Yes. I will give the information to the Chair. In my few months as Fianna Fáil spokesperson on tourism and trade I have had an opportunity to meet many people who depend on tourism for a living. They own part of the product — the accommodation and leisure facilities. By virtue of a serious effort on the part of Bord Fáilte to market Ireland as a premier tourist destination throughout the world, they have been able to improve, upgrade and expand tourism infrastructure. They know that the key to healthy tourism is anticipating demand and providing accordingly.
Money for investment is always a problem. The Government of which I had the honour to be a member was sensitive to the potential of the industry. It was conscious of the role which Government must play in securing a bright future for tourism and made great strides to increase direct State funding of the industry and secure EU funding to supplement it. It is a shame to see genuine effort cast aside and replaced by a form of bureaucratic inertia and inability or unwillingness on the part of the Minister to appreciate the golden opportunity he has been given to make a real and lasting impact.
The Minister inherited his portfolio at a promising time. Not only has he access to billions of pounds in EU funding but he is perfectly situated to channel to where it can do most good, the worldwide funding which will come on stream as a consequence of the permanent cessation of violence in Northern Ireland. Given that tourism is set to replace agriculture as the most important source of indigenous national income, a forceful and determined Minister for Tourism and Trade could open up an avenue to prosperity for those working in the tourism industry and provide an opportunity for the development of strategy for tourism. Obviously this would be of benefit to those directly involved and it would have the added effect of fostering the essential relationships of trust and mutual respect between Irish people North and South.
Fianna Fáil's commitment to the reconciliation of the differences which separate our island stands on its own. The previous Government and I worked long and hard to create the present opportunities, they did not simply fall off the trees. They were individually pursued and the effort never flagged. Even though the 25 years of murder, fear, mayhem and hatred have now ended, the future is by no means certain. However, the Government is not moving with the urgency necessary to bring along with it those whose belief in the peace process is not total. I have no wish to raise unnecessarily the level of concern being expressed about where the process is headed. The Government has a duty to every person on the island to push at every door and to open doors so as to involve our neighbours in Northern Ireland in running the island. That is the only way forward and the Minister has a vital role to play in this area.
The Minister stated that he met various politicians and officials in Northern Ireland to discuss North-South co-operation in tourism. Is that all he has done? Last week he attended the conference in Washington organised by President Clinton, on whom much thanks and credit has been poured by people on this side of the Atlantic for what he has done. The Minister is engaged in a nationwide tour to explain to people in those seaside resorts fortunate enough to be included in it the benefits of the incentive scheme announced in the budget. The only flaw with this familiarisation process is that he has very little time to do sufficient work.
A lengthy familiarisation process may be a luxury which the nation cannot afford. It is time for action and, in so far as tourism is concerned, today is the time for action as tomorrow may be too late. I look forward to hearing the Minister outline what he is doing to further the peace process. We should not have to surgically extract that information from him. Perhaps he has no information, has nothing to report or he is not doing anything that is worthy of being put to the test of popular reaction.
Fianna Fáil deplores the throw-away attitude of the Government to tourism. Events taking place elsewhere are having, and will have, a damaging effect on our tourism industry. In the past few months I have been made aware of the deep concern about the direction of the Government's tourism policy. It appears to be ignoring the damaging effect the state of the punt will have on Ireland as a destination for foreign tourists. The strength of the punt means that foreign tourists will find Ireland a more expensive holiday destination and may well decide to go elsewhere. Other factors such as the punitive rates of taxation on restaurants, hotels and services generally and the appalling condition of our roads — these problems did not arise yesterday or today and we accept part of the responsibility for the condition of the roads in some counties — work together against the promotion and marketing of Ireland abroad by Bord Fáilte.
People are also seriously concerned about the complete lack of effort by the Minister and the Government to take measures to combat the escalating level of crime against tourists. During the previous debate the Minister for Justice, Deputy Owen, directed snide remarks at me. She is a good Minister for Justice but she should be very careful about the remarks she makes about Deputies on this side of the House. She has a good deal on her plate and she should set about reducing the level of crime.
We are going through what I hope is only a bad patch in terms of increased crime levels in cities and, in particular, my city of Dublin. Between 2,000-3,000 gardaí are stationed along the Border to deal with subversive crime and to patrol Border areas. Is it not time the resources of the State for combating crime were reallocated to where the crime is occurring, now that we have what everyone hopes is a permanent cessation of violence by the para-militaries? If there are good reasons for keeping these gardaí on the Border — the cost of relocation is not a good reason — then the Government should recruit more gardaí. It is cheaper to prevent crime by effective measures and methods of policing than to meet the costs of crime after it is committed.
We need a strong Garda presence on the streets and not just in patrol cars, which are also very necessary. The men and women who join the Garda are of the highest calibre and many young people are anxious to join this respected and reputable force. The Minister should consider a new recruitment campaign with a view to dealing with crimes against tourists. There are parts of every city and town which are virtually no-go areas for gardaí. Drugs and drug related crimes seem to be out of control, yet vital resources are not available to tackle this major social and economic evil.
A feeling of being safe is a major factor for tourists when choosing their holiday destination. We must protect our good reputation in this respect and ensure that the message does not go abroad that Ireland is an unsafe place to visit. Unfortunately, that is the direction in which we are going and the time to stop it is now. The Government has a fundamental role to play in this area. Crimes against non-nationals in a foreign country are always very well publicised in the media in that person's country. These incidents not only prevent unfortunate victims from considering Ireland as a future holiday venue but they also have an immeasurably negative influence on others who might have put Ireland high on their list of holiday destinations. We need to ensure that tourists return to their own countries singing the praises of Ireland and encouraging all their friends to visit here "before everybody finds out about it". I say that in a positive sense.
Most sensible people would venture the opinion that the Government should be gearing for growth and expansion in the industry. They would, therefore, be very surprised to learn that far from injecting State funding into the industry to speed up the pace the Government is engaged in a cost cutting exercise. The Minister's Department, the Office of Public Works and the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications share the dubious distinction of having had their annual budgets reduced. It is bad enough that the entire tourism budget is only £77 million — tourism produces more than £3 billion and supports 90,000 jobs — but what is worse is the manner in which this funding is to be allocated by the Government.
I want to give an example of the value to the State of this investment. This level of annual spending by the Exchequer in 1995 is the equivalent to a State input of just £258 per job. Is there any sector in the economy where jobs are produced so inexpensively? If the Minister is aware of one let him identify it. When he cannot find one let him rethink how many extra jobs might be created if the Government was doing what it should be doing and not fiddling with numbers in order to convince themselves that everything will be all right on the day.
Administration costs in the State tourism sector are to increase by 10 per cent in 1995. This increase exceeds the level of inflation forecast for this period by more than 300 per cent. What does this grossly disproportionate figure mean to the tourist industry? It does not mean a single additional job or service and actual cutbacks in existing services. Yet within this increase is a reduction of £60,000 in travelling costs — surely a blow to our foreign promotion and marketing strategy — and a reduction of £103,000 in the allocation of the funding of external advisory services, so essential in the highly competitive and sophisticated international tourist marketplace. How can the Government stand over these irrefutable facts?
The Minister should be aware of what exactly is happening and should have no difficulty in answering specific questions concerning his area of responsibility. I raise this issue having endured the tedium of three days of the Minister answering parliamentary questions concerning his ministry. The almost universal approach of the Minister has been to give as little information as possible or to avoid answering questions altogether. It is not good enough to disclaim responsibility. If he is not aware of the stated objective of his Government — openness, transparency and responsibility, three words which grate on me, — it is almost as bad as the expression "political correctness" and is nauseating in its application, particularly by the Taoiseach, then the last couple of weeks ought to have rectified this.
If questions are legitimately tabled to a Minister, which related to that Minister's area of responsibility, it is surely the duty of the Minister to answer the question, having consulted with other Departments or bodies, or to transfer the question to another Minister who will provide the information requested.
For the Minister to deal with parliamentary questions in the manner so far demonstrated is a serious breach of the principles on which the Minister's Government has constructed its platform for this wretched period of moral rectitude which the House is going through and is an insult to the legitimate interests of parliamentary democracy.
The Minister may well be surprised at what I said. He may well believe that it is not for him to decide how parliamentary questions are to be answered and that it is enough for him to take the advice offered to him in his Department as gospel. This is manifestly not so. Advisers are there to advise; it is for the Minister to decide.
I know the Minister well and he will appreciate that the criticism levelled at him concerns — not him in a personal sense — only the manner of his presentation and the discharge of his duties. He is new at his job. Yet he knows that his Government has pledged to the people that it will be open, transparent and accountable. I am sorry for again falling into the trap of those clichés which have come to mean much to some and nothing to others. The Minister's Government already seems to have encountered serious and damaging obstacles on its chosen path.
I note the Minister has not lost sight of the first rule of politics — get reelected — and that he is making his presence felt in his home county of Mayo. If he continues to obfuscate when he is asked to answer straightforward questions in this House, he will not be doing his job. While the people of Mayo may well have taken him to their hearts, the public is notoriously fickle and, if it proves that the public is not being well serviced by the policy which he promotes, his party and their partners in Government may be in for an unpleasant surprise at the next general election, which may not be as far away as some Government Members hope.
He may decide for himself which policies will mean something to the people in the tourism industry or with the potential to become part of that industry. He does not have to accept every proposal presented to him. It is his job to select what is good and to reject what is not. What should he do? He should not dismantle Bord Fáilte without ensuring that what is put in its place will be more effective and less costly.
In this regard my understanding is that the Minister proposes to reallocate responsibility for dealing with proposals for State, European Union and all other funding for individual tourism projects from Bord Fáilte to the regional tourism organisations. We do not know how much this will cost nor how it will operate. If he does not tell the House, Members will be reinforced in their concerns. Let him also tell us how much extra he is prepared to allocate to regional tourism organisations, if the new system is to have any effect. It should at least be as good as the service provided by Bord Fáilte at present, and if it is to be an improvement on that service, who will provide the funding? Will it be financed from external funding thus depriving the tourism industry of badly needed support?
I also understand that in the future the system of registration of guest accommodation and monitoring of standards is to be removed from Bord Fáilte and reallocated to an unidentified body. Will the Minister tell the House how this new body is to be financed, staffed and operated and to whom it will be responsible?
It occurs to me that the staff who will be made redundant from Bord Fáilte as a result of these policy changes are likely to be the best qualified for the jobs in the regional tourism organisations and in the new Registration and Standards Body. Are we likely to witness Bord Fáilte staff being made redundant tomorrow, at an estimated cost of £2.2 million to the State, and the following day the same staff being re-employed either directly or indirectly by the State at similar or higher salaries? Is that good business?
