Sean Barrett (Independent)

I move recommendation No. 1:

1. In page 3, line 13, after " "€65,000,000"." to insert the following:

"Subject to the following conditions:

(a) the said expenditure shall be subject to a published appraisal in advance by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform indicating that the benefits to society as a whole exceed the costs and an ex post appraisal of the expenditure at the end of each accounting period;

(b) if the published appraisal in paragraph (a) indicates that the benefits do not exceed the costs of the proposed expanded allocation, the existing allocation will be maintained.".

I welcome the Minister of State. We had a very valuable discussion on this matter on Second Stage.

The Bill involves a very large increase in money. I estimate the Bill has 85 words in it and the increase in expenditure is €85 million. We need to develop in advance criteria for assessment of the efficiency of expenditure to present a prospectus to the House on what is intended to be done with the money and then examine afterwards whether any of it happened. This is necessary because the country had to be rescued by the IMF and obviously the existing procedures did not work. There was a tendency towards excessive expenditure, taxation which we cannot afford and borrowing which is no longer sustainable because nobody is willing to lend. This is the failure of governance as well as Government. We need new procedures to know in advance what precisely we are being asked to sanction and what are the measures of the outputs from this expenditure and we can check it afterwards.

I have particular concerns about what is being proposed because as I stated yesterday, the track record in tourism over the past three years is very bad. It may have great prospects but there has been a reduction in employment of approximately 40,000. Within the total increase in unemployment, 140,000 jobs were lost in construction, approximately 50,000 jobs were lost in manufacturing and approximately 40,000 jobs were lost in tourism. During this period we spent €492 million on various agencies. This was all analysed by our staff in the Oireachtas Library and Research Service. Of this, 63% was spent on operating expenses and 30% was spent on marketing but - the key point - revenue from tourism decreased by 31% and the number of tourists declined by 24%. I have tabled this recommendation because we need to put in place new procedures and address the national problem. I know the Minister, Deputy Howlin, is doing that and there will be fiscal responsibility and whistle-blower legislation coming before us. We must run our public finances differently and this seems almost to be a test. Here were people who had 31% less tourism revenue coming in and 24% fewer tourists. They had spent €492 million in getting that highly unsatisfactory result and were seeking a 130% budget increase, or €85 million extra. The onus was on them to prove that this would be an expenditure with which Members of the Oireachtas would concur. The IMF recommendation is that Parliament must play a greater role in examining how the public finances are operated here. That obviously requires changes because what was operating up to now is not sufficient. Seanadóirí should consider if somebody in a business said "By the way, our revenue is down 31% in the last three years". The immediate questions would be "Do we have to shut 31% of our outlets?" or "Do we have to ask 31% of the staff to go?" There seems to be a view in Irish promotional and development agencies that they are exempt from the budgetary constraints the rest of us must face. Serious questions have to be asked about the way the tourism industry was promoted during those three years, and in particular - according to the material assembled for us by the Oireachtas staff - the way the percentage of people who thought that tourism in Ireland was value for money went into a dramatic decline over the past decade. The heading "Good value or very good value" declined from 23% to 3%. What was this expenditure supposed to be for and why did it fail so spectacularly? In the Department's statements and those of the promoting agencies, why was there not at least some recognition of the crisis in the industry or even some remorse for how badly it had been doing? If we are being asked to send good money after what had obviously not worked, in the context of a Government which needs every penny it can find, I want to see something like a prospectus which somebody seeking to raise money in the private market would put before investors to see the record and what the return would be.

Along the same lines, €120 million is being sought for films but when will we get the money back? Advocacy is not analysis and we need analysis; I sought that in particular when tabling the amendment. We have a reforming and energetic Minister and Government. We have a system of governance which failed a year ago, so it needs reform and to this end we need to involve Parliament more. The old procedures of nodding through another €85 million to tourism or another €120 million for making films and hoping for the best, are not good enough. People may say one can deal with it on the Appropriation Account or the Committee of Public Accounts where the Comptroller and Auditor General will examine it, but there are defects in all those systems. Why does Parliament not take the bull by the horns and deal with it now? This is a request to spend money which we do not have, on foot of a track record which I have to say is very unimpressive.

I support the Minister's decision. All the institutions of this, unfortunately, failed State - as of 1 December 2010 - need reform, including this one where we have to face a referendum to see whether we will continue. There are huge defects in nodding through expenditure, kicking and hoping for the best - particularly where the evidence is so strong that previous expenditure was absorbed in administration and marketing. Why is the State marketing? If somebody stays in a hotel the hotelier gets to keep the money, so why is the State involved in spending 30% of this budget in marketing? Does anybody ever evaluate the marketing?

In the 1980s, I was asked by former Ministers, Mr. John Bruton and Mr. Séamus Brennan to go on the board of Bord Fáilte. At the time, it concerned me that the object of the exercise seemed to be to maximise the budget to promote the board itself, and there was very little tie in with whether it was doing anything worthwhile for tourism. The evidence in the past three years is that it was not, that receipts were down by about 31% and business by 24%. As part of the overall package that Ministers, Deputies Howlin and Noonan are applying - as well as the Minister of State, Deputy Ring - my amendment seeks to apply better procedures to get the value for money we so badly need.