Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 29 Oct 1992

Vol. 424 No. 6

Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - County Enterprise Partnership Boards.

Michael Moynihan

Ceist:

3 Mr. Moynihan asked the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications if she has satisfied herself that the abolition of the six regional tourism organisations is in the best interest of Irish tourism; and if she will make a statement on the matter.

Charles Flanagan

Ceist:

5 Mr. Flanagan asked the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications the proposals, if any, she has in respect of tourism in the recently announced county enterprise partnership boards.

Richard Bruton

Ceist:

8 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications her views on whether a centralised approach to Government tourism policy fails to recognise regional diversity that exists in Ireland; and the steps, if any, she proposes to take to address this problem.

Michael Bell

Ceist:

26 Mr. Bell asked the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications if her attention has been drawn to the fact that there was no prior no consultation with the Councils of the Regional Tourism Organisations regarding the announcement by her of the setting up of the new Enterprise Partnership Boards; her views on whether wasteful duplication must be avoided and the wide experience and expertise of regional tourism organisations must be used to the maximum; if tourism is to be more effective at local level and play its rightful role in job creation the steps, if any, she proposes to take to rectify this matter; and if she will make a statement on the matter.

Jim Mitchell

Ceist:

37 Mr. J. Mitchell asked the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications if she will give details of the tourism role of the county enterprise schemes in view of the recent abolition of the regional tourism organisations in the State.

Jim O'Keeffe

Ceist:

39 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications whether she foresees any role for county councils and corporations and other local authorities in the development of tourism.

John Connor

Ceist:

78 Mr. Connor asked the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications her views on whether the proposed abolition of the regional tourism boards is a retrograde step; and if she will make a statement on the matter.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 3, 5, 8, 26, 37, 39 and 78 together.

The establishment by the Government of county enterprise boards will have a positive impact on local economic development. The importance of tourism to local economies and the need for ongoing liaison and co-operation with the local tourism industry has been fully recognised with the amalgamation of the RTO functions with the new entities.

There will be special arrangements to cater for tourism within the new structures. A current member of the local RTO will be appointed to each county enterprise board. Each board will have a tourism manager. A specialist tourism committee will be established within each board, and local industry members of the existing RTOs will become ex officio members of this committee. Through its chairman and the new county/city tourism manager, the committee will report directly to the partnership board and its chief executive. Each county will have a tourism advisory council representative of the local tourism industry, all of the local authorities and, where appropriate, the State sectors in tourism.

The tourism manager will prepare an integrated tourism development plan for his or her area following consultation with all relevant local tourism interests and State and semi-State agencies. This plan, when sanctioned by the County Enterprise Partnership Board, will form part of the overall county action plan and tourism enterprises will have access to the wider enterprise funds which will be available under the new arrangements. The boards will provide an important new local basis and focus for tourism development, facilitating close co-operation between the tourism industry, local authorities and other tourism interests.

Earlier this month I met the chairmen and managers of each of the six RTOs and I discussed with them the Government's intentions in regard to tourism and the new enterprise boards. In the meantime a working group representative of the Department of the Taoiseach, my own Department, Bord Fáilte and RTO management and staff are examining the practical implementation of the Government decision.

Would the Minister accept that the manner in which the six regional tourism boards were abolished devastated the board members and their staff? Why were there no prior discussions which would have been normal in circumstances where there was a termination of such bodies? Can the Minister say whether it is proposed to reprieve the Dublin Tourism Organisation, as stated in the press and, if so, why have the others been abolished?

There is no question of the abolition of the regional tourism organisations. It is merely an amalgamation of the regional tourism organisation functions with the new county enterprise partnership boards. During the past nine months I have travelled to tourism functions in different parts of the country. The one aspect of tourism development with which I have been confronted on each occasion was that each local authority wanted to be allocated tourism functions. That was not possible until we had the decision by the Government in relation to the county enterprise partnership boards.

Another point which has to be borne in mind is that during the past number of years, as the Exchequer support through Bord Fáilte for regional tourism organisations did not increase, more and more of the time and effort of regional tourism organisations was spent in raising money from local and business interests in each region. In fact one of the regional managers at their meeting with me went so far as to say they had their eye off the tourism ball because of the tremendous attention they had to give to the raising of funds privately. We now have a system of county enterprise partnership boards aimed at economic development and the creation of jobs. As tourism is the national priority industry for the creation of jobs it would be very foolish of the Government to have the enterprise partnership boards working in the tourism area and at the same time have another organisation working in the same area. It is a more practical and efficient way of dealing with tourism development and for the first time it gives access and membership to each local authority on a county basis which they did not have up to now.

Deputy Moynihan rose.

I am calling Deputy Flanagan whose Question No. 5 refers.

Would the Minister be prepared to give a commitment regarding the present workforce within the six regional tourism organisations with particular reference to the 102 permanent staff and the 320 seasonal staff employed by the boards? Can the Minister outline to the House the level of consultation which took place with Bord Fáilte on the move to abolish the six regional tourism organisations? Would the Minister not accept that if there is to be a comprehensive tourism plan for the country it needs to be on a regional basis and not on a county structure in view of what the Minister has said — that we will have at least 26 different bodies planning tourism on the international stage? Would the Minister concede that the functions of the regional tourism organisations within the county structure will be so diluted as to be ineffective?

In relation to the existing staff of the regional tourism organisations, I met with the chairmen and regional managers of all the regional tourism organisations earlier this month. The working group to which I have referred have met with IMPACT — the union representing the regional tourism organisation staff — on two occasions. On that working group both IMPACT and the regional tourism organisation staff are represented. The discussions with IMPACT covered a number of areas — the security of employment and the ability of the enterprise boards to meet the wages bill in the short term.

I already gave an undertaking to the regional tourism organisations that there would be no redundancies among permanent staff. That guarantee has been reiterated by the working group, whose chairman has also indicated to IMPACT that there will be no worsening of the conditions of service for the permanent staff and that the transfer of staff to the enterprise board will not take place until funding for their wages is secured. I could not give any commitment to the regional tourism organisation chairmen or regional managers when I met them regarding contract staff. The working group are now in discussion with IMPACT and the regional tourism organisation staff to examine the position of contract staff. The matter of seasonal staff will be discussed, as it used to be by the regional tourism organisations at that time of the year when they need to employ seasonal staff. It will be a matter for the county enterprise partnership board.

Can we have brief questions from the Deputies concerned. The time for priority questions is almost exhausted. I am calling Deputy Moynihan for a brief question and then I shall call Deputy Flanagan.

I asked the Minister the present position in relation to the abolition or otherwise of the Dublin tourism organisation. As stated in the press it was proposed to retain the Dublin Tourism Organisation.

As the Deputy is aware, the Dublin Regional Tourism Organisation has been organised for some years now on a county basis. There are no proposals to undo something which will now be established in every other county.

I am calling Deputy Flanagan for a final question.

I note the Minister refused to make any reference to the role of Bord Fáilte in all of this in spite of my question. Can I put it to the Minister that this decision, so far as tourism is concerned, represents a watering down of the importance of tourism within the Irish economy? I would refer the Minister to the three basic objectives of the county enterprise structures as announced by the Taoiseach. He stated that their most important role was to help new and start-up businesses, to provide training and education and finally, community development. In announcing the county enterprise structures the Taoiseach did not see fit to make reference to the role of tourism within the county structure. Yet the Minister can say with an air of confidence that she sees tourism having a more important role at county level than heretofore within the regional tourism organisations?

Of course it will have a more important role at county level. There are several local authorities who were not represented on the previous regional tourism organisations. Every local authority in every county will have a representative voice on the county enterprise partnership boards. In relation to the Taoiseach's announcement on the role of the county enterprise partnership boards, I said already that the main function of the county enterprise partnership boards is to help to create jobs. If our priority nationally in creating jobs is tourism, then it also has to be the priority industry in the creation of jobs locally and on a county basis. Therefore new and start-up businesses, education and training and community development have to be focused in one way or another on tourism. It would be inefficient to leave tourism to one side and to allow the county enterprise partnership boards to go ahead and evolve proposals and plans in relation to job creation while forgetting about the main targeted industry for job creation.

We must now proceed to other questions to the same Minister. No. 6 in the name of Deputy Garland.

What about Question No. 4?

Time did not permit to deal with all our Priority Questions. I daresay Question No. 4 will arise again with No. 10.

That underlines the unsatisfactory nature of Question Time.

We are fortunate that it does arise again.

We are lucky.

I was prepared to respond.

We have an obligation to conform to the time laid down under Standing Orders.

Barr
Roinn