopeful that as Exchequer resources allow the Government will be able to do even more to help restore competitiveness and to further the development of the industry.
While I am on the question of the State's capacity at this time to assist the industry, I feel that I should perhaps draw attention to an aspect of the joint committee's report that concerned me. I refer in particular to the extensive list of recommendations in the report requiring State expenditure and to the fact that no attempt was made to cost the list. It seems to me to be quite extraordinary that, while the committee in one part of the report suggests that decisions by the Government in the tourism area and I quote —"are being made without any cost benefit analysis"— they failed in making their recommendations to estimate the likely cost and benefit to the State of their proposals. In the very serious budgetary situation which we have been facing this type of analysis is, of course, vitally important. I would ask all in the industry when seeking concessions or reliefs to take this factor fully into account. In the current critical financial state of Exchequer resources it is simply not good enough to make submissions without giving detailed thought to how concessions sought might be funded.
I want to congratulate the committee on the magnificent manner and the indepth way in which it went into the industry. I believe, looking at that document and looking at the White Paper, it is an ideal opportunity for Senators to have a full and frank discussion in relation to how they see the aspects that the joint committee considered, the aspects of the White Paper on how we can co-ordinate our activities to ensure that the growth experienced this year will be a feature of future years in order to enable the job-generation and the revenue to the economy to be of such tremendous benefit.
As vice-chairman of the Joint Committee on Small Businesses, I am happy to participate in this debate on the work of the committee. Last September we debated the committee's first report which dealt with manufacturing industry. It is fair to say that the committee are satisfied to see many of their recommendations being implemented in whole or in part. In May of this year we debated our second report which dealt with retail and distribution. While the committee welcome the implementation in the last budget of a simplified VAT structure and more particularly the positive effects of those changes in reducing cross-Border shopping, our feelings towards the overall Government response to the report is one of disappointment.
We are particularly disappointed by the rejection of our proposals to ensure fairer competition between the independent grocery retail trade and the multiple supermarket chains. I am sure that my fellow committee members will have more to say on this matter in the Dáil debate. I am disappointed that a Minister from my own constituency did not accede to our request. Retailers are being put out of business because of the price war in the supermarkets.
Our report is very much linked to the recently published White Paper on Tourism Policy. In view of the Government motion, my remarks will relate to both documents. At the beginning of our report we set out the various subsectors involved with tourism and catering, including hotels, guesthouses, restaurants, licensed trade, coaches, taxis, car rental and caravans. In the chapter on business environment we described the prolonged and severe decline in business as a result of the drop in disposable income at home and our loss of competitiveness in tourism internationally. We described the effect on business confidence generally as a result of four years of continuous decline. From the starting point we set out to recommend what needs to be done to get this important sector of the economy going again.
We then focussed on tourism — a billion pound per year industry that successive Governments have neglected in the past — and we called for an integrated tourism policy. What do we mean by integrated tourism policy? We are all agreed that tourism is one of the major international growth industries. We also know that in real terms export revenue from Irish tourism is more or less at the same level as it was in the mid-1960's On page 17 of the White Paper there is a table which shows that State revenue from tourism in 1984 was £591 million. The equivalent figure for 1964, converted to 1984 pounds, was £563 million, a real increase of a mere 5 per cent over two decades. In other words, we have been major losers in international tourism over the past 20 years. International tourism grew rapidly from the 1960's onwards, but we have stood still.
Even with the present unsatisfactory situation, tourism is a vital part of our economy. It accounts for 7 per cent of GNP, provides 40,000 jobs on a well-dispersed regional basis and brought us nearly £600 million in foreign exchange in 1984. While some of the factors that have held back our tourism have been beyond our control, for example, the effects of the Northern Ireland tragedy on our traditional UK market, we must accept that we have consistently failed to give tourism development the priority it deserved. If you look at where our tourism was in 1965, where it is now and where it should be, then you have a measure of the price of that neglect.
In tackling the question of what should be our tourism policy, we looked at the State support system and we were amazed at what we found. State support for tourism is tiny compared with that provided for industry and agriculture, the other main export industries. The position of tourism within the Government Department structure was even more remarkable — a branch with a staff of nine, headed by a principal officer. Now if we had the same level of manning throughout the public service, it would be very lean indeed. I am sure you would agree with me there. However, tourism is too important to be left in that position. It needs full time advocates at the very top of the Civil Service. It also needs a State agency that will have the same clout in tourism as the IDA has in the manufacturing industry.
Our first recommendation was for a Government White Paper on tourism, which would (a) survey existing relevant data on tourism including the NESC report of December 1980: (b) evaluate the infrastructure constraints which hamper the industry and which might be acting as a barrier to the development of that industry; (c) analyse the job and wealth creation potential for the industry on a regional basis over a five-year period; (d) evaluate the previous ad hoc policies of the agencies involved and promotional strategies with a view to setting down guidelines for a cost-benefit approach to future investment in the industry in terms of jobs, spending, amenities and sub-sectors of tourism; clarify and strengthen with specific target objectives.
We now have a White Paper, which was published on 30 September. As the first ever White Paper on Tourism we must welcome it. It contains a development path for the industry but I would have hoped to see an acceptance in it of more of our recommendations and more reference to our work. There are areas in the White Paper with which I disagree, and which I will mention later. I concede that the Government have met our first recommendation. A White Paper on tourism has been published. For that alone, we must thank the Minister. We recommended that Departmental responsibility for tourism be upgraded to at least full time assistant secretary level, and that consideration be given to transferring responsibility for tourism to a restructured Department of Commmunications and tourism to help overcome the conflicts between access transport operators and tourism interests.
The White Paper itself promises a policy co-ordination committee chaired by a senior official from the Department of Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism. This co-ordinating committee will have permanent representatives of the Departments of Communications, Finance and the Environment. While the intention of bringing all the Departments with a tourism responsibility together on one policy committee for tourism is positive, the danger, as I see it, with interDepartmental committees is that individual Departmental interests would prevail and that recommendations for tourism development would be on the basis of the lowest common denominator rather than on the primacy of tourism.
I, therefore, still feel that our committee is correct in its view that tourism policy is important enough to justify the attentions of a full time assistant secretary at Departmental level.
We asked for a national tourism authority with powers equivalent to the industrial model of the IDA. I do not care if that body is still called Bord Fáilte, as long as it has the power and the resources to do the job. I was particularly disappointed that, following the day of the issue of our report on tourism and catering, the Minister — from my own constituency — dealt a death blow to our recommendations in that light. I wondered if he had made the remark off the cuff without reading what we had embodied in our report and reading the full context of that report. We felt very sore that the Minister did not give deep consideration to our recommendation in that respect. We applaud Bord Fáilte for what they are doing and what they have done in the past. During our sub-committee meetings and our committee meetings we found more and more that Bord Fáilte have not got the clout and the power.
If one looks around the city of Dublin today at the number of grade A or grade B hotels we have and sees the decline in hotel standards that has taken place over the last number of years, then one will realise what the committee were trying to get at. While Bord Fáilte can grade hotels they have no power to close down a hotel. I have actually gone at the last minute from this House to stay in certain hotels in the city and I would not like to go back to them, because with the depressed trade at the moment the standard has declined. They are depending on late night shows and discos where they have a cover-charge, and charge exhorbitant prices for beer in order to meet their commitments. This is happening on a large scale. The number of top-class family size hotels with 20 to 30 bedrooms in the city and across the country has declined, and we know it. Something is wrong.
The Government's intention with regard to Bord Fáilte here is less clear. The White Paper says that Bord Fáilte's primary role will be the marketing and promotion of Irish tourism and that a high level of expenditure will be maintained on these activities, but that resources for capital projects will be restricted. The Government have also decided to seek the services of a consultant with international experience to carry out an independent examination of the effectiveness of all directly tourism-related public expenditure. I agree that an outside examination from time to time of how we do things would be no harm, but the problems of our tourism industry have been so well identified as to justify action here and now.
In view of the lack of progress over the last 20 years the committee feel that we are so far behind that there are urgent steps to be taken now. However, it seems that no immediate significant changes are contemplated. That is a great pity. With regard to competitiveness, we had a good number of US tourists this year. So had the rest of Europe. The dollar was strong. When setting their prices for 1985, tour operators here were reckoning on an exchange rate of $1.10 to the IR£. This estimate was more than justified but for 1986 tour operators will probably need to plan for a less advantageous $1.25 to the IR£. Visitors from the US are very welcome but present currency volatility carries enormous risks which must be taken account of by Government and commercial tourism interests. We must, therefore, concentrate on tourism from Europe as well. The currencies of our main markets on the Continent, France and Germany, are linked to our currency through the EMS and that is a factor for stability.
However, we are not competitive in Europe. The tables on page 25 of the White Paper show that Ireland as a tourism destination is relatively more expensive by 28 per cent for the French visitor than it was in 1979 and 38 per cent more for the German visitor. We are deluding ourselves if we equate our present low inflation with competitiveness in European markets. We are perceived as a high price country and we must now take effective steps to change this perception.
There are two areas affecting our competitiveness that require immediate attention. The first is the high rate of VAT on meals at 23 per cent, which is an issue that goes to the very core of our tourism competitiveness. The second area is coach tourism. In addressing myself to these areas I acknowledge that there have been VAT reductions in the last two budgets affecting accommodation, caravaning, cabin cruisers and car hire. However, there is a thrust in the White Paper that says commercial interests are the main beneficiaries of tourism and the onus is on them to seek out viable projects and take the best advantage of the opportunities available. That proposition is not unreasonable but what are the business opportunities available in restaurants and coach tourism with the existing tax arrangements? How can we justify our tourism product to European visitors with 23 per cent VAT on meals and a fleet of antiquated coaches? It is contradictions such as these that have resulted in a mixed welcome for the White Paper because they are among the issues not really addressed. With regard to VAT on meals I want to refer to an extract from the Irish Independent of 9 October last. I quote:
The high cost of eating out here is the main reason why the Good Food Guide has dropped its detailed section on Irish restaurants. And the main reason for the high prices is the crippling 23 per cent VAT rate says the guide. The editor, Mr. Drew-Smith, admitted that the high cost of eating out here is one of the main reasons for dropping the Irish section in the 1986 guide due out this month when it was published.
Hardly a very encouraging omen for Irish tourism.
In preparing our report we were very concerned at the high level of VAT at 23 per cent on meals. We asked then that VAT on meals be reduced to 10 per cent. Indeed, I believe that the VAT rate on all of these labour-intensive services could be reduced even further. The imposition of a 23 per cent VAT rate on meals in a country that claims to be serious about developing its tourism industry defies all logic.
The Minister for Finance and his Department must, of course, be concerned to maintain a high level of revenue from taxation. This is something that the Minister referred to in his speech here. However, a reduction as recommended on VAT on meals would result in an increase in eating out; would encourage more tourism through increased competitiveness, and would, therefore, result in greater employment in our restaurants and hotel dining rooms.
The increase in restaurant and hotel business arising from the recommended VAT reduction would go someway towards financing this reduction, as would an extension of VAT at the reduced rate to all forms of catering. The committee places a high priority on getting VAT on meals down to a sensible level and looks forward to seeing the appropriate action being taken in the next budget.
The Minister mentioned that the committee, while making recommendations, referred in particular to the extensive list of recommendations in the report requiring State expenditure, and to the fact that no attempt was made to cost the list. I am in the public house business and some other Members are in the catering business and we know a fair bit about them and I can state categorically that points such as I have mentioned here can be proved. Many of us in business, especially in the pub trade, have had home tourists and foreign tourists who are on a tracking holiday and visit pubs to find out if they serve tea and sandwiches, serve pub grub and at what cost and they all say it is too expensive to eat out in a restaurant or hotel. I met an American visitor and his wife up in east Meath last summer. I sat down beside them and I had a chat with them; he got his bill and I knew that the restaurateur was wrong in what he did but he supplied the Bill and he had 23 per cent VAT on it. The VAT should have been included. He should not have specifically mentioned it. The man said “that is what is wrong with your bloody country, 23 per cent VAT on a watery bowl of soup”. That is a problem and a very big one.
(Interruptions.)
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator Lynch to continue without interruption.
With regard to coach tourism, I now come to the major problem affecting coach tourism. In recent years some of our rates of taxation have created jobs in Britain and Northern Ireland at the expense of jobs at home. Last year we published our Report on Retail Distribution in which we made extensive references to the devastation caused to some segments of the retail trade here, electrical goods, for example, by the VAT and excise duty structure then in operation. Retailers in this country watched helplessly as visitors from the Republic indulged in an orgy of buying in Northern Ireland. To his credit, the Minister for Finance made extensive changes in VAT and excise rates in his last budget which, on the evidence to date, have substantially solved this problem. I am confident that the resulting improved retail sales here will lead to more jobs in that sector.
Coach tourism suffers from the exact same problem and requires a similar solution. Coach tourism is increasing but the VAT and excise duties on new coaches have militated against the development of an Irish coach fleet which meet the best international standards. Our coach operators are not competitive with those in the UK. The result is that more and more coach tours in Ireland are operated from the UK. We all witness that right through the summer months when we see all the coaches with English registrations bringing our tourists right through our country. Our report spells out the problems here in some detail. The following extract sets out the problem fairly concisely and I quote:
A characteristic of the coach sector in recent years in relation to the tourism traffic has been the decline in both share and absolute level of demand which is being serviced by Irish companies. British coach equipment is being used to a greater extent each year in meeting the needs of this growth market. Due to significant capital and operating cost differences the Irish supplier is uncompetitive on price and quality of equipment when compared with his British counterpart. The longer term implications of this trend are serious, in terms of foreign revenue earnings, employment and the extent to which non-Irish companies will control the market. A consequence of the shift to UK coaching equipment is the fact that in many instances visitors to Ireland do not have the benefit of an Irish guide on their tour.
Demand for tourism coach hire will increase. This increased demand should be met by Irish rather than overseas operators, but as long as the tax structure in this area remains as at present there is no prospect of Irish operators becoming competitive.
We then went on to set out the tax difference for coach tourism between here and the UK and their effects. Again I quote from the report:
Foreign based coaches have a much higher standard of comfort than Irish based coaches. At least 90 per cent of the Irish coach fleet is over ten years old as Irish operators usually import secondhand coaches from the UK. This is due to high excise duty and VAT. There is a 6.5 per cent excise duty on the new landed retail price of coaches and 23 per cent VAT on the purchase price of the coach inclusive of excise duty. Coaches carry no excise duty in the UK. Diesel fuel here costs 15 per cent more than in the UK and vehicle taxes are higher. Capital allowances for coaches in Ireland are 20 per cent per annum, in the UK 75 per cent for the first year.
The position of VAT is particularly difficult. Passenger transport is exempt from VAT. There is, therefore, no refund of VAT on any inputs into the coach transport business, including the purchase of coaches, fuel and spare parts. VAT on a new coach is 23 per cent. Transport is zero rated in the UK. The UK operator pays 15 per cent VAT for his inputs and can reclaim it in full. The principal consequence of this situation has to be a lack of competitiveness on the part of Irish coach operators in a growing international market.
Since we wrote those words earlier this year another tourism season has come and gone. All the indications are that the problem has got worse. A cursory glance at the registration plates on the coaches parked outside our hotels this summer would reveal the extent of the problem I have outlined here. There is, therefore, an urgent need for the implementation of our recommendations in this whole area and, particularly our recommendation for a system of registration for tourist coaches to be introduced in co-operation with Bord Fáilte and the Revenue Commissioners.
The following facilities would apply in respect of registered coaches:
(a) a scheme of deferred payment of excise duty on new tourist coaches whereby no excise duty would be paid until the coach ceases to operate for tourist purposes.
(b) Capital allowances of 50 per cent per annum compared with the 20 per cent at present.
In fairness to the White Paper, it acknowledges that there is a problem here; but the commitment to a solution is very vague. I quote from chapter 10, section 5 of the White Paper to which the Minister referred:
In order to encourage Irish operators to replace their fleet, to maintain standards, and to extend employment the Government will consider any action which they might take to promote an increasing Irish participation in all niches of the coach tourism market. The extent to which the Government may give relief in relation to the taxation disadvantages is of course determined by the State finances at any given time. The question whether this sector could be assisted by changes in the licensing of vehicles will also be examined.
I would submit that our report sets out clearly what should be done so that Irish coach operators may contribute fully to overall tourism development and that now is the time to implement our recommendations in this field.
With regard to grants for hotels and guesthouses, having made my criticism with regard to VAT on meals and the problems of coach tourism it is fair that I should express my appreciation of the recently announced scheme of grants for hotels and guesthouses. The scheme provides for grants of 20 per cent of the cost of improvement work to hotels and guesthouses with particular reference to public receptions and all-weather facilities. There are 25 per cent grants for facilities for the disabled. The maximum grant is £30,000 and £2 million has been set aside in 1986 to pay these grants. There is a condition that recipients of grants must be involved in the marketing of export tourism or have specific plans for doing so. Some people in the trade may resent this condition as being too onerous but in fairness businesses that benefit directly from tourism have some obligation to become involved with marketing Irish tourism overseas. To minimise costs this can be done on a cooperative basis with other hotels and guesthouses.
It seems that this scheme will last for one year only. As profitability in this sector has suffered so badly in recent times I would ask that the time limit on this scheme be extended to three years. I would ask other Members of this House to support that request.
In giving grant assistance to hotels and guesthouses I often wonder did the Department ever have a serious look at the licensed trade in general. The average publican down the years was a bar and grocery outlet, was family owned and run, and gave credit to customers from the grocery end during bad times. They found themselves in a position where they could no longer carry on their grocery business due to competition from large multiples and were forced out of the grocery trade. They then found themselves dependent on the licensed trade.
They arrived at a stage where there was very strong pressure on them from local authorities to comply with stricter regulations, and to keep in business and face competition they also found that they had to improve their premises, build extensions and change their bars — and it is a pity some of them were changed. They also found that they had to provide extra exits and lighting to comply with fire safety regulations and ensure that their licence was not being objected to. As well as that, along came the health boards and they expected the publicans to comply with hygiene regulations specified by them. All this has come on top of the trade in the last few years. If a publican, a hotelier or a guest house owner does not comply with those conditions their licence can be objected to and they may lose their livelihood. I contend that almost 100 per cent of publicans want to comply with those regulations because it will guarantee safety for their premises and their stock. It would help to improve their business if proper hygiene standards were adhered to.
However, the question must be asked, why is it that they cannot comply with these regulations? It is simply because of a lack of finance. I wonder if the Minister's Department, even at this late stage, will have a look at the licensed trade, see their input into this sector and consider giving some grant assistance to them. We must remember that as a commercial sector we pay property rates, water rates, VAT, and income tax. That particular sector, and the working man, is carrying this country at the moment. They have got absolutely nothing from the State. They are tax gatherers who are trying to comply with the law and are finding it impossible to do so. What they have contributed is more than they can afford. I have no doubt Senators will support my recommendations with regard to the licensing laws.
I have talked about tourism policy and have made particular reference to VAT on meals and coach tourism because those two issues stand out like sore thumbs at present. I want to talk for a few minutes about tourist access to Ireland. Ireland is what we now call a secondary tourist destination which means that we are not a market for sun-seekers and cannot compete with holiday destinations such as Spain, Portugal or Greece. Neither have we major international cities such as London, Paris or Rome which are themselves major tourist attractions. Dublin, to avail of the tourist industry, should be made a more attractive city for people to visit.
As an island we tend to overlook that much of tourism access in Europe is by overland transport, road and rail. To say that a lightly populated island with a highly seasonal tourism sector and an island which is a secondary destination has disadvantages with regard to tourist access is to state the obvious. In our report we expressed strong dissatisfaction at the level of disagreement between the various tourism interests in the question of access, a situation which we find intolerable.
In a December 1984 publication Bord Fáilte estimated that Ireland's competitive position with regard to access transport to Ireland from our main overseas market as: air transport from Britain, not competitive; sea transport from Britain, marginal; air transport from America, competitive; air transport from continental Europe, non-competitive and sea transport from Europe, competitive. In fairness to the White Paper it fully acknowledges the vital importance of access to tourism and contains a commitment to ensuring that access services operate within a competitive fares environment. The White Paper also provides for the development by tourist interests of an expanded programme of charter activity to Cork and Shannon from the UK and continental Europe. This commitment is welcome and its successful implementation is a major yardstick by which tourism interests will judge the effectiveness of the proposed tourism policy co-ordinating committee.
I should like to refer to tourism access from the US. It is a vast market and, traditionally, access to Ireland has been through New York and Boston. There are historical reasons for this emphasis. In this regard I welcome the resumption by Pan Am of a daily New York-Shannon schedule service from next April. More welcome still is the proposal from Delta Airlines to operate a daily service from Atlanta, Georgia to Shannon from next year. This service will do much to facilitate access to Ireland by visitors from the south and south east of the United States.
Access from some of the major population and economic growth regions in the USA to Ireland is not always that easy and can be relatively more expensive than to US destinations. One example given to the committee, and valid as of 1 August 1985, is relevant and deals with access from San Antonio, Texas to Dublin. The cost from San Antonio to New York is $350 and from New York to Shannon it is $600, a total of $950. Let us compare that with the cost of a trip from San Antonio via London to Dublin. From San Antonio to Houston the cost is $64 and from Houston to London it is $666 and London to Dublin, $110, a total of $834. In this instance, it is more than $100 cheaper to come to Ireland from Texas via London than directly via New York. It is over $200 cheaper to stay in London and not to fly on to Dublin. This example shows the competitive pressures to which tourism interests here must respond and why there must be a total commitment from all concerned to ensure that tourism access is a priority rather than the individual concerns of all the interests involved.
Another access concern is the future of the Irish Continental Line which provides the vital car ferry link between Rosslare and France. As a subsidiary of Irish Shipping this line is now in the hands of the liquidator. Irish Continental Line is regarded as viable by all concerned interests but it is important its secure future be determined in time for the 1986 tourism season.
On domestic tourism the White Paper states that in 1984 some £379 million was spent by Irish residents travelling abroad. Foreign holidays accounted for £200 million of this total with the balance going on business and other travel. The White Paper favours the development of particular niches in the home holiday trade with an emphasis on sport activities. A good case can be made for this approach but if sports means outdoors only we would be too limited in our outlook. Home tourism this year was depressed, partly due to the lack of disposable income but also due to the very poor weather conditions which we all experienced. This year people decided not to take holidays simply because of the weather. Indeed, entire families interrupted their holidays and returned home early because of the continuing rain and cold, thus putting another nail in the coffin of many small hotels and established resorts.
We have to live with our unpredictable weather but we can do more to adapt our home holiday market to it with the provision of more indoor facilities. In this regard the inclusion of these facilities as eligible within the new hotels and guest-house grants scheme is very welcome. However, with regard to indoor leisure facilities in general this is an area in which we are still deficient. In our forthcoming report on construction the committee will be recommending some emphasis on the construction of leisure facilities. It seems reasonable to provide multi-purpose community leisure facilities particularly in tourism areas where they could be used by visitors during the winter period. By this I mean providing all weather facilities such as indoor tennis, swimming pools, squash, badminton courts and saunas.
Another indoor facility which we lack is a major conference centre. Conferences are big business right across the world and we have all come to recognise that fact. We have been getting some of that business but we need a purpose-built centre to fully exploit the conference potential. A conference centre might be provided by way of joint venture between public and private sector interests, perhaps in line with recommendations for incentives that will be outlined in our forthcoming report on construction.
With regard to historic monuments and houses, the White Paper quite rightly echoes what we said in our report to the effect that existing programmes in this area are totally inadequate. The proposals contained in the White Paper are a welcome response to this problem. The principal proposals in our White Paper are (i) to establish a register of historic monuments and require prior notice to be given of any works proposed on monuments entered in the register and (ii) to strengthen the powers of the Commissioners of the Office of Public Works to acquire and protect the monuments. The White Paper goes on to say that the Office of Public Works will then be in a position to place greater emphasis on the attractive presentation of national monuments for tourists and provide proper visitor facilities. This is a welcome development and the proposal to extend the social employment scheme to maintain the gardens and structures of privately owned historic houses is imaginative to say the least.
With regard to the licensing laws which I mentioned earlier, in our report we acknowledge that our colleagues on the Joint Committee on Legislation are currently analysing the licensing laws and that our own recommendations are purely from the perspective of the small business sector. The licensing laws are complex and have evolved over many decades. Preparation of comprehensive legislation on their up-dating will take some time. However, there should be a short Bill before the next tourism season to provide for our recommendations with regard to opening hours and the sooner that Bill comes before us the better.
It will be there.
Our essential recommendations with regard to the licensing trade are for 11.30 p.m. closing time on a year-round, seven-day basis with drinking up time extended to 30 minutes and the abolition of the "holy hour" in the main urban centres. We also recommended an extension until 1 a.m. on New Year's Eve and on Saint Patrick's Day. This is a reasonable recommendation and while it comes under a different Department I am asking the Minister to take this request very seriously. With regard to enforcing the licensing laws I would like to see much more action on unfair trading and enforcement in the areas of the sports and social clubs. The present lax enforcement in these areas threatens the livelihood of people in the licensing trade and their employees. There is something seriously wrong with the way the licensing laws operate at the moment.
When the family publican down through the years had the sole handling of the trade there were none of the serious problems that we have today. They are compelled by law at present to eject people from their premises at 10 o'clock on a Sunday night. Those people — mostly young people — can then go to a club or disco in a hotel or somewhere else and pay exorbitant fees to gain admission and exorbitant prices for alcoholic drink. Many of these hotels and clubs are not properly supervised. When those young people have themselves drugged senseless with alcoholic drink, and probably something else, there will be five or six savages of men ready to beat them into oblivion and chuck them out on to the street. There is something wrong with the laws when that is allowed to happen.
It is impossible to comply with the law as it stands. It is almost impossible for the Garda to enforce the law and indeed it is almost impossible for the justice to give a conscientious ruling on it. The licensed vintners have made recommendations — I am sure Senator Howard will have something to say about this — and they state that no amendment of legislation is necessary to permit restaurants to become fully licensed as that facility already exists. We have dealt with the licensing of restaurants in our report.
If changes are to be made the legislation must (a) be strict and enforceable thus avoiding the danger of licensing of fast food outlets and the problems that have arisen in Northern Ireland, (b) provide for a substantial investment on the part of the licensee and (c), take cognisance of the problems of in-pocket licences. The federation might differ slightly with our recommendations with regard to the extended opening hours. The federation will accept a Government decision to extend the opening hours of public houses to, say, 12.30 a.m. on week nights and 11 p.m. on Sundays for the months of June and September with 11 p.m. each day for the balance of the year. The Government should announce their intentions to avoid further confusion. Clubs, hotels and discos should have the same hours enforceable as pubs.
In the last budget the Government made an announcement that they were extending the licensing laws to, I think, 2 o'clock in the morning. As a person engaged in the licensing trade and a member of the vintners' association, I was a little perturbed at this announcement. Some of us were shocked. The average publican would not wish to have his premises open until such a later hour in the morning. Also, at a time of depression they could not afford to pay the extra staff to man a business for a longer number of hours. There were several complications. We had meetings at sub-committee level and at committee level and our recommendation should strike a fair balance. I am not in total agreement with the vintners federation recommendation of staying open until 12.30 a.m. Our recommendation of 11.30 p.m. with a half hour drinking up time and with the onus on the customer to leave seems logical. The customer must share the responsibility. At present it is impossible to comply with the law; it is impossible to clear a public house. It is not so much that people do not respect the law but the average young person going into pubs, and indeed some of the older people, consider that their right to consume what they have purchased at a rather exorbitant price, even in the cheapest pub, at their leisure, should not be challenged by anybody. One must bear in mind that they must be ejected from an ordinary public house at 10.10 p.m. on a Sunday night and they can then go to a club or disco and provided they fork up £3, £4 or £5 they can consume alcoholic beverages up to 2 a.m. There is something seriously wrong with that situation and the sooner something is done about it the better. I certainly will support any legislation that comes before this House to alleviate this serious problem.
The Vintners' Federation of Ireland may seek support for a Private Members' Bill which would return to the district justice the discretion whether or not to endorse a licence depending on the severity of the offence. The present legislation makes endorsement of a licence compulsory even if the publican has little control over the commission of the offence. The contrast between pubs and registered clubs who break the law is indefensible, even though a publican may have much more to lose and may make a much more valuable contribution to society than a so-called sporting club.
The Vintners' Federation of Ireland met with the Minister for Justice, Deputy Noonan, and they stated that the national plan, Building on Reality, published by the Government on 2 October 1984, contained three items of particular interest to publicans. They were the reduction in the excise duty on spirits, the proposal to grant full liquor licences to restaurants and the extension of opening hours during the summer period. The vintners' federation have already put on record their congratulations to the Government on the decision to reduce the excise duty on spirits. The cause and effects of this decision are a matter for debate in another forum but I have already mentioned it here and we all welcome that.
With regard to the proposal to grant full liquor licences to restaurants of an acceptable standard, the federation make the point that under existing legislation there are adequate facilities for the granting of full liquor licences to restaurants. The federation believe, therefore, that no amendment of legislation is necessary. This has already been dealt with in the submission compiled by the Irish Hotels Federation, the Dublin Licensed Vintners' Association and the Vintners' Federation of Ireland. Should the Government now decide to change the liquor licensing laws in a manner which would facilitate the granting of licenses to restaurants under less restrictive criteria the federation feel that the following points need to be made: licences or permits must be granted only under the most stringent and enforceable regulations and that is in agreement with the report of the Oireachtas Joint Committee. The Oireachtas must guard against the danger of the proliferation of licences or permits to fast food outlets and other similar establishments. There must be no bar area or waiting area in a licensed restaurant so as to avoid the enormous problems which have developed, as I mentioned earlier on, in Northern Ireland. It is essential that the licensing of restaurants should not be capable of being used as a back door method to obtain a publican's licence on the cheap and this is very important. In this connection, consideration must be given to what happens to the licence permit when a restaurant fails or closes down. It must be an essential prerequisite for obtaining such a licence permit that the restaurateur be obliged to make a substantial investment in the licence and permit. The Government must give consideration, when dealing with the question of licensing restaurants, to the problems of in-pocket licences of which there are thousands throughout the country at present.
The federation believe that it is the intention of the Government to extend public house opening hours during the summer months. The federation would not deny members the opportunity of availing of those hours but they believe that the speculation in the media and in the public mind in recent months with regard to these proposals should be ended by way of a specific announcement from the Government. There is considerable confusion about the opening hours which the Government have in mind and the months during which these hours would operate.
The federation also believe that if this change is to be introduced the opening hours should not go beyond 12.30 a.m. or perhaps 12 midnight and that the opening should be confined to 11 p.m. on Sundays, which is not much at variance with the recommendations of our committee report. They suggested that the late opening should be optional in so far as is possible and they suggest that the months involved be perhaps the latter half of June, the months of July and August and the first half of September.
With regard to licence endorsements, it would be the hope of the federation to have a Private Members' Bill introduced in the Seanad in the immediate future. We would hope for Government support for this Bill. It will be supported by the Opposition. The effect of this Bill would be to give to the district justice the discretion as to whether or not a particular offence merited a fine, an endorsement, or both. We believe that a law which jeopardises the livelihood of a publican and his family for a relatively minor offence over which he may have had very little control is morally unjust and I believe it is socially unjust as well. We contrast the situation as it applies to a publican with that which applies to, for instance, registered clubs which can have between 30 and 40 convictions for breaches of the liquor licence laws recorded against them with nothing more than a comparatively small financial penalty. A publican can lose both his livelihood and a substantial part of his investment for comparatively minor offences committed over a very long period and that is an anomaly which is contained in that law and it should be removed as quickly as possible.
Clubs here for the most part are not licensed; they are registered. They can supply drink to members but cannot sell drink to non-members. While any member of the Garda Síochána can ensure that publicans comply with the law the Garda are seriously restricted in the manner in which they can ensure that the clubs comply with the law. These restrictions make it almost impossible to have the law enforced. Registered clubs enjoy tremendous legal advantages as against public houses, both in terms of renewal and registration.
We object to the manner in which notice of intention to apply for registration or renewal of registration is published and the manner in which the limited restrictions can be circumvented by a number of clubs operating from the same club building. Clubs break the terms of their registration and break the law by selling drink in normal hours to non-members and outside those normal hours to members and non-members alike and advertising and holding functions. In practical terms they invite the public to assist them to break the law. There is a world of difference between the penalties applicable to a publican who breaks the law and those applicable to a club which breaks the law.
A publican can lose his licence and thereby his livelihood, and perhaps that of his family and employees as well, for four comparatively minor offences committed over a period of 27 years. On the other hand, a club guilty of exactly the same offences over a period of 27 months can continue to operate within and outside the law having suffered a total penalty of £140. The Vintners' Federation of Ireland are convinced that the law, such as it is, should be uniformly enforced, that the existing law needs to be reviewed, overhauled and updated, and that the federation should be allowed to have some input in the drafting of any new legislation.
Contrary to popular belief, only a small minority of sports clubs are licensed to sell alcoholic drink. In a document published by the federation, when they refer to clubs they are speaking specifically about golf clubs, rugby clubs, hurling clubs, tennis clubs, boat clubs and similar types of sporting clubs. The list is not exhaustive. Similar types of clubs are also intended to be covered. The vast majority of such clubs which have facilities for the supply of excisable liquors to members and their visitors are registered under the provision of the Registration of Clubs (Ireland) Act, 1904, and this document sets out to discuss: the main features of the liquor law as it relates to registered clubs, the different procedures for enforcement of the law as between clubs and public houses, the legal advantages to clubs as against public houses, the main abuses by clubs of the terms of their registration, the different level of penalties for clubs as against public houses and what the Vintners' Federation of Ireland want to see done about the present situation.
I would go further and say, and I am sure Senator Howard will have something to say about it, that we have spelt out the anomalies and I am sure they will be further spelt out by the time this debate is over. The people who have worked legitimately within the law over the years and carried on this trade with respect, who have paid their taxes, now find themselves in a situation in which it is almost impossible to stay in business. To add further to the dilemma they are duty bound to comply with a law with which it is impossible to comply. The Garda, who I believe by this time understand the position of the publican, find it impossible to implement. The district justice, in many cases, is ruling against his conscience when he is endorsing publicans' licences. We are living in a time when we need co-operation between the public in general and the Garda. Contrary to what some people say I believe the goodwill is there and the co-operation will be forthcoming, but the legislation needs to be changed urgently.
What I have spoken about mostly is the pub, the grub, the club and all that has to do with tourism. While we as a committee can make recommendations and hopefully find as time goes by that many of these recommendations, made in good faith, will be a help to tourism and will be implemented, at the same time there is a lot more that can be done for tourism. From the very start I did not set out to point the finger at Bord Fáilte. Bord Fáilte have done a very good job down through the years and we appreciate what they have done. We feel they should be given more clout. They could still be called Bord Fáilte, but if they were structured more on the lines of the IDA, we feel they could do a much better job.
As a people we should be doing more for tourism. I am amazed when I travel through Ireland to places like Mayo and Galway and sometimes, indeed, Cork and Kerry, to hear background pop music in restaurants and in pubs. It is nearly impossible to find a bit of Irish music. Come down to north Meath, where we have a certain pub in which nothing is played but Irish music. It is amazing the number of people who come from Germany and England each year during the fishing season and who come in, sit down and listen to it. Irish music certainly has an attraction for me, but it has an attraction for the foreigner too. Many people in Europe are playing Irish music and more people in Europe have become attracted to our games.
It is to the eternal credit of the GAA that they became self-sufficient because of the support of the people behind them. They are an organisation that is recognised worldwide. These are the areas we should be exploiting. We should be exploiting our music, our dance, our culture. In debates in this House we have mentioned Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann. I would like to place on record again my appreciation of the tremendous work that organisation have done through the years. If it ever happens that there is any threat to this organisation we should do all in our power to make sure that they survive any threat that comes their way.
We have problems in the tourist field. I got a complaint two weeks ago concerning Bord Fáilte. A man said to me that the information available to most American tourists is at least ten years out of date. Whether or not that is true I do not know, but he gave me an example. A tourist from the USA was told by his travel agent in America that there was only one approved Bord Fáilte hotel between Dublin and the town of Cavan. That hotel is in Navan. It is not and has not been an approved hotel for the past six years. I read something in a newspaper about a pub in Dublin and it has been closed for the past six years, I believe.
Ten years.
There is something wrong. I have had complaints from organisations and people who have put a great effort into the cultural life of this country. They feel they are being neglected and being left out. We will take Rath Cairn which is 19 miles from my home town. It is one of the Gaeltacht areas in County Meath. It is a focal point for tourists, but there is a serious lack of facilities there. They say that there is a very poor input from Bord Fáilte that, in fact, there is no input at all.
I will give a few examples. Two years ago 200 people came from Wales, Brittany, and the Celtic countries. They asked Bord Fáilte to provide a reception and the answer was "no". There should be something left in the kitty to cater for exercises such as this. Last year 300 people came to Rath Cairn to the Celtic Rock Festival and again they claim they got no recognition. They hold Oireachtas Laighin in Rath Cairn every year. They claim that they are not getting the support that they are entitled to. Groups are coming from San Francisco, Germany and elsewhere in Europe. The local people feel that they are being left out on a limb. While they were brought in, rehoused and a Gaeltacht community set up in County Meath, they feel that, to a large degree, they have been left on their own. I would urge the Minister to do something to alleviate the situation. Tourism in general would benefit.
Back in the fifties people were trying to attract tourists to Ireland. They decided to have a special tourism attraction each year and they call it An Tóstal. It is a pity that An Tóstal died out. I have in front of me a newspaper printed by the committee in Oldcastle in 1953. Admission to a ceilí — we still hold them in Oldcastle — was three shillings; admission to hear Jack Barrett and his orchestra and Peggy Dell and her orchestra was five shillings, with a licensed bar open until 2 a.m. I worked in that bar as a young boy. I can assure the Minister that they did not need five or six hefty men to beat up anybody or throw anybody out at the end of the night. That is the way it should be and that is the way I hope it will be when restored to its proper level.
The tourists come here through Bord Fáilte or other agents and make a beeline from Dublin to County Kerry. We do not begrudge the Kerry people their share of tourists. They have a festival every month to cater for them, so that when one event concludes another is about to start. Tourism has been a great boon to County Kerry. They are great organisers. But at the same time there are many other areas in the Midlands and Leinster where there are many tourist attractions which are not publicised. I will quote from this little booklet:
There is one road to Oldcastle that everyone should travel at some time — the Patrickstown Road. Come the "mountain" road where the Cairns have stood sentinel these four thousand years — the view is breath-taking. In the valley under you lies Oldcastle and away to the West beyond it is Lough Sheelin in all its placid beauty. Stretching further away are the Leitrim Hills. To the north-west can be seen portion of Lough Ramor and in between and to the right, the little fields and the whitewashed houses of Breffni. The Mountains of Mourne are further away on the skyline. On the other side of the Hill to the East, the plains of Meath swirl down to meet the Dublin Mountains with the Wicklow Hills in the background. It is claimed that on a clear day, eighteen counties can be picked out — all presenting themselves in exquisite panorama. Nowhere in Ireland can do anything like it: it is unique.
The hills and the country around here have been inhabited since history began. The Cairns and there from 2000 BC and apart from two intact hills are covered with the traces of many others. Here Queen Taillte is buried. The Tailltean games were established in her honour and tradition says that they were held in the plain between our hills and Crossakill. Queen Maebh is said to have passed this way on her famous raid and it is said too that her daughter, Fionnabhar, died here and was buried on the lonely hills of Fennor.
The country round is littered with the ringed forts of a later period and down to the left of the town is the Norman moat and Bailey, presager of the stonebuilt castle built later to guard the marches of the Pale, to keep out the O'Farrells and the O'Reillys. According to tradition, the Northern Irish fought their way through here after the disaster of Kinsale and half a century later. General Owen Roe O'Neill trained his army (later to be tested gloriously in the battle of Benburb) on the slopes of Mullaghameen.
Over to the left can be seen the Ben of Fore. Under it is Fore with its seven wonders and ruined Abbey. This village was later an English walled town and an important trading centre. Again to the left, but quite near at Ballinvalley, in a little hollow called Polnagore, is the Mass Rock where our people congregated in Penal Times. The names of the fields here tell their own story. Páirc na Bodaigh (the beggars field) where the people, driven by hunger in the great famine, came to scrape in the ditches for the potatoes which were buried there in the year of plenty preceding it. All this reminds us of the Clearances and the days of the Crowbar Brigade when whole townlands were cleared to make way for the bullocks. Under Partickstown Hill 1,000 fires were put out in a night, but look down now and see the red roofs of the Land Commission houses and smoke in every chimney and you will realise that the wheel has gone full circle.
To any son of the soil this country lives not only in the present but in the past as well. Here we have only touched on the fringe of things but there is enough to stir up your interest.
I think of the amount of history that is right around me, Fore and its seven wonders. There is a history attached to Fore. Fore was a borough, it had two members of Parliament, it was formerly a walled town. It was one of the strongholds of the Pale. It is about eight miles from me in County Westmeath. Yet they hold an annual fete and 20,000 come to Fore every August. They have got no recognition and no assistance whatsoever from Bord Fáilte. There is a lot that can be done. The beauty of Ireland cannot be surpassed. The areas I mention are in north Meath; I did not even touch on Kells. We have much to project and we seem to be doing so little about it. A lot is left to be desired.
We should encourage people to delve back into the past and bring out and project the cultural aspects of Irish life because there is an attraction there for the tourist. In the sixties we formed Cumann Rinnceoiri na hÉireann which was a dancing festival, something almost equivalent to the fleadh. It was not confined to dancing but the emphasis was on dancing. We had visitors from Northern Ireland, the McMurrays and all these great people. We ran it from 1960 to 1966 and unfortunately at that time the festival left our town and got into financial difficulties. That festival of dancing and music was an attraction for the people and we should do more to encourage that type of activity and that type of festivity.
You would rarely find any trouble at that type of function. We should project our national games and our other sports, the horse-racing industry and all that. With a combination of all that we could make this country financially secure if we properly developed all the resources we have and offered our visitors a true picture of Irish life. It is unfortunate that we are a nation that seems to be dominated by outside influences, by the media and by the activities and the actions of people in other worlds. It is a great pity.
Frequently, we blame the media, television and radio, but I would like to place on record here today my appreciation of what RTE Radio 1 has done in this field. I think we should sit down and listen to it especially in the afternoon and at night. It has programmes that are a treat to listen to. It has gathered history from all parts of Ireland and, as regards our cultural heritage, assembled archives of music, work done by people like Ciarán Mac Mathúna and many others. They have played a tremendous part and I would like to place on record my appreciation of what they have done.
In conclusion, the urgent steps that are needed to boost tourism and make it more competitive would be in addition to what I have already said. I know that the Minister of State who is responsible, Deputy Moynihan, agrees with me entirely with regard to our approach to the development of our cultural attitudes and aspirations in this country. These urgent measures are (1) we need a substantial reduction in VAT on meals; (2) we need measures to make our coach tour operators competitive — they are not competitive at present and cannot be competitive; (3) bring in meaningful measures to improve access at competitive prices and make them stick: this is more important: (4) invest in all-weather facilities. As I said before the Minister came in, we hope to have in a report on construction very positive ideas in that area which we will be putting forward and which we hope will be adopted by the Government and approved by this House.
While I regard the White Paper as having deficiencies — I have already expressed disappointment at the general lack of reference to our own work throughout the White Paper — it is nonetheless, as I said earlier, a welcome document. I also take comfort from the statement at the beginning of the White Paper that the Minister, in formulating and developing tourism policy, will have regard to our report. The important thing now is that all State and private tourism interests work together to overcome the effects of 20 years of neglect and restore tourism to the very centre of our economic development.
It occurred to me before I stood up, talking about tourism and all that, that for many tourists one point of interest is, the Houses of Parliament in the country which they are visiting. I just hope when our next tourist season begins that those of us who are Members and whom I hope will be Members of the Upper House at that stage will not have to endure the embarrassment of being confined within this unsightly mess of steel bars. That is probably an unusual beginning but nonetheless in the circumstances it is quite appropriate to put it on record.
I welcome the opportunity of speaking on this motion which asks us to take note of the White Paper on the Tourism Policy and also, by agreement enables us to discuss the Third Report of the Joint Committee on Small Businesses — Tourism, Catering and Leisure. With regard to the White Paper, I have noted that, in an introduction to it by the Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism, Deputy J. Bruton, on 30 September last, he said that this is the first time a Government in Ireland had published a White Paper on tourism. He said that is important in itself because it indicates that from now on tourism will be a central part of Government policy making. Minister Moynihan has also re-echoed that today and has assured us that tourism has now a priority within the national planning process at Government level that it has not had in the past. I welcome that. Might I also say that in the same introduction Minister Bruton stated that, as I said at the outset, the essential purpose of this document is the generation of new ideas. Deputy Moynihan and I want to hear from Senators if they have suggestions which will bring more tourists into this country.
The invitation is open to those in the industry itself and, more important we want to hear from the ordinary Irish people who take their holidays in Ireland if they can see ways in which our tourism industry can present itself more effectively to overseas visitors. It is in that spirit that I want to make my contribution here this afternoon. I welcome the White Paper in so far as it is a response to a need in the industry. I welcome the commitment by the Ministers that tourism has now been elevated to a special plane in Government priorities. I will also, in the course of what I have to say, be drawing comparisons between what is in the report of the joint committee and the response that that report has evoked in the White Paper. I will be quite critical of the response in the White Paper on many aspects. What I am doing is not in any way in conflict with my position as a Government backbencher, because the Minister clearly indicated in that introduction to the White Paper that he would welcome views and ideas and, as far as I am concerned, I intend to put a few on the record.
I would also like to say that we are dealing with the third most important industry in this country after manufacturing industry and after agriculture, and I am glad of the amount of interest that my colleagues in the Seanad appear to show in contributing to this debate. I am glad that the matter of a debate dealing with such an important subject as tourism is not going to be disposed of in a few hours on a Thursday evening here in the Seanad. That is only right and proper. It deserves far more serious treatment and I am glad that the indications are that that treatment will be forthcoming.
I want to compliment the joint committee on what is an excellent and very comprehensive report. Perhaps more important still, I would like to compliment the joint committee on their willingness — if I might use the phrase — to grasp certain nettles and not to hesitate to place responsibility for shortcomings within the industry, within the promotion of the industry where these shortcomings are obvious. It is a pretty massive document. There is a wealth of information there and there are certainly very valuable recommendations in it. I notice that the Minister, at the beginning of the debate, implied that there were proposals in this report which would cost a lot of money, at a time of scarce resources when finance is not readily available. I accept that. Equally, I say to the Minister that there are many recommendations in that report that will not cost money.
There are many recommendations in that report which are seeking to redirect moneys that are already being spent in tourism in a more fruitful and practical and effective manner. Therefore, if we leave aside, as I am doing, the recommendations that call for the expenditure of more money and concentrate on the positive recommendations that are there apart from that, I think we will be doing a successful day's work. I would suggest to the Minister that, simply because there is no money to deal with certain of the recommendations, there is no valid reason why other recommendations that are not costing money should not get the recognition they deserve on merit.
The White Paper to me is in some sense an inadequate response to the work of the joint committee. The joint committee have re-elected on the needs of the industry. It has found — and I think it would be reasonable to draw this conclusion — that our tourism promotion in many ways is in a mess. There is also an implication there which I will spell out. It is that the State agencies that have a responsibility first in promoting and marketing tourism and also the agencies that have an involvement or responsibility in transporting tourists to this country are failing to deliver as effectively as they should. Having spelled out why the committee have come to these conclusions and followed up these conclusions by making recommendations, I find that in the White Paper the implementation of these recommendations has been blunted. I wonder to what extent these State agencies of which the joint committee were justifiably critical have been successful in ensuring that blunting. I have no regrets in making this observation. If the White Paper, and I do not think this is the case, is the full response by the Government to the work of the joint committee — and I understand from Minister Moynihan this evening that it is not the full response, that there is a willingness to consider other viewpoints and in fact review the views put forward by the committee — then it would raise serious questions about the value of there being joint committees at all. I am concerned that organisations, State organisations, that were criticised by the committee for their failure of performance did not in some way succeed in decimating certain worthwhile proposals the committee made. I will return to that later on.
I would like to refer to some of the major points which the committee in the course of their work established and projected. They began by spelling out the importance of tourism and establishing why it is the third most important industry in the State. The report deals with the numbers employed in the industry, 59,000 full-time jobs and a further 40,000 part-time jobs. It made the important observation that tourism is handled in the majority of cases by small labour-intensive businesses and that they are well dispersed throughout the country. They are labour-intensive and in very many cases they are family owned. It indicated the vast potential there is to improve the industry. It also highlighted one very disturbing fact: that, alone of all EC countries, our tourist receipts as a percentage of gross domestic product have in fact been declining. That situation is unique within the EC. This happened during the decade from 1974 to 1984 when there was a worldwide rise in international tourism of 130 per cent.
Against that background there can be no question but that as a nation we have failed to take advantage of that massive increase over a decade of 130 per cent in international tourism traffic. The joint committee has examined the reasons. They spoke of the business environment. They referred to the fact that the contraction of disposable incomes, particularly at home, has had an adverse effect. They have also, very honestly, faced up to the fact that we have erected certain barriers against progress in the industry. They have talked about lack of competitiveness. They have referred to high inflation, to VAT, PRSI, excise duty and other taxes. They have concluded that internationally there is a perception that Ireland is an expensive holiday destination.
Unless Ireland is perceived internationally as being good value for money where holidaymakers are concerned, we are not going to succeed. We have no guaranteed sunshine in this country. We had sunshine in 1983 and 1984. We know that 1985 more than compensated for that sunshine with rain. The fact is we do not have sunshine. All we can essentially offer is this: excellent scenery, a pleasant country and, hopefully, pleasant people, uncluttered roads, good fishing and a few other minor attractions. So long as we are not in the position of having a sunshine summer — we cannot guarantee that — and once we are falling back on other attractions I have mentioned, unless with that we can have a situation where a holiday in Ireland is good value for money, we are not going to succeed. In that context I want to welcome as a first step the Government provisions in relation to excise duty and VAT. I hope that it will be possible to continue what was begun in these decisions.
Therefore, the first and principal finding of the joint committee was that we have priced ourselves out of the market. They have found that there are other weaknesses also and they have catalogued these weaknesses. I am not going to go through the entire list, but I believe there are some which merit special attention. They referred to the lack of national planning and to the lack of an integrated policy in relation to tourism.
The committee dealt with the problem of access to the country and with the problems of marketing. They dealt also with the problems of taxation. The report refers to the fact that tourism is something into which at least a half dozen Departments of State have some input. Therefore, the committee came to the conclusion that there was one other factor seriously inhibiting the development of tourism, and that was that there was confusion in the administration of tourism policy here because so many were involved in it. It was bad enough to have confusion but — if I may put it that way — the confusion was not even organised. The net effect was that this led to a lack of business confidence and a lack of profits for investment. The committee point out that tourism is the third most important industry in the country. There are 4,500 civil servants involved in seeing to the success of industrial promotion and development. In agriculture — our second most important industry — there are 2,400 civil servants required to have an input into the promotion and the development of agriculture. But when we come to our third most important industry — tourism — we have nine people in Deputy Moynihan's Department with full responsibility for overseeing the promotion and development of that industry. That is one of the conclusions the committee came to in their report.
The committee expressed their concern at the lack of national policy and national co-ordination. The White Paper has responded. It states:
To ensure full co-operation of all Departments in tourism affairs the Government have decided to establish an Inter-Departmental Policy Co-Ordination Committee chaired by a senior official from the Department of Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism.
I do not know whether the joint committee would consider that an adequate response. They wanted to see tourism promotion taken out of the present situation where six Departments have an input and put under the control of one Department, with an assistant secretary as chief co-ordinator. The White Paper's response does not permit of that arrangement. Instead, the six Departments, apparently, will still continue with their little inputs and there will be some sort of an overall co-ordinating committee. Perhaps, it will improve the situation, but perhaps equally it will not.
The committee dealt also at length with the other disadvantages they saw in relation to the development of the tourism industry here. They made the point that the cost of getting here was particularly expensive. They also made the point that 80 per cent of the people who come to Ireland to spend a holiday use a State company to transport them here. They quantified the cost of getting to Ireland by sea and by air. If you take the United Kingdom and Europe together, 60 per cent of our business originated in these two areas. The views of Bord Fáilte were ascertained on this aspect of the cost of getting here. Their views were simply that the cost of getting to Ireland by air from either the United Kingdom or Europe was not competitive. The cost of getting here by sea was only marginally competitive. I think it is important that we would look at some of the points that have been made here in relation to transportation to this country.
Might I interrupt the Senator for a minute? The Senators have been for some days complaining about the condition of the Chamber here. I told them that I would take the matter up with the Office of Public Works. I have just received a statement from them, which reads as follows:
Due to circumstances which could not have been foreseen or anticipated by the Office of Public Works, the only firm which could in the estimation of the OPW satisfactorily carry out the delicate plaster work in the ceiling of the Chamber is now unable to undertake the work. As a result, the original time-scale cannot be maintained.
Alternative arrangements are now being made and it is expected that the work will be completed within twelve months, provided that no other unforeseeable problems arise. While the inconvenience of the House is much regretted the work by its nature is slow and painstaking and no short cuts will be taken in producing a result which the prestige of the Chamber demands.
I do not want a discussion on this because I know that if I got into a discussion on the Office of Public Works I could be here until tomorrow morning. That is the situation, and the Members of the Seanad can rest assured that I will keep in touch with the Office of Public Works and report progress to the House as it comes.
I have no wish to open up a discussion on that subject. I am sure you would not allow me. May I ask you will there be an opportunity for us to make a response to that report?
The Committee on Procedure and Privileges will be meeting next week about it and we may come back to the House on it. We will take the comments of Senators.
I was coming to deal with the observations of the joint committee on the performance of the State companies that transport tourists into Ireland. We begin by their comments in relation to air transport via Aer Lingus. A number of claims were made to the committee. They enumerate what these claims were. Among them was the point that Aer Lingus was inhibiting the granting of licences to private air charter companies into Ireland, that it was uncompetitive on certain air routes, that it frequently failed to announce its fares until late in the tourist business season, that it was more interested in transporting holiday-makers abroad through its summer charters to 19 Mediterranean destinations than in developing tours to Ireland, that it was hostile to schedule competition from Europe into Ireland, that it gave no special incentive package to encourage travel agents to offer special group holidays in Ireland, and that it was more geared to emphasise business travel rather than developing tourism and, finally, that Aer Lingus had a special relationship with the Department of Tourism. There are eight different charges there. Any one of them on its own would be seriously damaging to the tourist industry. A combination of any few of them would be very dangerous to the promotion of the tourist industry. If there is any validity in all eight, then we are faced with a situation that has to be tackled and has to be resolved before we can make progress in the promotion of tourism here.
It also stated that Aer Lingus disputed all these cases and that they made their own case. Aer Lingus claimed that fares between the Republic of Ireland and London were generally lower than fares for comparable journeys between major European cities. I have very limited experience of air travel, but on my own limited experience this past year I would refute the accuracy of that claim. Recently I was transported by Aer Lingus to the south of Spain. If I extracted the cost of the accommodation from the air ticket I was flown Shannon-Malaga at considerably less than Aer Lingus would fly me Shannon-London.
There is reason to be concerned at one of these claims. Aer Lingus were more interested in transporting the holiday-makers abroad through their summer charters to 19 Mediterranean destinations than they were in developing tours to Ireland. That is a serious situation. We expect Aer Lingus to compete commercially. I have no objection to them promoting their charters to the Mediterranean but I would have objection if, at the same time, conditions are being created which make it difficult or expensive for tourists to come to this country. We had some figures quoted earlier by Senator Lynch relating to fares from Texas and New York through London to Dublin, or through New York and Shannon to Dublin.
Aer Lingus also claim that they carry seven out of every ten visitors by air to Ireland including 500,000 tourists last year. To what extent has the opposition to charters being allowed into Ireland been responsible for bringing this figure of seven out of ten? I do not want to dwell on that point. A dog-in-the-manger attitude has been adopted where charter flights into this country are concerned. It has been adopted by our national carrier. In the favoured environment that they have succeeded in creating for themselves I do not think there is very much kudos to be obtained from saying you carry seven out of ten. I have also referred on another occasion in this Chamber to the fact that my view is that Aer Lingus will willingly fly a plane half-empty rather than fly the same plane full at half the cost per seat. That is to our disadvantage.
The committee have dealt with the question of sea transport. They have dealt with the pooling arrangements across the Irish sea between B & I and Sealink ferries. They have referred to the regularity with which, or the many times that, the ferries have changed routes and departure times without any consultation with the tourist interests in this country. The committee on page 20 said:
The committee is appalled that such decisions are implemented without any prior consultation with Tourism interests. These episodes together serve as topical and typical examples of the ineffectiveness of State policy for Tourism and the incapacity of Bord Fáilte to respond to the needs of the industry.
There is nothing I wish to add to that except to say that when we look at the response in the White Paper to these very serious observations by the joint committee, we see that the White Paper says that the Minister for Communications will support moves within the EC and elsewhere for a more competitive aviation policy. It says that the Minister will facilitate, where possible, the development of an expanded programme of charter activity to Cork and Shannon from the United Kingdom and continental Europe. That is welcome. He will also promote, where appropriate, access to Ireland for carriers from newly-developing tourist sources. I would like to have more clarification on that. Finally, the Minister will authorise, where possible, the development of feeder services from Shannon, Dublin and Cork Airports to Ireland's regional airports. We need to get the tourists into this country first.
The joint committee in their document are quite adamant that a resolute approach should be taken by the Minister for Communications and the Government to getting people into this country first. Unless we get them here, the need for providing feeder services is but of secondary importance. I would have hoped that the response in the White Paper to the question of access transportation by air and sea would have been stronger and more positive than it has been.
The committee, in page 23 of their report said:
Bord Fáilte tends to market Ireland as a whole and not to concentrate on sub-sectors which would yield a greater benefit, and certainly be more quantifiable. Again, the marketing incentives of Bord Fáilte should be modelled more on those of CTT, which promotes exports of manufactured goods. These incentives would include group marketing schemes, individual incentives for marketing executives, and practical schemes to support tour operators. The Committee acknowledges that Bord Fáilte operates schemes in these areas but they are felt to be inadequate and of limited scope.
The Minister spoke to us about the need to encourage hoteliers to go to the States and elsewhere to obtain business for themselves. It is a development that should be encouraged. It raises the point that it is necessary for hoteliers to go out and find the tourists themselves and indicates that somehow or other our marketing organisation, who are Bord Fáilte, are not doing the job as effectively as they might.
The last year for which the Bord Fáilte accounts are available to me is 1983. The board had a budget of £26 million in that year. They spent approximately £10 million in advertising and publicity and they spent a further £10 million on administration, leaving a sum of about £6 million for general assistance, grants, promotions, and so on. The committee have their conclusions on page 24 and refer again to many of the points I raised earlier, but they said that the fundamental problem is the lack of comprehensive and cohesive Government policy in tourism and the lack of an integrated development authority for tourism. We have the beginning of the Government policy in the White Paper, but I am not sure that we are getting the integrated development authority that the joint committee felt was necessary. They spoke also about the interaction of State agencies. I referred earlier to the fact that six Departments of State appeared to have some input into the industry and that the committee felt that that sort of confused promotion effort should be eliminated and that promotion should be concentrated within one Department.
I want to refer again to the fact that the Minister said that we had 426,000 tourists from the USA this year. They were very welcome and we want many more, but I would not be doing my duty if I did not make the observation that many of these tourists who come on package tours — Senator Lynch complained that they drive from Dublin to Listowel Castle, or from County Meath to some other point — are being held in captivity almost from the time they arrive in Ireland until they leave. They arrive at Shannon and they are whisked away to Ashford Castle, or some place like that, but if they stop in County Clare it will possibly be at the Cliffs of Moher and the availability of toilet facilities to them there will probably be as important to them as the scenery that the cliffs provide. We have a situation which causes a certain amount of concern to people in the industry. The package tours are now becoming a greater segment of the market and the people are simply being whisked from point A to point B and are not given the chance to spend a little time at other than their designated points.
With that segment of the market increasing there is a decline in the other segment of the market which over the years was a very important aspect of the industry. That was, if you like, the roving tourist. It was the person who arrived here and hired a car, went to see what he or she wanted to see, stopped when he or she felt like it, and stayed where they liked. The spending power of this type of tourist was enormous but they appear now to be a declining segment of the market.
The committee again called for a national tourist authority to replace Bord Fáilte but that is not going to happen. I may be in a minority in saying this, but the committee had good reason to make that recommendation. I would have been happy to see that recommendation implemented because Bord Fáilte are an organisation with excellent achievements to their credit in the past, but over the years they have moved from a vigorous, enterprising outlet and become ineffective and costly — a swollen, flabby bureaucracy. They have certainly not matched the success that similar organisations in other countries have had. In their 1983 report, particularly the chairman's statement, amongst other things it is stated that the total number of out-of-State visitors increased by 2.7 million, which was an increase of 1 per cent. The Minister told us that we had a 14 per cent increase last year. This is the only document available to me from Bord Fáilte. It spoke of advance bookings being sluggish and that Ireland as a holiday destination suffers from a perception that so many people abroad have of it as being a troubled and potentially unsafe destination. That is simply an excuse for inactivity and lack of results.
Those of us from certain parts of the west of Ireland feel that Bord Fáilte over the years have also become more Dublin-orientated, and that the east coast is a greater priority for them. The promotion and development of large hotels is also something to which they have devoted a disproportionate amount of their interest and perhaps even their finance. In the mid-west region we are fortunate to have an organisation like SFADCo. Here again, one can point to at least three developments that SFADCo has had an input into, the Rent-a-Cottage operation, the Bunratty banquets, the Bunratty folk village and the Castle Tours. Without these, the mid-west would be a disaster area as far as the tourism industry is concerned.
The joint committee also conducted an extensive examination of the licensing laws in so far as they affect tourism. I had intended to deal at length with the proposals of the committee and with my own observations on it, but Senator Lynch has read into the record the findings of the committee and also the views of the Vintners' Federation of Ireland and other bodies. Therefore, it would be unreasonable of me to repeat that. I am in agreement with very many of the points made by the joint committee of which Senator Lynch was vice-chairman. Their views and conclusions in relation to the restructuring of the licensing laws are constructive, objective and balanced and, as I said, I support many of their conclusions.
Very briefly, I will refer to one or two points made by Senator Lynch. He asked the Minister to support the very reasonable call for the removal of the automatic endorsement of publicans' licences. I support that. Anybody who is found with people on his premises 10 minutes after closing time is liable on conviction to have his licence endorsed. In fact, we have now reached the ridiculous situation where, if a person is charged with permitting people to be on his premises after hours, permitting drink to be sold after hours or permitting drink to be exposed for sale and consumed on his premises, each of these charges is independently endorsable and the licence is automatically endorsed. Therefore, with three live endorsements on a licence that licence is forfeited. That penalty can be incurred on one night alone.
I want also to put on record the fact that if a publican loses his licence through endorsements, which can happen in the space of 15 minutes after closing time because the courts have no discretion, that publican can never again hold a licence, or the premises to which that licence is attached can never again be licensed. For the most serious crimes in society, those responsible for them serve their debt to society by imprisonment or by fines and, having served that debt to society, those people are then free to go back into the world and resume whatever legitimate occupation they had; but a publican who loses his licence can never again resume his rightful or lawful trade, which is possibly the only one he is capable of getting a livelihood from.
Therefore, we impose a penalty which is unique in our legal code in relation to that offence. All I am asking is that the Minister and the Government will restore to the courts, to district justices and Circuit Court judges the discretion to endorse or not depending on the triviality or seriousness of the circumstances surrounding the offence. I am not saying that people who have been endorsed or have lost their licence would not have met the same fate within that set of circumstances, but the risks to natural justice of continuing with the system we have are far too great to allow it to continue.
The committee dealt, in an appendix, with the tourism policy of other European countries. It also outlined in a brief but adequate manner the promotional efforts and the work of the organisation responsible for promoting tourism here and how they succeed. It would be of benefit to all of us who have an interest in this industry to compare the performance of the organisations who promote the tourist industry within these countries with the performance we have experienced here at home.
Before I leave the question of the licensing laws I should like to make one or two other brief observations. The committee recommended that licensing laws should be altered to allow licensed restaurants obtain a liquor licence. I have no objection to that provided we can ensure that it is only bona fide restaurants who obtain that licence. I greatly doubt that that is constitutionally possible. I do not believe we can in present day society say that because a premises serves food that is consumed by an elite section of our society it deserves treatment that is denied to the chipper on the corner who will serve a meal to the worker leaving a building site. I do not believe that it is constitutionally possible to draw that line. While the publicans would be at risk — that is, indeed, admitted from an explosion in the numbers of liquor licences available — the restaurants who are seeking these extra licences should be very conscious of the danger they could face in that way. From the point of view of these restaurants they would be far better off with the lesser risks entailed if they were to use the present accommodation within the law of buying existing idle licences and extinguishing these to obtain the liquor licences they require.
The committee had their own suggestions and it may be that these did not find favour with the Minister this morning when he spoke about us working in a situation where financial resources are scarce. Many of the recommendations of the committee do not involve the expenditure of more money. In fact, many of their recommendations are aimed at redirecting in a more effective and worthwhile way existing financial resources. The committee had some very imaginative ideas in regard to the issue of holiday coupons to tourists and other incentives. I suggest to the Minister that it bears further examination and I am sure the recommendations will be accepted.
I should like to conclude by saying that, while I have been critical of the White Paper in so far as I felt it was an inadequate response to a very thorough and comprehensive report from the joint committee, I recognise that I had the liberty to do that because of the statement by the Minister, Deputy Bruton, at the launching of the paper and, indeed, by Minister of State, Deputy Moynihan, today saying that they welcomed comment, observations and suggestions on it. The Minister would be well advised to take on board many of the recommendations of the joint committee. It is obvious, to my regret to some degree, that the Government have decided to continue with Bord Fáilte. In that case they can improve it. They can give it new life and energy and remove some of the flab from it. They can set targets, as was proposed in the White Paper, but above all, monitor performance and be ruthless where there is ineffective performance. In relation to transportation by sea and by air into this country they should simply break the stranglehold, because there are strangleholds there. They should break these strangleholds which our inward carriers are succeeding in exercising to the detriment of our tourism industry. Finally, they should give it at national level the status, importance and recognition that our third largest industry deserves. With so many Members anxious to contribute here this evening it is an indication of the recognition of what our third most important industry deserves.
I am satisfied that in the White Paper we have a reasonable start. I would have preferred if it was more forthcoming in response to certain recommendations from the committee. That has not happened. Nonetheless, it is the first positive step by a Government to bring out a policy document on tourism. Both Ministers have told us that they are flexible in regard to views and recommendations on it and I expect that many of the views that will be expressed here and elsewhere will be taken on board.
I should like to compliment the committee on a thorough and comprehensive document. I have had a long interest in the tourism industry. Part of my livelihood comes from it. If I have been strong and forthcoming in my criticism, I have made those criticisms in all sincerity and in the hope that my views will be accepted as being constructive. They are the views of a person who has expressed them for the purpose of ensuring that improvement is obtained where it is necessary.
I am glad to have this opportunity to make a brief contribution to this debate. I welcome the very comprehensive report of over 100 pages and the White Paper of over 80 pages. I, too, have some criticisms to make and, like Senator Howard, I hope they will be regarded as constructive criticisms and in the interest of the tourism industry. I do not pretend that I will give comprehensive consideration to these reports but I intend to deal with the areas of special interest to me.
Many points have been covered and I do not intend to go over the same ground. I was very interested in Senator Lynch's contribution. One part of it that appealed to me most was where he stated that often our tourist information is out of date. There is no excuse for that. This was brought home to me very clearly the year before last when, with my wife and family, I spent a very enjoyable holiday in the Burren in County Clare. We decided to cross over from Galway to the Aran Islands, Inis Mór. We got information from a very helpful tourist office in Lahinch. The following morning we proceeded to Galway but discovered when we got there that the boat had departed an hour previously. The information, and the leaflet, was two or three years out of date. That was unfortunate. On the occasion of my visit there was a remedy, a plane was available, but unfortunately it was much more expensive. I want to emphasise, with Senator Lynch, that tourist information should be up to date and be precise. There is no excuse for out of date information.
The report in regard to the licensed trade stated that since 1980 the trend in volume sales of alcoholic beverages has been continually in decline. It stated that CSO index for public house and off-licence volume sales was now 22 per cent below the 1980 base year. I am sure those figures are correct but I find it very difficult to reconcile them with figures I have from the Central Statistics Office on the consumption of alcohol. In the year 1980 it was £79.1 million; in 1981 it was £99.8 million; in 1982 it rose to £105.7 million and in 1983, £121 million. Presumably it increased for 1984 and 1985. I know figures can be used to prove almost anything but it is important to realise that the cost and consumption of alcohol is increasing.
Not the volume. There are volume figures as well.
In the long term it is increasing.
This is an area in which I have no vested interest.
The Senator is lucky.
Senators Howard and Lynch have an interest in this area and a very proper interest. I agree with Senator Lynch that I would have no criticism of the small family set-up. It is fair to point that out but the sale of drink is big business in hotels, clubs and in other outlets mentioned by Senator Lynch. Yesterday in this House I said I felt that intoxicating drink was the curse of this country and one of our greatest evils. I was referring to the abuse of drink. Drink can be enjoyed in moderation. It is useful in its own way, but I condemn the abuse of drink. I repeat what I said yesterday, that people with problems resort to drink. It has been proved that drink solves no problems, it creates more.
There are many people concerned about this problem of the abuse of drink. In Building on Reality it is stated very concisely in paragraph 2.59:
The Government are concerned that our alcohol licensing arrangements are an impediment to the full development of the tourist trade. They have decided that special provision should be made for the granting of full liquor licences to restaurants of an acceptable standard. There will be an extension of opening hours in the summer months, and a reduction in the excise duty on spirits.
I believe all public representatives received appeals to do whatever we could so that this would not come about. I received a letter, like other public representatives in Meath, from the secretary of the Kells branch of the Pioneer Total Abstinence Association which stated:
I have been instructed to express to you the Association's alarm and abhorrence at the proposed legislation to extend the drinking hours in licensed premises. The matter was discussed in depth at our last meeting in September and the substance of all that was discussed could be summarised by the word "amazement"; amazement that such legislation could seriously be considered by responsible public representatives. Many of our Irish ills, and they are increasing every day, are attributable to extended facilities for alcoholic drinking. To name but a few: road accidents, teenage drinking and broken homes. To extend these facilities would be an act of irresponsibility and we believe that the vast majority of the electorate would be of the same opinion. At the moment, many people have become resigned to having their sleep disturbed around midnight by the boisterous departure of people from public houses, the banging of car doors and the revving of engines. The extension of this disturbance still further into the morning hours will not be well received. If or when this Bill comes before the Houses of the Oireachtas, we hope you will truly represent the majority of your electorate by preventing it becoming law.
While recognising that the writer of this letter also had a vested interest it must be said that it is a good and caring interest. There is nothing in that letter to which anybody could take objection. It is factual. I think it is a pity that even if it could be proved that an extension of the hours for the sale of intoxicating drink would help the tourist industry we would not take into consideration the counterbalancing social evil.
We cannot consider this matter in isolation. The social evil of the abuse of drink must be considered as part of any solution to this problem. I do not want to delay too long on the question of drink or the opening hours intended, because these have been gone into already in great detail by Senator Lynch and Senator Howard but I want to protest that nothing should be done which would lead to further abuse and further problems in this area. Everybody knows people whose lives have been ruined through the abuse of alcohol, not alone their lives but the lives of their families. I appeal to the Minister to ensure that everything possible is done to ameliorate the problem and to prevent further abuses and further social evils.
Tourism, we are told in the report, is a very significant factor in the economy. International tourism is increasing and, based on indications and world trends, this increase will continue. The report goes on to tell us that between 1974 and 1984 international travel increased by 130 per cent. This is something which presumably is increasing all the time and of which we should be able to make better use. We do not seem to be able to do that; we seem to be losing out. That is all the more reason why this report should be welcomed. Like other Senators, I commend and thank the Members of the committee for such a comprehensive report. I also welcome the White Paper on Tourism Policy.
The committee are very concerned that tourism has not got the priority at official level appropriate to its role in the national economy and believe that this lack of cohesiveness and awareness of the potential for Irish tourism is underlined by the lack of resources allocated. Without proper resources — this is something that is developed further on in the report — the much needed improvement will not be possible. In order to justify this assertion, and being aware of the reluctance of Government Departments to restructure their functions radically, a full chapter of this report is devoted to the need for an integrated tourism policy. The committee place such emphasis on that, that a full chapter is devoted to it. The committee further believe that this issue is at the core of the future development of Irish tourism. That is a conclusion with which none of us would disagree.
With regard to standards, the report states that tourism standards include service and friendliness, hygiene, no litter and no dumping, a clean environment, clean and comfortable accommodation and freedom from theft and vandalism. In some of those areas we have serious problems. How do you improve friendliness? We have a reputation of being a friendly people. In this regard I feel that we are losing out. I come from a rural parish. In the home of my youth the door was never locked. You did not knock on a door; you walked in. But that does not hold true any longer.
We have a law that should solve the problems of litter and dumping. I am not sure that we are achieving the objective we should be aiming at. I do not know how some problems could be eradicated. For example, in my home town of Kells, I have a small garden fronting the roadside. The roadside is clean and tidy simply because everything that is discarded along it is thrown across the fence into the field. There is no consciousness there of the environment. That is not solving the problem. Candidly, when people throw cigarette boxes out of car windows onto the street, there is very little that can be done. Some years ago if a child did something like that, you could say it was wrong. But that day has passed.
The committee also received substantial evidence to suggest that, in the accommodation sector, for example Irish homes, caravan parks and self-catering rented accommodation, the single greatest problem was that of unregistered and unapproved competition. The Government should be in a position to ensure that this does not continue. I know that, perhaps, in the area of homes it may be difficult to supervise the whole country but, in the area of caravan parks, the planning laws should solve many of the problems. Caravan parks cannot be set up without approval. If this is a major problem, as is indicated, perhaps we are not availing of the laws as we should. We have got a reputation for our Irish homes. I have had experience of many of them. I have no criticism to make. This is an important area. If we have a problem with unregistered guest houses, perhaps a drive should be made to make it easy for those which are not on the register to become registered.
The report refers to problems in Northern Ireland. It states:
The consequences of nearly two decades of violence and instability in Northern Ireland have had severe consequences for tourism in the Republic. Tourism promotion in overseas markets has had to continually counter the adverse effects on the image of Ireland arising from media reporting of violence connected with Northern Ireland.
That makes very sad reading indeed.
The report mentions crime and vandalism and the disturbing trend which is, unfortunately, a growing one where crime and vandalism are concerned. This ranges from vandalism of park benches, graffiti and litter to violent crime, particularly in city centre locations.
Debate adjourned.
The Seanad adjourned at 5 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 27 November 1985.