Tourism Council

Description

Copyright infringement is not intended

Context: Merely drafting a National Tourism Policy is not enough for the development of the tourism sector in the country, a parliamentary committee has said.

Details:

The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Transport, Tourism and Culture has suggested fast-tracking the creation of a National Tourism Council on the lines of the GST Council to directly make recommendations to the Union and the State governments.
Observing that “Vision without action is a daydream, and action without a vision is a nightmare”, the panel sought to know from the government the action taken for the creation of the Tourism Council after the inter-ministerial consultations.
The committee also sought to know the steps taken by the Tourism Ministry regarding its earlier recommendation of including tourism on the Concurrent List.
“Inclusion of tourism on the Concurrent List will help in simplifying the issues of the pandemic-hit Indian tourism sector since tourism is a multi-sectoral activity. The Ministry should inform the committee whether any action has been taken on the long-standing recommendation,” the committee said.
It also sought to know why some 20 States were yet to accord industry status to hospitality projects, and asked the Ministry whether anything in this regard has been conveyed by these States to the Centre.
As of now only eight States — Maharashtra, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Kerala, Karnataka, Punjab, Rajasthan and Uttarakhand — have accorded industry status to hospitality projects in their regions.
The committee also questioned the Centre over releasing a meagre ₹3.88 crore to Kerala for development of spiritual tourism as compared to ₹69.47 crore sanctioned.
It expressed concern that in projects sanctioned five years ago or before 2017-18, such as “Development at Hazratbal” in Jammu and Kashmir and “Infrastructure Development at Puri, Shree Jagannath Dham – Ramachandi – Prachi River front at Deuli under Mega Circuit” in Odisha, the progress rates achieved have been less than expected.
“Projects taking longer than five years may incur high cost and schedule or time overruns, which will put extra financial burden and resource crunch on the Ministry and implementing agencies involved,” it further said.