Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister. It is unfortunate that we did not get to speak before because I would love to have shared some of the thoughts I had and discuss the points he made in his lengthy response. I thank the Minister for the comprehensive nature of his contribution.

I recognise from the contribution of Senator Conroy that there are some very genuine sentiments. Many of those thoughts were also expressed in the Minister's speech. As somebody who has lived on the west coast and in Dublin, I recognise the importance of initiatives such as the Wild Atlantic Way and Ireland's Ancient East. I am enthusiastic about the development of a greener approach to tourism. The Minister expressed some very worthy sentiments.

In the limited time we have, we need to point to the actual substance of the motion before us. The substantial recommendation in the motion is that the 9% VAT rate for the tourism industry be renewed on a multiannual basis. That is something I cannot support. Given some of the input we have had from my colleague in Fine Gael, it is unfortunate that no caveats, conditions, review or question marks were added to the motion, which was an opportunity missed.

The idea of renewing the VAT rate, a preferential measure that was introduced for the industry at a particular time and on a strategic basis, without any conditions and on a multiannual basis does not make economic, social or moral sense.It makes sense on none of the levels that we would normally expect to be required in the consideration of a tax measure.

I know the Minister spoke about not spooking the industry. We should also be very concerned if we send a signal to the industry that it can be complacent. We cannot afford complacency, as Senator Ned O'Sullivan rightly said. We cannot afford to give blanket reassurances and commitments for years to an industry which will not even give a commitment to next week's hours to many of its workers. That is not acceptable. We need to, even from a purely economic and sensible level, be looking at what our leverage is as a State, and how we responsibly use it and balance it when it comes to measures at budget time.

On the cost-benefit matter, we know that the cost so far, from Revenue's own figures, is €2.1 billion. That is substantial. It was €620 million per annum when we looked at last year's figures. This is an extraordinary expense. Maybe it will be worth it but we need to look at it. I would respectfully suggest that gentlemen's agreements, such as we heard mentioned here today, are no substitute for cost-benefit analysis, particularly when those gentlemen's agreements come largely at the back of women workers. We are here on International Women's Day. We know, and I know from my work with the National Women's Council of Ireland, that the hospitality industry has been at the front-line of aggressive casualisation of work.

The Minister spoke about wishing to examine the evidence in detail. It is not simply Senator Ó Clochartaigh's evidence and I will not attempt to reiterate that. The evidence is long-established. The University of Limerick has highlighted this issue in research done for the Government under its last remit. The Low Pay Commission has identified this pattern and concern to such a substantial level that i had to produce a special report on it, because 60% of those low-paid and insecure workers are women. Only last week, the Nevin Economic Research Institute, NERI, highlighted the CSO figures. Some 82.5% of women workers in the accommodation and food service industry are earning less than €400 a week. That comes with a cost, not just of revenue loss, but also the cost of family income supplement for those who are not paid adequate income, which I see as a member of the Joint Committee on Social Protection. That is why, as a member of that committee, I could not in good conscience support a measure which did not include a requirement for decent conditions for workers and which said that it will subsidise them in two ways and subsidise industry on two levels. That is not acceptable.

I pointed to the workers' conditions and the costs. I want to come back to the core point, which I believe is a sentiment shared across the House. Everybody here has spoken about spreading the benefit of tourism, whether on a regional level, to the consumer - we have seen the 15% increase in costs - and also, essentially, the employees, which is the missing piece and why I will be supporting it. Let us also remember who the employees are. They are the consumers of other sectors. They are the communities that we talk about when we talk about Ireland's national heritage and communities. We want communities which can afford to live decently, to work, to spend and to put back.

This is clearly a focus on the budget. I remind the Minister that in our budget, he and his Department will be required to produce evidence of gender-proofing and equality-proofing of the measures in his budget.