Vol. 475 No. 8
6 Mr. Andrews asked the Minister for Tourism and Trade the proposals, if any, there are for the mid-term review of the operational programme; if he has met the consultants who are conducting the review; if not, when he will meet them; if he has made a case for the reallocation of resources as part of the review process; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6074/97]
224 Mr. Andrews asked the Minister for Tourism and Trade when he intends to implement the budget to increase skills in tourism; if he has suggested that this budget be implemented as part of the mid-term review; and if he will guarantee that this budget will not be held back during the second half of the operational programme. [6079/97]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 and 224 together.
As part of the overall mid-term review of the Community Support Framework and in common with other operational programmes, the mid-term review of the Operational Programme for Tourism, 1994-1999 has commenced.
The review process of the Tourism Operational Programme began last year with the drawing up of detailed terms of reference for a mid-term evaluation, in consultation with the Department of Finance and the European Commission, and the appointment by the National Monitoring Committee of a mid-term evaluator. The mid-term evaluator's report was finalised recently and, as part of the next phase in the review process, was considered at a specially convened meeting of the National Monitoring Committee of the Tourism Operational Programme on Friday last, 28 February 1997, which was chaired by my Department. This meeting allowed the various interests represented on the National Monitoring Committee to discuss the report in detail with the evaluator and to put forward initial views. These initial views will feed into the overall CSF mid-term review process and will allow the Government and the European Commission to review the general thrust and direction of CSF programmes, to decide on any strategic changes required and to determine any inter-programme reallocations which might be required in the first instance, prior to considering changes within individual programmes. The CSF review is due to be completed later this year. Any changes arising from this review process which result in amendments to the Operational Programme for Tourism will be published.
Although I did not personally meet the external evaluator, who is the independent consultant commissioned by the National Monitoring Committee to produce an independent assessment of progress under the operational programme from 1994 to date, he did include my Department in his round of consultations. The Department laid particular stress on the extensive benefits which derive to the economy from tourism and from investment in the sector.
As to the specific subject of increased skills in tourism deriving from the operational programme framework, the training policies and strategies under the programme are designed primarily in anticipation of market-led changes in demand for overall tourism products. CERT's general remit is to provide training for new entrants and the existing workforce to ensure a higher quality of tourism product. CERT also provides training for the unemployed to equip them with technical, interpersonal and other skills necessary to take up employment opportunities in tourism.
Targets for these three training categories both in terms of expenditure and numbers trained are included in sub-programme four of the operational programme and are part and parcel of the overall review process involving the external evaluator and the National Monitoring Committee and ultimately to be incorporated later this year in the wider CSF review process. The desirability of reallocating resources within the total CSF both across programmes and within programmes will be considered as part of that exercise.
Does the Minister agree the nature of tourism has changed dramatically particularly in recent years since the initiation of the operational programme? He indicated that much consultation has taken place but given the burgeoning tourism industry, there should be a wider consultative process. The Minister might consult niche areas which have yet to be consulted, and which appear to be adrift.
I agree with Deputy Andrews that the nature of tourism has changed in recent years. It is now seen as a major industry, one of the fastest growing in the world. The niche areas to which the Deputy referred are well represented on the National Tourism Council, which I chair and is attended by staff from my Department. In that context, the views of the niche areas are clearly stated in so far as the consultations between the mid-term evaluator and the Department are concerned. The national monitoring committee which will look at the report of the mid-term evaluator represents many of these areas and will take these points into account. The discussion will be widened in the context of whatever talks take place between CSF and the Commission which will be followed eventually by a Government response to the Commission.
Having perused the ITIC review of 1996, would the Minister agree it said more consultation is necessary? The ITIC and others have made the point that the status of research has changed dramatically. Regional imbalances, which have been noted, need to be researched, as does the seasonal fluctuation in incoming tourists. It is for that reason the status of research has changed dramatically having regard to the influx of tourists and the domestic tourism market.
I publicly welcomed the report published by ITIC, which is now working on the reasons for the figures and facts in its report. As Deputy Andrews will be aware, one of the main priorities of my Department is to see that each region gets its fair share of the economic boom occurring in the tourism industry. In that sense, the operational programme and the various incentives have been designed to reflect this following the budget. The report was discussed at the most recent meeting of the National Tourism Council, and I await the further report from ITIC with interest so that we may read its evaluation of the reasons behind perceived regional imbalances. These perceptions are heightened beyond reality.
Will the Minister indicate the percentage of funding under the subheadings of the operational programme expended or committed to various schemes?
The overall spend at the end of 1996 was approximately one third of the total programme target. I would not raise concerns about this because approvals and commitments in the bulk of the programme mean that the spend should be on target by the end of 1999. There are reasons for the delay in expending funds. For example, under subprogramme 1, the cost benefit analysis, the special Commission approval for Collins Barracks, the requirement for greater local consultation there, and planning permission for the major cultural heritage projects must take place. Under subprogramme 2, there has been similar slowness in gaining Commission approval for the national conference centre project together with a lack of large regional projects. These factors have slowed down the actual spend but by the end of 1999, it appears targets will be met. The mid-term evaluator's report said the Operational Programme for Tourism may be judged as being highly effective in terms of comfortably exceeding two of the three major targets — revenue and expansion and employment — and making progress in relation to the third — seasonality.
Will the Minister name the independent evaluator or would that cause embarrassment? Is he concerned at the slowness in drawing down moneys under the operational programme? He mentioned three projects of considerable merit. I appreciate the Minister's frankness in his response because that is what Question Time is about.
I have no secrets. The mid-term evaluator is Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick, who was nominated by the monitoring committee. I am somewhat concerned by the draw down in some cases. The independent product management board withdrew some funds allocated to projects because the conditions laid down were not met. It is important that those who make proposals for large or small projects clearly understand that if the conditions laid down are not complied with, the funds will not stand indefinitely.
