Vol. 692 No. 3
96 Deputy Olivia Mitchell asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism if he will comment on the findings of the tourism renewal group report; his plans to implement the survival actions outlined in this report; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37793/09]
97 Deputy Mary Upton asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism his views on the report of the tourism renewal group; if he will implement the framework for survival recommended by the group; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37581/09]
I propose to take Questions No. 96 and 97 together.
As the Deputies will be aware, the report of the tourism renewal group was launched on Thursday, 8 October 2009. This report sets out tourism's contribution to Ireland's economic, social and cultural development and the prospects for Irish tourism in a changed world, as well as a framework for action for tourism's survival, recovery and growth over the period to 2013.
The report proposes five survival actions for short-term action to ensure the survival in 2009-10 of a strong Irish tourist industry and to minimise the potential impact of current challenges. Nine recovery actions are proposed for action from 2010 on, to set Irish tourism back on a growth path from 2011, as the world economy recovers.
Under each action in the framework, a number of measures are recommended. The measures are wide-ranging in nature and scope, and are addressed variously to this Department and its agencies, to other Departments and agencies, and to tourism and transport enterprises. Some measures would be matters for Government decision, including in the context of the budget and Estimates, while others fall to individual Departments and agencies at an operational level.
The framework for action set out by the tourism renewal group and the analysis underpinning it is, from a tourism perspective, robust, realistic and soundly based. The Minister fully agrees with the group's conclusion that this is a critical time for the Irish tourism industry and that it is essential Government and State agencies respond with focused and effective actions, to sustain the industry in the short term and to maximise its potential in the medium term.
When the report was published, the Minister stated his intention to engage in consultations with other Ministers involved on the implications of the recommended actions in the report affecting them and their Departments. Some actions are properly matters for Government as a whole, particularly in the context of the budget and Estimates, and the Minister will raise the report of the renewal group with his colleagues in that context.
This Department is also following up on the recommendations of the tourism renewal group with other relevant Departments, agencies and other organisations, especially where they are ascribed a lead or support role. The Minister has already asked his Department and the agencies under its remit to look directly at progressing the recommendations addressed specifically to them. The Minister is also considering the recommendation of the renewal group that a small group be established to oversee and pursue the implementation of the framework for action, on the lines adopted in following up on tourism strategy reports previously.
The Minister is satisfied that the tourism renewal group has fully met its terms of reference. The group's detailed analysis of the tourism sector and broad-ranging consultation has resulted in a clear focused report with soundly-based recommendations. Drawing on the report of the group, the Minister is determined to take the lead in identifying and driving the right measures to assist in ensuring that tourism survives and remains a major industry for Ireland and to position the sector for recovery and growth as the Irish and global economies get back on track.
I would be grateful if the Minister of State would convey my good wishes to the Minister, Deputy Cullen. I hope he will make a speedy recovery.
I appreciate the Minister of State's comments. My concern is focused on the five survival actions recommended in the report. The first of these is maintaining spending on overseas marketing. I support this because if a product is not on the shelf, nobody will buy it. That is important and the Minister recognises that.
It is the second recommendation, the abolition of the travel tax, which is my main concern. There is a clamour right across the industry, and particularly from the airlines where the immediate burden is felt, to abolish this and this has been borne out by the renewal group. The report states that the group considers that any apparent immediate fiscal benefit from the air travel tax is more than out-weighed by the actual and potential damage to overseas tourism earnings due to the additional cost wedge on Irish routes vis-à-vis other possible routes for carriers. That is the key issue.
Perhaps the hotelier in Kerry does not recognise what this is doing to his or her business, but the airlines recognise it. For an island country, there is nothing more important than access. If people cannot get access or it is more expensive or more difficult, the product we have on offer, no matter what it is, will not be bought. That is the key issue. Aer Lingus and Ryanair are taking planes off Irish routes and serving other destinations that are more competitive, and that is the bottom line for us. That is the biggest threat to the Irish tourist industry.
Is this being taken seriously by the Minister? He dismissed concerns about this, stating it is not an issue. His own group has now recommended it as an area where action must be taken. Is it a matter the Minister will bring to the Cabinet table in preparation for the budget and will he indicate this is the single most important issue for the tourist industry which, while employing fewer every day, employs in the order of a quarter of a million people?
Obviously, maintaining marketing investment abroad is important but I suppose it is a balance between maintaining fiscal sustainability while putting in place the necessary supports for sustainable economic renewal. The tourism renewal group has prioritised spending on marketing within the tourism budget and has advanced a range of economic and business arguments for its recommendations. The renewal group report will certainly help make the case for investing in tourism marketing and the Minister will make that case strongly with his Government colleagues in the coming weeks.
On the air travel tax, it is no surprise that a group charged with examining the renewal of Irish tourism would express concerns about the air travel tax. As I have stated, the Government must consider its response to any measure with additional tax or spending implications within the wider context of fiscal sustainability and economic renewal. The recommendations of the renewal group will be taken into account in framing the budget, along with the views of the Commission on Taxation, for example, but obviously I cannot pre-empt the outcome of those considerations, neither as Minister of State at the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism nor as Minister of State at the Department of Finance.
I hope it will be more than taken into account because it would be a case of an own-goal to disincentivise the people who one wants to attract into the country. It is important to note that visitors to our country are effectively taxpayers for the period they are here and we should not disincentivise them from coming. On the other recommendation of prioritising spending, the Minister of State mentioned the importance of marketing.
In terms of capital spending, I would like to put in a word for the cultural institutions, an area I am aware is of interest to the Minister of State, which have been starved of infrastructural investment for many decades. They missed the boat in terms of the Celtic tiger years. I urge the Minister of State to invest any available money, in terms of capital spending, in this area. As this comes within the Minister of State's area of responsibility, I am sure he will have an interest in ensuring this is done.
Obviously, heritage tourism is important, although it may vary a little in different parts of the country. I attended a south Tipperary tourism seminar with the industry at which it was stated that 50% of tourists to Ireland come to visit heritage areas. Most of the heritage in south Tipperary is under the auspices of OPW, Swiss Cottage, Cahir Castle, Cashel and so on. While the percentage might vary a little from place to place, wearing my OPW hat, I am conscious of the need to continue to invest in those facilities and, equally important, to make them accessible as far as practicable with financial constraints and in the sense of understanding heritage.
I do not agree entirely with the Deputy that our cultural institutions have been starved of money for decades. While this was true up to the late 1980s, there has been huge investment in this area, including in the National Gallery, Collins Barracks and the Museum of Modern Art. While a great deal has been done, more needs to be done, for example, in the National Library. If one tours, as I did with the OPW, the innards of the National Library, one is in what is in many respects a Victorian building with various hazards. There is no doubt that when funds become available the priority will be to invest in such an institution.
On a point of order, in stating that the cultural institutions have been starved of investment, I was quoting from the submission from the Minister's Department to the Department of Finance.
I, too, wish to send my good wishes to the Minister, Deputy Martin Cullen.
The recent CSO figures in relation to tourism are pretty stark and a little scary. The report, while good, is overdue, particularly in terms of the five survival actions contained therein. That the proposed actions are called "survival actions" implies serious urgency. Perhaps the Minister of State will state what actions will be prioritised.
The air travel tax is an issue we have all raised in the House or by way of parliamentary question. I put it to the Minister of State that this issue must be addressed. The Minister has up to now refused to take this matter seriously. It is important this issue is addressed as part of the survival actions. The Minister of State stated in his initial response that a group will be set up to oversee implementation of the actions. Will this be yet another quango and what in the Department prevents or precludes it from overseeing implementation of those actions?
Tourism in the year to August is down approximately 11%. The overall figure for this year is likely to be closer to €7 million than €8 million. Some sectors of the economy have been hit worse than that. I do not believe that any country, certainly not Ireland, can afford to underestimate the economic importance of tourism, particularly given that it is such an employment intensive industry which is spread throughout the country. I apologise I have forgotten the Deputy's other question.
When are the promised actions——
The Deputy asked about the Department's role.
Yes. Also, when can we expect these actions to be initiated? A point made in the report is that tourism is as important as agriculture. While I agree agriculture is an important industry for this country, why is it that we do not have the same noise around tourism as we do around agriculture? Why have we not had the same level of activity or concern around tourism from the various Ministers involved? Tourism is a very important industry for this country now. While it has enormous potential, we have heard little about it from the Ministers involved.
Implementation groups are often established following the publication of a report which includes recommendations. I do not see any problem in this regard.
On when the actions are likely to be initiated, the Minister will first need to know the outcome of the budget's Estimates deliberations before announcing what exactly the bodies under his aegis will be able to do next year. I am sure the different agencies are planning their campaigns down to the last detail. What exactly they will be able to do will depend on their budgetary allocations.
We must move on. I call Deputy Upton for a brief supplementary.
On the potential quango, why is it that the Department cannot oversee implementation of the report's recommendations? Why do we need yet another new body to promote and progress it?
We have dealt with only two questions. We must move on.
I do not have information on who exactly will be involved. I will communicate with the Deputy on the matter. I am not clear whether persons outside the Department or public service will be involved. In principle, an action group is established to oversee implementation of a report with detailed recommendations. It is normal, in terms of bureaucratic procedure.
Will the body be answerable to this House?
We need to move on.
I am sure the Minister will answer questions in relation to the group once its deliberations have made a degree of progress.
That will be a first.
98 Deputy Olivia Mitchell asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism the suggestions he made on the arts, sport and tourism commitments in the revised programme for Government which are priority for implementation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37794/09]
I am pleased that a key recognition in the renewed programme for Government is the further potential of the arts, sport and tourism sectors to create employment and economic growth, which is now, more than ever, a critical requirement of the economy. The programme places an added emphasis on the sectoral areas under the Minister's ambit, in particular in the radically changed and challenging fiscal and economic circumstances in which we now find ourselves.
In the arts sector, the renewed programme makes commitments to host major international events, ensure supports provided by the Irish Film Board are maintained, produce a ten-year development strategy for the audio-visual sector and assess the suitability of the GPO complex as a site for the Abbey Theatre as well as promoting the development of an important new Irish arts and business centre in New York.
In the sports sector, the programme makes commitments to complete a new sports facilities strategy, build on the Irish Sports Council's programmes to remove barriers to participation in sport and to continue to deliver on the successes achieved by the high-performance system. In the tourism sector, it makes commitments to develop the potential for food tourism, walking and cycling tourism as well as developing a rural and marine recreational industry. In the period up to 2012, the suite of Discover Ireland websites will be positioned as exemplars of an information, content and reservation tourism system and we will develop tourism business from new emerging growth markets in the Middle and Far East. In addition, in view also of the capacity of the arts, sport and tourism sectors to drive economic and employment prospects, the programme makes commitments to expand community arts schemes and associated physical spaces for artists and community groups, capitalise on the proximity of the London 2012 Olympic Games, and position Dublin as an important centre for conference tourism business and Ireland generally as an important international destination for cultural tourism.
All commitments in the renewed programme for Government will be progressed as speedily as possible. The commitments in the area of this Department are challenging yet realistic, and the Minister is determined to ensure their full implementation to contribute to the achievement of the overall political goals envisaged in the programme.
A number of measures in the new programme for Government relate to the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism. I wish to inquire about two of these, both of which the Minister of State mentioned. One was the wording of the commitment to the film industry generally. This is an area of interest to the Green Party because it is noted as a contributor to the smart economy. The programme states, "We will ensure that the supports provided by the Film Board are maintained". However, one of the things about which the arts community is concerned is that the Irish Film Board itself be maintained and that the funding should not come from some other Department. It was suggested in the McCarthy report that it would go to Enterprise Ireland.
It would be catastrophic for the film industry if this were to happen. I do not know if the Minister of State is aware that the Minister, Deputy Cullen, is of the same view. Years of experience, expertise, knowledge and international credibility now reside in the film board——
Can we have a question?
Is the Minister committed to maintaining the Irish Film Board, as opposed to merely the supports for the film board?
My second question concerns the development of Dublin as a business tourism centre. I recently read reports in the papers that the Convention Centre Dublin is in financial trouble. Apparently Spencer Dock Development Company is having difficulty in accessing finance to finish the job. Has the Minister had meetings with the developer and is it likely it will be able to fulfil the terms of the contract? Have there been any emergency meetings? Can the Minister advise the House on what will actually happen? I understand there are already several bookings for the conference centre but the problem is whether it will be completed. I understand the company is now borrowing from Treasury Holdings, which is itself going into NAMA. There seems to be a difficulty there.
I agree with the Deputy about the importance of maintaining the credibility of our film industry and of Ireland as a location for making films. On several occasions in Dáil Éireann the Minister has outlined the benefits accruing to Ireland from having a vibrant film industry and the crucial role of the Irish Film Board. The Minister welcomes and supports the commitment in the renewed programme for Government to the continuation of supports for Irish film making. The Minister has also pointed out that the recommendations of the special group on public sector numbers and expenditure programmes, which call for the abolition of the Irish Film Board, have not been adopted by the Government as policy but rather are proposals for consideration in the context of addressing the current budgetary challenges. My understanding of the passage read out by the Deputy — this is true throughout the programme, whatever the subject — is that care should be taken in general not to pre-empt budgetary and Estimates decisions. As the Deputy knows, one of the starting points for the Estimates process is what is popularly known as the an bord snip nua report; however, while it may start there, it does not end there. I would not read too much into the wording of the report, given what I have outlined.
With regard to the convention centre, good progress is being made. The OPW is heavily involved. The Convention Centre Dublin is well advanced and on schedule to open in September of next year. Fáilte Ireland, Tourism Ireland and the Dublin Convention Bureau are working closely with the operators in marketing the centre and there are already 24 confirmed events, which are expected to have a significant impact on tourism business. Neither in deputising for the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism nor in my own capacity as Minister of State with responsibility for the OPW have I been made aware of any difficulties of the type to which the Deputy refers.
I am not sure whether I got a "Yes" or a "No" answer with regard to the Irish Film Board. I think the Minister of State is saying we should wait for the budget.
The Minister should inquire into the issue of the convention centre because I am sure the reports in the newspapers are not inaccurate when they say there are financial problems.
I would make the point that practically every enterprise in the State is to the pin of its collar, to a certain degree, in managing the present economic situation.
I appreciate that, but if I had a contract going on for several years — 25 years, I believe — with a body that was in financial trouble, I would be asking questions.
As I said, I am not aware of such difficulties.
99 Deputy Mary Upton asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism if he will provide a detailed history of the national sports facility strategy; the reason the process has taken more than 12 years and there is still no strategy in place; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37582/09]
The development of a national sports facilities strategy was originally a commitment in An Agreed Programme for Government 2002-2007. Before commencing work on the strategy, an assessment of the sports capital programme was undertaken. This was done in the context of an expenditure review of the programme, which sought to assess the benefits that the investment had yielded to date and identify any difficulties or inefficiencies associated with the operation of the programme. This review, which commenced in 2003, took longer than expected to complete due to the scale of the programme and the time required to analyse the volume of information and data that was collected during the review.
The expenditure review report was completed in 2005, following which an inter-agency steering group was established by this Department to oversee the development of the strategy. The group comprised representatives from my Department and the Departments of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Education and Science, Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Finance, along with the Irish Sports Council, the National Sports Campus Development Authority and the County and City Managers' Association. Consultants were engaged to assist in the development of the strategy.
In order to generate a clear picture of the important issues to be considered in the provision of sports facilities, a wide range of stakeholders, including other Departments, local authorities, national governing bodies of sport, local sports partnerships, sports clubs and interested individuals were consulted during the drafting of the strategy. A review was also carried out of existing national and international reports, studies and strategies relating to facility provision.
A draft national sports facility strategy for the period 2010-15 has now been completed within my Department and has been circulated to a number of other Departments and relevant bodies for observations. Any comments received will be taken into consideration and the Minister intends to submit the strategy to Government shortly for its consideration and publication. The aim of the national sports facilities strategy is to provide high-level policy direction for future investment and grant assistance at national, regional and local level. The strategy also identifies the wider economic, health and social case for continued investment in sports facilities. It aims to prioritise areas for future investment and to ensure continued impact in the relevant areas.
As the Deputy will be aware, no new applications for funding under the sports capital programme were invited in 2009. It is the Minister's intention that it will be on the basis of the new strategy for sports facilities that future funding of such facilities will be determined.
It is beyond me why it has taken so long for this strategy to be put in place. We got the review and report on tourism within a matter of months but the issue of a strategy and review of sports capital funding has gone on for years. The outcome of this is that sports capital grants are not available. We do not know why this is the case or when they will be opened up again. If we had the strategy in place and knew what was in it, we could make progress. We have all been concerned about the sports capital grant, but nothing has happened. We were able to get action on the entire banking system overnight. We sat here one night and the Government voted the proposal through.
May we have a question from the Deputy?
Why has developing a strategy taken so long? How much consultation is needed on it and is there some reason it has not been published?
To put it in context and to mitigate the criticism, an enormous amount of money has been put into improving sports facilities in this country over the period. Some €725 million was spent on this area between 1998 and this year. I am sure the Deputy is as aware as I am, from observation in her constituency, of the transforming effect on many clubs and facilities the sports capital programme has had. I said to the previous Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Deputy John O'Donoghue, that if the rest of Government worked as well as the sports capital programme did during that period, the country would be flying.
The rest of the country does not agree.
It worked well for his constituency, Kerry South.
Not just Kerry South.
Perhaps not, but it worked particularly well there.
Tipperary South had no Minister between 2002 and 2008, but it did very well during the period in question. When I was in Kerry one summer just after the sports capital grants had been announced, the message on the front page of The Kerryman was “Thanks Minister”, but there was no thanks and several inside pages carried howls of complaint from sports clubs in Kerry that had not received grants. This fact should be borne in mind.
The Minister of State is going off on an unnecessary tangent. I ask for the co-operation of Members on these questions.
I have not finished my reply.
The facts are at variance with the Minister of State's comment on allocation of capital sports funding.
With regard to the 2009 situation, there is a considerable overhang of commitments. Approximately €56 million was allocated this year and it is being spent on previous commitments. Some previous commitments will still require to be paid for next year also. Nonetheless, as indicated in my reply, consideration is being given on the basis of the new strategy as to what form future funding will take. As the Deputy will appreciate, like everything else, this depends on budgetary and Estimates decisions which I cannot pre-empt.
100 Deputy John O’Mahony asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism the progress made on the review of sports capital funding; when he envisages that new applications will be accepted; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37601/09]
The sports capital programme, which is administered by my Department, is the primary vehicle for Government support for the provision of sports facilities and equipment in this country.
Since 1998, through the sports capital programme, the Government has invested over €725 million in over 7,400 separate sporting projects. This investment has transformed the Irish sporting landscape, with improved facilities in virtually every village, town and city. The facilities funded range from basic sports facilities and new equipment for the smallest clubs to regional integrated multi-sport centres and national centres of sporting excellence.
This investment is evidence of the importance that the Government places on sport. Sports facilities that are well-planned, built and managed have the ability to act as focal points for a community and allow more people to get involved in healthy activities. Participation in sport is important for many reasons. For individuals, participation has health benefits, builds confidence and gives people a sense of their worth. For society as a whole, sport can reduce antisocial behaviour while sporting success has the ability to lift the spirits of whole counties and even the whole country.
Two reviews of the sports capital programme have been undertaken in the past. The first covered the period 1988–98 while the second covered the period 1999–2002. The national sports facilities strategy will provide an improved policy platform for any future rounds of the programme. For further details on the strategy, I refer the Deputy to my reply to the previous question.
No decision has been made on the timing of future rounds of the programme. However, €56 million has been provided in the C1 sub-head of the Department's Vote in 2009 out of which grants are paid for the provision of sports and recreation facilities. Almost 1,300 payments, with a total value of €47 million, were approved by the Department from this sub-head by close of business on 19 October. All of the €56 million provision will be distributed to grantees in the current year in line with the previous years.
I am a little confused by the Minister of State's response. The question concerns the review and is pertinent to the discussion we had on the previous question. The bottom line with regard to what I and the public want to know is who decides on the allocation or distribution of the sports capital funding? Is the Minister of State aware of the deep dismay that exists with regard to the geographical distribution of sports capital funding over the years?
Deputy Mansergh mentioned the sports strategy. In a five-year period, County Kerry, for example, got €20 million and my constituency of Mayo got €10 million. The Minister mentioned headlines in The Kerryman when sports funding was allocated there and the criticisms of those who did not receive grants. I can show the Minister of State another headline, which states, “Former Minister left ‘bill’ of €124 million in sports grants”. Are we paying for the withdrawal of sports capital funding now because too many promises were made in 2007 and in the lead up to the general election?
Between 2006 and 2007, some €173 million was allocated in sports capital grants. In 2008, some €50 million was allocated, but there have been no grants allocated in 2009 and there is no prospect of them in 2010 if I understand the Minister of State correctly. Is it his view that the review should ensure the allocation of grants is distanced from the political system, particularly if the distribution is such as that we have been getting? For example, in County Kerry a swimming pool project was allocated €5 million in 2006, yet the response to the previous question stated the strategy was completed in 2005 and that funds would be targeted. Some €5 million was provided for a pool in Killarney in 2006, when there were 15 other swimming pools, and in fact that project is no longer viable and may be closed down. Will the Minister of State please answer those questions?
I shall certainly answer them, and in no particular order. I would not be pre-empting what is going to happen in 2010, and I do not believe my answer pre-empted budget decisions in either a positive or negative direction in that respect.
I should be delighted if the Minister of State would announce they are coming back.
My experience, based on being a Deputy and Senator, in regard to grants has shown me that the applications are looked at very professionally by civil servants, assessed and marks awarded based on their quality. In 2007 I had the experience where many clubs in Tipperary were getting grants, except for the one with which I was associated. One has to live with this and I have been present at constituency level meetings between organisations and the Minister, where people went away with the impression that their applications would be favourably looked at. When the decisions were announced, however, for objective reasons they unfortunately did not qualify.
We have seen many examples in the agricultural sphere, but I suppose it is true of all Government grants that they tend to get oversubscribed. I am around long enough to remember the home improvement scheme of 1985 and the successor Fianna Fáil Government was still paying out grants on that up to 1990. Every so often with such schemes, and particularly in economic circumstances such as we have at present, it is necessary to pause and consolidate, to deal with existing commitments and a Minister is not in a position to take on more. However, what the situation will be in 2010, as to whether new applications will be invited, I cannot pre-empt.
I see from the answer to Deputy Upton yesterday on the "sunset clause", that clubs which were awarded grants subsequently had them withdrawn. The figure came to €27 million over the last five or six years and €8 million in 2008. Can the Minister of State guarantee that this money will be put back into sports funding or that it will not be lost to sports capital funding? He must be aware of the desperation among sports clubs and organisations for any type of financial encouragement, however much reduced. As regards the review, we obviously want to get away from a situation where Deputies are ringing clubs and telling them to get their applications in as they are going to be granted money. We must end that practice, and introduce a fair system. The money that has been allocated is good, but it needs to be structured better than it has been in the past.
Certainly, the programme operates on the principle that if a grant is not used after a year or two, then it is lost. In those circumstances, funding not used by club X goes back into the general fund and can be applied to commitments for clubs Y and Z.
Will it stay in sport?
It stays within the pool.
