I hope that tourists stay in North Antrim and enjoy the hospitality that is on offer. The strategy should be considerably more than mere hit-or-miss visits by tourists. Visitors deserve an unforgettable tourism experience. If we do not provide that, we will be destined to repeat what a diarist and writer wrote about Northern Ireland tourism one hundred years ago, namely - and it was said of the Giant's Causeway - that it was

I hope that we, and the people of our country and my constituency will be able to say that the Giant's Causeway is not only worth seeing but that it is worth going to see and worth going to see again and again because of the visitor experience. That has to be the mission statement, and I hope that the Minister can comment favourably on that.

I have a Northern Ireland Tourist Board visitor satisfaction survey from its final report in 2000. The Tourist Board has rightly identified many of the problem areas such as poor standards of service and overpriced food products. The Tourist Board also identified other issues, such as litter, that are not directly associated with it but which affect tourism and which must be addressed. Despite identifying those problems, the survey produces some interesting results. Some 69% of respondents said that they would return to Northern Ireland for a holiday. That is very encouraging, but we must address the concerns. In a similar survey, the Republic of Ireland and Scotland recorded higher levels of customer satisfaction. We must work on increasing customer satisfaction in my constituency and across Northern Ireland.

The Northern Ireland Tourist Board's report identified the fact that the product is not perceived to be cost- competitive. Food in some areas can be expensive and disappointing. I must say, however, that if the Minister wants a list of good restaurants in North Antrim, I will be happy to provide him with one, whatever his tastes may be. We must improve the service and the experience that we provide for tourists and which they expect. Budget accommodation needs to be improved, and street cleanliness in many areas falls below visitor expectations. We need more tourist-centred destinations.

What have the Government done since the report was published to address the important issues that the Tourist Board identified? The report has addressed the problems; the Tourist Board knows what the problems are. However, what action plan has been put in place, and how has the plan progressed? There was a proposal in the report for an action plan.

The Giant's Causeway is the jewel in the crown, not just of North Antrim, but of Northern Ireland, or, indeed, these islands, with regard to tourism. It offers an exceptional opportunity for attracting tourists, and last year it had about 475,000 visitors. After the fire at the Causeway visitor centre, the Minister made a very impressive announcement, saying that the private sector should get involved, and that a new, bigger and better visitor centre should be built. I supported that announcement wholeheartedly. Moyle District Council took an initiative and produced a development brief. According to that brief, the location is now on the market for development as a visitor centre. As a result of that initiative, Northern Ireland stands on the threshold of a once-in-a- lifetime opportunity to get the private sector to build, manage and run a state-of-the-art tourism centre. However, the private sector will be guided by the wishes of the local council. That is important, to ensure that the visitor experience does not simply satisfy the private sector but also that the project is guided by the public sector. I welcome that initiative.

If and when the site is sold, it will probably fetch in excess of £5 million. It is not just a matter of selling the site to the highest bidder; the best project must go on that site, to enhance not only North Antrim but also Northern Ireland plc. Local ratepayers would benefit from such a sale, and the Northern Ireland economy would see an advantage in it.

To create such jobs in this unemployment black spot would be remarkable. It would not only create seasonal employment, but long-term, year-round employment for many.

Now is the time to move full steam ahead on this project. We cannot waste another season waiting for it to happen; nor can we slow down, stand back and say that it is premature. We have to get on with the job.

In 1999, the last year for which I have figures, 433,745 people visited the Giant's Causeway. What an opportunity this - together with other proposals - provides for the development of tourism in Northern Ireland. With the right tourism experience in the area, we can draw those people back and, furthermore, it is not unrealistic to suggest that we can double that figure.

There is, however, no drive from the public sector or the Northern Ireland Tourist Board on those issues. I met with them recently, and they took the view that that development, and other associated developments, could be premature. That viewpoint is unfortunate, as we are already behind in development. Anyone putting money up - whether a private developer or a person in the public sector - would agree that development should be sustainable in the long term.

I hope that the Minister can assure the House that we cannot afford to wait any longer on the development of this project and that we must progress expeditiously. Northern Ireland must capitalise on its tourism potential.

It causes me some concern that the Northern Ireland Tourist Board has a vested interest in the Giant's Causeway. It has quite rightly supported the reinstatement and development of a train line from the Causeway to Bushmills. Many looked forward with excitement to the development of that train service, not only from the point of view of tourists, but also as it would offer locals employment. That project has not developed in the way that it should have. Years after the project was first announced, it has still to leave the railway shed. Where is the sustainability of that plan?

I recently looked at the Howarth report, which examines this issue. It set out the terms and aims of the project - to relocate the Shane's Castle railway to the area and also to link two of Northern Ireland's most famous visitor attractions, the Giant's Causeway and the Bushmills distillery. In fact, the project does neither. It links a location close to the Giant's Causeway to one on the outskirts of Bushmills. It would be necessary for a person to walk - or stagger, depending on where they have come from - back to the train, if the service were actually up and running.

Sadly, this development proposal has not got off the ground. I hope that we can receive the assurance that it will get off the ground. However, the reality is that the investment required for that project was excessive.

When it was first floated in 1994, the proposed development costs were £608,000. Initially, with investments and the public sector behind it, the proposed costs were approximately £1·552 million. Yet, if the project gets up and running, it will create only three jobs. That is £500,000 per job. People will raise their eyebrows at that.

There has been an awful lot of Government investment in this project - £200,000 was given from the International Fund for Ireland; £480,000 from the Tourist Board; £150,000 from the peace and reconciliation fund; and about £150,000 from loans and overdrafts. Despite this, the project is still short almost £400,000.

It is hardly surprising that, when asked to provide the funding deficit needed for the project, the local council raised an eyebrow and said that it was "a bit rich" for it to have to meet such a shortfall. This project risks collapse, and we could have another Navan Fort on our hands. I hope that that does not happen.

Today I received from the Registry of Companies in Northern Ireland the certificate of registration for the mortgage relating to the Giant's Causeway/Bushmills railway. The certificate indicates that if the mortgage is not paid when it becomes due, which is very soon, the Ulster Bank can seize the assets. That would be very good for the bank, but not for those involved, those who invested £480,000 of Tourist Board money, £200,000 of International Fund for Ireland money or £150,000 of peace and reconciliation fund money. This illustrates that the proposal was not well thought out. I hope that the Minister can indicate that he will take a good look at the proposal, implement it, and ensure that the train station is built, because it is essential for the locality.

Perhaps the Department needs to broaden its horizons by considering a service from Bushmills to Dunluce Castle or Portrush. There should not be merely a 10-minute ride from the Giant's Causeway to the outskirts of Bushmills; there should be something more striking to tourists. Tourists will not come simply to see the railway station in its present state. However, when some of the 400,000 or more visitors come to the Causeway, they would use such a facility if it were to give them an experience that they could not forget.

I raise these issues because I care about the area, and I want tourism in the area to thrive.

Order. I know that the Member is not a particular fan of power sharing, but he has used up half of the time available. Therefore I ask him to bring his remarks to a close. The rest of the time needs to be shared between the Minister, who has to respond, and another Member who is keen to speak.

I was concluding my speech, Mr Speaker, but you wrecked my finale - I will have to start again. I appreciate that another Member and the Minister wish to speak.

I want the clear potential for tourism in the area to be fully achieved and the locality to develop as a result. The area's industry needs to be diversified, and tourism offers us so many more job opportunities and so much more potential than has been offered by other flagging industries that are associated with the locality. I commend this issue to the House.

I am grateful to Mr Paisley Jnr for bringing this matter to the House so that we have an opportunity to investigate these issues. I am also thankful to the Minister for coming along to give us the benefit of his responses.

The potential of North Antrim to attract more visitors is undisputed. Giant's Causeway, the Bushmills distillery, the beaches of the north coast, the Glens of Antrim and the good selection of golf courses provide plenty of attractions for a range of visitors. I share Mr Paisley Jnr's frustration that many visitors seem to stay with us for just a short time, often only a day. I trust that the Minister will have some ideas on how to extend visitors' time spent in the area.

I have concerns, however, about the haphazard way in which we seem to be protecting and enhancing these natural assets. The planning policy applied along the north coast barely merits the term "policy" - it seems to consist of a series of ad hoc decisions. This serial "ad hocery" is leading to a degradation of that natural beauty. It is vital that we pull together a much more carefully thought out, long-term strategic approach that will protect the natural beauty of the coastline.

It is perfectly possible to do that while addressing issues such as the need for more accommodation. I place that comment in the context of the need for rural diversification, particularly the need for farmers to find activities other than working the land, which I think will become a more marginal activity, especially in north Antrim, where the climate presents problems not necessarily experienced elsewhere.

We need not have any fears for our dairy industry on good land, but there are difficulties with some of the more marginal land. I have bombarded the Minister with letters on that subject and related subjects, and the Minister of the Environment has also heard from me quite frequently on these matters. All of my letters say the same thing essentially: there is a need for a holistic approach.

As regards the future of farming, we have to ask ourselves what assets farmers have and how best they can exploit them. They often have buildings in addition to land. In the Lake District - and quite widely in rural England where planning policies are very tight, particularly with regard to new building in open country - there is a great premium attached to the conversion of existing farm buildings. Stone buildings can easily be converted and extended in the same style as existing buildings in order to provide very attractive rural accommodation. However, this is more expensive than the cost of straightforward new build, and we have to acknowledge that in any policy we develop. We have to enable such activity to command a premium that repays the extra costs involved. It is possible to create and preserve such a premium provided there are restrictive policies in other respects, and we should go down that route.

I am always concerned when I see farmers selling a plot to raise some cash, which they use invariably to address their own short-term deficits. In effect, they have simply turned capital into income, and I would very much prefer if they were encouraged and incentivised to look at providing themselves with an alternative income stream, perhaps through the provision of various types of holiday accommodation. There are a number of ways in which Government, working on a cross-departmental basis with a holistic approach, could encourage that.

I also hope that when the Minister and his Colleagues are looking at the overall strategic development of this area they will bend their minds to how they will handle the traffic flow if the Minister of Enterprise is successful in increasing the numbers of tourists. I am sure that Mr Paisley would agree with me that significant potential exists. The numbers of people visiting the Causeway Coast each year could be increased significantly, and we could encourage more of them to spend more time along the coastline and to visit the other features.

However, we are dealing with a narrow road, which runs along the coast, and there can be a particularly severe bottleneck at Bushmills. We should be thinking about how we might better manage that stream of traffic in the long term. I share Mr Paisley's frustration regarding the position of the tram terminus. It would be so much better to drive, or take the bus, to the top of the town of Bushmills, visit the distillery, and then mount the tram and ride to the Giant's Causeway. The return journey could be taken at leisure.

That would have the significant extra benefit of taking some traffic off the road between Bushmills and the Causeway. By not having located that facility at the top of the town - and there would undoubtedly be some difficulties in locating it there - you must therefore look at what can be done to enhance the potential for using the terminus at the foot of Bushmills. It could still perhaps be used as a preferred means of transporting people to the Causeway to reduce the strain on the narrow and restricted roads system that exists between those two locations.

We should consider the Glens of Antrim, particularly in the aftermath of foot-and-mouth disease. It would be wise to consult with people in the Lake District, where they have been far more successful hitherto than we have in encouraging people to use the walking facilities there. We do not have anything like the same number of rights of way and bridleways, although a substantial section of the Ulster Way goes through part of the Glens.

We have not addressed ourselves to the problem that while it is nice to walk 10 miles down the path, the trouble is that you must then walk 10 miles back. Other places have managed to address this problem quite well by having a shuttle bus service that will collect you from your destination and leave you back to where you parked your car. In New Zealand, a country I admire for the way in which it has achieved rural diversification, walkers' huts are provided where full overnight accommodation facilities are available for a fee. This encourages people to take long walks because they do not have to carry as many items with them as they would do if they were expecting to pitch a tent and carry their own gas cylinders.

I do not want to delve too deeply into this, but these points illustrate some imaginative ideas that we could adopt to make better use of our resources. While hikers are not necessarily the biggest-spending visitors, it is surprising nonetheless how much some of them can spend along the way, especially if the right facilities are available to encourage them to dip into their wallets.

Having put some ideas further to those mentioned by Mr Paisley Jnr to the Minister, I conclude. I trust that the Minister and others will look at a wide variety of matters that must be addressed to produce a successful long-term strategy to enhance the tourist potential of North Antrim.

I am indebted to the Members for their contributions. Several ideas have been floated by both Members who spoke. Officials will note those ideas. I do not intend to respond to every matter, but both Members have made some good suggestions, and these will be taken up.

I want to first deal with the broad-brush approach. North Antrim contains some of the most dramatic and sensitive environments in Northern Ireland. Not surprisingly, the area is one of our most popular visitor destinations because of the world heritage site of the Giant's Causeway. Given that visitors to the area not only benefit the local economy but also make an important contribution to the wider economy of Northern Ireland, it is essential that we take a long-term view of how the area is managed. We must ensure that the natural beauty is protected not only for its own sake but to ensure that future generations will benefit and that we will pass on to them an asset that we currently value and enjoy.

In the process we will help people and businesses to continue to derive economic benefit from visitors.

The development of the tourism industry in North Antrim, as elsewhere throughout Northern Ireland, has unfortunately been hindered in the past, largely as a result of the political unrest. It is not something that we should hide behind or ignore. We are confronted with it at the moment, and Members will know that the US Department of State recently issued a warning to its citizens. We have a very debilitating CNN international image at this time of year.

I must put this in the context of investment decisions, not simply by the public sector but by the private sector. We are attempting to improve our infrastructure, because we understand that there are gaps and weaknesses. It is a chicken-and-egg situation: we need the private sector to come forward with proposals and bankers and other institutions to offer investment resources so that we can assess them and decide whether we can assist them or not. In many cases people find great difficulty in persuading commercial banks and others to back people in that way.

We saw an upsurge in tourism in 1995, and Mr Paisley was using that as a baseline for many of the comparators, but people who then stepped forward and invested on the back of that soon discovered that their optimism was ill-founded. It is that legacy that we are dealing with. It is a huge problem for the tourism sector.

We must look to the long term and build up our expectations and infrastructure. We also have to build up the training and capability of those who are going to work in the tourism sector. It can no longer be regarded as a Cinderella industry, something that you do if you cannot do anything else. We must get past that. I have had discussions with my Colleague, the Minister for Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment, and he also feels strongly about this issue. We are taking initiatives to try to ensure that the industry has a supply of people with the skills particular to this industry. Tourism is no longer something you work at if you cannot do anything else.

We must raise the standards, because people can go anywhere in the world today. They do not have to come here; they can get on a plane and go virtually anywhere in a few hours. We have to develop and play to our strengths, and our strengths are not two weeks in the sun. Our strengths are natural resource-based tourism and the natural beauty of the Province. They include the hospitality and the welcome that people receive; our heritage; our ability to develop golf and fishing; the natural resources of our gardens and large historic homes; hunting; shooting; and other activities. We have many strengths, and we must play to those strengths.

There are more players in this than the Tourist Board and my Department. Local authorities and regional tourism organisations, partly funded by the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, also have a role to play. They bring together a partnership of local authorities - the industry itself with the Tourist Board resources put in. However, ultimately, it also requires a degree of self-help.

The Causeway Coast and Glens area account for approximately 30% of the visitors who come to Northern Ireland, and that area has vast potential. It is also a huge slice of the cake and market share.

I agree with the other Members that there is potential for that to grow even further, and not only in numbers, as numbers alone do not necessarily produce the revenue. There must be an increase in the value of the product.

I agree that we have been losing out on day trips. Day trips are fine, but we know that many coach tours from the Republic call in and return home and spend the night in County Donegal or somewhere else. The currency differential makes some of our products uncompetitive; the Tourist Board has tried to overcome that, as has the industry, by doing pound-for-punt promotions. However, some coach operators have told me that they must wait until things settle down before they can sign up.

There is a need - and this comes under the regional development strategy with which Mr Paisley Jnr began his remarks - for destination facilities. I fully accept that. I recently met a developer who is proposing a very ambitious scheme in the area. The Member will know to whom I refer. That is the sort of product on which we must concentrate, because it is sympathetic to the area and, if developed properly, will not impinge unduly on the environment. It has the potential, if things work out, to be environmentally and financially sustainable. All these things, however, must be dealt with case by case. That sort of product can add value to an area without damaging its natural beauty and resources.

We come back time and time again to planning issues, and they are not dissimilar to those that we face in industrial development. I get the impression that our planning approach is more energetic than that of our competitors in the Republic, who seem to be able to get a more sympathetic hearing for their industries.

That leads me neatly to Members' reference to Invest Northern Ireland and the Industrial Development Bill. We treat tourism as an industry and as a business. That is why we propose transferring the grant-aiding ability of the Tourist Board to Invest Northern Ireland so that any business, tourism or any other kind of industry, can go to where one set of skills is located. We hope that this will offer an enhanced service to the industry. It was the unanimous view of the board, and of the industry, that this step be taken. We are acting quickly to ensure that it is in place as early as possible next year.

There have been many funding interventions in the area over the years from the Tourist Board and European programmes. They have contributed significantly and will continue to do so. The same applies to International Fund for Ireland assistance. As for the joined-up approach, my Colleagues in the Departments of Agriculture and Rural Development and Culture, Arts and Leisure have a significant role to play. I have communicated regularly with them on various issues.

The motor sports proposal was mentioned, and that is a matter for Mr McGimpsey. In view of recent unfortunate casualties, a purpose-built facility with built-in safety measures may be an attractive proposition.

Members talked about the Bushmills railway, for which a special trust has been established. We do not own it. The Tourist Board is in a grant-aiding role in this instance. The project is at a very advanced stage, and we have allocated money to it, as have others. As with so many major infrastructure projects, the cost tends to run away from us. I have noted what both Members have said on this matter, and the Tourist Board will reflect on those points to see if there is any advice we can offer the trust that hopes to bring this project to fruition. Clearly there is some way to go yet on the financing of it, albeit substantial sums of money have been earmarked.

There is also the matter of getting the Glens back in business. There is no doubt that that area has suffered badly. The Member who brought this debate forward put it forward at the height of the foot-and-mouth disease crisis, and he knows that my Department is currently administering the compensation facility to assist people.

We made special measures in the terms of reference to take account of the small-business people who may not be paying a business rate but yet have suffered. We decided that the way around that was to look at the domestic rate position of those people and to try to ensure that, if they were registered with the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, they would be included in the scheme even if they were not paying a business rate. Many of them have experienced not simply a drop in business but an elimination of their business. That is extremely difficult for them to cope with, particularly at a time of year when the cash flow is at the minimum and they are perhaps investing in repairs and maintenance. The timing of events could not have been worse.

With regard to the North West 200, the Member knows that I fought the battle on that as best I could. I fully realised the extent to which the business in the area would suffer if it were cancelled. Unfortunately it was not possible to prevail over the advice from the veterinary experts, and we had to bow to the inevitable. However, we did our best to assist the local authority in the north-west when it came forward with a project to try to replace some of the business, and we were very happy to support that project.

I am acutely aware of the unemployment situation in the Moyle area, and I have visited the area on a number of occasions. One of the things that we are currently looking at - and Members will know this - is the ferry project. I am pleased to report that we are at a very advanced stage with the market testing of that. There does appear to be interest. The Scotland Office is looking at things at the present time, and we hope to be able to get some steer in the next few weeks as to whether we can attract operators at a rate of assistance that we believe to be reasonable. If we get through that stage, much will then depend on how we split the thing between the Scottish side and the Northern Ireland side. That, of course, is a separate issue that we would have to deal with as we go forward, but it is very important.

On the question of the visitor experience, I agree entirely that the satisfaction rating is good but could be a lot better - I fully accept that. That depends on a mixture of training and of ensuring that the people who invest believe that they have got a potentially profitable investment. That brings me back again to the chicken-and- egg situation I referred to with the question of political stability, and so on. If we did not have that problem, we would be much further advanced in developing an industry which would compare very well with the Lake District or anywhere else.

I believe, particularly with regard to the North Antrim area, that the assets and the potential are there. I have no doubt about that, and I have supported the concept of what I call "a string of pearls" - looking forward from the Campbeltown side right over into North Antrim and across into Limavady, and even into County Donegal with the various projects that are planned there. You could see how under the right circumstances you would have a very attractive product for the entire north-eastern area.

The north-east and surrounding areas spread beyond the parliamentary constituency. Nevertheless, the regional tourism organisation in that area is very active in developing its own strategy. Our role, of course, is not confined to developing strategy for the local area. That is the job of the local authorities in conjunction with the industry through the regional training organisation. We support them, but that has to be in the wider context of the strategy for Northern Ireland as a whole. It is beginning to clarify itself.

As we move forward, we begin to identify the type of product that we can develop. Enormous potential rests there. The potential to expand the tourist industry is greater than that in any other industry in Northern Ireland. The industry is operating at about one third of its capacity. I cannot think of any other industry where the potential for growth, job creation and wealth creation is greater.

There is a great deal at stake. We will have to work closely with the tourist industry. We will have to work to stabilise the political situation because that is one of the major problems. There is also the continuous currency difficulty to deal with. There is no doubt that continental holidays have become much more attractive or that Northern Ireland is up against stiff competition from the Republic of Ireland.

I assure Members that the points that they have made in the debate will be considered by the Tourist Board. If Members feel that any points require attention by letter, I will be pleased to follow those up in due course.

<< Prev