Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

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?