Mary Upton (Dublin South Central, Labour)

The Labour Party will support this Opposition motion. Both my colleague, Deputy Broughan, and I have been opposed to this tax since it was first mooted. Despite the Taoiseach's shuffling of the deckchairs earlier today, it is clear that the importance of the tourism sector has never been appreciated by the present Government or any other Government led by Fianna Fáil over the past 30 years. The facts regarding tourism speak for themselves. In 2008, tourism contributed €6.3 billion in revenue, comprised 4% of the Irish economy's GNP and provided 128,400 jobs in the accommodation and food sector. This was more than the number of people employed in either the agriculture or financial services sectors at the time. It is clear that tourism is an economic lifeline nationwide and towns such as Lahinch, Dingle and Dunmore East thrive on the tourism trade. It is an indigenous industry and the jobs generated therefrom remain in Ireland. Tourism in Ireland means jobs and growth in areas that frequently have no major industry. Such areas are kept thriving in a manner that would otherwise not be possible due to the Government's failure to implement a successful spatial strategy.

In common with nearly every other sector of the economy, 2009 was a black year for the tourism sector. The total number of overseas trips to Ireland declined for a second year in a row. Nearly 1 million fewer people visited Ireland in 2009 than in 2008. Our largest market, the United Kingdom, suffered the greatest fall of 16% or more than 600,000 visitors. The decline in visitors from the rest of Europe, North America and other areas was of 8.7%, 2.4% and 12.5%, respectively. Against this background, it beggars belief that the Government insists on retaining the air travel tax, which was first imposed with effect from 30 March 2009. In response to Deputy Cregan's comments, no Member is pretending that the air travel tax is the sole cause of the fall in tourist numbers. While a number of other factors clearly are involved, this is an additional factor that, on consideration of the figures, is quite significant and substantial and should not be ignored. For example, the chairman of Fáilte Ireland indicated that the introduction of the tax would result in a net loss to the Irish economy of more than €30 million on an annual basis. A report commissioned on the air travel tax by Aer Lingus, Ryanair and Cityjet from Amsterdam Aviation Economics to which a number of Members already have referred concluded that the estimated revenue losses would be €482 million, up to 3,000 jobs and 1.2 million in departing passengers in a full year of the operation of the €10 departure tax. This compares to a tax take to the Exchequer of just €160 million. Even the report from the tourism renewal group commissioned by the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism stated that the abolition of the air travel tax was an urgent action for the survival of the tourism industry.

When speaking earlier, the Minister of State was quite selective in the countries he chose as examples. As he managed to ignore those countries which removed the tax, having had their fingers burned, I will balance the equation a little. In July 2008, the Dutch Government introduced an air passenger tax targeting the collection of €418 million. A subsequent Dutch study calculated that the tax cost the Dutch economy €1.6 billion. The Dutch Government saw the light, did the sums and abolished the tax in July 2009. Similar taxes have been removed in Belgium, Greece and Spain. As an island nation, air transport is more important for Ireland than for any of our continental neighbours, which have integrated road and rail networks. Which part of the arithmetic, coming from a number of disparate sources, does the Minister not understand? All the number crunching indicates there is a serious negative impact from the travel tax. This is the experience of other countries that have taken the sensible decision to reverse the tax. Consequently, it is time for the Minister to wake up to reality and to set about dismantling a tax that is costing money. Ireland is highly dependent on air travel and as an island nation our choices are pretty limited in respect of inducing people to travel here as the number of alternatives, such as luxury liners, are few and far between. Moreover, the Government's own report on the sector by the tourism renewal group to which I referred earlier highlights clearly the economic short-sighted nature of the travel tax when it states

As an island destination ... Ireland cannot afford to incur a competitive disadvantage that makes routes to and from Ireland less attractive for operators seeking to maximise their return.

However, the Government continues to stick its head in the sand and to build further barriers to entry at a time when the global tourism market is shrinking. This simply makes no sense. Our tourism industry is under serious stress and instead of creating additional barriers for prospective tourists, it is time to consider ways of making the country more accessible.

In the 21st century, the major growth markets in tourism principally will be based in Asia. The countries concerned, including China, India and Saudi Arabia, are countries with which Ireland does not have strong cultural, historic or linguistic ties. Consequently, for Ireland to capitalise on these potentially huge markets, it is essential to address problems surrounding travel visas for example. It is completely unrealistic that it can take up to six months for a prospective Chinese visitor, for example, to acquire a visa to come to Ireland. The timeframe for getting such visas must be challenged, without compromising the necessary formalities and minimising the risk of unscrupulous operators illegally gaining access to the country. While I appreciate this primarily is a matter for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the issue must be highlighted. How many people nowadays plan their holidays six months in advance? The Internet now operates as the new reception desk at the travel agent and many potential travellers plan, book and change their minds within a few days or weeks. If travellers from China who wish to come to Europe have a choice between Ireland, where they must apply six months in advance or Scotland, where the processing time is much shorter, they obviously are much more likely to choose to visit Scotland. If the Government is serious about attracting a new cohort of potential visitors from new and emerging target countries, such artificial barriers must be scrapped.

Moreover, for those same visitors to spread the good news about Ireland, there must be a commitment to and an investment in the services they require. For example, what plans are in place to ensure that an appropriate level of language facility will be provided? It is no longer good enough to assume that all our visitors will be satisfied to accept our limited language services, especially when they potentially can get a better quality of service elsewhere. It should be a basic requirement and, if necessary, a targeted requirement that hotel receptionists, tour guides etc. should have a working knowledge of at least three languages other than English. In addition, part of such a language development programme should be that languages such as Mandarin, Arabic and so on should be targeted for specific guides or hosts in Ireland in order that visitors can be matched to the appropriate language service. We require a co-ordinated action plan on this issue to begin to target immediately this issue before it reaches a crisis point.

While I welcome the addition of the free travel plan on Irish Rail to all visitors to Ireland aged over 66, which is a highly positive development, there is scope to extend this facility to all CIE services for this particular cohort of visitors. The extension of this facility to all CIE services for visitors who are over 66, initially during off-peak periods, will provide an opportunity for a sector of the market that will be likely to spend more time in Ireland and will be encouraged to move outside the capital city, thereby bringing much-needed revenue to parts of rural Ireland. Were the scheme limited to off-peak times, there would be no reason it could not be run on a cost-neutral basis. I note the State already paid CIE approximately €76.4 million through the Department of Social and Family Affairs in 2009. The lack of broadband services nationwide continues to hamper the tourism industry. It is indicative of the Government's lack of commitment to a real spatial strategy offering equal opportunities and services to citizens regardless of their location in the State that we have such a paltry level of broadband connectivity outside the major urban areas. Every bed and breakfast in Ireland should be in a position to provide an on-line service to attract tourists.

The potential value of the industry is being damaged by the gaps that must be bridged, many of which are fairly basic. I refer to better signage, an integrated ticket system, enhanced language skills, expansion of the free travel scheme and maximising our niche markets, such as golf for surfing. None of these is particularly demanding, other than a vision to develop some form of long-term strategic development for the industry and the will to influence it. The motion under discussion pertains specifically to the removal of the air travel tax, which has been demonstrated to be what might be described as a loss leader in many other countries. The only difference between them and us is that we are much more dependent on air travel to attract visitors to the island of Ireland. Second, most of these countries have seen the light and have abolished a tax that in effect is costing their economies money. Third, we are not pretending that the air travel tax is the only issue around tourism and the problems therein.

As an aside to all of the matters relating to the tourism industry, another factor that would allow more rapid action on tourism would be the facility to access information directly via the appropriate Minister in respect of legitimate questions by Deputies. I am referring to quangos. It is clearly not simply a question of just one Department, as this is a major issue. Unless we can get accurate information quickly for when our constituents and members of the public need it, we will continue to damage the tourism business.

See this speech in context