Podemos have been threatening to scupper the government's holiday rentals' legislation. They have engaged in brinkmanship grandstanding in the past, as with the tourist tax law, and so have earned the criticism of the Partido Popular for "crying wolf" because they don't see their threats through. Things are unlikely to be any different this time.
The reasons for this latest bout of messing with the PSOE (PSIB) and Més government are twofold. Podemos insist that the government doesn't appreciate the scale of the problems with finding residential accommodation and that the legislation doesn't do anything to bring down the cost of renting or indeed purchasing. Nor does the law guarantee a right to housing. The second reason is that Podemos are demanding that the law includes a declaration of a housing emergency in Palma and Ibiza. This would entail the total prohibition of holiday rentals.
From a legislative point of view, Podemos are blurring two strands - one has to do with holiday rentals, the other with housing. There are two separate pieces of legislation going before the Balearic parliament. In essence, what Podemos would like is a unified bill, but this won't happen, much though - and Podemos would be right in this regard - the two strands are clearly linked. The government, meantime, justifiably argues that there would be encroachment into powers of town halls and island councils. Were there to be, then the legislation could end up becoming mired in the courts. It might do anyway, but for other reasons.
In fact, both Palma town hall and the Council of Ibiza have indicated they will use provisions in the new bill to severely restrict rentals. A specific declaration regarding emergency housing wouldn't therefore be necessary.
Previous experience suggests that when push comes to shove and votes are finally cast, Podemos will allow the legislation to go through. Although Podemos have been engaged in their usual last-minute attempts at horse-trading, the bill will surely be approved. Different alterations to the legislation should enable this. One is to increase the fine on websites like Airbnb for publicising unlicensed properties to 400,000 euros. Another is to give owners the chance of offsetting fines of up to 40,000 euros by providing so-called social rental.
The approval on Tuesday, assuming it does indeed go through, will be three days before PSOE (PSIB) convene for their congress. As mentioned in a previous article, this congress will be crucial for the party in mapping out its strategy leading up to the 2019 election. Central to this strategy will be issues related to tourism.
For Francina Armengol to secure a second term as president, a new "pact" will have to be arrived at. This is a cold fact for PSOE, as it is never in a position to get close to a majority: the Partido Popular is far too strong for this to ever happen. The congress will therefore have to take into account what the relationship with other parties might look like, with the Podemos relationship key to Armengol's ability to continue as president.
The PP could return with a majority, as it has in the past, but this is by no means certain. For all the at-times chaotic appearance of the current government, it has nevertheless presided over a period of improved economic conditions. The PP will attack it on jobs and on pay, but the electorate are unlikely to be convinced that the PP would do any better. In this respect, Armengol will be hoping that next year's wage negotiations and settlement for the hotel and hospitality sector bring about improved terms. Just as important, as mentioned before, will be any agreement on a special economic regime for the Balearics. A good one, and the PP will find it that much tougher to win.
The nature of the current pact or of a future one will, nevertheless, be an ingredient for the electorate to consider. When it comes to tourism policy, the tourist tax won't -as it stands - be a factor. In 2003, when the PP came back to power, it was an issue, as the electorate were concerned by an impact on tourism. Circumstances are quite different now. A Podemos demand for a doubling in the rate of the tax - a stipulation made for the party approving next year's budget - might be something for the public to baulk at. Or it might not be, given the "saturation" narrative.
Podemos do have the power to influence policy, and this can be seen in what the congress will consider in respect of limits on the number of tourists. PSOE, it is understood, is to change its tune. The congress will consider a limit on summer tourism numbers. A "battery" of proposals are to be presented in order to achieve a limit. The tourist tax is likely to be one of them. A doubling, and Podemos will take the credit.
Showing posts with label Tourism policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tourism policy. Show all posts
Thursday, July 13, 2017
Thursday, May 01, 2014
A New (Hoteliers') Tourism Policy
The Cercle d'Economia is a body of wise men and women (in fact, almost exclusively men) which from time to time dispenses the sort of wisdom aimed at Mallorca's tourism industry that is not always associated with the industry. It staged a conference earlier this week entitled "reflections on tourism policy". The star attraction was the director of the Mallorcan hoteliers federation, Inmaculada de Benito, someone who hasn't always appeared to be totally wise. It was she who in 2012 infamously referred to the economy of the Balearics being broken because there was not 100% hotel occupancy in high summer, an observation which ignored the fact that there never is 100% occupancy - not in Mallorca as a whole. This was an observation with the holiday-let market firmly in its sight. This market was helping to cause the broken economy. In July 2012, Mallorca registered its highest hotel occupancy rate for a July this century. So much for things having been broken.
Sra. de Benito produced one of those presentations of the type loved by consultants. You know the sort of thing - masses of charts and diagrams which are all terribly impressive but not always terribly meaningful. One diagram, however, was intended to be particularly meaningful. It was a funnel with a wide brim admitting tourist arrivals with a very much narrower stem from which tourist revenues were dripping. It was a diagram of which the federation's president, Aurelio Vázquez, would have only partially approved. In March he came out with the statement that between 2004 and 2012 there needed to have been a million and a half more tourists in order to merely maintain revenues. The funnel's brim needed to have been substantially wider and the tourist arrivals substantially greater.
Nevertheless, the diagram was making the same point as Vázquez had, and it has to be considered within the context of the hoteliers' current propaganda regarding wage negotiations. The narrative, for some years now, has been consistent. Revenues have stagnated and profitability has declined, while costs (labour being one of them) are too high. The hoteliers' offer on wages is a zero percentage rise.
Having reflected on tourism policy, Sra. de Benito has come to the conclusion that two key aspects of public tourism policy are not sufficient for guaranteeing long-term competitiveness in the industry. These aspects are what she refers to as offer policies (regulation, planning and taxation) and demand policies, such as overseas promotion. There has to be, she says, better co-ordination between these policies. Meaning what exactly?
Of the demand policies, there is precious little promotion as it is, so it is difficult to see how there can be better co-ordination when one part of the equation is all but non-existent. Of the offer policies, Sra. de Benito would like, it would seem, lower taxes, less regulation and less planning bureaucracy, to which we can probably all say amen and not just on the hoteliers' behalf.
In fact, these offer policies have already been introduced. The 2012 tourism law did so, while the decree on mature tourist zones (the first one of which was applied to Playa de Palma last year) is intended to relax planning regulations. But as ever, this is regulation which is not evenly distributed and does not serve the tourism industry as a whole. To take the current flavour of the moment (when hasn't it been?), that of all-inclusive, Sra. de Benito presumably would not support regulation. It would be pretty odd if she did, having intimated that she wants less of it in general.
The thrust of her reflection was that there should be integration of different economic sectors in order to add value to tourism and to build a "socially sustainable" model. These sectors would include health, the environment, technology, agriculture, education and transport. Which all sounds very laudable, but when she then goes on to talk about generating more and better employment and greater well-being among the citizenship, how does she square this with a de-regulated environment in which the all-inclusive is increasingly coming to dominate, thus creating a negative consequence for general economic well-being? Indeed, how does she square better employment with hoteliers' wishes to be able to engage in more contracting-out of services, more flexible employment contracts and zero wage increases?
Essentially, and cutting away the consultancy-style gobbledegook, what Sra. de Benito wants is for the private sector to have greater say if not the majority say in tourism policy. Which might not be such a bad thing, were it not for the fact that the private sector would almost inevitably mean the hotel sector assuming priority. She alludes to the political correctness of a "socially sustainable" model, but on whose terms would this model be based?
The wise men of the Cercle will have listened and reflected. Fortunately perhaps, only some of them are hoteliers.
Sra. de Benito produced one of those presentations of the type loved by consultants. You know the sort of thing - masses of charts and diagrams which are all terribly impressive but not always terribly meaningful. One diagram, however, was intended to be particularly meaningful. It was a funnel with a wide brim admitting tourist arrivals with a very much narrower stem from which tourist revenues were dripping. It was a diagram of which the federation's president, Aurelio Vázquez, would have only partially approved. In March he came out with the statement that between 2004 and 2012 there needed to have been a million and a half more tourists in order to merely maintain revenues. The funnel's brim needed to have been substantially wider and the tourist arrivals substantially greater.
Nevertheless, the diagram was making the same point as Vázquez had, and it has to be considered within the context of the hoteliers' current propaganda regarding wage negotiations. The narrative, for some years now, has been consistent. Revenues have stagnated and profitability has declined, while costs (labour being one of them) are too high. The hoteliers' offer on wages is a zero percentage rise.
Having reflected on tourism policy, Sra. de Benito has come to the conclusion that two key aspects of public tourism policy are not sufficient for guaranteeing long-term competitiveness in the industry. These aspects are what she refers to as offer policies (regulation, planning and taxation) and demand policies, such as overseas promotion. There has to be, she says, better co-ordination between these policies. Meaning what exactly?
Of the demand policies, there is precious little promotion as it is, so it is difficult to see how there can be better co-ordination when one part of the equation is all but non-existent. Of the offer policies, Sra. de Benito would like, it would seem, lower taxes, less regulation and less planning bureaucracy, to which we can probably all say amen and not just on the hoteliers' behalf.
In fact, these offer policies have already been introduced. The 2012 tourism law did so, while the decree on mature tourist zones (the first one of which was applied to Playa de Palma last year) is intended to relax planning regulations. But as ever, this is regulation which is not evenly distributed and does not serve the tourism industry as a whole. To take the current flavour of the moment (when hasn't it been?), that of all-inclusive, Sra. de Benito presumably would not support regulation. It would be pretty odd if she did, having intimated that she wants less of it in general.
The thrust of her reflection was that there should be integration of different economic sectors in order to add value to tourism and to build a "socially sustainable" model. These sectors would include health, the environment, technology, agriculture, education and transport. Which all sounds very laudable, but when she then goes on to talk about generating more and better employment and greater well-being among the citizenship, how does she square this with a de-regulated environment in which the all-inclusive is increasingly coming to dominate, thus creating a negative consequence for general economic well-being? Indeed, how does she square better employment with hoteliers' wishes to be able to engage in more contracting-out of services, more flexible employment contracts and zero wage increases?
Essentially, and cutting away the consultancy-style gobbledegook, what Sra. de Benito wants is for the private sector to have greater say if not the majority say in tourism policy. Which might not be such a bad thing, were it not for the fact that the private sector would almost inevitably mean the hotel sector assuming priority. She alludes to the political correctness of a "socially sustainable" model, but on whose terms would this model be based?
The wise men of the Cercle will have listened and reflected. Fortunately perhaps, only some of them are hoteliers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
