Mr. Nolan: I commend the Minister for bringing forward this Bill. It is another step in the continuing development of local government since its establishment in 1898. We celebrated the centenary of local government two years ago. Much has changed in that time and particularly in the last ten or 15 years. It is not possible for any individual to satisfactorily carry out both the role of national representative and local authority member and if there was nothing else in this Bill, the Minister has done something in that regard.

The Bill has not been popular within certain sections of both Houses of the Oireachtas but I am a supporter of the abolition of the dual mandate. Oireachtas Members will suffer a little because we will not also be local authority members but if proper access and structures are put in place by the Minister to ensure access for us on an ongoing basis to local authorities and their various departments, some of the effect of the legislation could be diluted.

I have been a member of local authorities since 1974 and I have seen significant changes. Individuals who were members of county councils at the time of the abolition of house rates in 1977 say they saw a serious decrease in the effectiveness of their role as county councillors following that abolition. I was not a county council member at that stage.

I congratulate the Minister for his proposal to set up a process to examine the area of local authority funding. Unless county councils and local authorities are given the right to raise finance they will not be as effective in the area of spending. It is like the old cliché which says that anything that comes handy is given away too handy. Currently 95% of local authority funding comes from central government and a large proportion of that is already earmarked by central government and the Department of the Environment and Local Government before it reaches local authorities.

I do not see any difficulty in the proposal for the changing of previous legislation for the direct election of mayors. We in this House elect our own Taoiseach and Ceann Comhairle. I do not think this proposal will make any great change because town councils will continue to elect their cathaoirleach or mayor as the case may be.

The Bill is another step in the process of improving local government. While its main effect will be to end the dual mandate and amend the previous legislation for directly-elected mayors, it is an opportunity for the Minister to examine some of the shortcomings that exist in local government. It is important to separate the role of local government and the national Parliament. Every fair-minded Member of this House will acknowledge that it is becoming more difficult to carry out the role of local authority member and also be an effective Member of these Houses.

Like Deputy Curran I have found that my effectiveness as a local authority member has not been as great as I would like it to be. When I step down as a local authority member and somebody else takes my seat, his or her commitment and resolve and ability to work for the people in Carlow will be far greater than mine because I must spend a greater amount of time in Dublin.

The ending of the dual mandate has been supported by a broad range of interests over many years. As far back as 1990, the Barrington report stated that the joint membership between local government and national Parliament should cease. Representative organisations such as the General Council of County Councils have lobbied over the years for the abolition of the dual mandate and organisations such as the Chambers of Commerce of Ireland and the National Youth Council of Ireland have also supported this decision.

The Council for the Status of Women has stated that the ending of the dual mandate would open up greater opportunities for women to enter local politics and, through that, to national politics. At present, less than 17% of local authority members are women. This Bill is another step on the road to improving local democracy.

The Local Government Act 1999, debarred Ministers of State from becoming members of local authorities. The Local Government Act 1994 disqualified the Ceann Comhairle of the Dáil and Cathaoirleach of the Seanad from membership of local authorities and debarred Members of the Oireachtas from becoming chair or vice-chair of local authorities after the 1999 local elections. In that regard I do not see any merit in the case which Deputy Ring is proposing to take to the Supreme Court to test the constitutionality of this Bill. I am sure the Minister had checked out that possibility well before he brought this legislation to the Houses of the Oireachtas.

In the White Paper entitled Better Local Government, published in 1996, it was recommended that further actions should be taken regarding membership of local authorities post the 1999 elections. It is also worthy of note that the ending of the dual mandate is supported by all the major political parties in this House. In the previous Dáil the Opposition parties supported this aspect and I presume they will be consistent and support the Minister in this case also.

It is becoming increasingly difficult for Members of the Oireachtas to remain efficient members of a local authority when one considers the number of committees and sub-committees that now form part of local council structures. The number of committees of which councillors are now obliged to be members has increased substantially over the past ten years. There are now additional groups such as county enterprise boards, Leader groups, local partnerships, county development boards and special policy committees. There are local voluntary groups of which county councillors are expected to be a part.

Local government in Ireland celebrated its centenary in 1998 and has played a pivotal role in the development of Irish society. I would like to see this role enhanced and improved and this Bill is another step on the way. The Minister has a genuine and sincere commitment to local government and I know this will not be the end of the legislative process which he wants to put in place to ensure strong, vibrant local government.

Mr. S. Ryan: I wish to share my time with Deputy Shortall. This month is the anniversary of my 20 years on the local authority. I was initially co-opted onto Dublin County Council in 1983. Over that period I have derived immense satisfaction and experience from carrying out my duties over such a diverse range of areas. Apart altogether from providing a service to my constituents, which I always regarded as my priority, the county council was a great training ground for me.

Mr. Allen: On a point or order, the Fianna Fáil Deputies were most vociferous outside the House regarding this Bill and there is not one of them present. I ask for a quorum to be called.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

Mr. S. Ryan: As I stated before we were interrupted, apart from providing a service to my constituents, which I always believed was my first priority, the county council was a great training ground for people aspiring to higher public office, whether as a Senator or TD. I can honestly say that without my experience and exposure to local authority work I would not have been elected to Dáil Éireann. The same goes for the vast majority of Members in this House. Having said that, I have no great difficulty with the ending of the dual mandate. The reality is that increased demands on Members of the Oireachtas, both in terms of deputations, committee work and scrutiny of European legislation, which will be an ever-increasing requirement in the future, will make simultaneous membership unrealistic.

The ending of the dual mandate is the main measure in the Bill. The other significant element is the discontinuance of arrangements already enacted in the Local Government Act 2001 for the introduction of directly elected mayors or cathaoirligh of local authorities throughout the country. What is the reason for this about turn? When the Local Government Act 2001 was passed, which provided for the direct elections, Fianna Fáil were considerably higher in the opinions polls. They could do nothing wrong. The Taoiseach was perceived to be able to walk on water. Fianna Fáil believed its nominees throughout the country could be elected mayor or cathaoirleach in virtually every local authority. That situation has changed, and changed drastically. This is the reason Fianna Fáil has changed its policy on directly elected mayors or cathaoirligh. It is no wonder people are cynical about politics and politicians, particularly as the previous Minister took such great pride in putting forward the benefits to be gained from directly electing mayors.

When the 2002 Act was originally introduced it was argued that the provisions for direct elections was necessary to strengthen the elected side of local government in light of the discussions to end the dual mandate. Now the dual mandate is going and the counter balancing measure is also being scrapped. From my experience, I can confidently say that arising from this further broken promise by the Government, county managers throughout the country will now be literally able to do what they like. Whether we like to admit it or not, by and large, it was the Oireachtas Members who were prepared to stand up to county managers and ask them to be accountable for their actions.

Mr. Cassidy: Hear, hear.

Mr. S. Ryan: I hope the new generation of councillors who will come on stream arising from the co-options and local elections next year will be prepared to put in place the structures to ensure that everyone who is interested in public life will be able to go forward for elections from a level playing pitch. When I was a member of the county council I was not allowed time off to fulfil that duty. I had to try to slip out when my superior officer was not looking. I had to get some of my colleagues to cover for me so that I could slip down to the local authority to work on behalf of my constituents. That is the type of system that allows bureaucrats to look down their noses at elected members of local authorities. Major changes must take place in this regard. We must acknowledge the role and significance of local authorities but we must also give them the power and responsibility to enforce legislation at local level.

Up to 70% of my work load was related to the local authority and, when not on the council, a substantial amount of this work will continue. Accordingly, it is essential, if Oireachtas Members are to discharge their duties as public representatives, that they are entitled to full information about the activities of local authorities. The Bill enables the Minister to issue guidelines as to the manner in which local authorities will conduct their dealings with Oireachtas Members. This is not sufficient. I am calling on the Minister to publish these guidelines prior to Committee Stage of the Bill. I would have thought the Minister would have outlined the guidelines in his Second Stage speech so that we would be able to critically analyse them to see whether they go far enough to ensure the people we represent will get a fair hearing. The guidelines should be available for Committee Stage so that we will know the position and be able to table amendments. The guidelines should be given statutory effect.

Mr. Cullen: They will.

Mr. S. Ryan: I am not suggesting that Members of the Oireachtas should take on the responsibilities of local councillors. However, major issues are developing on a daily or weekly basis that would be of interest to local TDs and public representatives. There should be a facility to allow Members of the Oireachtas to sit in at council or area committee meetings if they choose to do so. There could be a very important issue which would require the attendance of a TD or Senator. If a TD currently wants to see what is happening he must sit in the Public Gallery with the general public. A designated area should be allocated to Oireachtas Members other than the Public Gallery.

The Minister, Deputy Cullen, stated that the Bill should be viewed as another step in the process of local government reform which has been moving progressively forward over a number of years. As I stated earlier, the Bill provides for the rowing back on legislation enacted in the 2001 Act. The reality is that the Government is not prepared to delegate responsibility for decision-making to any meaningful effect to local authorities. We have by far the most centrally controlled form of local government in the EU, and it is getting worse, notwithstanding the hype the Minister might wish to put out.

The past six years of Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats rule have witnessed the serious undermining and erosion of local government. Significant powers have been shifted from democratically elected local authorities to managers and national authorities. This is a retrograde step. We must look to the reform of local government in the future. We must also look at the SPCs, which are an utter disaster. Local community-based representatives are losing enthusiasm in this area and we must look at the reasons for this.

While I look at this Bill as a step in the development of local government, structures must be put in place at local and national level to ensure councillors can carry out their work properly. Given the enhanced legislation that is required of this House, we must be given the back-up to do this. How can we be expected to analyse legislation emanating from Europe when a Deputy, secretary and assistant has to carry out the work? It is about time the Government looked at the services it is providing to elected members at local level and the Oireachtas. What is being provided at the moment is an utter scandal and it is about time the Government acknowledged the role of the elected Member.

Ms Shortall: I thank Deputy Sean Ryan for sharing time with me. The Labour Party opposes this Bill because it believes it is a sham masquerading as local government reform. I do not oppose this Bill along the same lines as backbench Government Deputies that fear the ending of the dual mandate; I oppose this as I believe it will lead to weaker local government. It has been accepted for the past 25 years that local government is ineffective and lacks real teeth. While the Government seeks to end the dual mandate as a means of reforming local government, it will do nothing of the kind. Local government is powerless. Government in this country is centralised to a greater degree than in any other European country. There are no local powers in education, transport or health, services that should be dealt with at local level. While all those powers are centralised and we have a managerial system at local government level, local government will continue to be a joke. Local government is currently on its knees.

We must admit that the people who carry local government at public representative level are, by and large, Deputies and Senators. They are doing this because they are full-time politicians and can pursue the city or county manager on issues that affect their areas. They have the time to do this and get around the obfuscation and evasiveness of many local government officials that give meaningless replies and sometimes refuse to answer questions. Most councillors, particularly those that are councillors only, simply do not have the time to pursue management on issues of accountability. Managers know that the vast majority of councillors do not have the time to pursue them and they can get away with obfuscation and a lack of accountability.

Who is in a position to stand for election to local government when one bears in mind the considerable time, financial and personal demands this places on individuals? What person in a normal job can take off three hours on a Monday morning to attend an SPC or take an entire Thursday afternoon off to attend a local area committee meeting? It is not possible to do this if one is trying to hold down a normal job. We are increasingly seeing that those who stand in council elections are retired, working part-time or not working at all. I am not sure that it is desirable that we continue to build a framework for local government on people that can only give a part-time commitment. All parties came across this in the last local elections in 1999 when looking among their members for people that would make good candidates. Most able people in decent jobs, the kind of people we should be trying to attract to local government, do not have the time to do the job. Why would they do it? It is a blooming thankless job. The hours are dreadful; one can expect calls at all hours of the day and is required to attend four of five meetings in one's constituency each week. What regular person has the time to devote to this?

We need to move far beyond the current position and introduce decent local government reform. There are too many councillors and too many local authorities for this small country. Why can we not operate with five or six decent-sized councils covering the country? There should also be a second tier at town level so that major areas of population have urban district councils to deal with local matters. This would be a starting point. We need large-scale structural reform to reduce the number of councillors and make the position full-time. It is an interesting and important area. The job of councillor is full-time in practically every other European country. It should be possible to make a living and career as a councillor, particularly if we reduce the number of councillors. Why not make it a full-time job and allow people to devote time to working in local government instead of having the mishmash we currently have? If the Government continues with this Bill, it will severely weaken local government because of the calibre of people available to be councillors.

There is an urgent need to reform the areas of responsibility of local government. I am a member of 11 other bodies within my constituency. I am a member of two drugs task forces, two area partnerships, a RAPID implementation committee, an education task force, two community development projects and a number of other groups, task forces and committees. There is a plethora of such organisations and it is difficult to keep track of them. We have such groups because of the weakness of local government. All of the issues dealt with by these bodies, ranging from education to drugs and community development, should come under proper local government. Some people would call these groups quangos and I know there is much concern abut the lack of accountability for the large range of different community groups, task forces and State agencies that have been established in recent years. It is impossible to keep track of them. Local government officials, health board officials and gardaí are increasingly spending their time attending meetings of these bodies, all of which hold monthly meetings. In my case, I have 11 additional monthly meetings to keep track of the community development area, something that should properly be under the remit of local government.

There is a huge lack of representation for the public in the Dublin area. In the case of my constituency, Dublin North-West, there are seven councillors representing that constituency. In practically every other county outside of Dublin, each constituency has a county council or a city council. In Dublin we do not have such a structure. If we are serious about local government reform we have to look at representation, and at how we can attract high-calibre people to make it a full-time job, reduce the numbers but let us not pretend this will bring about reform. It will do nothing of the kind.

Ms Fox: I wish to share time with Deputies Blaney and Healy-Rae.

Acting Chairman (Dr. Cowley): Is that agreed? Agreed.

Ms Fox: I thank the Government for allowing me time to speak on this Bill despite the fact that I will not be supporting it. I am sorry the Minister will not be present for my contribution.

Mr. Allen: The Government Deputies are not present, not to mention the Minister.

Mr. Gallagher: Deputies opposite have short memories.

Ms Fox: I object to this Bill and the Government's intention to abolish the dual mandate on a couple of grounds. First and foremost it takes away my right to stand for election. It takes away the right of the voters to democratically elect me or reject me, as they see fit, or any other Member of the Oireachtas as a representative of their local community. It limits their choice of candidates, it discriminates against me, because of my job, and it implies that I am not a suitable person to represent my local community in a particular local forum.

In the 20th amendment to the Constitution the people passed an amendment dealing with local government. Article 28A of the Constitution states:

The State recognises the role of local government in providing a forum for the democratic representation of local communities, in exercising and performing at local level powers and functions conferred by law and in promoting by its initiatives the interests of such communities.

At the time this amendment was passed, the democratic representation of local communities on local authorities clearly included Oireachtas Members. This Bill, if passed, will redefine the term "democratic representation", mentioned in Article 28A of the Constitution. It is no longer the concept that the people passed when voting on that referendum, if this Bill is passed.

This Bill limits the democratic representation of local communities on local authorities compared to what now exists. Time after time Oireachtas Members have been returned as local authority members by the public to represent them. If the dual mandate system is so bad why do the people re-elect us? I believe the decision should be left with the people. This Bill tells me as an Oireachtas Member that I should have no role in the promotion of initiatives and interests of my local community at county council level and I object to that.

The Minister has proposed a number of measures to ensure Oireachtas Members will enjoy access to the local authority, after the abolition of the dual mandate. As far as I am concerned these measures are of no help. At present Oireachtas Members who are not members of county councils have a certain degree of access to the county council, but this does not come close to substituting as a member of a local authority.

My constituency includes Wicklow and east Carlow. Therefore, I have dealings with both Wicklow County Council, of which I am a member, and Carlow County Council, of which I am not a member. With all due respect to Carlow County Council, there is no comparison between my relationship with it and with Wicklow County Council. As a Member of the Oireachtas I am obviously entitled to make representations to Carlow County Council, but unfortunately this is and will continue to be a glorified pen pushing operation, similar to the measures being proposed by the Minister. There is no substitute for being a member of the local authority. No proposal will replace the ability to raise, and to vote on, local issues.

The subject of the dual mandate has had its fair share of debate during the past two years. Just over two years ago the Local Government Act was passed and during that period the dual mandate section of the Bill was controversially dropped. As one of the Independents who then supported the minority Government I voiced my opposition to the Taoiseach at that time as to why I felt the abolition of the dual mandate was wrong. As a result the measure was dropped only to re-emerge now.

The debate at that time centred on the fact that somehow the local government system is creaking because it is full of Oireachtas Members. My local authority meets on average six hours per month, less time per week than "Coronation Street". I would like to know how the banning of Oireachtas Members from participating in six hours of debate every month will reform local government? It will not reform local government.

The idea of reforming the Dáil has also been suggested. I support that suggestion. We should reform the Dáil, sit for more days per week, sit for longer sessions, take a shorter summer recess and then, and only then, could we point the finger at the dual mandate and tackle it, at that stage, if it needs tackling.

I have also heard charges that Oireachtas Members are double jobbing. Almost every member of a local authority is double jobbing. Most local authority members are employed in other sectors. Surely that is the purpose of serving local people and being in touch with people. Different employment sectors bring diversity to local government and highlight the needs of local people whom we work alongside in our daily lives. Otherwise, we simply become a forum of civil servants who dictate to the people who elect us.

As a citizen of this State it is my fundamental and personal right under Article 40 of the Constitution to be held equal before the law. If this Bill is passed, I am unequal. I can be a doctor, solicitor, teacher, farmer or unemployed person and run for my local authority, but God forbid that I should be a Member of the Oireachtas. I am asking that the Government request the President to test the constitutionality of this Bill, as I believe my constitutional rights are being affected.

Nobody has given me a credible reason as to why I am unsuitable to serve as a county councillor. I was elected in 1999 to represent my local community because the public deemed me the best person for the job. I am willing to go forward again for election as an Independent and as a young woman but I am being denied this right.

Most of the main political parties have said they are opposed to the dual mandate and they are entitled to hold that view. I put it to them that if they feel the system is inappropriate why wait to be forced off the county councils? Why not lead by example and make it a party policy to refuse to run sitting Oireachtas Members in the 2004 elections? Why not have the courage of their convictions and make a cross-party agreement, if that is how they feel? They should not force smaller parties and Independents to do likewise.

I am proud to be a member of my local authority and I am also proud to be a Member of the Dáil. People in Ireland are lucky in that they enjoy access to their national politicians. That is not the case in most other countries where politicians and representatives are surrounded by handlers and minders of all kinds. If this Bill is passed, we are changing yet another way of life in Ireland. While the outcome of the Bill in this House is obvious, I hope on another day, in another forum, it will be thrown out.

Ms Shortall: On a point of order, Government backbenchers had much to say about this measure outside this House. The least they can do is be in the Chamber while we are debating the Bill. I call for a quorum.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

Mr. Healy-Rae: I have served as a member of Kerry County Council for 30 years and a few months. I am now nearing completion of the first year of my second term as a TD for my constituency in south and south-west Kerry. I have worked tirelessly for my constituency as a councillor and TD. I do not consider this to be double-jobbing. I consider it a way to serve my constituents to the very best of my ability. If I could not represent my constituency at local level I would lose touch with the people. The end of the dual mandate is unconstitutional. As I said on Kerry Radio, I agree with Deputy Ring that this Bill must and will be challenged. I could be a doctor and a TD, a barrister and a TD, but I cannot be a county councillor and a TD. This is absolutely unbelievable.

The implementation of the Local Government Bill 2003 and the ending of the dual mandate is not in the public interest. Power and authority should not be taken out of the hands of the people, but this is what will happen if the dual mandate is ended. This system has been in place for more than 80 years and has served the nation well. How can we serve the people, as we were elected to do, if we are unable to serve on local authorities. It is ridiculous that Members of the Oireachtas will be cut off from their local authority. This Bill does not state adequately how I as a Member of the Oireachtas will be able to continue to represent my constituents on local matters if the dual mandate is abolished.

Instead of weakening local authorities, the Government should strengthen them. At present TDs are not paid as county councillors. Does the Government realise the effect the ending of the dual mandate will have on the Exchequer in this era of financial cuts in every Department? This does not make economic sense when cuts are being made in the health service and people have to be treated on trolleys because of the shortage of hospital beds, when third level students must worry about the shortage of accommodation when they should be putting their minds to their studies instead. If the Minister for Education and Science reintroduces third level education fees, this finance would be put to good use to help the farming community and fishermen who are currently going through a terrible time. It could be used to provide better treatment for cancer patients, some of whom are currently receiving treatment one might expect in some Third World countries and some of whom must travel great distances to receive treatment that lasts only ten minutes instead of having facilities nearer to home.

I would like the backbenchers who are missing from their seats to keep foremost in their minds, now that it is proposed to abolish the dual mandate, that the four Independents served the last Government for five solid years. I am glad the Minister is in the Chamber because I want to tell him that the record will show that we never missed a single vote in this House to keep that Government in place during that five years. I further say that at that time we got a firm commitment from the Taoiseach of the day that the question of abolishing the dual mandate had been put to sleep for good. For some unknown reason, whether it was to be better than the previous Minister, Deputy Dempsey, the current Minister has reintroduced it, despite the commitment that it would never again surface during our time in this House.

It is ironic that the Tánaiste, who tries to come across to the people as prudent with the public finances, wants to bring in this Bill which will, without a doubt, put a further burden on the public finances. It is my view that the Progressive Democrats feel so threatened by the Independents that they insisted on adding the question of the dual mandate to this Bill. I pose one question to them and to everybody in the House today: is this a case of the tail wagging the dog? Are the Tánaiste and her Progressive Democrats colleagues ready to face the people and justify further demands on the Exchequer as a result of the introduction of this Bill instead of solving issues such as the huge rise in the cost of motor and business insurance where jobs are being lost purely because of the huge increase in premiums?

It is a matter of trust. If the people do not want their TDs elected as local authority councillors they will not vote for them. Local elections are due to take place in 2004. Let the people decide by using their votes whether they want the dual mandate. Do not take away the rights of the people to have their say. What is the Government afraid of? Why not let the people decide? Does the Government think they are not intelligent enough to make a decision on such an important matter? Is it afraid to listen to the people? I have always listened to my constituents so that I can serve them to the best of my ability and I will fight for their right to decide on constitutional matters. I say trust the people, let them speak on this constitutional matter and let us not forget that we are all answerable to them. All the parties around me, Fine Gael, Labour, Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats, are now down on the Independents. They do not want us because they will have their backs to the wall at the next local election and at every general election. We stand on our record in this House. The four of us kept a famous Government, a better Government than the present one, on its feet for five years.

Mr. Blaney: I thank the Government for allowing me time to speak. I too am opposed to the Bill. I am extremely disappointed by its contents, particularly in relation to the abolition of the dual mandate. It is totally undemocratic and a direct hit at Independent Deputies, not to mention the loss to the local government system.

It is fairly well known why I am on this side of the House, but let me remind those who do not know. It is due mainly to the lies, cover up and conspiracy of the former Deputy O'Malley who would never have entered the doors of this House were it not for my late uncle who was then a member of the Fianna Fáil Party and got him elected on the day. Former Deputy O'Malley, together with the then Taoiseach, Jack Lynch, who had a fear of being disowned, collectively used the Arms Trial as a means of ejecting my late uncle, among others, from the Fianna Fáil organisation during the Troubles in the late 1960s and early 1970s. That is why I am an Independent and a member of an organisation known locally as Independent Fianna Fáil. While the organisation in Donegal has four members on Donegal County Council, I am not directly affected. However, I understand the plight of single Independent candidates who will have no links to the local authority when this legislation is passed and, as a result, will no longer be able to retain a Dáil seat.

Mr. Allen: I call a quorum. Given that so many Fianna Fáil members were so vociferous about this Bill on the plinth and said they had reservations about it and would oppose it, I cannot understand why they are not here. It is unprecedented in my 21 years here that the Government has surrendered speaking time to the Opposition. I am calling a quorum to bring them into the House.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, there are 20 Members present in the Chamber. This is time wasting. One of the newest Members is addressing the House. Members of long standing in the Houses of Parliament should have more respect. There is a quorum present.

1 o'clock

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

Mr. Blaney: We live in a supposedly democratic country. Where is the democracy in this Bill? If a candidate has the ability to represent his or her people on a local authority and in the Houses of the Oireachtas what right has the Government to take away this mandate?

When the four Independent Members who propped up the previous Government stated that the dual mandate should not be abolished but that those holding the dual mandate should get only one salary they were told that such a move was unconstitutional. The Government then did what the four Independent Deputies proposed, even though it was alleged to be unconstitutional. However, I do not have a problem with the present situation.

The abolition of the dual mandate will signal a very sad day for local government. We will be removing vast experience from every local authority. Having Oireachtas Members on county councils is a vital link and provides an inside track to what is available and how things can be achieved by each local authority. That inside track will no longer exist and instead we will have officialdom, dictatorship and a further undermining of the powers of politicians at local government level.

This is a direct hit at Independent Deputies and at the four Members who held up the outgoing Government from this side of the House. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider his motives and to leave this vital link with local authorities.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I would like to share my time with Deputies James Breen, Connolly and Cuffe.

Acting Chairman: Is that agreed? Agreed.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I fully support the ending of the dual mandate and I maintained that support in the last Dáil. On one rare occasion I was the sole representative of my political beliefs who walked through the division lobby in support of the Bill which, although emaciated, introduced the directly elected mayors and cathaoirligh of local authorities. That support represented the support of my party. We are now seeing the Government, yet again, doing a U-turn and rubbishing its own proposal.

Nevertheless, I welcome this further U-turn on the dual mandate. The Government has, once again, come a full 360 degrees on this issue. While the ending of the dual mandate returns from the dead the direct election of mayors and cathaoirligh of local authorities is now to get the chop. Only Fianna Fáil could deliver such a performance, in which party political expediency makes a mockery of democracy. With respect to the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, he is probably the best man to do it for them.

Mr. Durkan: He has been there and done that.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Indeed he has. To say that the legislation before us has had a checkered history would be a gross understatement. The former Minister's supposedly reforming Local Government Bill was long promised, from the start of the last Dáil in 1997, and only finally emerged in May 2000. It took more than a year before it was published and the Second Stage reached in June 2001. By then, the issue close to the Minister's heart, the ending of the dual mandate, had been shredded. This was not done, as the popular notion was promoted through the media, at the behest of the Independent supporters of the Government but by the Minister's own backbench colleagues. That is where the real pressure came from.

The hot potato of the ending of the dual mandate was dropped and the Local Government Act 2001 proceeded to bring in directly elected mayors and chairmen, which was a welcome proposition. I supported it but it failed to introduce any real reform of local government. Now this Bill turns the tables once more. We are re-introducing the ending of the dual mandate and the directly elected mayors and chairs are out. It is like Lanigan's Ball, he stepped in and I stepped out again, an incredible situation. Is there time for the Government to change its mind again before 2004? It would not surprise me.

I described the passage of the emasculated Bill on the last occasion as a legislative farce, the last act of which was the guillotine. The farce is back, however, for another short run in the Leinster House theatre. The dual mandate proposal is being restored and the direct election of mayors and chairs dumped and we all know why.

Mr. Cullen: It has the strong support of all parties.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: It is a political fix to suit those in Fianna Fáil who were unhappy with the ending of the dual mandate. They were infinitely more unhappy, however, with the introduction of directly elected mayors and chairs. It was a balancing act and the Minister has seized the moment.

Mr. Cullen: Carpe Diem is my family motto.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I refute a completely false statement that the Minister made in his speech. He said all political parties were against the direct elections and had lobbied him to that effect. With all respect, that is an absolute falsehood because I can state on behalf of Sinn Féin that I have supported and welcomed the direct election proposal.

Mr. Cullen: I said I had consulted major political parties.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: The Minister should check the record because he claimed in his contribution that all parties lobbied him. He should accept that I did not lobby him in that regard and my support for the continuation of directly elected mayors and cathaoirligh continues.

Mr. Cullen: I consulted the General Council of County Councils.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: The Minister's efforts seek to deflect attention from the shoddy deal within Fianna Fáil by misrepresenting the position of the other political parties.

Membership of a local authority and membership of the Oireachtas are onerous responsibilities. Elected members should devote their full attention to one or other of these tiers, thereby serving the real interest of the communities that return us. I support the ending of the dual mandate and regret that the Minister is incorporating the amendment to exclude the direct election of mayors and chairs before we even have the opportunity to exercise the scheme through the electoral process.

Mr. Cuffe: It is not often the Green Party is in agreement with both Sinn Féin and Fianna Fáil but on this occasion we are happy to welcome the Bill and state that it does not go far enough. We believe local government should be given strong powers and be invigorated by directly elected mayors who make decisions on behalf of the people.

Within months of our election as TDs, all Green Party Deputies resigned their local authority seats. We have led the way by example. It is not a bed of roses to lose that strong link to local authorities but it is the right thing to do and we are now free to concentrate on national issues. Our replacements on the local authorities are well equipped to take over and deliver on local issues at that level.

The Barrington report on the reform of local government in Ireland 23 years ago argued that the only real powers at national level should be those of foreign affairs and defence and that local government should be given strong powers in all areas to deliver local services in a clear and accountable way. I am saddened that in the 11 years I spent on a local authority we had neither the financial autonomy nor the power to engage with local issues. The abolition of local rates 25 years ago cut off the life blood of financial support and left local government weakened.

If we look abroad we can see how effective local government can be. I went to Aalborg in northern Denmark and met the local authority there. We met the chairs of the housing, health, education and policing committees. They have real power and responsibility and know their jobs. The chairs of the committees are paid, full-time employees who can deliver.

Deputy Shortall mentioned having to sit on a dozen quangos to get anything done. I am aware of that experience myself. I was on 16 sub-committees of Dublin City Council dealing with everything from crime task forces to health issues to local development. I was sick to the back teeth of that and I want to see local government strengthened and made accountable. I am saddened by the plethora of quangos that has sprung up over the past ten years dealing with everything from housing to drugs.

If the Government gives local government the power it will work. If we do not like those we elected, we can throw them out again. That is what I want to see - strong local government - and it saddens me that the Minister has taken out the reference to directly elected mayors.

If we look at Pascal Maragall in Barcelona and Rudolf Giuliani in New York, the lesson from both models is that strong local government works. In 1999 we celebrated 100 years of local government but what was there to celebrate? In recent years we have stripped it of the powers it should have. We should look at Europe and the United States to see how strong local government can deliver and be accountable. If we give it the power it will attract people with vision and ability who can deliver but who avoid the insipid version we have now.

Some Members complained about the strategic policy committees not working. Those have been the most dynamic bodies in local government in recent years but they must be made to work. There must be good chairs with agendas they can deliver on without getting bogged down about painting double yellow lines in Clontarf. We must put issues on the agenda and work on them. The SPCs could be made to deliver if we could get people of sufficient calibre to lead them.

Local government is an emaciated shadow of the system in other countries. It is toothless, powerless, impoverished and cannot deliver. Abolishing the dual mandate is a step in the right direction but we must move beyond that and give real power to local government. If we want to get more gardaí on the beat in a part of the city, we could put a few cent on to the rates or use financial accountability and autonomy to make it happen. Currently we cannot even move a bus stop without going to the Minister or his representative. Local government deserves better and should be given the opportunity to make decisions and deliver on them.

We should look at what Ken Livingstone is doing in London. He does not have much power but he is using the power he has effectively to introduce congestion charges. If we in Dublin were to introduce a congestion charge, we would have to go to 20 different agencies that deal with transportation, get the DTO's opinion, the Minister's opinion and wait 20 years for something to happen. The Minister should go further.

Mr. Cullen: I will do so.

Mr. Cuffe: He should strengthen local government financially and in terms of the powers available to it. I am disappointed he does not have the bottle to proceed with directly elected mayors, which would be a good thing. It would help to provide local power to deal with local issues.

From my experience I have seen Deputies run from the Dáil to local government meetings where they were not on top of the agenda at local level. It is, therefore, a good thing to have a separation between local and national politics. It will act as a start in reinvigorating local government and I welcome it.

Mr. J. Breen: The Taoiseach and the Government will live to regret the abolition of the dual mandate. Different Members of the House, both Ministers and Deputies, have given sterling service to their local authorities and the national Parliament. The Government should, therefore, withdraw this legislation, which appears to be the initiative of the minor partners in the Government, the Progressive Democrats. It is a case of the tail wagging the dog. We are all aware of the deep concerns expressed by Fianna Fáil backbenchers. I call on the President to refer the Bill to the Supreme Court to test its constitutionality.

The Bill is an attack on our democratic institutions and represents a deliberate attempt to get rid of the Independent Deputies. It is also an attempt by the major party in the Government to secure an elusive overall majority at the next general election. My message to the House is that Independent Deputies are here to stay. The Minister may shake his head, but I will be here.

Mr. Cullen: I was not indicating my disagreement with the Deputy, I was indicating to him that he should return to the fold.

Mr. McCormack: The Minister's party will take back the Deputy. It has taken back worse.

Mr. J. Breen: As a member of a local authority for the past 18 years, I will be sad to leave, but, like many other Members of the House, I will not leave by choice. I will be drummed out by the Government and the Minister.

Mr. Cullen: The Deputy will have the choice to serve at local or national level.

Mr. McCormack: The Minister is talking nonsense.

Mr. J. Breen: I denied Fianna Fáil its third seat in the Clare constituency at the last general election and I rocked the party to its foundations when I headed the poll as an Independent. The Minister decided not to proceed with directly elected mayors because he knew people like me would take out Fianna Fáil and him. That is what I did.

Mr. Cullen: The proposed reform is supported by all the representative bodies at local government level.

Mr. J. Breen: If the Taoiseach would not listen to his backbenchers I cannot expect him to listen to me. The Government backbenchers are against the abolition of the dual mandate. I understand some have provided funding to Deputy Ring to enable him to take a constitutional challenge.

Mr. Cullen: I could not find any of them.

Mr. J. Breen: As a former member of the Minister's party, I call on the Government backbenchers to vote with us against the abolition of the dual mandate. It is a step in the wrong direction. It will see the end of the Taoiseach's leadership of Fianna Fáil because his backbenchers will get him following their unhappiness and dissatisfaction with this measure.

My good friend, Deputy Devins, is sitting beside the Minister. He has served loyally on a local authority. Like me, he does not want to leave it, but unfortunately he is caught by his party Whip and will be made to vote against his will.

Mr. Cullen: He will not vote against his will.

Mr. J. Breen: I am not picking on Deputy Devins, but he and several of his colleagues will have to vote against their will. One of the values of being an Independent Deputy is not being tied to a Whip.

Dr. Devins: I will not vote against my will.

Mr. Connolly: This Bill provides for the most significant change in local government representation since the State was founded. It effectively separates local government from the national Parliament while it streamlines the role of local representatives and Dáil Deputies, with the Deputies continuing to play a local representational role with access to local authority meetings and council officials. In effect, they will have a hotline to the council. This link between the Deputy and the local community will be established on a statutory basis by imposing a statutory obligation on the authority to deal with the Deputy. I have never encountered anything other than courtesy, openness and readiness by the officials in Cavan County Council and Monaghan County Council in extending their total co-operation to me, for which I am grateful.

The workload of local representatives has increased enormously in recent years in areas such as planning, infrastructure and environmental services. It is becoming increasingly difficult to serve two masters. It reminds me of the seanfhocal, "Ní thig leis an gobadán an dá thrá a fhreastal." I am convinced that no one person can adequately or satisfactorily exercise the roles of local and national representative simultaneously. The Dáil representative is required to keep in contact with his constituents and is not entirely removed from local matters, which are dealt with through his constituency office and clinics.

Apart from the separation of the roles of local and national representatives, the Bill makes no reference to the future reform of local government, the empowerment of local authorities, the funding of local government, improving service delivery and making use of new technologies. In addition, the future funding of local authorities is not addressed, which is a cause for concern. Local authorities comprising virtually full-time specialist councillors should receive adequate funding to ensure delivery of their various services.

Many Oireachtas Members of local authorities are required to serve not only the council and its various committees, but also the newly created strategic policy committees, the VECs, county development groups, health boards and Leader groups, in addition to the Oireachtas committees, all-party committees and other fora. Such a workload is excessive for any one individual. The complexity of these responsibilities requires enormous sacrifice and superhuman commitment.

I regret that the provision allowing for directly elected mayors is to be abolished. Direct election would have given mayors a five year mandate to implement a programme during the council's term. Its abolition will only serve to diminish local authorities. There are several international examples of where elected mayors can be very effective.

Mr. Haughey: I wish to share my time with Deputy Johnny Brady and Deputy Devins.

Acting Chairman: Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Haughey: I have a vested interest in this Bill in that I have been an alderman on Dublin City Council since 1985 and I was Lord Mayor of Dublin in 1989-90. However, on balance, I support the provisions of the Bill. I have listened with an open mind to what the Minster and his predecessor have said on the question of abolishing the dual mandate. As a Fianna Fáil backbencher, I have not made any public announcements on the proposal from the plinth of the House.

I supported the legislation which made provision for the direct election of a chairperson or mayor of a local authority. A person directly elected to this position would be a major catalyst for change in the local government system in that he or she could initiative major changes and reform in the interest of all citizens. Sadly, this view was too idealistic. It put the cart before the horse as the measure was not accompanied by any real local government reform. It meant that the new mayor or chairperson would still have no real power, with the result that the expectations of the electorate could not be met. Indeed, the situation would have been made worse.

Furthermore, councillors who know from experience how local government works were, by and large, vehemently opposed to the concept. I also understand that organisations such as LAMA, the Association of Municipal Authorities of Ireland and the General Council of County Councils opposed the proposal for various reasons. The Minister was obliged to take account of their views.

I welcome the Minister's comments on the funding and reform of local government and I look forward to the publication as soon as possible of the reports he has initiated on these matters.

Debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.

CEISTEANNA - QUESTIONS (Resumed).

-------------------

PRIORITY QUESTIONS.

-------------------

National Sports Stadium.

3. Mr. Coveney asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism the position regarding the provision of a stadium for soccer and rugby; if the consultants employed by the IRFU have reached a conclusion on the possibilities that Lansdowne Road may hold for future development into a 65,000 seat stadium; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11220/03]

4. Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism the position regarding the proposed new national stadium; the number of venues under consideration; the estimated time scale for the completion of such a development; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11213/03]

Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism (Mr. O'Donoghue): I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 and 4 together.

During last February, I met the IRFU and the FAI and requested them to assess and delineate their needs for stadium facilities and to come back to me with proposals for meeting them. I received an executive summary of their report yesterday and the final report will be available on 28 April 2003. In recent weeks we have all seen the scale of the demand which clearly exists for modern stadium facilities. I am more than ever convinced that we need two modern stadia to cater adequately for this demand. In presenting their report, the Football Association of Ireland and the Irish Rugby Football Union have made a very valuable contribution to public debate on the issue. Both organisations are to be complimented on a very thorough presentation of the options available to them.

The report reviews five potential locations for a modern stadium which are Lansdowne Road, the IRFU-owned site at Newlands Cross, Abbotstown, the former Irish Glass Bottle Company site and Sillogue. Over the coming weeks, my Department will carefully study the report in conjunction with the sporting bodies and will question all elements of the proposal including the costings. At the conclusion of this process, I will present my conclusions and recommendations to the Government in the context of my overall report on all options for the provision of state-of-the-art stadium facilities for major sporting events. The report will also incorporate my evaluation of expressions of interest received in the procurement of a privately funded stadium at Abbotstown. I do not intend to make any further statement on this matter until the Government has decided on the further action to be taken.

Mr. Coveney: The Minister will agree that last night's statements and proposals from the FAI and the IRFU were most welcome. I hope their work and professionalism will lead to the development of the 65,000-seat stadium the country wants and needs. It is important to note that this is a vindication of Fine Gael policy particularly as it relates to Landsdowne Road. As this process has been ongoing for some time, can the Minister outline the criteria on which the Government will base its decision regarding a new 65,000-seat stadium for the FAI and the IRFU? The public has a right to openness and transparency with regard to the criteria according to which the decision will be made. We are providing, in effect, for a national stadium for rugby and soccer, which are sports with huge support bases.

The Government has demonstrated its incompetence in trying to put together plans for a national stadium and it has wasted hundreds of millions of euro on the Abbotstown project. That was taxpayers' money, but perhaps the Minister can clarify the exact amount. Can the Minister confirm that the failure to construct the Eircom Park stadium for the FAI was due to the Government's interference? It is important to get it right at this stage and to support the initiative shown by the IRFU and the FAI to ensure that the quality, modern 65,000-seat stadium we all agree is needed is developed.

Mr. O'Donoghue: The principal criterion according to which the Government will make its decision is the need to provide a modern stadium suited to the playing of rugby and soccer. The question of GAA involvement has not yet been dealt with and it is an issue which has to be addressed. If the GAA enters the equation, the question of playing GAA games in the stadium will also arise. The FAI and the IRFU have provided us with a report on the position as it relates to five different sites and with an estimate of development costs. The estimate is transposed to each site rather than being confined to one which means that estimates of between €353 million and €397 million are exclusive of a contribution of €118.5 million from the FAI and the IRFU which is applicable to all sites.

There is no question of neglect of its duties by the Government and I do not understand where Deputy Coveney is coming from in that regard. However, I appreciate the support I have received from Fine Gael, the Labour Party and other Members of the House with regard to the provision of a modern stadium. There is a perception, the origin of which I do not understand, that millions of euro have been wasted in Abbotstown. This is untrue. The fact is that the National Aquatic Centre at Abbotstown cost in excess of €60 million.

Mr. Coveney: This has nothing to do with the National Aquatic Centre. It has to do with the national stadium and the Minister knows it.

Mr. O'Donoghue: A couple of million euro was subsequently spent on site investigations at Abbotstown in relation to the provision of a stadium. Studies were carried out and the money may well prove to have been properly and well spent. It is quite possible that the stadium will, in the final analysis, go ahead at Abbotstown. I have not identified a location as it is a matter for Government to make the decision. Suffice it to say, the analysis is due shortly from the sporting bodies concerned and it will be looked at in depth. The draft proposal has already been received and, once we have consulted the Office of Public Works, a memorandum will be prepared for the Government. It will then be a matter for the Government to make its decision.

Mr. Wall: I lend the support of the Labour Party to the provision of a stadium. Yesterday's statement from the IRFU and the FAI was positive. With regard to the time frame involved, the one thing we do not want to see is Exchequer cutbacks causing this project to be put on the long finger and dragged out as happened with the Eircom Park project. That might not have been due to Exchequer funding issues, but planning application problems resulted in a drawn-out saga and no progress was made.

Is it feasible at this stage to place a timeframe on the investigation of the proposals and, if so, what would it be?

On the previous occasion when the Minister answered questions in the Chamber, he ruled out the 23 consortia that had shown an interest in Abbotstown. Have any of these said to the Minister since that they were willing to change the format of their proposals or have they checked with him to see why he ruled them all out? It was strange, to say the least, that all 23 consortia were ruled out where this proposal was concerned.

Where stands the £50 million that J P McManus proposed for the national stadium? Is that still in the wings for the new proposal or is it ruled out? Many people welcomed the proposal from Mr. McManus at the time but we do not know the intentions for it now.

The Minister said the GAA may want to have games played in the proposed stadium. Where stands the GAA if the FAI and the IRFU take up the running on this? Obviously their criteria will weigh heavily when it comes to what takes place in the stadium. Have there been discussions with the GAA regarding the proposals put to the Minister? Is it intended that there would be such discussions with the organisation?

Mr. O'Donoghue: It is estimated, depending on which site is in question, that if the go-ahead were to be given this year, the stadium would be operational in 2008 or 2009. In the case of the majority of sites the completion date would be 2008. The expenditure on the stadium would occur over that timeframe with the majority of the spending coming in the latter two to three years so there would not be a major liability on the Exchequer in the immediate future.

While the stadium has been estimated to cost between €353 million and €397 million, and that would be exclusive of FAI or IRFU contributions, it must be remembered that €71 million would represent VAT which would be returnable to the Exchequer. Between €85 million and €100 million would return to the Exchequer by way of taxes and welfare payments. The cost of the stadium over the timeframe envisaged is nowhere near what many predicted it would be. In terms of cost benefit, there is no question that it will be of major benefit to future generations of sporting people, especially young people.

The issue of the GAA is more complex. The organisation was requested to make its stadium available for the 2008 European championship and it refused to do so. It also refused to make any recommendation to congress through central council. That was a major disappointment because it was being asked to make the stadium available on a once-off basis.

The opening up of Croke Park would not resolve the problem because there would be overlapping fixtures, deterioration of the pitch, residents' objections and floodlighting problems. All these difficulties indicate that opening up Croke Park would not resolve the problem for the IRFU and the FAI.

Their positions have become relatively untenable. The FAI has been told by UEFA and FIFA that it must provide all-seater stadia for home internationals. Lansdowne Road only has 24,000 permanent seats. That means 11,000 temporary seats must be brought in. UEFA and FIFA have indicated that they will not tolerate this any more. The IRFU is losing considerable sums of money and would make €2 million more per international if it had the additional capacity.

Everyone is losing at present as a result of the stadium not being built. It is important that it be provided. All I can do is bring forward proposals to Government for which it is then a matter.

Mr. Coveney: The Minister is correct to say that everyone is losing because the 65,000 seater stadium has not been developed. Does the Minister agree it is the direct fault of Government and that it has taken a direct initiative from sporting bodies to make it happen? Has the Minister a preference for a specific site? Lansdowne Road and Abbotstown appear to be the two preferred sites. Is the Minister satisfied with the proposed financial contribution from the FAI and the IRFU-----

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: We must move on. The Deputy is not being brief.

Mr. Coveney: -----of roughly one third of the cost? Is he satisfied that it is a financially viable proposition to move forward?

Mr. Wall: The Minister may have overlooked the first two parts of my question, namely, whether any of the 23 consortia contacted the Minister and what is the state of play with the proposed financial contribution of J P McManus.

Mr. O'Donoghue: The financial contribution from the IRFU and the FAI is the amount of money they say they would be able to raise through pre-sale of tickets to the corporate, business and individual sectors. I am satisfied they would be able to raise that sum of money. I believe that, at a push, it might even exceed that, but that is for another day.

We are engaged in an in-depth analysis of the report and we intend to bring forward a memorandum to Government after that analysis has been completed. We are examining the provisional report and expect the full detailed report on 28 April. I have outlined my personal preference but that is not the issue. The principal issue is the construction of a stadium. Once we go on from there, we will begin to make progress. I have complimented the IRFU and the FAI on the document they produced and the report. I asked the bodies to produce it. It was not a question of us not initiating the report.

The issue regarding Mr. McManus will be discussed in due course. There were no additional expressions of interest by the 23 consortia. Some may have contacted the Department since. I will communicate the results of that investigation to Deputy Wall.

Arts Funding.

5. Mr. F. McGrath asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism if, in light of the severe proposed cuts to the Arts Council, funding to it in 2004 will be reinstated to the level envisaged for 2004 or as originally envisaged for 2003. [11175/03]

Mr. O'Donoghue: While funding for the Arts Council was reduced in 2003 from what was made available in 2002, it must be remembered that this 2002 figure followed an increase in funding of about 80% between 1997 and 2002. Given the pressures affecting all areas of Government expenditure for 2003, to achieve funding of more than €44 million for this year was a considerable achievement.

I will make the most effective possible case for adequate funding for 2004 for all the areas that fall within my remit, including the Arts Council. However, decisions on the amount of funding for the council in 2004 can only be taken within the context of the Estimates process and having regard to the state of the Exchequer finances at that time.

Mr. F. McGrath: I wish to declare an interest under existing legislation. My brother, Fergal McGrath, is a former manager of the Galway arts festival and is manager of the Druid Theatre.

Government funding to the Arts Council in 2003 was €9 million less than the target of €53.79 million outlined for that year in the arts plan and a reduction of 8% on the €47.7 million provided in 2002. In light of the devastating effect these cuts have on many arts organisations, will the Minister assure the House that funding to the Arts Council in 2004 will be re-instated to the level envisaged for that year or at least that envisaged for 2003, plus an allowance for inflation?

On the appointment of the new Arts Council, under the new Arts Bill the number of members on the council will be reduced from 17 to nine. In these circumstances the make-up of the new council has never been more critical. Will the Minister, when making these appointments, take the opportunity to appoint an all-new council which avoids the traditional charges of geographical influences and which enjoys the confidence of the arts community, the Government and the public?

Mr. O'Donoghue: It will certainly be the objective to appoint an Arts Council which has the confidence of the Government, this House and the public and the respect of the arts community.

I have pointed out that the funding available to the Arts Council has increased substantially since 1997 and that this increase has been of the order of 80%. I accept that areas of the arts have suffered this year and I will certainly do all I can in the Estimates campaign in the autumn to convince the Minister for Finance that it is important to increase arts funding. Obviously, it is not possible for me to say at this remove whether my exertions will be successful but I will do my level best to ensure they are.

It is important to note that the arts plan, which was prepared by the council for the period 2002 to 2006, projected a total spend of €314 million over the period of the plan. That represents a very substantial increase in funding for the arts. The difficulty I face this year, and which other Ministers in different disciplines face, is that there was an economic downturn, which meant that the funding available across all Departments was not as plentiful as it had been in previous years. In such circumstances, regrettably, the Arts Council had to suffer a cut in its funding although its funding still represented an increase of 80% since 1997. We will do everything we possibly can to ensure we have an excellent Arts Council and that it is resourced as well as possible.

Mr. F. McGrath: I thank the Minister for his response and hope the commitment he has made today is realised. Does he accept that the arts are making a magnificent contribution to the community? In particular, I refer to artists who do much creative work and who lift the self-esteem of the nation. Does he value their work and will he make a commitment to ensure they will get the maximum support over the next four to five years? Does he value the role of artists connected with the disabilities sector and the role art plays in assisting both children and adults with disabilities?

Mr. O'Donoghue: I agree strongly with the views expressed by Deputy Finian McGrath. That is why it is so important that we have a vibrant and well-resourced arts sector. It will be of interest that we will bring forward amendments to the Arts Bill shortly, which I hope will be passed during the next session of the Dáil and Seanad. It is my intention to try ensure that we will have sub-committees attached, on a temporary basis, to the Arts Council dealing with at least some of the items mentioned by the Deputy.

It is important that we recognise the role of arts in terms of disabilities and how the disabled can expresses themselves through art. In that respect, it is my intention to ensure that we have a sub-committee of the Arts Council dealing with education. This could also deal with the question of people with special needs. We should also ensure that the sub-committees of the council deal with other areas that require urgent attention, including the traditional arts and the arts in local authorities, so we can deal with problems at the coal face.

Departmental Programmes.

6. Mr. English asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism if there has been a very slow draw-down of funds under the ACCESS programme administered by his Department; if he will carry out a review of the scheme to identify projects that will not proceed; if he will re-allocate the funds to other deserving projects; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11222/03]

Mr. O'Donoghue: Under my Department's arts and culture capital enhancement support scheme, ACCESS, grants totalling €45.7 million were approved, to be paid to 44 projects over the period from 2001 to 2004. Among the investments approved were large scale new infrastructural developments at regional, county or city levels, the redevelopment of existing facilities and venues, including new build, additional build or major refurbishment, and smaller scale projects at community or local level. Promoters of projects were required to demonstrate their ability to project manage and deliver their proposed developments, including the balance of funding needed to be raised by the promoters, within the time frame

As I indicated in my reply to Question No. 379 on Tuesday, 25 March 2003, only €5.575 million had been drawn down at that date. This rate of draw-down is significantly lower than had been advised to my Department at the outset and I cannot provide any assurance that funding will be available beyond the end of 2004. In this respect, it must be remembered that the responsibility for management and control of projects approved for funding under ACCESS rests with the promoters, not my Department.

At present, the rate of progress of each ACCESS project is being reassessed to provide me with a comprehensive picture of where we are and how the position is likely to develop between now and the end of the scheme. When this assessment is completed I will consider what action to take. However, I would be less than honest if I did not say the prospect of funds becoming available for new projects is remote, given the time remaining for the completion of this scheme.

Mr. English: What is the time scale for the reassessment? I see that the cost of many of the projects has increased rapidly due to inflation. One project with which I am familiar submitted for funds. It was valued at €5 million and got a grant of €3 million. Now the cost of construction of an arts centre is €9 million. If the Minister's assessment takes a year it will be almost the end of 2004 by the time it is completed. I ask that it be carried out quickly to see what the Government can do to help people move projects forward.

A great deal of money allocated to the cultural development incentive scheme from Europe was returned because it was not claimed. We should have known that there would be problems. We should be pro-active and help groups. What are we doing to help them?

What does the Minister intend to do about money that might not be drawn down? As he said, there is no guarantee that it will be available after 2004. That is unacceptable and I ask that a guarantee be given that that money be kept for the development of capital programmes pertaining to the arts. Can it be redeployed for schemes or groups that failed to get a grant? Will the Minister allocate a larger grant to the projects whose construction costs have increased? The money is to develop facilities for young people and others of all ages. It is important that we have facilities built in all towns. It would be a big mistake to withdraw the money now.

Is the motive behind not guaranteeing that the money will be available in the future that the Minister does not want too many capital projects developed because they will have to be funded and maintained after their completion? Does it suit Government policy if some people fail to have their projects developed?

Mr. O'Donoghue: No. It would not suit Government policy if any of the projects failed. If that were the case they would not have been awarded grant aid in the first instance. The truth is that it is a matter for the project developers to come forward with their projects and ensure they are completed. It was made quite clear that the ACCESS programme would last until the end of 2004. As of now, I can give no assurance that any funding will be available after that date. It may well be true that some projects cost more than had been anticipated but neither I nor my Department can be blamed for that. Furthermore, I am not aware of any programme within my Department that led to money being sent back to Europe.

3 o'clock

The difficulty is that quite complex issues arise in any effort to reallocate funds that are not drawn down by a projected date. Deviations of this kind are clearly more likely to arise if a project is behind schedule. If this is the case, it is possible that it might not proceed at all because it might not be in a position to draw down the funds before the termination of the scheme. Then a reallocation of the same funds could not, in all probability, be drawn down for precisely the same reason. If another project was grant-aided now, there simply would not be time to complete the project.

We have the same problem in relation to any new projects which might be funded as we have with old projects which could not proceed for one reason or another, and the time factor is all important. This is the difficulty we face. I am obviously only too glad to make payments to projects which make progress. We are only too delighted to spend this money. The difficulty is that the projects promoted in many instances are beginning to look as if they will not make the cut.

Mr. English: Does the Minister not feel it would be worthwhile to try to safeguard this money and guarantee that it will be available if it is not drawn down? Would he not fight to get that done? If the Minister was told tomorrow that a certain project could not manage to carry out its development, would he not seek to reallocate that money straight away to a project that could?

Mr. O'Donoghue: It is too late to make a new allocation at this point because a project would not be completed by the end of 2004. That is the opinion within the Department also. It is desirable to try to hold on to as many funds as we possible can, and I will certainly be only too delighted to do so, but I am not at all sure that it will be possible to do that because a specific time frame was laid down for the scheme. I fully support the concept of providing arts centres around the country. This was the whole idea of what was a wonderful scheme set up by my predecessor, Deputy Síle de Valera, and she is to be warmly congratulated on it. The difficulty is that, as with many projects of this nature, people may in some instances, not all, have been a little over-ambitious.

Sports Funding.

7. Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism the reasons the agreement with the Gaelic Athletic Association regarding funding for Croke Park has not been honoured by the Government; the position regarding Exchequer funding for the development of Croke Park; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11215/03]

Mr. O'Donoghue: The Government has provided financial support totalling €69.84 million up to the end of last year to the Gaelic Athletic Association towards the redevelopment of Croke Park. In the context of the development of a State financed national stadium at Abbotstown, special funding proposals were made in April 2001 to the GAA on the basis of the intended usage of the stadium facilities by the association when completed. This element of conditionality of the proposal was clear from the outset and it was also understood on all sides that a formal legal arrangement between the parties would be required before giving effect to it.

When the Government decided last September that it was not in a position to provide any Exchequer funding for a national stadium, the conditional proposal lapsed. As there was no binding agreement in place the question of dishonouring an agreement did not arise.

At a meeting on 23 October 2002, the Government clarified the situation to the GAA and advised it that a revised application for funding would be the best channel through which to seek further funding towards the redevelopment of Croke Park. The GAA, at the end of November 2002, submitted an application for an additional €39.5 million in funding for Croke Park. This application is with my Department at present. While, as I have already made clear on several occasions, there is no funding for this purpose available in my Department's Estimates for this year, I intend to bring the matter to the attention of the Government in the context of my overall report to the Government on the need for modern stadium facilities.

Mr. Wall: Was all the funding made available to the GAA in relation to the development of Croke Park drawn down through the Minister's Department of Arts, Sports and Tourism or was it just a straight Government grant issued through the Department of Finance? On previous occasions we have spoken about the opening up of Croke Park for other sporting events, and it is time the GAA made up its mind in that regard. Given the position of the development in Croke Park, however, which is practically completed, would the Minister not agree that this is the time for the Government to complete its commitment to the GAA in relation to that project, thus giving us one stadium fit for all sports? The GAA still has to address that option but I think we will see something forthcoming in that regard.

It is a pity to be at this stage with a stadium that people from all over the world have come to look at and that people have really admired as being of such stature in world sport and not to have completed it. I know the Minister has said he will bring the issue to Government and I appreciate that. I know the intentions of the Minister are positive in terms of completing Croke Park but this is one opportunity that we should not let go begging. We want to move on and everybody in this House is fully in agreement with moving on to the provision of the national stadium that was discussed already. I ask the Minister if the Croke Park project is not something that can be completed and finished, thus allowing us to move on to the further development of sport.

Mr. O'Donoghue: In respect of Croke Park, €69.8 million has been allocated in funding to the GAA to date, of which €67.9 million has been paid. The €1.9 million which is outstanding to the GAA for Croke Park relates to the fact that, in line with my Department's procedures for sports capital funding, 5% of the total payment of each grant allocation is retained pending receipt of certification of completion of the fixed liability period of the project.

With regard to organisations that are affiliated to the GAA and club level and so on, €68.3 million has been allocated since 1998. Obviously this is by far and away the highest proportion given to any sporting organisation in the country. In November 2002, the GAA made an application to my Department for payment of €39.5 million. That money was to have been paid to the GAA in the event of an Exchequer-funded national stadium proceeding. As we all know, the Government decided in October 2002 not to proceed with an Exchequer-funded national stadium. Therefore, the commitment to the GAA fell.

The application which the GAA has now made to my Department will be discussed in due course with the Government and a decision will be reached. We all want to see Croke Park developed to its fullest potential and all recognise the contribution the GAA has made to society. The difficulty relates to the monetary situation. Earlier today we spoke about difficulties in other areas, and at this point I do not have any funding available to me that I, in turn, could make available to the GAA for Croke Park. Any funding which I have available at present under the sports capital programme is for far smaller projects than that and for distribution across the country. There is a question dealing with that matter later.

In short, the Government will discuss the application by the GAA in due course. I do not have any funding available in my Department to pay funds to the GAA this year. Normally, funding for Croke Park would come through the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: That concludes Priority Questions and we now come to the ordinary questions. Given that we have had so many long answers and long supplementary questions, I remind Members that supplementary questions and answers are limited to one minute each. Question No. 8-----

Mr. Wall: A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I would like to ask one supplementary question if that is acceptable to the Minister.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Very briefly.

Mr. Wall: Were the proposals put to the Minister yesterday prioritised or just listed as five applications that had to be processed by his Department? Did the consultants actually prioritise them on behalf of the IRFU and FAI or were they just submitted as five proposals?

Mr. O'Donoghue: Five proposals were outlined in the provisional report which I received yesterday but they were marked in lozenge-type graphs. The answer to the Deputy's question is that the Government, in the final analysis, will have to make a decision as to the location, if any.

OTHER QUESTIONS.

National Sports Stadium.

8. Mr. Howlin asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism if he has had any recent discussions with the IRFU and the FAI regarding the upgrading and redevelopment of Lansdowne Road with a view to locating the national stadium there; the nature of discussions concerning the financing of such a development; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11027/03]

18. Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism when a decision will be made on the location of a national stadium. [11122/03]

23. Mr. Ryan asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism if the Government still feel that Abbotstown is a contender location for the proposed national stadium; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11025/03]

Mr. O'Donoghue: I propose to take Questions Nos. 8, 18 and 23 together.

I refer the Deputies to my earlier response to the priority questions on this issue in deference to what you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, said about brevity.

Mr. English: The Minister did not clearly outline the criteria. Can we have the criteria in five-point form which we can show to the person on the street and say this is how the Minister will make his decision when he is picking the location and that it will be based on cost, traffic and so on? We do not want this veil of secrecy. Some day we will wake up and the Minister will have picked a location. Can we have the reasons a particular location will be picked? At the moment people are saying it will be an under the table decision.

Mr. O'Donoghue: There are numerous factors that are brought into play in determining which location is best and what type of stadium should be constructed. It would be impossible for me to be exhaustive in regard to that this afternoon other than to say that in the provisional report which I received from the FAI and the IRFU, the lozenge-type table or graph presented in respect of each location was scored regarding given criteria. For example, the question of and the distance from park and ride facilities is one of the factors which will be taken into account. There were several others as well. There were other criteria which were not taken into account and which one might regard as relevant.

Mr. English: Can we get a copy of the criteria?

Mr. O'Donoghue: The document belongs to the IRFU and the FAI.

Sports Facilities.

9. Mr. Cuffe asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism further to the raising of this issue some months ago, if he will report on the progress he is making on a nation-wide audit of sports facilities as outlined in An Agreed Programme for Government. 11118/03]

Mr. O'Donoghue: As I indicated previously, the commitment to a complete national audit of local sports facilities as outlined in the programme for Government will be addressed in the context of the development of a new long-term strategic plan for the provision of sports facilities.

The first step in the development has commenced with a review of the existing sports capital programme under the Department's expenditure review programme which is due to be completed by the summer. The purpose of this review is to establish what has been achieved under this programme over recent years with a view to identifying gaps in existing provisions and possible priorities for the future. Following this exercise an interagency steering group will be set up to devise a long-term strategy for the development of sports facilities and one of its first tasks will be to oversee the commencement of a national audit of local sports facilities.

This group, which will include members from Departments and State agencies, will consider the range of facilities to be included in the audit. It will be important before commencing the audit that a clear method of classifying facilities is established to ensure a consistent approach is adopted. This will help establish an accurate and comprehensive picture on the availability of sports and recreational facilities nation-wide.

As this will be an extensive and complex piece of work involving the obtaining of responses from a wide range of Departments, local authorities and State agencies, its completion will take a considerable length of time.

Mr. Gogarty: I raised this question to make sure there will be some action. The Minister will be aware that such audits have been carried out in parts of the UK and are proving successful in targeting the age groups involved in sport and whether there is a correlation between schools and certain sporting activities. At the 2001 sports development conference in the Citywest Hotel, a presentation was made on the effectiveness of such an audit. The Minister previously indicated that Northern Ireland was carrying out a similar type audit and that it envisaged it would take five years to complete. Is the Minister in a position to indicate what steps he will take to ensure it will not take as long here? Will he indicate what methodology he will use? For example, will he look at sports in schools? The Department of Education and Science would be interested in the findings of this audit because they might help it to better plan schools building projects.

In regard to the agency's terms of reference, are any mechanisms in place to ensure this audit will be completed more quickly than that in Northern Ireland given the limited resources which the Minister for Finance will give to the Minister?

Mr. O'Donoghue: I indicated to Deputy Gogarty in the past that it is envisaged that an exercise such as this in a smaller jurisdiction will take up to five years. I do not know how I can advance such an exercise more quickly here dealing with a larger jurisdiction. The difficulty which exists is that there has been no real study or review of the sports capital programme since its inception and that is the first thing which must be carried out.

Mr. Gogarty: Is money the issue?

Mr. O'Donoghue: Some 2,900 different projects have been grant aided under the new programme. Later on, we will deal with the criteria that have been utilised in order to determine which projects should be financed. It is of immense importance in terms of the audit which will take place after the review that certain matters are looked at, as Deputy Gogarty has pointed out. In that respect, the question of geographical location is of some importance as is the question of equivalence and of making a special effort in regions which are marginalised. Disadvantaged areas have to be taken into account in a special way. We also have to ensure that various disciplines and requirements are catered for. There is no exact science, nor could there be, but once the audit is completed, we will have a clear picture of the direction in which we should go. I cannot say at this point how long it will take other than to say that we have initiated it.

Mr. Gogarty: Will it be done in the lifetime of this Government?

Mr. English: It has been reported by the Department that it could take three to five years. Does the Minister not think that is pathetic? It would not take a year to go around this country to do an audit on facilities. What money and staff have been allocated to do it? Have the councils been contacted because I believe most local authorities have employed consultants over the last two or three years to carry out such an audit at local level? It is crazy to say it will take three or four years. It is fudging the issue.

Mr. O'Donoghue: It is not just an audit. The problem is that we are drawing up a new long-term strategy to deal with the provision of facilities around the country. It is not the intention, nor was it, to simply have an audit because that would not achieve anything. We want to ensure we have a strategic plan which is viable and which can be utilised for the benefit of the population at large. If Deputy English or Deputy Gogarty has a suggestion which would be of benefit to me in expediting the procedure, I would only be too glad to hear of it.

Mr. Wall: I have outlined on numerous occasions when this matter was discussed the importance of investigating the problems of and the lack of facilities in large housing estates. I note what the Minister said regarding disadvantaged areas but there is also a problem in large housing estates which lack facilities. I hope the report and information received from local authorities will outline what facilities are available in these estates. Many of the clubs go in, cherry-pick the good players, take them away and leave everyone else behind. That creates major problems in these areas. As part of this report, I hope we will see what facilities are provided in large housing estates where there are so many problems.

Mr. O'Donoghue: Deputy Wall has hit the nail on the head. It is important that local authorities participate in the audit. In that context, I am glad to report that Limerick City Council, Meath County Council and Fingal County Council have already carried out an inventory of sports facilities within their jurisdictions. However, other local authorities have been remiss in not doing so. In that respect, I call on local authorities to do so because it would feed into the central review and, subsequently, the audit and the strategic plan. It is important, when local authorities are drawing up an inventory, that they identify the areas mentioned by Deputy Wall, particularly built-up areas which are marginalised or disadvantaged. This is necessary to give young people in such places an opportunity, which they might not otherwise have, to participate in healthy sporting activities.

Tourism Industry.

10. Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism the steps he intends to take to address the forthcoming visitor loss due to the war in Iraq; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11152/03]

14. Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism the number of tourists expected in 2003 and their prospective estimated value to the economy and the Exchequer with comparative figures for 2002. [11155/03]

26. Mr. Rabbitte asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism the projections for tourist numbers for the remainder of 2003; the recent steps taken to address the fall in tourist numbers; the steps that will be taken for the remainder of the year to promote tourism abroad; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11021/03]

27. Ms B. Moynihan-Cronin asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism his views on the effects the conflict in Iraq is having on the tourism industry here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11030/03]

126. Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism his plans to boost the tourism industry in the current season; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11305/03]

Mr. O'Donoghue: I propose to take Questions Nos. 10, 14, 26, 27 and 126 together.

The Central Statistics Office is responsible for the collection and publication of tourism statistics. Although tourism figures are not yet available from the office for 2003, tourism agencies and industry sources have indicated that war in Iraq and the outbreak of SARS are having a significant impact in certain markets, particularly long-haul markets. It is feared that 2003 may prove as challenging and difficult as 2002 as a result.

As I anticipated when last answering questions in the House, the markets which are most vulnerable in a war scenario are long-haul markets such as the United States, Canada and Australia. The intelligence available from Tourism Ireland's market offices and local tourism trade is that consumers in many markets, particularly the markets I have mentioned, are adopting a "wait and see" attitude to their holidays this year. With the possibility that the military conflict in Iraq may be winding down, the consumer response over the next number of weeks will be crucial in terms of how the peak season pans out. In this context, it is vital that we are appropriately positioned to take full advantage of any upturn in consumer confidence which might lead to people making concrete holiday decisions. Tourism Ireland will gear up its marketing activities in its key tourism markets, particularly the US, Britain and Europe, in the coming weeks to capture any upturn in business.

My objective from early on has been to be proactive and, with the tourism agencies, to support the industry in dealing with the emerging situation. I met the chief executives of the State tourism agencies before war began in the Gulf to ensure that a robust contingency plan is in place. I secured funding of €48 million for Tourism Ireland and Bord Fáilte's marketing programmes to bolster our international marketing efforts this year. This has enabled the agencies to deploy resources to optimal effect in key tourism markets. The 2003 marketing programme was developed with regard to the background of global uncertainty and is, therefore, capable of adapting to emerging market developments.

As war became increasingly likely, Tourism Ireland established an internal response team which has met on a weekly basis to analyse feedback from markets, utilising Tourism Ireland's global office network which is located in 19 countries. The team's objective is to identify the best prospects available to the tourism sector and to review Ireland's marketing messages, mediums and programmes in light of market developments. A tourism industry response group, which has been meeting regularly, has been supportive of the approach adopted by the State tourism agencies. The industry is being regularly updated, through e-zines and other means, on developments in the marketplace and significant changes in Tourism Ireland's marketing plans. Such lines of communication are vital in ensuring a co-ordinated and efficient use of marketing resources, both from private and public sector sources.

External shocks apart, the fact that a stronger focus on the European market is vital to the development of Irish tourism in the longer term has been identified as a key priority in An Agreed Programme for Government. In this regard, Tourism Ireland has stepped up its activities and targeted a significant level of resources at its campaigns in Britain and other key European markets this year. I will lend whatever support I can to Ireland's promotional efforts in Europe. In this context, I have commenced a series of promotional visits to key European markets, starting last month with a visit to Germany. I opened Tourism Ireland's new office in Frankfurt and launched a new marketing strategy for Germany which aims to increase business from what is the second largest outbound tourism market in the world, after the United States. While there is evidence that certain outbound European markets are feeling the effects of war in Iraq and the outbreak of SARS, experience suggests that such markets may prove resilient, particularly as Ireland continues to be considered a safe, friendly and close to home destination.

Tourism Ireland is ready to step up its marketing campaign in the United States in the next few weeks as consumers there begin to make final decisions about their holiday choices this year. Ireland has suffered its share of the decline in outbound tourism from the US since 11 September 2001. The US is a vital market for Ireland, particularly in revenue terms. The war in Iraq has undermined the tourism sector's ability to capitalise on the restoration of key access routes from the US this year. If the military conflict winds down, however, there is an opportunity to crank up our marketing efforts there and to convert the consistently high level of interest in Ireland among US citizens into good tourism business. In that context, Tourism Ireland has identified key marketing initiatives which it will, if circumstances permit, deliver over the coming weeks and months, aimed at exploiting the best business prospects available.

The tourism industry is facing its third successive year of external market shocks. We learned a great deal from the experience of foot and mouth disease and the events of 11 September. While there are similarities with previous shocks, the tourism sector in Ireland is now more mature and resilient, and has a proven track record in adapting successfully to unforeseen difficulties and challenges. With this in mind, I am confident that, working together, the industry and the Government agencies will overcome the most recent difficulties and will position Ireland to capitalise fully on the opportunities which lie ahead.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe: I often think that the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism has the cushiest job in the world when the sun shines and the tourists pour in. Does he not accept, however, that the signs and portents for the 2003 season are very bad, as a consequence of the war in Iraq, the spread of SARS and the global economic decline? Does the Minister not accept that an emergency action programme is necessary if we are to salvage the tourism season? Does he agree that it is time for serious leadership? While I agree that the Minister should support the various promotions as part of an attempt to, as he said, "crank up our marketing efforts", does he not accept that something more, such as an emergency package, is needed from the Government? Does he agree, bearing in mind the importance of the tourism industry to our respective areas and to the country as a whole, that a special funding arrangement, supported by the tourism industry, should be put in place? The Minister should put in place emergency arrangements now so that their beneficial effects can be felt in the current tourism season.

Mr. O'Donoghue: I met tourism chiefs when it became apparent that there was to be a war in the Gulf. We had a fruitful discussion about how best to proceed in the event of war. A contingency plan was drawn up to ensure that the benefit of the 20% increase in marketing funds made available to Tourism Ireland this year could be maximised. A tourism review group, which is internal to the tourism industry, was established in Tourism Ireland to that end. The group will monitor the intelligence received from Tourism Ireland's 19 offices worldwide with a view to diverting marketing expenditure where necessary. It is clear that this plan was sufficiently flexible to enable Tourism Ireland to maximise the market's potential and I believe it is continuing to do so. For example, a very strong campaign has been under way for some time in Germany, the world's second largest outbound tourism market. If one does well in attracting visitors from Germany, it is normally a sign that one will do well in the rest of Europe. The US market has not been abandoned as it is intended to pursue a marketing campaign there to as heavy an extent as ever, if not heavier, if it is apparent that the war in Iraq is about to end.

It is too early for me to say to Deputy Jim O'Keeffe with any degree of certitude that this will be a bad or a good season. There is increasing evidence, especially from the United States, that people make decisions about holiday destinations at short notice. I suppose this can be attributed largely to the global village that has emerged in recent years. Although I cannot anticipate what the future holds, I accept that the US market suffered in 2001 and 2002 and that the industry faced great challenges as a result. I am not blind to the fact that this will be a difficult year too, but I am aware that the industry has proven itself to be resilient and that there are major opportunities to be won.

Mr. Wall: How can the Minister align his comments about the German and European market with a recent newspaper report which stated that 81% of German and Dutch tourists are dissatisfied with what they find when they come here? Their disappointment at the price of goods, such as alcohol, and services was the main factor that contributed to the findings of the survey. How is the tourism trade to overcome such an attitude from a market that is regarded as being as important as the United Kingdom market?

Does the Minister not agree that due to the increased cost of goods and services we have allowed ourselves to lose the competitive edge so necessary for tourism and which helps to overcome the shortfall due to the loss of the American trade?

When the Minister was in Germany did he receive any reaction from the German tourism operators about the findings that 56% of visitors to Ireland last year were disappointed with their holiday? Mr. John Travers, the chairman of Bord Fáilte commented on these figures at the seminar.

Mr. O'Donoghue: I am glad of the opportunity to address the issue which has been raised by Deputy Wall. He refers to a report of an address delivered at a recent tourism conference. Unfortunately, as sometimes happens when statistics are taken out of context, the report was not a completely accurate representation of the actual results from Bord Fáilte's latest survey of visitor attitudes which was conducted among overseas holiday visitors during the summer of 2002. It is important to state that the survey found that 94% of overseas visitors indicated that their holiday either matched or exceeded their expectations and only a small minority of 6% were disappointed overall with their holiday experience. When asked, almost eight out of ten visitors surveyed said that they would recommend a holiday in Ireland to a friend, with virtually the remainder saying that they would recommend Ireland with some reservations.

I accept Deputy Wall's argument and since becoming Minister I have consistently spoken on the subject of the level of dissatisfaction from all markets with overall value for money in Ireland. Less than half of all overseas visitors last year were satisfied with the value for money on offer to them. This must be seen in the context that the main influence in the choice of a holiday destination for 50% of holiday visitors to Ireland is word of mouth recommendation from friends and relatives. While the primary items considered by overseas holiday visitors to Ireland to be of less than good value for money were the cost of eating out and drink and food in shops and supermarkets, there is also evidence of increased resistance to the cost of accommodation, car hire and extended coach tours.

When I made this point on a previous occasion I was attacked from various sectors. The truth is that this crucial industry is now of prime importance to our economy and it is of immense importance that all those involved in it realise that competition from external sources is fierce and either there is value for money or there is not. The introduction of the euro has unmasked deficiencies which might not have been spotted in the past. Everything is transparent now and people know whether they are getting value for money or not. Market share is lost if there is no value for money and we must ensure that is provided across the sector.

Mr. Durkan: Has the Minister consulted with the tourism interests in this country with a view to identifying areas where competitiveness has been lost and, if so, to what extent has he expressed his views and to what extent have they been taken on board? When will the outcome be known of his Department's promotional efforts in Germany to counter the downturn in the tourism industry? At what stage in the season will it become known? If information on advance bookings is available, will it be possible for the industry to assess the position with a view to either becoming more competitive, if that is possible, or taking some other measures?

Mr. O'Donoghue: To address the Deputy's latter question first, it is normally possible to give some indication a quarter in advance of the potential bookings for the season. I visited Germany recently and there is evidence from the German market that there will be an increase in numbers of German visitors to Ireland this year.

The German market takes a total of 58 million holidays a year and our share was a mere 307,000 as at 2001. That is a very small share of very large market. There has been evidence of a decrease in the number of German visitors to Ireland - arrested for the first time last year - from 1996 onwards. The challenge is not just to arrest that decrease but to increase the numbers of German visitors. We are making a big effort to achieve that. We have held nine road shows in nine different German cities. We are participating in international trade fairs and organising electronic and print promotion in Germany. Following meetings I have had with those who organise travel to Ireland I remain convinced that we will increase our share of the market from Germany for this year.

Mr. Durkan: Will the Minister answer the second part of my question in relation to addressing the competition?

Mr. O'Donoghue: Addressing the competition is one of the terms of reference which has been given to the tourism review group which has been asked to submit an interim report by the end of this month and to speed up the production of its final report on the state of the Irish tourism industry and to provide recommendations for the future. The question of competitiveness is one of the principal issues which the tourism review group has been asked to address. I await their recommendations with great interest.

Mr. Gogarty: The Minister is no doubt aware that with visitor numbers falling because of war there is a need to have a more quality package on offer. Foreign visitors are becoming much more discerning. Given the contributions from other Deputies I assume the Minister is aware of the need to ensure that visitors receive a friendly welcome and are charged fair prices and receive value for money.

Is the Minister aware of a recent report by CERT on the green agenda and the challenge for Irish tourism and hospitality? This report states that green tourism, although firmly on the agenda of global tourism business, was not necessarily on the Irish agenda and that we are playing catch-up. Besides friendly people and beautiful scenery, the most important factor for tourists considering visiting Ireland is our environment. Is the Minister aware that one of the consultants who wrote the report says that if we do not go green, the market will disappear?

The EU EUROPA Enterprise Directorate has produced a report on the use of natural and cultural heritage to develop sustainable tourism. The report comments that the growth rate of alternative or green tourism at 8% well outstrips the growth rate of traditional tourism. The reasons given are more experienced travellers seeking new destinations, greater mobility in the EU, the tendency to take shorter, more frequent trips, an older but more active population, greater concern for the quality of the environment. I ask the Minister to give a commitment to the House that he will read this report if he has not done so already. Will the Minister give an undertaking to set up a task force in co-operation with the Minister for the Environment and Local Government to examine the issue of greening tourism and to enact legislation if necessary?

Mr. O'Donoghue: Ireland has one of the cleanest environments on the planet and