Vol. 482 No. 1
2 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation the reason for directing Bord Fáilte to withdraw the trade logo which had been agreed between Bord Fáilte and the Northern Ireland Tourist Board; and the consultation, if any, which took place with his Northern Ireland counterpart, Bord Fáilte and the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, prior to his decision to direct Bord Fáilte to withdraw the new logo. [17311/97]
3 Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation the discussions, if any, he, his Department or Bord Fáilte had with the Northern Ireland Tourist Board before he introduced the latest tourism logo; if so, the outcome of these discussions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17384/97]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 and 3 together.
I am grateful to the Deputies for the opportunity to comment on the subject of the tourism logo and to dispel the confusion that unfortunately appears to have arisen in the matter, particularly as regards cross-Border tourism co-operation.
The factual position is that shortly after taking up office as Minister, I wrote to the chairman of Bord Fáilte indicating that while I was generally impressed by the quality of the advertising and promotional material attaching to the new tourism brand, I was anxious that much greater prominence should be given to the traditional shamrock symbol. I did not issue any formal direction to Bord Fáilte but asked for its considered views on the full implications of implementing such a change and invited it to report back to me as soon as possible.
My views on the matter were heavily influenced by comments expressed to me by a range of interests, including many from within the tourism industry and among the wider public, that the new logo had failed to capture the imagination both at home and abroad. Moreover, I was concerned that the new logo had become the subject of some debate, particularly in the media, which in my opinion was adversely affecting perceptions of an otherwise excellent campaign.
Since first expressing my reservations about the lack of prominence given to the shamrock in the new logo there has been a range of consultations and contacts with the Northern Ireland authorities. I wrote to my Northern Ireland opposite number, Mr. Adam Ingram, Minister of State at the Department of Economic Development, on l4 August indicating that I had asked Bord Fáilte for its considered views on the matter. I added that Bord Fáilte was considering alternative design possibilities compatible with the overall brand project and was in touch with its opposite numbers in the Northern Ireland Tourist Board on the matter. In his reply Minister Ingram expressed the belief as regards issues relating to cross-Border co-operation that the matter of logos was best left to the business judgment of the contractually-linked investors. This is a principle with which I have no difficulty.
The outcome of Bord Fáilte's consideration is a creation by the Company Design Works, the original logo design consultants to the tourism brand project, which uses all the elements of the existing logo while giving a greater level of prominence to the shamrock, as requested. I have been assured by Bord Fáilte that the Northern Ireland Tourist Board was kept fully apprised of this work as it progressed. The Northern Ireland Tourist Board did, however, express a wish for further research and consultation before taking a decision in relation to its plans for future logo use in its promotions.
On completion of the round of consultations, I was advised by Bord Fáilte of the revised logo formulation which it intended using in its own future promotions. It is clear, therefore, that my announcement of 18 September regarding the phasing in of a new design formulation for the logo for the 1998 season followed consultations between the two tourist boards, a process in which the board of the Overseas Tourism Marketing Initiative, OTMI, was also included. I was categorically assured by Bord Fáilte that all necessary consultation with interested parties, including the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, had by then been undertaken in a fashion which permitted the revised logo formulation to move forward. It was also strongly put to me that a decision by me in the matter was required quickly so that the finalisation of Bord Fáilte promotional material for 1998 could proceed without delay. My subsequent announcement clearly related exclusively to Bord Fáilte. Questions regarding the logo to be used in joint cross-Border marketing initiatives are matters for decision by the appropriate partners, in this case the board of OTMI or Bord Fáilte-Northern Ireland Tourist Board jointly. My statement contained no indication about any agreement or decision in relation to joint cross-Border marketing and promotion programmes, which is a matter for them.
I had the opportunity of meeting Adam Ingram in Chicago on 6 October during a US tourism promotion visit and our discussion was very useful in removing some misconceptions which surrounded recent events. That meeting was also highly constructive in underlining our shared commitment to doing all that we both can to further tourism promotion and marketing on an all-island basis over the coming years.
Given the tenor of the recent extensive media coverage of this issue, I would like to dispel any misconceptions there might be as regards cross-Border relations on this issue. Tourism co-operation between the North and South remains very strong. The partnership initiatives between both Administrations and the alliances forged between the two tourist boards have been instrumental in successfully marketing Ireland on an all-island basis in recent years. I endorse fully this partnership co-operation now and for the future and have every confidence that the two tourist boards will continue to develop the excellent working relations for the future mutual benefit of the entire island of Ireland.
The talk of co-operation is laudable, but will the Minister agree the decision last November was made as a result of exhaustive marketing work in 17 countries and was taken by experts in the marketing area of tourism? Will he agree that a political decision by him torpedoing a cross-Border initiative launched last November gave out all the wrong signals about partnership not only in tourism but across a broad spectrum of activities in which he is involved? Will he reconsider the use of the withered shamrock, take the advice of the marketing experts and use the logo launched last November so that this island can send a unified signal to the world that we are co-operating with each other? Will he indicate the cost involved in replacing the logo launched last November with the withered shamrock?
The Deputy did not listen to my answer. I agree that marketing Ireland should be done on an all-island basis and that it should be left up to the board of the OTMI. My letter was sent to Bord Fáilte asking it to consider giving more prominence to the shamrock symbol and the implications of that. I agree with the Deputy that we must market this country on an all-island basis and that is how I intend to proceed. That was heralded by my predecessor, Deputy Andrews, and Deputy Killeen and in our manifesto and programme for Government. It was stated publicly by the chairman of Bord Fáilte that it did not come as any surprise to him that when we took office this issue would arise. I remind the Deputy that on 28 July I wrote to Bord Fáilte indicating that I would like the shamrock symbol to be given further consideration and the matter was referred to in the Sunday Independent. Therefore, what we intended to do on coming into office was well heralded in advance. I agree the matter should be left to the decision of OTMI and I intend to pursue the matter along those lines.
This was a milestone in North-South relations in that Bord Fáilte and the Northern Ireland Tourist Board came together to produce this logo. What I find disappointing about it is that in the Donegal People's Press of 24 September the Minister of State at the Northern Ireland Office, Mr. Ingram, stated that the Minister, Deputy McDaid had done this for political reasons. What is the Minister's answer to that? The Minister stated he had conversations with Mr. Ingram but Mr. Ingram states that he did it for political reasons.
Is this the first phase of production in relation to this logo because the Donegal People's Press of 24 September states that according to the tourist board, the total cost of the revamp is in the region of £100,000, making it a very dear shamrock indeed and that while giving it a guarded welcome, the Minister indicated he had reservations.
The Minister is still not satisfied. Will there be a further phase of development in relation to this logo?
Any further changes, if they are to take place, will be a matter for the OTMI.
As regards Minister Ingram's letter, I assure the Deputy that since I have made direct contact with him we have put this back on a proper footing. I said there were misunderstandings and a media-led aspect.
The Minister is blaming the media again.
I am not. Since my meeting with Mr. Ingram, we have cleared up this. I had a very cordial constructive meeting with Mr. Ingram where we indicated that we looked to the future and would proceed together along those lines.
I did not try to politicise this issue which is important to a Deputy coming from my part of the country, knowing the devastation which has happened in that part of the country, particularly in the area of tourism. I am there every day of the week and I assure the Deputy there will be no greater exponent of co-operation with the Northern Ireland Tourist Board than me.
To answer the question about costings and the current shamrock, which has been described with various adjectives, according to Bord Fáilte the cost of the change will be in the region of less than £100,000. The reason I accepted it was that, first, I was honour bound because they wanted to continue to market the tourism logo and, second, I was informed that I was legally constrained, that the taxpayers would have a bill of approximately £3 million had I changed the actual shape of it. While it has been referred to as moth-eaten, etc., I inform the Deputy that the insecticide would have cost between £2 million and £3 million. I was not prepared to go along with that. I was leaving it so that the matter would evolve and I assure the Deputy that it is evolving along the right lines.
A real dog's dinner.
The Minister says the cost will be about £100,000. Does he agree the cost will be more serious than that? He took a unilateral political decision on this which damaged the confidence and trust which was being built up with the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. His decision lead to a number of reactions from political leaders in Northern Ireland. The Minister of State, Mr. Ingram, is on record as saying that the first he learned of the Minister's decision was in a press release. Does the Minister agree that is not a proper way to conduct cross-Border co-operation?
The dates on which the Department, Bord Fáilte and the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, had consultation regarding the issue would have been 26 July, 14, 20 and 25 August, 6, 9, 11, 18 and 26 September and, finally, when I met Mr. Ingram on 6 October.
After the decision was made.
I relayed my decision to Bord Fáilte for its consideration. I directed my views at Bord Fáilte and not at the OTMI, as the Deputy clearly tried to imply. I did not think the cost was prohibitive in view of the implications of spending millions with that brand. The cost of changing it was based on views expressed to me from within the industry.
Had my predecessor or the previous Government given such a long leash to this particular issue, it would not have arisen in the first place.
It is even more serious now in that the Minister made the decision unilaterally with Bord Fáilte——
A question, Deputy.
——without any real consultation with the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and before he met this Belfast counterpart, Mr. Ingram. Does the Minister now agree that at least he should have had political contact with his Northern Ireland counterpart before any decision was made on a joint venture?
I have a right, as Bord Fáilte is under my auspices, to make any views known to Bord Fáilte. I did not take any unilateral decision. I asked Bord Fáilte to take into consideration views on the matter. Does the Deputy agree with the research process, which highlighted that the shamrock did not feature as a recognisable icon for Ireland, particularly in the European markets. It stated that even in the UK and the US, where there was a level of association with the shamrock, there was a lack of understanding of what the shamrock stood for or, indeed, what it had to do with a holiday in Ireland. I disagreed with that. I felt people in the UK, the US and Europe had some knowledge of the shamrock. I questioned the research and as a result, I asked Bord Fáilte to try to give more prominence to the shamrock.
I was within my rights. I did not act unilaterally. As I already stated, there would be no greater exponent of co-operation than me. It is rather unfair of the Deputy to try to be divisive in this aspect of tourism, where there has been nothing but co-operation, and to suggest that I should try to unilaterally act to disimprove tourism in a region which has lost out more than any other.
But the Minister did not even speak——
What was the Minister's reaction when the chairman of Bord Fáilte, Mr. Mark Mortell, returned to him with his deliberations from the Northern Ireland Tourist Board? He must have seen the warning signs at that stage, that the tremendous work which had been done by Bord Fáilte in putting together this plan with the Northern Ireland Tourist Board was in danger of falling apart. He must have seen that this initiative, which was of great concern to everybody in the tourism trade in Ireland, was going off the rails. He must have been in a position at that stage to reconsider and not just make a decision which would have serious implications in that now there are a number of logos in use around the world and people do not know whether they represent North or South. They do not know the general policy of Bord Fáilte. When Mr. Mark Mortell returned to the Minister he surely should have seen the danger signs and taken action.
I asked the chairman of Bord Fáilte for his considered views to give me an indication of the implications involved. I have already provided information regarding those implications. When I asked Mark Mortell, chairman of Bord Fáilte, to investigate the matter I knew he would give consideration to the views of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. He returned with those views and informed me that, following consultation, the position of NITB is that while it understands that Bord Fáilte will be amending its own literature, advertising campaigns and promotional material, NITB will not be doing the same at this point and will continue to use the TBI mark. The NITB has always had that prerogative and retains it in respect of the new logo. I had no problem in accepting its position.
The NITB retains the right to decide which logo it prefers. Consultation took place with the board, a unilateral decision was not taken. I received information on both the NITB and OTMI positions but I did not make a unilateral decision.
Who drowned the shamrock?
The time allocated for priority questions has expired.
Is it not nonsensical that, on a small island measuring 320 miles long by 160 miles wide, two organisations with different logos are giving a disjointed, unfocused message to the world market about Ireland? Will the Minister reconsider this matter and ensure that the respective tourist boards, North and South, market this island on a joint basis using a common logo? Can we agree on that?
That is what we are doing. In the past, the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and Bord Fáilte used separate logos while the OTMI offered a common logo. That remains the case. Of course I want this island represented under one tourism banner. The Deputy will agree it was not necessary for me to find as many Ryder Cup committees in existence as I did when I entered office.
There was only one committee.
When I entered office I discovered numerous Ryder Cup committees. I want the island represented under one tourism banner and I assure the Deputy that it will be. I will not interfere with the OTMI because its decisions are taken on a joint North-South basis.
This is the case of the drowned shamrock.
As I understand it, production of the logo cost £400,000. How much of this was contributed by the Northern Ireland Tourist Board? If it did contribute, will the money in question be refunded to the NITB?
I do not know where the Deputy obtained the figure of £400,000. The OTMI operates on a budget of £5 million to £6 million. The Government, through European Regional Development Fund funding, contributed 80 to 85 per cent of this. The Northern Ireland Tourist Board contributed £500,000.
The Minister has drowned the shamrock.
