I welcome that question. The British-Irish Council exists to make all possible efforts to resolve the elements of conflict. Therefore, an element of the British-Irish Council deals with Sellafield. The Irish Government were the first to mention the court case at the British-Irish Council meeting. My point was that the first meeting of that Council was in December 1999, and the next meeting was almost one year later, in October 2000. We waited almost one and a half years before the next meeting, which dealt with highly important environmental issues. Given the length of time that had elapsed between meetings, the necessity to resolve the conflict, which is what the British-Irish Council is about, and the Irish Minister saying that he was going to court twice, I said that British-Irish Council meetings were the appropriate forum to resolve conflict. I meant to cause no offence to any party or individual, but my statement accorded with my interpretation of the situation.

Will the Minister advise the House what impact the commissioning of the Sellafield mixed oxide (MOX) plant will have on the Northern Ireland population?

The purpose of the MOX plant is to create new energy - not to dispose of energy. It has been in initial operation since December 2001, but to allow for full working, that decision must be made. The Member asked about its impact on Northern Ireland, which is an important consideration. We must adopt measured tones. We must examine the facts before we make statements that can hype up a community in one way or another.

I have examined the scientific evidence presented to me, and it is clear that the workings of the MOX plant were examined over many months before it became operable. The word "microsievert" refers to measurement of the level of activity that hits us. The estimation is that the operation of the MOX plant will expose us to 0·002 microsieverts, which is two thousandths of one unit and equivalent to two seconds on board a transatlantic flight. However, on average, Mr and Mrs Citizen of Northern Ireland are hit by 2,500 microsieverts of radiation each year. That is the scientific evidence that has been presented to me, and I want it to be examined in more detail.

Friends of the Earth has commented on the scientific evidence. I met its representatives and put the statistics to them. We will meet again, because in situations which the people of Northern Ireland and my home county of Down find emotive and sensitive, and in which scientific evidence has been presented, we must ensure that we examine the issues in a measured and controlled fashion, rather than in an emotive way.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The Minister is urging caution over Sellafield; I urge that we wake up to Sellafield. Recently, I visited it with TDs from Dublin as part of an interparliamentary body. A sign on the wall in the control room of the MOX plant read "23 days since last minor accident". The target is 42 days, because that is the record number of days without a minor accident. When the Minister speaks with representatives of British Nuclear Fuels Ltd, will he determine what constitutes a minor accident?

I plan to visit Sellafield in the near future, and Michael Meacher has invited me. At the meeting in February, he gave a commitment to implement a strategy in the spring to reduce the emissions from Sellafield. An agreement was reached at the 1998 ministerial meeting of the Oslo and Paris (OSPAR) Commission, and we must ensure that those commitments are met.

The British-Irish Council environment sector group will meet again in October in Belfast to consider the views of the Government of the United Kingdom. It will also consider the comments of the Governments of the Republic of Ireland and the Isle of Man, who are to bring forward their document in its final form. Prior to that meeting, I will visit Sellafield to see what is happening. Therefore, to acknowledge the Member's point, we have woken up to Sellafield.

I ensured that all the Assembly's concerns were expressed at the last British-Irish Council meeting. I took note of the commitment given by Michael Meacher, who is the Minister responsible for Sellafield. In waking up to Sellafield, we must carefully analyse what Sellafield is doing to the environment. We must be clear on that.

There has been only one habit survey outside the area directly affected by Sellafield. A habit survey charts the way in which people work and how Sellafield may affect them. In 2000, the habits of 871 people from areas between Belfast and Carlingford Lough were examined. According to scientific evidence, if an individual were to eat 100 pounds of fish a year, swim in the Irish Sea for 100 hours a year, or work on the coast for 1000 hours a year - those people would be most exposed to Sellafield - he would be exposed to 18 microsieverts a year. By comparison, everyone is already exposed to an average of 2,500 microsieverts each year.

We talk about waking up to Sellafield, but we must wake up to radioactivity. One of the biggest sources of radioactivity in Northern Ireland is radon, which seeps up through the ground. Only 23% of people in Northern Ireland have taken advantage of the free test for radon in their homes. We must wake up to more than Sellafield; we must wake up to radioactivity in general in Northern Ireland.

I cannot be specific about what constitutes a minor accident at Sellafield. However, I will examine the matter, and I will ask that question when I visit the plant. I hope that I have answered the questions comprehensively.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you on your appointment. I trust that that means that you will be kind to me today and in the future.

Dr McCrea asked the Minister about sustainable development. Before the next meeting of the British-Irish Council, which he is due to host in October, the world summit on sustainable development will take place in Johannesburg. I understand that the UK Government will be represented at that summit but that the devolved regions will not, despite the fact that they are responsible for sustainable development. Since he probably has not done so, will the Minister undertake to discuss with the Scottish and Welsh Ministers, Mr Finnie and Ms Essex, the opportunity to secure direct representation of the devolved Governments in Johannesburg?

There has been much discussion about Sellafield. Rather than use British Nuclear Fuels Ltd's BNFL-speak to address the people of Northern Ireland, will the Minister undertake that, following his examination of Sellafield, he will discuss with the other devolved bodies, the Irish and Manx Governments, how the matter can be approached in October to take into account people's fears? People are not concerned about how many microsieverts they may be exposed to when the plant is working normally, but about what might go wrong at Sellafield, given past accidents.

What are the waste issues of serious and increasing concern that Mr Finnie identified?

Whoops. The rigour of Mr Ford's questioning almost made me fall over.

I am conscious of the representation of devolved regions at the world summit in Johannesburg. Recently, I presented a cheque to a primary school in Ballymena for its work on sustainable development. One pupil from that school will attend the summit in Johannesburg.

Will the Minister be going to Johannesburg?

The Member asked a question, so he should let me answer it.

The Deputy Chairperson of the Environment Committee, Ms Lewsley, highlighted the importance of our being represented at the summit. The position is clear: the decision on who will represent the United Kingdom Government is in the Prime Minister's hands. Scotland will be represented, and I am unsure about Wales. However, I am considering whether this devolved Administration should be represented and, if so, who should represent it.

Mr Ford said that I gave "BNFL-speak" on statistics. I refute that. The statistics that I gave were produced by our Department. Much collaborative research on emissions levels has been conducted by Northern Ireland bodies and by the Irish Government, and those results show a minimal emissions level. I did not say that that was the end of the story - quite the reverse. I said that I take on board the statistics, and that I am conscious of the sensitive nature of this matter. I have discussed the issue with Friends of the Earth, which has been the most outspoken opponent of Sellafield. I shall have further discussions with it and with others because we must fully understand the problems in this highly sensitive area, which involves much scientific and statistical data, rather than make statements of political hype. That is something that I, as Minister of the Environment, will not do.

Mr Ford's third question was about waste, and that is a serious matter. There are several issues. For example, we put too much waste into holes in the ground. We recycle only about 6% of waste in Northern Ireland, compared to other parts of Europe where more than 40% is recycled. Less waste must go into landfill and more must be recovered and recycled, and we must produce less waste. We could recycle 60% of all waste as reusable biodegradable material. Those elements must be considered. A waste management strategy is in place, and three groups of councils are drawing up waste management plans. This is an important issue, and I have tried to deal with some of the concerns.

As it is only the Minister's second opportunity to answer questions in the House, he can be forgiven for overlooking my Colleague Patricia Lewsley's question on ministerial protocol. I offer him the opportunity to address that in his response.

Will the Minister clarify his position and that of his Department on the health and security issues arising from the continuing operation of the inherently dangerous Sellafield plant? Given that the Department is collecting statistics and information, will the Minister consult members of the County Down fishing fleets and ask them why they will not fish in certain areas of the Irish Sea because of the deformed species to be found there? How many microsieverts are responsible for producing such deformity?

I am not sure whether Mr ONeill wishes me to comment further on the matter raised by Ms Lewsley. I feel that I have sufficiently answered that question, so I shall not return to the matter unless Mr ONeill specifically wishes me to do so.

The Member couched his question on health and security issues arising from Sellafield in a reference to the County Down fishing fleet and the deformed species that are being caught. That is the type of language that I do not wish to use. I have made it clear in my statement that I have concerns about the matter, especially as I live in County Down. I am not a fly-by-night in this matter. Health concerns us all.

That is why I have said in almost every one of my answers that we must be measured in our tone, examine the position clearly and reach a measured judgement on where we go from here. I do not want a Sellafield in my backyard - of course I do not. However, realpolitik dictates that I am where I am today. I have a Sellafield and a new mixed oxide (MOX) plant, which opened in December 2001, at my back door, and total responsibility for that lies with the United Kingdom Government. The United Kingdom Government will bring forward proposals in April, to be discussed again in October, and that is the best forum for trying to resolve the conflicts attached to Sellafield.

Security is a concern. Indeed, the ships bringing the substance to be dealt with at Sellafield, or a September 11-type catastrophe at Sellafield, may be of greater concern than the emissions from the MOX plant. These concerns were expressed, and we sought assurances from the United Kingdom Government, which were given. I am not saying that I accept them totally, and I do not know the details, but the Government have given an assurance of increased security.

With regard to the ships, a separate company has been operating them for 20 years, and they have travelled 3 million nautical miles without any problem. Each crew member has to be qualified one level above what he is operating on at any time, and there are many and varied examples of safety, navigation and security measures in the working of those vessels. The shipping used to transfer the material is of the highest order of any shipping in the world. Of course there are risks - one does not deny that - but there is a comprehensive brief on the level of safety and security on those ships that sail back and forth to Sellafield trading their wares.

Does the Minister support the introduction of an aggregates tax in Northern Ireland, and was that discussed at the British-Irish Council?

I appreciate how an aggregates tax would fit in with protecting the environment, which we are discussing. The issue was not specifically discussed at the British-Irish Council, but I mentioned it. This is an example of how tax regimes can change in the United Kingdom fiscal unit without account being taken of our land border with a neighbouring state, which is an important matter that is not common to any other part of the United Kingdom. I mentioned the tax, but the British-Irish Council did not discuss it. However, it was taken on board.

Regarding the aggregates tax, I am aware of the cross-border impact on quarry owners in that area. I am also aware that we have negotiated a derogation for aggregates used for concrete blocks, pipes and such like, for one year - it will be introduced progressively from 2003-04 onwards.

There is no derogation for virgin aggregates. However, we are negotiating with the Department of Finance and Personnel to make the case that must be made in that, as I said at the outset, Northern Ireland is unique in having a land border with another country whenever it comes to fiscal measures which are uniformly applied throughout the United Kingdom. Of course, the European Commission must be allowed to have their say on these aspects as well, so the jury is still out on full implementation of some elements of the aggregates tax.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The Minister referred to the joint studies that officials from his Department have carried out with the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland and University College, Dublin. Can he detail the level of access that his officials have to Sellafield? Can he also assure the House that officials from his Department have unlimited, unhindered access to Sellafield for monitoring and scrutinising purposes? Go raibh maith agat.

I am not sure if I heard that correctly about uninhibited access for officials to monitor what is taking place. I cannot give a definite answer on the level of access to Sellafield. However, the irony is that people are not concerned about the inner workings of Sellafield so much as about emissions from it that affect people in Northern Ireland. You do not need to go to Sellafield to feel what the emissions may be. I hope that I make myself clear.

I will give an example of the level of examination: sediment, seawater, seaweed and fish are examined regularly for radioactivity, as are the air above and the sand below. People too are checked to see if they are affected by where they work, by what they do and by radioactivity. Officials do much to examine the impact of Sellafield.

With regard to the inner workings of Sellafield, I will be going there to examine as best as I can what is happening. However, Mr Wilson, the Minister of State for Energy and Industry, has said that information about security there cannot be divulged, and I can understand that.

Sellafield and radioactive waste were discussed at length at the British-Irish Council meeting. Living in, and representing, the coastal constituency of East Antrim, I have a question reflecting environmental concerns. Does the Minister's Department monitor the effects of Sellafield's discharge around the coast of Northern Ireland? If so, are the findings made public, and are they easily accessible to the public and public representatives?

The impact of Sellafield is monitored regularly. The findings are made public, and they are made available at various conferences. I said earlier that we should not be hyped up, and I am not saying that the Member is hyped up - quite the reverse. However, part of the reason I mentioned the measurement of 2,500 microsieverts in comparison with the measurement of 18 microsieverts a year for people who work many hours on the coast is to raise awareness among Assembly Members and the greater public that these elements are surrounded by great sensitivity. At the same time, scientific and statistical evidence relating to the argument is being brought forward. We have a responsibility to examine such evidence, put it to all concerned and see if we can reach a measured judgement on its validity. I will ensure that that happens. I can only say to the Member that if the information is not easily accessible I will endeavour to see what can be done to make it more accessible. All the information I have quoted is in the public domain; it has been made known through various seminars and it includes the work being done in Southern Ireland.

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive statement. Just as in today's questions, much attention at the meeting was given to radioactive emissions from Sellafield into the Irish Sea. Does the Minister agree that emissions from non-nuclear power stations would also be worthy of discussion at the British-Irish Council in its environment format? I ask this question because it looks as though the UK will achieve its Kyoto Protocol target in reducing the level of so-called greenhouse gases, as measured in 2010, relative to the 1990 level of production. However, the Republic of Ireland, which has raised such a fuss over Sellafield, sadly seems to be on track for a substantial growth in the level of carbon emissions from its power stations.

Emissions that can come from other forms of electricity generation were not mentioned at the British-Irish Council meeting. However, they are relevant to the question asked by the Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment about sustainable development. We must have a twin approach - protecting the environment while ensuring that the economy prospers. Other emissions, such as car exhausts, for example, must be borne in mind at the appropriate forums.

North/South Ministerial Council: 
Tourism

TOP

Mr Deputy Speaker:

I have received notice from the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment that he wishes to make a statement on the North/South Ministerial Council meeting in its tourism sectoral format held on 22 February 2002 in County Fermanagh. I remind Members who wish to ask questions of the Minister of the Speaker's ruling - it is expected that such Members be present in the Chamber for the Minister's statement as a matter of courtesy.

The fifth meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in tourism sectoral format took place in Killadeas, County Fermanagh, on Friday 22 February 2002.

Following nomination by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, Ms Bairbre de Brún and I represented the Northern Ireland Administration. The Irish Government were represented by Dr James McDaid TD, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation. This report has been approved by Ms de Brún and is also made on her behalf.

Mr Andrew Coppel, chairperson of Tourism Ireland Ltd, presented a progress report on developments since the last Council meeting in this sector. Mr Coppel reported that, in addition to the launch of the 2002 marketing programme in Dublin and Belfast on 7 November 2001, launches took place in London, New York and Toronto, and further launches are planned for Germany and France. Campaigns are now under way in key target markets.

The chairperson also reported that it is hoped that Tourism Ireland Ltd will occupy its new headquarters premises in Bishop's Square, Dublin by June 2002 and that the office in Coleraine will be occupied by October 2002. Temporary premises are in operation in Dublin and Coleraine.

The company intends to expand its tourism marketing partnership arrangements to include a broader participation by industry in Northern Ireland and in the South. Market industry consultative groups are also to be formally established in each main market. Those arrangements will be a vital input into the work of Tourism Ireland Ltd and will help a participative approach with the industry. The Council welcomed Mr Coppel's report and commended the progress made since November.

The chief executive of Tourism Ireland Ltd, Mr Paul O'Toole, gave the Council a formal presentation on the company's corporate plan for 2002 to 2004 and its operating plan for 2002.

The company's corporate plan states that its two key goals are to increase tourism to the island of Ireland and to support Northern Ireland to realise its tourism potential. The principles underlying those goals will be to reach out to consumers in the international marketplace and to encourage business linkages between the tourist industry and the travel trade in target markets. The corporate plan anticipates 5% compound growth in tourism to the island of Ireland, with 8% compound growth for Northern Ireland for each of the three years 2002, 2003 and 2004.

The company's operating plan for 2002 is aimed at ensuring that Tourism Ireland Ltd delivers on its mandate. Mr O'Toole acknowledged that 2002 would be a challenging year. Consequently, the company's efforts during the year will be focused on three main areas of activity: securing business through implementing ambitious, innovative marketing programmes; establishing the necessary marketing capabilities and communications infrastructure to take the company forward in a new and dynamic environment; and building and motivating a team of tourism professionals to work with industry partners.

A major component of the 2002 plan is to develop better performance measures for the tourism sector and the company.

The Council approved the company's corporate plan and proposed marketing activities in 2002. The Council also confirmed its wish to see Tourism Ireland Ltd play a leading role in the development of the tourism industry on the island of Ireland, and it restated the importance of the industry to economic growth in both parts of the island.

The Council agreed that its next meeting in tourism sectoral format would take place in May 2002.

I thank the Minister for his statement. He outlined that the projected growth through the corporate plan would be 8% compound growth for Northern Ireland for each of the years 2002, 2003 and 2004. Those targets are commendable, and I hope that they will be achieved.

What are the likely implications for the growth in employment in tourism in Northern Ireland? Hitherto, our sector has been smaller than might be expected, and growth in employment would be desirable.

The Member is correct that those are commendable targets, and I will give a flavour of what the figures mean. Approximately 1·3 million people visit Northern Ireland annually from outside the island. When Tourism Ireland Ltd was established, specific reference was made in the December 1998 statement that the company would have to pay particular attention to Northern Ireland's needs, bearing in mind the problems of the last 30 years. Consequently, although the overall target for growth in visitor numbers is 5%, there is a specific target for Northern Ireland because extra emphasis will have to be put there, given that we have further to catch up.

On growth over the three-year period of the plan, the 8% compound growth in visitors coming from outside the island to Northern Ireland would mean approximately 300,000 additional visitors. Given that our contribution to gross domestic product (GDP) from tourism is approximately 2%, compared with between 6% and 7% in both the Republic and Scotland, it is clear that we have a huge mountain to climb.

I do not have figures at hand that indicate how that will project into numbers of people employed. However, it is clear that, with respect to the numbers of additional visitors to the island coming to Northern Ireland, we are looking at an increase of one quarter on our current position. That does not mean that 25% more people will be employed. There is still a great deal of slack to be taken up in the sector. I shall be happy to write to the Member to give him our economists' assessment of the likely impact.

I welcome the Minister's statement and the fact that we are slowly but steadily getting the tourism industry moving. That is something that many of us have hoped for. I trust that that hope and confidence is well placed. The words in the Minister's statement that particularly excited me were:

Will the Minister expand on that? It strikes me that a great deal of training and organisation will be required. It is not just about the young person providing refreshments or a meal in a bar or restaurant. All too often, tourists tell me that our providers at the microlevel are thinking only of what they can get out of the tourists, rather than how they can serve the tourists and bring them back. Training and motivation is, therefore, very important. The Assembly must look at that as a long-term investment. We have to condition our players, from the top to the bottom of the Northern Ireland tourism industry, to think about developing repeat business. That is something that we will come back to on a regular basis.

That was indeed a significant part of the statement. The quality of the product that we offer to visitors is directly related to the motivation of the team who deliver that service. I have attended all of these meetings alongside the Minister for Employment and Learning. That Department, in conjunction with CERT, the Republic's tourism training agency, has been developing programmes specifically aimed at owner-providers, who find it difficult to find the time to receive training. That programme has been running for 18 months and has been very well subscribed.

Two things have to take place. A partnership has to be built with the industry. There is no point in having the marketing structure provided by Tourism Ireland Ltd with nothing else happening. The product as a whole has to be improved so that there is something to market. We all accept that there have been shortcomings, and we understand why. Those who have been brave enough to invest in facilities have been let down by the unfortunate arrival of foot-and-mouth disease last year and also by the continuing background noise of civil disturbance. That has greatly affected the industry and left it at one third of its capacity. I have often made that point in the House.

I assure the Member that tourism, through its wider involvement with Tourism Ireland Ltd, is conscious that it must embark on a quality management scheme throughout the industry. People have higher expectations in the challenging markets that lie ahead. They are no longer prepared to accept substandard services and facilities, and we are conscious of that. I assure the Member that it is one of the guiding principles that is focusing the minds of Tourism Ireland Ltd as we move forward with marketing.

Before I come to the question relating to consultative groups, the participative approach to the industry, the securing of business through marketing programmes and the infrastructure, I thank the Minister for last week bringing to Omagh the new advanced factory, for the occupants that will take it up and for the prospect of 200 jobs in west Tyrone.

With regard to the Minister's statement, what is available for the farming community in west Tyrone by way of diversification into the tourism industry? There may be another blow to west Tyrone, so how will that community be involved? The Nestlé factory employs about 200 people and buys milk from many farmers. The milk industry is in depression and is under threat of possible rationalisation. I know that this may not be the Minister's direct responsibility - [Interruption].

I see the Minister smiling. Like me, he is probably wondering where the question is.

What help can now be offered by way of diversification to farmers who are suppliers, and to workers in that industry, by way of the possibility of cross-border tourist trade?

The Member gets nine out of 10 for ingenuity in that question. With regard to the Nestlé factory, enquiries are currently in hand on that. Rural tourism was not part of the agenda for the North/South Ministerial Council on this occasion. It is a matter in which my Colleague in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, myself and others have a keen interest, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I think that you will have to concede that that is possibly a question for another day.

I noticed that the questioner was smiling, I was smiling, and the Minister was smiling, so perhaps it was not the occasion for an argument.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Cuirim fáilte roimh ráiteas an Aire. I welcome the fact that the meeting took place in Fermanagh towards the end of February. Last year tourism in Ireland was severely damaged by foot-and-mouth disease. This year it appears that tourism in Ireland will be affected by foot-in-mouth. Can the Minister comment on the potential damage caused to tourism in Ireland, North and South, by the remarks of his party leader in describing the rest of Ireland as a "pathetic, sectarian, mono-cultural and mono-ethnic state"? Last year it was foot-and-mouth disease, but this year it appears that foot-in-mouth will have devastating consequences for tourism in Ireland.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you are aware that again that is not a relevant question, but the Member may reflect that if he and his colleagues stick up posters around the countryside trying to intimidate young Catholics from joining the Police Service, that might also have an impact on tourism.

Before I call Mr McMenamin, I have to say that my patience is now exhausted with this type of questioning. I will not accept it.

I welcome the Minister's statement. I also welcome the setting up of a team of tourism professionals with industry partners. However, does the Minister agree that it is vital that businesses throughout Ireland be euro-friendly in order to facilitate visitors coming from the South and from Europe?

Like it is with everything else, the tourism sector is at the front line. Through the Northern Ireland Euro Preparations Forum, my Department has been working, and continues to work, to ensure that this and other industries make appropriate provisions to handle currency from wherever it comes. The hospitality sector is probably at a more advanced stage in its involvement with the euro than is any other business. I have not received any complaints that visitors are having difficulty. However, if Members are aware of any, I am happy to be advised so that we can take whatever steps are necessary. Much travel to Northern Ireland, or to any destination, is booked in advance in the currency of the country from which the person departs. Therefore, we are talking about ordinary spending money. The availability of bureaux de change in Northern Ireland, and at our airports, is the same as everywhere else. The evidence I have at my disposal is that the tourism sector is further advanced than any other. However, if Members have contrary information, I am willing to take it up with the concerned facilities.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. A Member mentioned earlier the 8% compound growth for the years 2002-04. How was that figure arrived at, given that the North of Ireland closes down for a substantial period at the height of the tourist season in July, and given the increased sectarian tensions and attacks that are associated with Orange marches? Have those factors been taken into account when arriving at the figure of 8%?

A target is a target, and, like all targets, it is the best estimate that the professionals in Tourism Ireland Ltd could come up with. Tourism Ireland Ltd has set itself what it believes is an achievable target. Our industry is only one third of the size that it should be, which is a direct result of the community's being in turmoil for 30 years. It is the only significant reason that I can think of for our current predicament. I have made it clear on several occasions that if the community continues to behave in the way that it does from time to time, especially in the summer months, that will continue to have a negative impact. However, the problem did not begin yesterday; it goes back decades, and we must deal with that legacy. That is why so much effort must go into marketing.

The figure of 8% was based on several factors. First, Tourism Ireland Ltd has a specific remit to do more to help Northern Ireland because of its background, and that was contained in the December 1998 statement to which I referred earlier. Secondly, it must look at where we are now. Although figures for the current year are not yet complete, it is obvious that we shall have slipped back in the previous year because of foot-and-mouth disease, September 11, et cetera. Tourism Ireland Ltd has tried to set a goal for the industry that is based both on the huge increase that there will be in marketing spend and on the fact that the marketing spend is being targeted at areas in which greater potential for growth exists. It must give the industry something to aim for. That situation is subject to change as a result of repercussions from external events. However, Tourism Ireland Ltd drew a balance between what it would like to see and what it felt was achievable. That is its professional judgement at present. I cannot second-guess that judgement, and I am prepared to accept the target, work towards it and hope that it will be exceeded. However, as the Member will be aware, that depends on events.

I welcome the Minister's statement and congratulate him and his Department on the work and progress that they have made. I am, however, concerned about the wording of the Minister's statement. He said:

Does the Minister mean that there is an identified need to introduce a better balance between Northern Ireland and the South, and can he give some details about the market industry consultative groups and how they are to be established?

That reference relates to a balance within the industry. When the board was formed there was a belief that not all sectors were represented at the level and to the extent that they should have been. At that time, Dr McDaid and I received a significant amount of correspondence, which expressed concern that some of the smaller businesses were not involved. When forming the board we had to make a judgement. It was its first time out, and, because it was to be focused on international marketing, it had a changed management role. We took the view that a person with change management skills was needed to help a significant business get started and established. We recognised that, to be totally representative, the board would have to be larger than the present board, and our view is that that would be unmanageable.

As a whole, the sector has a number of component parts, all of them important. It was decided that, to move away from having only the big battalions represented, people would have to be involved and participate at a different level. There are so many different sectors; for example, we have the regional tourism organisations (RTOs) in Northern Ireland. They are critical groups. In the Republic, Dr McDaid has an advisory group feeding information to him and his Department and Bord Fáilte. We need to develop the sector by involving those who participate in it, so that they have feedback into the marketing campaign and all sorts of activities.

We were trying to achieve a better balance with the industry - not a better balance North/South, but a balance within the sector. That means greater participation and involvement by the small as well as the large businesses. We were conscious that the initial board suffered from the fact that some of the smaller sector people felt that they were not getting a fair share, so we are attempting to deal with that perception by involving more people, and in doing that, we hope that people will feel part of the policies and campaigns that are being implemented. There is no point in having a marketing campaign if the product is not there to match it.

The Minister is aware that we will be welcoming him as a tourist to Kilkeel on Friday. However, unlike Mr Gibson, I am not going to use that as a hook on which to hang a question totally unrelated to his statement.

The Minister is aware that the use of the Tourist Board's overseas marketing budget has been shrouded in controversy recently, and corporate hospitality has come under the microscope. Is he convinced that the necessary budgetary controls are in place for Tourism Ireland to ensure that this is never raised again, bringing tourism here and in the Irish Republic into controversy?

I am sure the Member does not wish to mix controversy with reality. One side of the argument has been put, but because of protocol and the procedures of the Public Accounts Committee, the other side has not. The Member must wait until May to have that question answered.

With regard to the substantive point, while it was not part of the business of the North/South Ministerial Council in February, I can advise the Member that the board and the North/South Ministerial Council are conscious of their responsibilities. Both the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Department of Finance in the Republic are involved directly. The Northern Ireland Audit Office is the auditor of Tourism Ireland Ltd. Both Finance Departments are clear that normal financial accountability features will apply - Tourism Ireland Ltd will be subject to the same standards as we apply to any public body in Northern Ireland. Therefore the Member can be assured that accountability for money will remain clear to the House, via the Minister of Finance and Personnel and me.

Tourism Ireland Ltd has internal procedures, which will be always subject to review. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment has set out a code of practice, copies of which are available in the Assembly Library. At a previous NSMC meeting - when the company was set up - it was agreed that that code of practice would establish the necessary protocols.

I thank the Minister for his valuable statement.

In the context of the February monitoring round, which was announced today by the Minister for Finance and Personnel, was there a reason for the £2 million underspend by Tourism Ireland Ltd last year?

Can the Minister give us details on the additional funding allocation of £1 million that was made to the Northern Ireland Tourist Board's foot-and-mouth disease tourism recovery strategy in the February monitoring round?

I will deal with the latter point first. After the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak last February the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment moved as quickly as possible to introduce measures to salvage what was left of last year's tourism season. Last spring my Department conducted a rigorous marketing campaign through the Tourist Board, which cost around £1 million. That was part of the recovery programme that the Executive launched at that time, alongside the scheme to compensate people for loss of revenue. It was designed to get throughput into local businesses. It was widely welcomed by the industry and made a significant contribution.

There is no problem regarding the underspend. The time that it took to set up the compensation body, to acquire premises and to employ staff was such that the personnel were not in place. There were also difficulties with trade unions, particularly in the Republic, regarding the transfer of employees from Bord Fáilte to Tourism Ireland Ltd. The establishment of premises was delayed. The combination of those events meant that the budget was not spent.

This year's budget is the first that the Department will spend primarily on marketing. It will be its first season out. Last year, the company was not sufficiently advanced to spend its budget. There was a protracted labour dispute, which is now resolved. Consequently, it was decided that the money would be returned to the Executive at the earliest opportunity - so that it could be reallocated to the benefit of other Departments - rather than at the end of the year when that opportunity would have been lost. I am sure that the Member approves of that procedure.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>