Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Select Committee on Transport, Tourism and Sport díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 29 Mar 2017

Vote 31 - Transport, Tourism and Sport (Revised)

I remind members, officials and those in the public Gallery to ensure their mobile phones are switched off for the duration of this meeting as they interfere with the broadcasting equipment.

This meeting has been convened to consider the Revised Estimate for Vote 31 - Transport, Tourism and Sport - which was referred by the Dáil to the committee with an instruction to report back to the Dáil. I welcome the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Shane Ross, and his officials to the meeting. I thank them for the advance briefing which was provided and circulated to members of the committee. I also wish to thank the Minister and his officials for the open and constructive dialogue with the committee secretariat's financial scrutiny team as regards developing their briefing document for this meeting.

I wish to inform the Minister that the committee has agreed to proceed programme-by-programme and will initially focus on specific subheads before broaching any questions on the remainder of the programme. I will refer to the briefing document prepared by the committee secretariat's financial scrutiny team to guide our consideration of the Revised Estimate.

Does the Minister wish to make any opening remarks before we proceed to programme A, the civil aviation section, or does he wish to go straight into that?

Yes, I will make a few opening remarks if that is all right.

Yes, please go ahead.

I thank the Chairman very much for the second opportunity to meet the committee today and to present the 2017 Revised Estimates for my Department. I will make a few introductory remarks on the allocation highlights, as well as the key issues and priorities ahead. I will also introduce each sectoral programme in sequence but very briefly. First, I would like to introduce my officials. I am joined by Mr. Eugene Clonan, acting director of the Irish Coast Guard service, Mr. Caoimhín Ó Ciaruáin, my Department's head of finance, Ms Ethna Brogan, head of public transport investment, and Mr. John McCarthy, senior adviser in the roads division.

The 2017 allocation provides over €1.8 billion this year for my Department. This represents an increase of over €70 million, or 4%, on 2016, discounting the once-off Supplementary Estimate. With many competing priorities within Government this represents a positive outcome for my Department's baseline funding as it enables us to make progress in some vital areas.

The land transport programme, which accounts for over 80% of my budget, will increase this year by €88 million, or 7%, to €1.46 billion. This provides for increases in both the roads and public transport programmes to address, in particular, the ongoing care and maintenance deficits, as well as growing congestion issues in our urban centres. As mentioned in the earlier section, it also provides a substantial increase in the PSO subvention this year. Baseline funding for sport also increases this year with an additional €3 million allocated to roll out a new round of the sports capital programme.

Today is yet another milestone in terms of the Brexit negotiations. Tourism, in particular, is in the front line in terms of the challenges that Brexit brings. With an overall envelope of €122 million, the two tourism agencies have been resourced to meet these challenges head on in 2017.

The maritime sector is key to Ireland's economic well-being, and safety at sea is paramount. The bulk of the Exchequer funding we provide under the maritime programme is to ensure the Irish Coast Guard is adequately resourced. This last year has been a very difficult and tragic one. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Eugene Clonan and his team, all the volunteers and the vital family and community support that underpin their heroic work, particularly in recent times. We will perhaps have an opportunity to discuss their work in more detail later.

I will now say a few words on some of the key developments from a budgetary perspective this year. My Department spends almost one third of the Government's capital programme. The mid-term review of the capital plan provides the Government with an opportunity to review progress and priorities and to make additional allocations from the available fiscal space over the remaining year of the capital plan.

My Department's submission to this review process has been conveyed to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform in the last week. In it we make a strong case for using a sizeable proportion of the available fiscal space to ramp up investment in transport, in particular to ensure that we avoid congestion eroding Ireland's competitiveness in the face of global challenges such as Brexit.

This review also offers an opportunity to enhance the level of capital investment in the other sectors within the Department's remit, particularly sport and tourism. While the baseline level of funding here is small compared to land transport, targeted investments can make a real impact both in tourism and sport.

In parallel with the capital review we are also engaged in a review of overall spending in advance of budget 2018. The spending review, as announced by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, is being undertaken on a targeted basis, examining various elements of our budget in terms of value for money for the taxpayer and helping to identify where modest increases in amounts of additional funding should be spent in 2018. This committee will have an important role in this regard in the coming months in helping to inform these decisions.

In accordance with the Vote layout, I will say a few words on the aviation programme and then take questions from members of the select committee as they arise.

Thank you, Minister. We will start with programme A, civil aviation. I will now invite the Minister to make a short statement giving a high level overview of this programme but I ask him to be as concise as possible, please.

The aviation programme is a relatively small but vital one with an allocation this year of €27 million, representing only 2% of the Vote, which is an increase of €1 million on 2016. The largest element of the programme is the regional airports programme at €13.3 million. Funding is also earmarked to cover costs associated with our membership of Eurocontrol, costs incurred by the IAA for exempt services and subscriptions to international organisations. The key priority of investment in the aviation programme over the short to medium term is to support the four regional airports, namely, Donegal, Knock, Kerry and Waterford, for safety and security-related projects and activities under the regional airports programme 2015-2019. This is also a key priority in the programme for Government.

It will also provide €1 million in grant aid to repair the Shannon estuary embankments protecting Shannon Airport, which were damaged in the 2014 winter storms. This is subject to securing state aid approval from the European Commission.

Do members have any questions?

I welcome the Minister again and wish to ask him about the civil aviation element of the budget.

He refers to a commitment in the programme for Government to supporting regional airports. My understanding is a number of regional airports applied and were approved for grant aid last year. There are restrictions, however, concerning what qualifies for grant aid and the percentage of grant aid that can be given to a regional airport without contravening EU state aid rules. Will the Minister clarify what grant aid was provided last year? Was the funding drawn down? The Minister made a specific commitment on Waterford regional airport. Has that commitment been honoured?

I will address the Waterford Airport issue first. On Exchequer assistance, approval in principle was granted to Waterford Airport in 2016 in respect of proposed capital investment for a total grant amounting to €1,027,500. Of this total amount, grant aid of €18,000 was paid for alterations to a building for a test centre as the project was undertaken prior to VLM terminating its services at Waterford Airport. All other projects approved in 2016 are frozen until the future position on scheduled air services is clarified. None of the projects can be commenced until that time.

The 2016 grant allocations for Waterford Airport will be confirmed only when a commitment to resume scheduled passenger services by a suitable air carrier has been secured by the airport authorities. Payment of €1,020,215 in grant support was made to Waterford Airport in December 2016 towards eligible safety and security operational costs. In assessing the airport's application for this operational support the Department had regard to the relevant costs incurred throughout the full year, not just the period to June when scheduled services ceased at the airport. This was in recognition of the efforts being made to secure a replacement carrier and the need to ensure the airport remained operational and ready to serve the requirements of such a carrier and its passengers.

As the Deputy probably knows, Waterford Airport is still looking for a carrier. VLM withdrew last year and that is obviously the reason the grants are frozen. They are frozen until the airport finds a carrier. I was at the airport about four or five weeks ago when I met the board. It assured me it was at an advanced stage of negotiations with a carrier, whatever that quite means, and that it was very optimistic that it would find one. Obviously, the release of the money is dependent on the airport finding a carrier.

While Waterford Airport has been given every opportunity under the regional airports programme to secure a replacement service, Exchequer support cannot continue indefinitely without some visible path towards viability. It is proposed, therefore, that the position be kept under review in conjunction with Waterford Airport as it would be questionable whether it would be the best use of taxpayers' money and difficult to continue the provision of support into 2017 without confirmation of a resumption of air services.

I mentioned Waterford Airport specifically, but other regional airports were beneficiaries of grant assistance last year. My understanding - the Minister should correct me if I am wrong because I do not claim to know this area intimately - is that for a regional airport to be eligible to draw down a grant, it has to put up 20% to 25% of the funding. The Minister has mentioned the money payable to Waterford Airport is frozen because it has no commercial carrier flying in and out. Have the grants awarded to other airports in 2016 been drawn down? If not, will the funding be carried over into 2017? From what year's budget does the funding come?

They have all been drawn down, bar the grant for Waterford Airport, of course. They fulfilled their requirements.

Deputies Imelda Munster and Kevin O'Keeffe have indicated that they wish to contribute. Is it on the regional airports issue or the remainder of programme A?

It concerns the programme for civil aviation mentioned on page 5. The graph on page 3, on longer term expenditure trends, suggests the Department's expenditure is half what it was in 2008. Is the Minister working towards bringing it back up to that level? What are the plans?

I do not have the right document before me, but I believe I can answer the Deputy's question. There is a programme for Government commitment to provide €10 million. We are obviously working towards reaching that figure, but we are looking to the mid-term capital review to fulfil it. There is absolutely no backsliding at all.

Will the Minister expand on "miscellaneous services" mentioned on page 5? Do the moneys under the heading include staff pay? Does the Minister know offhand what the cost of staffing is? I recently read media reports which stated the Department was having difficulty in recruiting.

It covers non-pay and administration items. I will have to come back to the Deputy on the matter as I am afraid I do not know the answer.

That is fair enough.

It funds the cost of air accident investigations and insurance. There is no pay element under the "miscellaneous" heading.

Are we okay on programme A? Shall we move on to programme B?

As Deputies will know, the land transport programme is by far the largest programme in the Department's Vote. It represents 80% of my overall budget, a large proportion of which is capital investment. The main components of the programme are road improvements and maintenance funding, for which there is an overall budget of over €780 million. For the public transport investment programme there is an allocation of €355 million, while public service provision payments have increased to almost €280 million this year. The programme also includes a new provision, of €2.5 million, for a targeted carbon reduction programme. This year we will see the completion of the Luas cross-city project which will be a fantastic addition to the public transport system in the capital city. We can expect to see the first trams operating on the line before the end of 2017. There is also funding for over 180 new buses - 110 for the Dublin region fleet and over 70 for the Bus Éireann fleet. There is also funding for essential planning and design work on some of the important but longer term projects such as metro north and the DART expansion programme. I am pleased that this year I was able to increase by 11% the amount of money available to fund PSO and rural transport programmes compared to the amount allocated last year. The increase will help to provide new and improved services across both programmes.

Are there questions on the land transport programme?

I am curious as to why the capital carryover, of €4.6 million, was not spent last year. On subhead B6, carbon reduction, the figure appears to be much lower. I refer to estimated expenditure in 2017, for which I would like an explanation.

Carbon reduction expenditure was reclassified in a new column. Funding for the smarter travel initiatives was allocated under subhead B6, but I believe it is now included in subhead B8.

Would the two combined amount to the same figure?

It comes to the same amount. They were just reclassified. The carryover of the €4.6 million was due to delays to road projects, delayed roll-out of the drug testing programme and underspend on the national cycling network.

What was the second one?

Delayed roll-out of the drug testing programme.

Are we continuing on to roads improvement?

Roads improvement and land transport; anything in programme B.

The spend in subhead B3 was less than half of what was needed. What is the figure the Minister believes is required for 2017? Also, we are missing information on the national roads. Will the committee get that?

What figure is the Deputy looking for in the first question?

B3 includes national roads and administration costs but we only have figures for local and regional roads.

I cannot see a figure for national roads.

There is a figure. The national roads allocation is in the 2016 and 2017 Estimates.

There is a figure there.

I am sorry; it is my fault. What page is that figure on?

It is on page 8, at the very top of the two graphs on the right.

That is okay.

It would be remiss of me not to ask the Minister this next question. I refer to the subhead on page 9 on public and sustainable transport investment. It is about the Minister's public service obligation, PSO, figures for this year.

The €279 million, yes.

Is that across the wider spectrum? I am talking about the PSO in regard to Bus Éireann.

That is the total public service obligation.

I have a number of questions. I am disappointed to hear that one of the reasons there is a carry-over was an underspend on improvement to our cycle infrastructure. That is critically important infrastructure. In the past week, three cyclists lost their lives on our roads. We talk about sustainable public transport and one of the most sustainable methods is cycling, particularly in large, high-density urban areas such as the city of Dublin. Why was that allowed to happen?

On roads funding, I understand the total gross allocation for land transport sees a small decrease of 0.6% overall. How will the Minister be able to bridge the gap he referred to in his overview of the Department's allocation? We are spending approximately 50% of what we need to spend to keep our existing road infrastructure in a steady state of repair. How does the Minister intend to do that if the overall allocation to this heading is reduced?

On the public service obligation, an issue we spoke about at length in our previous session, the Minister has increased the public service obligation this year. My question is about the way that obligation is paid out to the various bodies. How is it calculated in terms of what Bus Éireann, Dublin Bus and Irish Rail get? Could the Minister identify, in terms of per head of person using the service, how the public service obligation for Bus Éireann compares with that for Dublin Bus?

On the area of investment in road infrastructure, on entering Government the Minister's grouping promised the restoration of the local improvement schemes, LIS, to local councils. Unfortunately, that was not reintroduced in the budget. When does the Minister believe he will be in a position to honour that commitment?

I take exception to one of the Minister's lines in the overview of the departmental budget for 2017. He referred to addressing bottlenecks and key congestion points in urban areas, particularly in the greater Dublin area, the capital. I met a person on Tuesday morning who is a substantial employer in the city of Galway, employing in the region of 1,000 people, but who is withholding any further investment in premises because of the level of congestion in the city of Galway. We have congestion problems in Dublin, Galway and many of the larger urban areas across the country. Have the Minister's departmental officials had negotiations with the Commissioner for Transport at European level in order to avail of funding under the Juncker plan? My understanding is a substantial level of funding is available to invest in critical infrastructural projects at extremely favourable interest rates. I would be interested to hear what the Minister and his officials are doing to avail of that funding to invest in critical infrastructural improvements that are needed to relieve congestion and support development and growth in our larger urban areas.

I will take the last part of the Deputy's question first. It is a good idea. I do not know the stage we are at but I know my officials, and I can refer back to them, have had discussions about that under the Juncker plan. In fact, I think we did that subsequent to a suggestion the Deputy made to me. I will find out the stage they are at but there are discussions ongoing. I do not know if progress has been made but it is certainly something we recognise as being a possibility and worth trying.

On the cycling, we provide funding to local authorities in block grants. It is a matter for local authorities to draw down that funding. They have not always drawn down the full amount, probably because of procurement delays and other such reasons.

On road investment, the roads programme will have €780 million this year. There will be €6 million for national roads, €133 million for PPP payments and €321 million for regional and local roads.

On the local improvement schemes, LIS, the Deputy is right. It is in the programme for Government and it has not been implemented yet. That is another matter we have put into the mid-term capital review for LIS schemes to be included in what we get in that regard, and community involvement schemes, CIS, as well.

I cannot remember the Deputy's question on the greater Dublin area.

It was in the context of the Juncker plan, which the Minister has answered.

What is the PSO figure per passenger for Dublin Bus in comparison with Bus Éireann?

I think it is higher. I have not got the exact figure per person but I can get that for the Deputy.

The Minister might come back to me on that.

Does anyone else wish to contribute on programme B or are we okay on that one?

I would like to address-----

On the maritime programme-----

Just a second, Minister.

My apologies.

I have not had an opportunity to come in on this area. I was a little late coming back.

Anyone who wishes to come in on programme B should indicate.

On land transport, unless there are substantial increases there will never be enough money to properly maintain the roads. I have a question on late notification to local authorities. Is there an annual or a multi-annual approach to the funding? One of the situations in which money rolls over from one year to the next is where there is a late notification. Is that how the Department intends to approach this?

They are notified at the start of the year. That is how it stands.

Was there a delay last year when the Government was not in place in terms of the notification of what their budgets would be?

I am not certain but I do not think so.

From my experience of being on a local authority for many years, one constant was that it would not be able to set the budgets until March perhaps and then there was a difficulty if it did not get the money spent by October. There was a difficulty in getting it spent within the allotted timeframe and the uncertainty of the funding was always criticised. I know the funding can fluctuate in that there may well be more money next year and the year after. If there is a rolling fund, however, one is less likely to see that happen.

Deputy Troy wished to come back in.

I wish to raise two issues. One of them does not fall with the remit of the Minister's Department but it is part of the funding for our road infrastructure. This refers to motor tax paid by motorists and the changes that were introduced in 2008 to incentivise people to use cars with lower emissions. This significantly reduced the level of motor tax that was collected over the past number of years. The longer we go on, the more it will be reduced. There is a projection - I tried to Google where I read it while waiting to come back in - that there will be a significant shortfall in motor tax collected by 2025 vis-à-vis what is needed or collected now. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong. What are the Department's contingency plans? Is it engaged in forward planning? What is it doing to try to address this because it will be a major issue?

A colleague asked about the reduction in subhead B6, carbon reduction. The Minister stated that it was simply a redirection from subhead B6 to subhead B8 but ultimately the funding would be the same. I may be reading it wrong, but subhead B8 does not increase by the same amount that subhead B6 decreased. Therefore, the funding must not be the same. In an era when we are talking about global warming, the need to be more vigilant in terms of carbon emissions and our responsibility in that regard, is it wise? Are we investing near enough in terms of carbon reduction?

I have a question on the motor tax fund as well. It is collected by what was the Department of the Environment and some of it makes up the Local Government Fund and some of it goes to the Central Exchequer. Am I correct in my understanding of how it operates? How is the amount that goes to the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport determined? How is that decided?

I will deal with Deputy Troy's question first.

Under Standing Orders, only the Minister can respond in a select committee.

If I understand his question correctly, an electric vehicle task force has been set up to consider situations such as the one the Deputy mentioned when he spoke about motor taxation going down as the number of electric cars go up. I understand that is what the Deputy is really talking about. The task force is sitting at the moment and has been set up to examine this and other issues. We have some fairly steep targets which I hope we will meet, but they will be fairly expensive to meet. I think the target is 70,000 electric vehicles by 2023-2024. There obviously would be a fall off in revenue for the motor taxation office and its officials are considering that fall off. I was speaking to them about it this morning. There will be some sort of loss of revenue although I am not sure what it will be because it depends on whether we meet the targets.

The Local Government Fund is managed by the Department with responsibility for the environment. It comes mainly from motor tax receipts but is managed by that Department.

How is it decided what goes where? The motor tax fund is a little over €1 billion. I remember it being €1.1. billion the last time-----

That is exactly right.

A portion of it is retained by the Department with responsibility for the environment, a portion goes to the Department of Finance and some goes to the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport. How is that decided?

A figure is agreed every year. It is not a set figure and it is not based on anything exact. It is negotiated every year. I think it was €370 million last year.

Shall we move on to programme C?

On the answer relating to carbon reduction and the reduction in subhead B6, the Minister said not to worry and that there was a corresponding increase in subhead B8. However, that does not appear to be the case.

It is a very small amount. We went through that yesterday. It is a very small adjustment. I will find out for the Deputy but what he is referring to is a very small amount.

Under subhead B6, we are talking about €20 million or so in 2015 being reduced to €13.5 million in 2016 and to €2.5 million in 2016, which is a reduction of €11 million in one year.

I think the reduction went to subhead B8. That is what happened. I think it moved to subhead B8. It is almost exactly the same amount and it was not lost to the environmental thing, smarter travel initiatives. We are talking about really tiny amounts. We are talking about €11 million on each. It is just short of €11 million in subhead B8 and just over €11 million in subhead B6.

Deputy Kevin O'Keeffe indicated.

I have a straight question. With regard to percentage change in new Leap cards, when will see its roll-out for provincial services and the use of operators exiting the city into counties Kerry and Limerick? The Leap card is limited with regard to how far one can use it.

When can we expect a larger roll-out of Leap cards in the rural-----

I think it is happening at the moment and I think the NTA is promoting them as part of its promotion of public transport. If there is an area in which they are not operating properly, I ask the Deputy to let me know.

What I am trying to ask is whether they will be put in place for journeys from Cork to Kerry and to Limerick. The Leap card is still not available for use on the buses there.

I think the Leap card is being rolled out incrementally and in urban areas first. The Deputy is probably right if he is referring to rural areas, but that is by design rather than by accident. It will happen.

I ask the Minister to move on to programme C.

Programme C concerns the maritime programme. I will introduce it very briefly. As I mentioned already, the bulk of the expenditure allocated under the maritime programme is to fund the Irish Coast Guard. I again express my deep condolences and sincere sympathies to all those affected by the tragedy which occurred near Blacksod, particularly the family members of the crew of Rescue 116. I also thank all the individuals and organisations that have been so generous in giving their time and resources to support the search effort. This tragic event comes less than six months after the tragic death of a member of this country's emergency services on 12 September, Caitríona Lucas. The priorities for this programme in 2017 will continue to revolve around ensuring we get the best service from the search and rescue, SAR, helicopters, ensuring our Coast Guard stations are fit for purpose and equipping our heroic volunteers adequately to do their work.

I think everyone is indicating to contribute on programme C. I call Deputies Imelda Munster, Catherine Murphy and Robert Troy.

A further breakdown of this programme would be useful. There seems to be a slightly lower allocation for 2017. Why is this? It is said the Coast Guard is working in very unsafe and underfunded conditions. Does the Minister have a plan to rectify this and if so, is this reflected in the allocation?

I am absolutely at one with the Deputy about the fine work the Coast Guard does, and a cut would be inappropriate. According to the figures I have here on the current, it has gone up. I do not know from where she has got her figures.

I thought it appeared to be slightly lower.

The figure has increased from €72.895 million to €73.395 million. That is an increase of €500,000. Anyway, not to worry. It is marginal.

Has the Minister made any specific allocation for the issues the Coast Guard raised? They are not included in the breakdown.

To which issues is the Deputy referring?

In this breakdown, there is nothing specifically to address the issues the Coast Guard had raised of serious deficiencies and unsafe conditions.

Is the Deputy talking about the lack of regulation?

Yes, as well as underfunding. Has the Minister made a-----

I am satisfied that the current operations of the Coast Guard search and rescue, pollution response and voluntary activity are adequately supported by the State. That said, we are seeking additional staffing resources to support the Irish Coast Guard, IRCG, in the delivery of its service on our coast. It is constantly under review but at the moment it is adequately funded.

I think we would all wish to be associated with the Minister's remarks about the continuing search efforts being made by a range of agencies and volunteers in the area of the crash. I had not been aware that the Coast Guard is not a statutory agency. I do not know why I did not realise this. If it became a statutory body, would there be financial implications and should we perhaps consider this in the context of next year's budget? I would not minimise a spend of €79 million, and I know it is not the entire amount spent on defence - or rather, on our coastal waters - because there is the Air Corps as well. Given that we are an island nation, what difference would placing the Coast Guard on a statutory footing make, and should we ask that funds be put in place to do so?

I have addressed this question. I think it was Deputy Munster who addressed a question on the matter to me in the Dáil the other day. I have no plans to put the Coast Guard on a statutory basis. Some members of the Coast Guard, albeit I think a very small minority, are interested in this, and I have said I would be happy to meet them and talk to them about it, but I am advised by my Department that no real benefits would arise from placing the body on a statutory footing and that there is currently no need to do so. We are therefore not making provisional plans to do so because we do not intend to take that policy direction and do not see a need for it. The Coast Guard is operating extraordinarily well and has sufficient powers, according to the vast majority of those who are in positions of authority in the Coast Guard.

I think we all want to be associated with the Minister's words regarding the awful tragedies both recent and earlier in the year and we offer our condolences to the families affected by them. Our thoughts are with the families still looking for their loved ones.

Regarding this heading, the recent tragedies very much highlight the important role the Coast Guard plays. Following on from the comments of Deputies Catherine Murphy and Munster on examining the possibility of putting it on a statutory basis, the Minister gave an indication, which he has reiterated today, about his availability to meet a group of the representative body of the Irish Coast Guard. When will this take place? If they have spoken to me, I am sure they have spoken with other political parties, and their strong view is that it needs to be put on a statutory basis. I am interested to know when the Minister intends to meet them.

I will be perfectly honest about this. I do not think I myself have had any direct approach from them, despite the fact that everybody else has. I may be mistaken but I am not aware of it. However, that does not really matter. I told Deputy Munster last week, I think in the Dáil, and I repeat it to the committee that I am happy to meet them. I have not been convinced by the case made for placing the body on a statutory footing, but that may partly be due to the fact that I have not met them. I would be very happy to meet them on any appropriate occasion and we will take it from there but currently, we have no plans to meet the significant issue they are addressing on being put on a statutory basis. However, I assure Deputies Troy, Munster and Murphy that I will meet them.

I have also met members of the Coast Guard seeking that the body be put on a statutory basis. Perhaps it is a matter on which the joint committee could do some work. We have been fairly busy for the past few months, particularly on bus-related matters, but when I met those individual members, they told me they felt it was appropriate for the committee to consider this, so we should schedule a discussion of the matter. I welcome the Minister's willingness to meet them to hear their views. Again, as I did last week, I express our sympathy and solidarity with the people affected by the tragedy off the Black Rock.

We will move on to programme D. I apologise - did Deputy Troy have something to say on programme C?

I ask the Minister to move on to programme D, then, which concerns sports.

While the sports programme at face value shows a decrease of €18 million to €108 million, this fall relates to once-off stimulus funding for the development of the national indoor arena, which created a spike in 2016.

On the current side, funding associated with Rio preparations in 2016 has also been retained in the current-side baseline for 2017 and beyond.

In total, there will be a €44 million envelope this year for the sports capital programme. This will meet all existing commitments under previous rounds of the sports capital programme, as well as commitments to Páirc Uí Chaoimh and the Kerry Sports Academy at IT Tralee.

I am delighted this funding also allowed for a new round of the sports capital programme which was opened for applications in January. The sports capital programme aims to foster an integrated and planning approach to developing sport and recreation facilities and has transformed the sporting landscape of Ireland with improvements in the quality and quantity of sporting facilities in virtually every village, town and city in the country. The new €30 million programme provides an opportunity for further improvements.

The capital envelope for sport also provides €4.2 million to meet all existing commitments under the local authority swimming pool programme. Further funding of €5 million was made available for sports measures through dormant accounts funds, mainly towards supporting the implementation of the national physical activity plan in disadvantaged communities.

The allocation to Sport Ireland will allow it to continue its key priorities of increasing participation and developing and supporting high performance sport in Ireland. It is important that there is an appropriate level of investment in sport to ensure that participation opportunities and high performance successes are maintained and improved.

It also provides for expenditure by Sport Ireland on its sports programmes, including grants to national governing bodies, NGBs, of sport, youth field sports and the local sports partnerships. Other sports programmes include international carding scheme grants, high performance programme, anti-doping programme, the Women in Sport initiative, national trails programme, etc.

The capital allocation to Sport Ireland will provide for the continued development of the national sports campus at Abbotstown. Phase 1 of the national indoor arena was completed and officially opened in January and I understand that bookings for sporting events there this year are already strong. I believe that members of the committee visited the campus recently. They will have seen for themselves the excellent facilities that are now available for Irish athletes and teams, as well as for the public.

I thank the Minister. I call Deputy Fitzpatrick.

I note the expenditure under subhead D5, namely, Sport Ireland, has dropped from €72 million to €52 million. Can the Minister inform the committee why there has been such a big drop from the 2016 amount? What was the basis for this?

I thank Mr. John Treacy and his staff. I was one of the committee members who had an opportunity to visit Abbotstown. The facilities are second to none. I only hope that phase 2 can be completed as soon as possible.

I am somewhat concerned that not only the boxing coaches but other coaches who would be hoping to prepare our teams for the next Olympic Games are being approached by other countries. Are they being pulled by the salaries for coaches? I always judge Ireland by the performance of New Zealand. New Zealand had a fantastic Rio Olympics. I would not like us to lose a lot of the coaches who will be training our Olympians for the next Olympic Games.

I will take the national arena first. As I said, the sports programme shows a decrease of €18 million to €108 million and this relates to the once-off stimulus funding for the development of the national indoor arena which created that spike in 2016. I share Deputy Fitzpatrick's desire for the second phase. It has got to be properly completed. It is targeted as a priority in the mid-term capital review. We realise the importance of developing it into a full sports facility and we are hopeful that we will be able to provide funds out of that application.

On the second issue of the boxing coaches' salaries-----

The Minister of State, Deputy O'Donovan, visited New Zealand and met a lot of coaches who used be training the Irish teams. For some unknown reason, Mr. Treacy and his staff seem to be doing a fantastic job in looking after our coaches and we do not seem to be getting the rewards from that. Other countries seem to be coming in and swiping our coaches. Can the Minister investigate? I am not being smart. Sport is a fantastic activity to be involved in at present. Ireland is probably one of the best sporting countries in the world. I would not like to think that we are here training our coaches for someone else to come in and get the benefits. I was blown away by the facilities in Abbotstown. Going by Abbotstown, there is a fantastic future for sports in this country including, for example, the show-jumping and cricket teams. Everybody is doing so well at present. I would not like for us to be training up our coaches for some other country to get the rewards.

I agree. Boxing took a bit of a knock in the Olympics and we did not live up to expectations there.

Apart from that, we did not do as well as we had hoped and as we had done in the past. It is a matter for Sport Ireland. The Minister of State, Deputy O'Donovan, and I are looking at a sports policy framework, which includes high performance, coaching and volunteer engagement. I will ask Sport Ireland what exactly it is intending to do about what looks to be a problem amongst our coaches in recent years of having the quality of coaches. The Minister of State will be here with me next week and the Deputy might ask him the same question because he visited New Zealand.

In the last Olympics, we did well. It was a record year for us in athletics for finishing in the top 20. It is progressing. We have good preparations but we would not want to start losing our coaches because of budget cuts or something like that. At the next Olympics, we have a fantastic chance of doing well. Let us give Sport Ireland every opportunity so that Ireland can do well in the next Olympics.

That body is intent on that. I will specifically ask it about the boxing.

Will the Minister come back to me on that?

On the decrease of €2.2 million related to administration costs, would that be a recurring cost or a once-off? The point I am making is: would it have to be made up?

There was €6.3 million in capital carry-over. Exactly what was the capital project or was it more than one project?

When I look at the budget, it strikes me that we as a country are spending more, or at least as much, on inquiries than on sports which is quite shocking.

What we get for what we spend is astonishing. That comes down to a significant level of volunteerism and some of the sporting bodies themselves generating funds.

I, too, was hugely impressed the day we went out to Abbotstown. The extent of non-elite participation is phenomenal. Something that arose repeatedly was that we tend to be fragmented in how we do things but this was a demonstration of what occurs when one integrates rather than fragments. All of the sports bodies talked about how they benefitted from one another by being on that campus and it would be a pity if there was a delay in getting that campus to the next stage. That is something with which I doubt any of us would disagree.

The Minister mentioned the local authorities swimming pool programme. It is quite a small programme. There were two new swimming pools funded under it in recent years. I do not know whether they are constructed at this stage. One was in Castlebar and I cannot remember where the other one was. I remember there being three because the pool that did not get funded because the application was made on private lands was the one in north Kildare. I am acutely aware of that.

That programme, where it is a contribution from the State towards swimming pools, falls far short of what is required to build a swimming pool. Leaving aside locations, it can very much depend on whether a local authority can come up with matching funds. If we are to have a swimming pool programme that ensures equality of availability of the type of sporting facility that can span the age spectrum, that needs to be looked at again.

The Minister will find, for example, that poorer areas are unable to come up with matching funds where they may have sufficient population to cover the running costs but the build costs are a real problem.

From which budget does the cost of the OCI report come? I understand that will run to a few hundred thousands of euro.

It comes out of our budget. It is going to come to approximately €300,000, which is more than we expected but it got an extension of three months. While I am on the subject, I do not know if members are aware that it is to be completed on 31 March and that it will then be sent out to various people mentioned to give them a right to comment, which is usual. That takes a matter of weeks. It will be finalised pretty soon.

Does it come out of a segment of the budget? Does it come out of the sports segment of the budget or is it just out of general administration?

I do not think so. It just comes out of the Department's administration budget. I think the €2.2 million to which the Deputy referred is the Department's administration costs rather than anything else. I do not think it is in any way recurrent or has to be done again.

I share her enthusiasm for the indoor arena; it is money well spent. It is obviously a large sum and we have to find it. It is one of our priorities in the mid-term capital review and I think we are likely to be successful in that particular mission. It is so important. To leave something like that incomplete would be very difficult, particularly because in many ways, when it comes to sports, one gets real bang for one's buck in terms of the community and what the Deputy rightly identifies as volunteerism. It is an extraordinary activity which prompts so much volunteerism. So much of this is actually not paid for by anybody, it is done by people's individual efforts and so costs the State nothing. Every penny spent prompts more volunteerism too, so one gets additional value for money. The Deputy can take it that we will be pushing very hard to get that indoor arena going.

Given what happened in the Dáil last week, I had assumed that I would be asking the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dononvan, these questions on sport. Obviously, the Minister has not given him full statutory powers yet.

He has exactly the same powers as Deputy Michael Ring had under the previous Government.

I want to express my disappointment that there has been a cutback in funding for this Department of over €80 million, as we have heard. It is a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul in administering this section of the Department. We are delighted to see the capitation grants for sports bodies put back into play again for the coming year. While welcome the money that has been spent in recent years on the campus at Abbotsown - I think the capital fund for last years was over €24 million - according to the figures in one of the documents, the allocation for this year is down to €2.9 million this year. Are the operators of Abbotstown, Mr. John Treacy and company, happy with the progress we are making in furthering the development of the campus? I was delighted to get a tour of it recently. It was very fulfilling and tremendous to see what has been achieved to date but I came away thinking that a great deal is yet to be done. Is the overall development of the campus on target? Will people be guaranteed the funds that have been requested? Has the Minister committed the funding for when those involved are ready to proceed with the rest of the developments?

On a rural basis, I am delighted with the Minister's commitment to Pairc Uí Chaoimh. We will see him down there for the Munster final in July.

There is no guarantee that Cork will be playing in it.

I will still go up. Of course, the Chairman is looking after Tralee.

On the question of spreading out the money, Munster FAI has obtained the use of a centre of excellence in Glanmire outside Cork city. Would the Minister be good enough to keep funds provided to develop this centre of excellence? Is it on his books to give them a few bob to get the system up and running?

That is pretty naked special pleading, is it not?

I cannot answer that question at the moment. It will be treated like everything else is, I am afraid. I appreciate the very public plea but I make the very public response that I will use the exact same criteria for it as everything else. Pairc Uí Chaoimh is developing very well as I am sure the Deputy will be aware. We gave it a large sum of money towards the end of last year; from memory there is some €7 million out of €30 million still to go. It is pretty much completed. It is very important to us that the project at Pairc Uí Chaoimh be finalised, not least because of the Rugby World Cup. It is going to play a role in that, along with other stadiums. If we win the right to host the competition, it will be an important and integral part of that particular project.

I keep having to explain to people about whether sport is getting more this year than it did last year. Some people say we are and others say we are not. What has happened is that the baseline figure for sport has increased by €3 million. The non-recurring figure for the national indoor arena is something of the order of €18 million. That is not recurring. The figure has gone up by €3 million. The Deputy is asking if the Sport Ireland people are satisfied with the progress of the national indoor arena. I do not suppose that they are, nor am I, and nor is anybody, but it is a very big project. We have to find the funding for it and are determined to do so. I am sure that we would all like to see the project's progress accelerate and be done in the next few weeks but we are determined to find it and get it in place as quickly as possible. I have not heard of any dissatisfaction on the part of Sport Ireland, incidentally, but I am sure those involved would like to see the project move very fast.

On sports grants applications, does the Minister think the allocations were sufficient given that they were not available last year? I understand there was a fairly large response in the number of applications. Can the Minister give us an idea of how many were made, how many were granted and how many were turned down?

Of course it is not enough. We would love to have more for the sports capital grants. It is definitely not enough in terms of the appetite we have seen from the level of applications. I can give the Deputy some figures. The Department received 2,320 applications in respect of the 2017 sports capital grants, seeking a total of €155 million in payments. Applications are currently being assessed. This process will take a number of months to complete due to the number of applications received and the detailed information contained in each. I think we will be making allocations to the value of €30 million later in the year. This means that four applications out of five will be unsuccessful. I do not know how many will be assessed as being out of order, not fully completed or containing flaws, which has happened in previous years. I think that it is better this time because the process has been much simpler. We should not expect most people to be happy. They are not going to be, that is the reality. The appetite has been very strong indeed, which indicates there is probably a need for more.

That is what I was going to say. Four out of five applications will be unsuccessful, and this must be viewed in the context of the fact that there were no grants available last year.

Does the Minister have any plans to address it, because that figure of 2,300 is just going to pile up year on year?

Does the Deputy mean to tell me that this should now become annual? As she knows, it has not been annual before. It was not last year. This programme should become annual and those who apply this year and are not successful can obviously apply again.

We would very much like to give out the whole €155 million because I believe this is a great project. It is a matter of not having enough funds to go around to do so. We get real value for money for communities out of this. It was quite a fight to get it this year, it came late in the day but we got it. We are determined to keep it and to keep it going. I do not know what it will be next year or the year after, but I hope it is going to be multi-annual. That point is probably conceded but there are going to be disappointed people this year.

Given the volume of applicants, and that four out of five applications will be unsuccessful, will the Minister perhaps consider giving priority next year to those who have been unsuccessful? There will be another tranche of 500 to 1,000 new additional applications next year. To ensure there are not some clubs and sporting bodies applying every year and going on for years without funding, perhaps those who applied this year but were unsuccessful could be considered first next year.

I do not want to give that commitment, I am afraid, but I will consider what the Deputy is saying. I came across a really worthy group last night in Tallaght that did not apply this year. I will not say who they are but they intend to apply next year. I do not necessarily see why they should be down the list. They were not quite ready to apply for various reasons. I am not sure whether they should be relegated. It is a dangerous game to give preference to those who have gone before. They should all be considered on their merit. There is a very strict weighting system, which involves disabilities, disadvantaged areas, matching funds and all those types of criteria. The same criteria will have to be used for everybody each year. A group having applied before does not make it a worthier cause, it makes it an earlier cause.

I will talk to the Deputy about it and I will think about it but I am not sure that it is a good enough reason. That is the value of having an annual scheme. They will get equal consideration next year.

And the year after and the year after.

And the year after if they are not good enough.

Four out of five.

On that, I acknowledge that the €30 million provision is excellent and the multi-annual aspect of the scheme gives certainty for planning for clubs. It allows them not to have to rush when they are perhaps not ready, etc.

Is there any chance of a supplementary fund at this stage in the year to top up the scheme to try to meet the demand, given that it is oversubscribed fivefold? Is there any possibility at this stage to increase the €30 million? The €30 million provision is a great achievement. It is a sign of the times that clubs are now in a position to fund-raise themselves and to reinvest. Is there any hope of increasing that figure?

I do not think so, but the €30 million would not be there without that kind of pressure from the Chairman and from others. Everybody in this room was pushing for it very hard. That meant that we had the political leverage to look for it and it meant that we got it. If the committee wants us to seek supplementaries we will certainly do so. Last year there was a rigid rule in place that there would be no supplementaries and that was it. That rule may be there this year with the tight budget but we can always have a go, chance our arm and see if we can get some. I think it is unlikely but we can certainly attempt it.

Can the Minister guarantee that the scheme will be there next year? That is the important thing.

I do not think I can guarantee that.

Perhaps at the beginning of the next private session of the joint committee we could agree a letter to send to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform on the committee's behalf asking that the sports capital programme would receive supplementary funding. That might be something we could do.

I would certainly support the committee in that.

If a club or sports organisation got a grant in the last three to five years, will the Minister put a time period into the scheme during which such a club would be ineligible? I am sure every Deputy and Senator in this room has been dealing with sporting organisations and helping them to fill in their application forms. Given that there were 2,300 applicants, if a body got money in the last three to five years, making it ineligible would give everyone an opportunity of getting money going forward.

It should also apply to any club or organisation that received a grant in the last number of years and did not draw down the full amount of money. This would give all the others a chance. I agree with the Chairman, It would be very unfair if new applicants next year did not get a fair shot. I know organisations that were not ready to put in their applications this year and when clubs or organisations put in their application it has to be virtually fully correct. I believe that the amount of organisations that are qualified for the scheme this time is pretty high.

In fairness, applying for the sports capital grant this year was probably one of the easiest processes I have ever come across. There used to be a 24 page application. The Minister did listen and I do not think many clubs or organisations had problems filling in the applications this year. The support we got from the Minister was very good.

We should try to give as many people as we can a fair crack of the whip of getting these sports capital grants. If an organisation got it in the last three to five years or did not draw down their money, it would be fair to consider that as a factor. In other words a club would be penalised for not drawing down its money as would clubs that already got something, giving other clubs an opportunity to get something. This would make it a little fairer.

It is difficult to know exactly how to do this because it is very contentious. The weightings are somewhat contentious. I have tended to leave that to civil servants because they are less likely to be accused of political interference. We will be accused of it anyway, but it is less likely. They set the weightings, but we can look at changing them again next year. They tend to become stricter and more demanding rather than less so. That is something we could put into the mix.

I know where Deputy Fitzpatrick is coming from, but there would be some clubs that have a three or five-year programme of development. They would submit an application on the basis of getting so much of a grant a year, on the assumption that the scheme would be there for consecutive years. For example, rather than seek €1 million in the first year, they would perhaps apply for €200,000 in five consecutive years to fund their programme. I would be careful of saying that any club which got a grant in one year should be precluded the second year because some clubs or organisations apply for the grant on the basis of a phased project, and to draw so much of a grant each year as opposed to going for one lump sum in the first year. I would add that word of caution to what has been asked for.

The maximum is €150,000 as the Deputy knows.

The Minister has said that he will be accused of political favouritism or whatever, but just to let him know that one of his councillors in my own constituency informed the members of a club that unless they go through the Independent Alliance, they will not get any funding. They even advised a local club to take down a photo on Facebook with me in it because it could harm them in their application for funding. I know that would not be true. It could only improve their chances.

It would make no difference.

I jest, but in all seriousness, as has been alluded to by my colleagues, we had a fantastic committee meeting in Abbotstown a couple of weeks ago. It was a huge opportunity to meet the various sporting bodies and their heads. When we meet groups there is always a tale of woe, and it is always a negative experience. This was certainly a positive, uplifting experience however. The bodies acknowledged the good work that has been done in working with the Department to date.

They do, however, have concerns. One of the concerns would be the roll-out of phase 2 of Abbotstown. The Minister has said why there has been a reduction from 2016 to 2017 in the capital funding. I would ask that he fight hard to have that restored in 2018. He has said that 2016 was a once-off but we need a further once-off to ensure the completion of Abbotstown becomes a reality.

Had the Minister been able to secure the same level of capital funding for 2017 the completion of Abbotstown would, perhaps, be a reality today as opposed to an aspiration. As stated by previous speakers, the reintroduction of sports capital funding is welcome, particularly for community groups as they strive to improve their facilities. While facilities are welcome, what we need is athletes to use them. There is a concern that as a country we do not have a strategic plan for high performance sports. This needs to be taken on board. I ask the Minister to take that on board and to move immediately to put in place that strategic plan.

Reference was made earlier to the inquiry currently under way into the ticket fiasco at Rio. The Minister stated earlier that the cost of that inquiry will be approximately €300,000 and that this will be met from the administrative budget. The overall budget for this area is €2.9 million. The administrative budget amounts to 1.9% of the overall budget. How is there sufficient fat within the administrative budget to meet that cost? I am concerned that owing to the cost of this investigation being met from the administrative budget, particular areas could be deprived of much-needed funding.

In regard to the €6.3 million capital carry-over, I am surprised there is any capital carry-over given the many competing demands for capital funding under this heading.

I am told that the carry-over on the sports side relates to the indoor arena. On the high-performance strategic plan, high performance is specifically included as an issue for examination in the context of the sports policy review. On the Deputy's fair question in regard to the Moran report and the €300,000 cost in that regard, this money is not available but it has to be found. It would be dishonest of me to say that, with a budget of this size, there is not some leeway to find some funds for the unexpected. Indeed, it would be imprudent if we did not have that type of money available somewhere. Based on what I have seen, there is virtually nothing provided for such a contingency. However, it must be provided. It would be irresponsible to not provide money for that type of review. The budget is very tight and the amount required will not be easy to find. A budget of €1.8 million is not a huge amount.

The Minister said that this cost would be met from the administrative budget, which is set out under programme D. Perhaps he meant that the cost would be met from the departmental budget.

Yes, it is. We spend 99.9% of our budget.

We will move on now to programme E. As we have been here for almost four hours now, I ask members to be brief.

The overall envelope for tourism this year will be €122 million, including €109 million in current funding and €13 million in capital funding. This represents a 1% increase on 2016 and will assist our overseas marketing efforts in the context of the challenges posed by Brexit. The €122 million earmarked for the tourism programme in 2017 will allow Fáilte Ireland and Tourism Ireland to continue to develop Ireland's tourism industry, drive the further development and promotion of the signature experience brands and enhance the associated enterprise supports. It will also ensure Ireland is presented effectively overseas and domestically in an increasingly competitive marketplace.

Tourism is one of our largest indigenous industries, is deeply rooted in the fabric of Irish society and employs an estimated 220,000 people. According to the CSO, there was an increase of 10.9% in overseas travel to Ireland between 2015 and 2016. There was a record-breaking total of 9.584 million visits to Ireland in 2016. I am hopeful and confident of another good year for tourism in 2017.

One of the biggest challenges facing us over the next number of years is Brexit. One of the industries that could be most affected is tourism. I know from speaking to business owners in north County Louth, and in particular Carlingford and the surrounding areas, that there is a fear that not enough is being done for this industry. I note from the Estimates that Fáilte Ireland's budget will remain the same as for 2016 and that the Tourism Ireland budget remains at €14 million. I note also that the tourism marketing fund remains unchanged at €35 million. I am disappointed by this as we should be enhancing the budget for these agencies to assist them in dealing with the threat of Brexit. We have not done enough and need to increase these budgets in the context of the uncertainty of Brexit. I would welcome a response from the Minister on those issues.

This year will be a tougher year for tourism but I am confident it will be a good year. We have set some fairly demanding targets for tourism in the coming years which I believe we can meet. On the budgets, the Tourism Ireland budget has been increased by €1 million. I accept that will not keep the agency happy and that it is looking for substantially larger increases, in particular for the market development fund. The tourism industry has been amazingly successful in recent years.

On the Brexit threat, I think we have responded pretty positively to it. The Deputy will be aware of the conference held in Dundalk to specifically address the tourism issue in Border counties. It was attended by more than 100 people, most of whom were local chamber of commerce people from the Deputy's area. It highlighted that there is a great deal of nervousness and anticipation, particularly in the Border areas, about Brexit. The Government and the Department have responded to this in a very positive and energetic way. It is not an easy problem to respond to because we do not yet know the terms of Brexit or the type of border that we will have. We also do not know where the currency is going to be in the next few years, which is obviously going to be a determining factor in terms of what we get from the UK. My Department is preparing for every eventuality and possibility, some of which will never come to pass. As I said, as we do not yet know the terms of Brexit, we have to take all steps. This issue is not being ignored. I have attended many cross-Border meetings on tourism, including in Armagh. It is being energetically addressed, despite our not yet knowing what is going to happen. We are considering every possibility, particularly for the Border counties.

The value of sterling is very low at the moment, as is that of the dollar. It is important that we have something in reserve. Article 50 was triggered today and there is a great deal of uncertainty about what is going to happen. As the Minister said earlier, this will be a tough year for the tourism industry. Given this year and the next two or three years will be very tough years for the industry, are plans in place to assist it? It is anticipated that Brexit will take two years. If we are to retain our current tourism levels into the future, we will need to sow seeds in that regard now. Leaving the budgets for this year at the same level as last year will not help the industry. I ask that the Minister consider increasing the budgets of the organisations operating in this area.

I would like to be able to do that but we cannot increase the budget in every area.

We have increased it by a small amount but we will be pushing to increase it more because this is a crisis area. There are so many issues involved, like maintaining the common travel area and looking for new markets. The latter is probably where we are going to have to try to meet our targets because we are not going to meet our UK targets. UK visitor numbers are going to go down and there is anecdotal evidence of that happening already. Tourism Ireland is already embarking on marketing campaigns in the United States of America, India, mainland Europe and elsewhere. The Deputy is right. We will need to keep the great success of tourism going by increasing our budgets. That is our aspiration. I do not want to put a figure on it because the committee will only come back to me and say that I did not get that amount or that the total is too small. We will be looking for increased funding, particularly for the overseas marketing budget, when the time comes.

Deputy Troy is under time pressure. I ask that Deputy Munster give way to allow him to ask a brief question.

I thank Deputy Munster.

I am somewhat concerned by the Minister's assertion that we have ambitious tourism targets because we do not. The national tourism target for 2025 is 10 million visitors but we are at 9 million visitors now. I do not think our targets are ambitious enough. I also do not think the funding that has been allocated to the respective tourism bodies is sufficient. In August last year, in the aftermath of Brexit, the UK Government pumped €40 million into a targeted tourism campaign. Will the Department review our tourism policy to take into account the fact that the figures in the current policy are outdated? I must acknowledge that certain policy decisions made by the previous Government contributed significantly to increases in tourism, the obvious one being the decrease in the VAT rate for the hospitality sector. While that is not directly under the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport's remit, I would welcome his comments on it. What is under his remit, however, is the abolition of the travel tax. That also played a significant role in increasing the number of visitors to our airports. Is the Minister committed to that tax being abolished? Will he commit to introducing a new tourism policy that takes account of the fact that our targets are totally outdated? As I said, we are at 9 million visitors already and are eight years away from 2025.

I am not sure about a new tourism policy per se but obviously we are adjusting it. The new tourism policy was launched in 2015, which was pre-Brexit. While we may not be launching a new tourism policy per se, the Deputy can take it that Brexit is going to prompt a new policy from the tourism agencies anyway. As I said, the current policy is just over two years old but we will have to have a new policy with new targets as a result of what happened last year.

There were two reports prepared on the VAT rate and as far as I know, another one is being prepared. As far as I can remember, they were very positive about the effect the lowered VAT rate had on employment. As I said, another report is being prepared at the moment but I will have to revert to the Deputy on who is completing it.

It is Deloitte.

Yes, the most recent study which was commissioned by Fáilte Ireland and carried out by Deloitte found that the reduction in VAT receipts from pre-cut levels was around €120 million but due to the employment gain of 30,000, there was a complementary increase in income tax and a decrease in social welfare costs totalling €165 million. The reduced VAT rate has actually improved the perceptions of overseas visitors and has increased value for money. It is proposed to retain the 9% VAT rate so long as prices remain competitive and to aid the sector where it is required, such as in times of uncertainty, like the post-Brexit scenario.

I am committed to the abolition of the travel tax. There have been strange demands made recently that the tax be abolished forever and never be reintroduced. It is off; there is no travel tax at the moment. It is currently suspended but it has not been abolished and that is the status it will retain.

Perhaps if the Minister had stated that at the aviation forum he attended, he might have heard a little more on it from the aviation industry.

I thank Deputy Munster for giving way to her colleague.

I have a brief question relating to the 20% decrease in funding for tourist product development. What is the rationale for that? What does it mean in reality? A very significant amount of tourist product development is needed in the midlands and Border regions.

That is a capital scheme for tourist product development and the Deputy is quite right - it is down by 20%. We are going to look for that back under the mid-term capital review. That is the situation there.

Is the Minister going to seek that funding for the latter part of this year?

That review is actually coming up now, not in the latter part of this year. That said, the payments would not be released until the latter part of this year at the earliest.

The Minister said earlier that the Government has plans around Brexit and tourism. I ask him to forward the details of those plans to the committee.

We are looking at all sorts of contingencies at the moment. The plans are not published but we are looking at various contingencies in various situations. I am not sure if they can be made public but I will find out.

Perhaps they could just be supplied to the committee. Reference was made earlier to the national roads. It was my mistake - I did not see the figure, even though it was there in front me. Could we get a breakdown of the national roads budget?

Yes, certainly.

I would be interested to see the Deloitte report to which the Minister referred. I received a reply from the Department of Finance to a parliamentary question on the 9% VAT rate. My memory is that more than €500 million has been forgone in VAT as a consequence of that reduction. There is a good argument for some of the reduction to be retained but it should be more targeted. Items such as imported magazines and certain services enjoy the reduced VAT rate. I do not know if the Minister has tried to get a hotel room in Cork, Galway, Dublin or Kerry recently but it can be very difficult. Some parts of the hospitality industry are doing extraordinarily well and I am very happy to see that. However, if our tourism strategy is to forgo tax, the possibility of investing or being more targeted with our investments in areas that are not doing so well is more limited. If the Minister had an additional €100 million to spend, I am sure there are festivals, capital investments and so forth that could be supported in certain areas that are not doing so well. Tourism is one of the few industries that has the potential to reach all corners of the country. I ask the Minister to examine the possibility of separating out some of the components of that 9% rate and making an argument that whatever is raised would be spent in a more targeted way.

We are a little fortunate at present with tourism. The pound and the dollar influence that. The fact that there are tourism destinations in the world that are regarded now as unsafe is also a factor. Other factors come into play. There is an enormous amount of empathy and goodwill towards this country. Our supporters in France last year during the European Cup probably did a great marketing exercise for us. However, there could be a point whereby if one puts all the eggs in the one basket with regard to cost alone, one could end up putting it in a more risky environment. Has consideration been given to the separation of some of the things that should not be included, and were never intended to be included, under that 9% rate? Could that be considered in respect of creating some additional money that it could be argued should be spent in a more targeted way in the tourism area?

I hate to say this, but I have a fair amount of sympathy for what the Deputy has said. In principle, I thoroughly approve of the 9% VAT rate because of the benefits for certain areas in employment terms and in the hospitality sector. I have not conducted any scientific or forensic research on this but there is a widespread feeling that some people, institutions or businesses are benefitting from it when they do not need it as much as others. The problem is that it is very difficult to distinguish, both geographically and in terms of size, when one is providing a sectoral reduction in VAT. How would one say it applies to various areas in the midlands but not to Dublin, Cork and so forth? It is a difficult thing to unwind. The Deputy is saying that perhaps there are areas which are benefitting but which do not need that benefit because they are doing well and would be giving employment anyway. I have not looked at this seriously but I am happy to listen to arguments about it, with the important proviso that this is the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan's, responsibility.

The Minister wants the money though.

That is correct but, ultimately, I will not be making that decision, so it is easier for me to say that I am sympathetic with the Deputy's point of view. However, for quite some time I have considered it extremely useful. Weekly in my constituency, and I am sure the Deputy's experience is the same, I encounter small operators running small restaurants who are terrified that it will be increased again, which would damage them very badly. They say they need it. However, I also believe that some of the larger organisations which are doing very well do not need it.

I understand that it would not be possible to have a differential with respect to the geography. I do not know how one would separate it. However, we have public policy relating to fast food not being particularly good, for example, yet we are giving a VAT advantage to those outlets, which I will not name. I do not believe it was ever intended or understood to apply to things such as magazines, on which there is a huge markup. There is even a markup if they are imported. They are nearly double the price of the face value. The only argument I am making is as to whether it is possible to separate some of it so it could be targeted in terms of investment to create a tourism product in a region that requires it.

I welcome the spending. I am delighted that, following the Wild Atlantic Way, Fáilte Ireland and the Department have continued across the country with Ireland's Ancient East and the lake district to ensure the country is marketed properly. The local authorities have become very involved in the promotion of tourism in their areas. Up to a couple of years ago, the local Leader development companies had a means of accessing funding to upgrade tourism activities or projects in their localities. Is there any means whereby the Minister's Department provides funding directly to the local authorities for tourism product development? The local authorities are now likely to promote tourism projects, as opposed to just housing, roads delivery, sewerage and water services which was the case in my day. They appear to be involved with providing industry and tourism. Obviously, they have to carry more costs. Is there a separate mechanism for funding local authorities in their tourism initiatives?

I am not aware of any. I do not believe we have one. The Deputy feels there would be a benefit from it, but we tend to fund the agencies which have been very successful in producing projects. The Deputy mentioned the Wild Atlantic Way. The tourism agencies created the fantastic ideas and projects such as the Wild Atlantic Way, Ireland's Ancient East and Dublin's "A Breath of Fresh Air". They are very good with the branding. I understand the point the Deputy makes. Sometimes local authorities can have useful projects but the local authorities fund them. The recent St. Patrick's Day parades in various local areas were funded by the local authorities. It was money well spent. I am not sure there is a need to give them funds because they have their own funds for this.

From my experience of being on local authorities, they are good at finding money in times of need and when trying to balance budgets. However, it might create a better incentive. Up to a couple of years ago the local development companies were very good for tourism projects. The Wild Atlantic Way is up and running. It is a set line along the coast, whereas it is an ad hoc promotion with Ireland's Ancient East and the lakelands to indicate that when one lands in the country one starts in Kilkenny and proceeds to Wexford and Wicklow. It is still left to the individual local authorities to promote their counties. We could do more directly for them. Obviously, Fáilte Ireland is a brand name on a national basis, whereas local authorities work in the local areas.

Does the Deputy think the local authorities are short of money because they are promoting some of these things themselves already? They are doing it very well.

They are doing it very well. I can give an example. In my local authority of Cork County Council, part of its rates collection is put towards tourism and industrial development. If it had a few bob more directly from the Minister, perhaps the rate payers would benefit in the long term with regard to reduced rates.

The Deputy might be right. I will read a briefing note about the projects and Fáilte Ireland's grant schemes for large tourism projects. It was launched in 8 June 2016 by the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donovan, and will run from 2016 to 2020. The scheme has been designed to support large tourism projects which can demonstrate that they have significant economic potential and the ability to boost overseas visitor growth, create jobs and promote Fáilte Ireland's existing experience brands.

The first call for the grant scheme for large tourism projects closed on 22 August last year. Fáilte Ireland is currently assessing 48 applications out of a total original tranche of 115 received from the first call. First allocations are expected to be made by the board by the end of 2017. I am not sure whether local authorities can apply for these but I can find out. Fáilte Ireland intends to issue a second call for applications in November of this year, which will be advertised on the Fáilte Ireland website along with all documents required to make an application. Applicants are encouraged to discuss their proposals informally with the Fáilte Ireland capital funding team prior to making a formal application. There are the other Fáilte Ireland grant schemes for small tourism projects and others which are going to operate this year. What the Deputy is really suggesting is that local authorities should do it instead of Fáilte Ireland.

I will put it to my Department and see what the response is.

The Gathering of 2013 was part of kick-starting the recovery of the tourism industry and was a massive success, as were some of the other measures that were taken. Six or seven years ago, tourism was on its knees and it is one of the great success stories now. Is there a plan to follow up on The Gathering to build on its success and further develop our international network and links?

I do not think they intend to have a second The Gathering. I have seen it suggested somewhere and, I think, turned down because they do not think it would be a very successful repeat. I think it is too soon. It would be no harm if there was some sort of "meet in Ireland" type organisation or project. That has been mooted but is only in its infancy. I do not think there is anything concrete. It is being discussed at various levels.

The issue of greenways crosses over a little with programme B. There was a great news story in Waterford at the weekend and I think it is accepted that it is money really well spent. Being a little parochial, I see the south Kerry greenway on the old Valentia to Farranfore railway line, which I have fully supported from day one, will need capital funding. Tralee to Fenit is queued and waiting for capital funding. Kilmorna to Listowel is too. We have great opportunity for a full network in Kerry. Throughout the country there are so many examples. What is the outlook on capital funding for greenways? Is it a priority and is it one for which we might be able to leverage extra funding?

The programme for Government looked for large sums of money for that. It was promised and is on the way, I think. We have put it in as a priority for the capital review as well. We have a new greenways strategy which is going to come out in June or July. We are extremely committed to greenways. Both the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donovan, and I have made serious commitments to the whole project, partly because one gets money back - one gets so much bang for one's buck. I am not sure what the situation in Kerry is at the moment but I think it was incomplete for some reason last year. It could not be completed.

There were a number of planning issues with the south Kerry route. Until that is completed, there is still Tralee to Fenit, which is waiting, and there is Kilmorna to Listowel as well. There are other issues there but there are always issues with these things. If the funding is there, it would certainly help accelerate the projects.

There is going to be more funding available for greenways.

I am giving examples from my constituency but this is something that affects the whole country. There are numerous examples.

That is fine.

On the 9% VAT rate, Deputy Catherine Murphy raised the possibility of unintended beneficiaries, which is a very valid issue. I would welcome it if we were to look into that so that there would be funding available for more worthy causes. In the context of this discussion, however, I also have to acknowledge that it is probably one of the most pro-rural policies by any Government in the history of the State, in that it has got into every community and made a really strong impact. While there may be unintended beneficiaries, and every effort should be made to weed them out, it is a positive and progressive move that is helping tourism.

We are doing really well on the tourism front and are at capacity for a number of months of the year, particularly from May to September. Looking at the October to March or April season, I have often said I am a great believer that we have massive potential for winter tourism. The Wild Atlantic Way is an example of a product that could help us to build on that potential. Has the Department ever looked at trying to make a product of the wintertime as such? The "Celtic winter experience" is something I was thinking of myself that could be marketed internationally. We could really drive this thing on to give sustainable employment throughout the year. One of the big problems with tourism is that employment is not year round. It is hard to sustain local communities when there are not all-year employment opportunities. What efforts have been made to boost those shoulder months and give a year-round dimension to our tourism product and employment?

Before I answer the Chairman's question, in response to Deputy O'Keeffe, I have just been handed a note saying that yes, local authorities can apply for the funding. Cork County Council got support for the Spike Island development that way. It can be done. It is a good channel for them.

I thank the Minister.

In response to the Chairman's question, this is one of our main funding challenges and one of our objectives is funding for what is known as business and events tourism, including for international events. That is specifically targeted at the shoulder season. We recognise there is a gap as it all tends to concentrate on the summer and we have a lot to offer. We have obviously got a climate problem in the winter but if we can concentrate on getting international events and conferences, Tourism Ireland is aiming to make that one of the pillars of its crusade in the coming marketing programme.

The thing I would urge is that we would take advantage of the wilderness and the ferocity of the winter, as it can be ferocious at times, to try to actually market it internationally, particularly along the western seaboard. The Atlantic storms that we get are spectacular and the dark evenings also provide for a nice atmosphere in terms of the pubs and the cultural life of the country. It presents a big opportunity.

Could I ask the Minister a question about the overall Estimates and budget? He has a budget of €1.8 billion. As he said, it is a modest increase of €70 million on last year. He is going for mid-term review. I did not get the figure of how much of a supplementary increase he is looking for in the mid-term review.

The Minister is going for the mid-term review. Is that right?

He mentioned a modest increase for 2018. Approximately what would he say the modest increase would be? The increase from 2016 to 2017 is only €70 million. Is that right?

We have not decided on the figure yet but it will be-----

When the Minister says a modest increase, does he mean-----

It will be more than modest. We will be seeking something substantial.

Now for the hard question. Out of that budget, the Minister has made his spend this year on capital projects. Is that right? What I am trying to do is find the light at the end of the tunnel for many people throughout the country. The Minister hopes to bring to conclusion this year the connection between the red and green Luas lines, which is a major draw on his resources. He probably has other similar projects throughout the country. Does he expect the motorway in Gort to be finished this year?

Down in the south east, is Enniscorthy-----

The Deputy can take it that the completion of most of these projects is not going to be really taking place until 2019 or 2020 because of the imperative to get the steady-state funding up to par. In other words, most of the money and the initial money in the capital review has to be spent on steady-state funding.

What I am trying to ask the Minister is how much he expects to have as new spend, that is, opening new projects, for next year.

As I have said, I hope all the cheques will be paid for the likes of the Luas connection. That means an extra pot of money will be available.

I do not think it makes more money available.

I know it does not, but it might leave space for new projects and initiatives.

We are very much looking forward to the completion of the great Luas project, which is on target.

We hope it will open in the autumn or early winter of this year. It will not release money for anything, of course. We hope that following the mid-term capital review, the spend will start in 2020. The initial spend is going to be smaller because the amounts will be smaller. We have to allocate most of that to steady-state spending because of the state of some of the roads. They have deteriorated so much that they need investment to get them back up to a steady-state level. Our ambitious programme for the mid-term capital review for the years from 2020 onwards includes some of the projects in Deputy O'Keeffe's local area in which he is undoubtedly interested.

The Chairman will be interested in the Jack Lynch tunnel and N22 projects.

The Deputy also asked about the Gorey to Enniscorthy scheme. It is expected to be completed by the third quarter of 2019.

Is it as far away as that? I thank the Minister.

I thank the Minister and his officials for their time. It has been a long afternoon. They have been at two meetings since 2.30 p.m. Their attendance is very much appreciated.

Barr
Roinn