Vol. 408 No. 4
13 Mr. Farrelly asked the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications if he will outline the individual cost to the State of each individual tourist coming into Ireland from each of our main overseas markets, namely Britain, mainland Europe, North America and other areas; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
The latest available CSO statistics on tourism performance relate to 1990 when Bord Fáilte received grant-in-aid totalling £21.5 million and SFADCo received £1.65 million for traffic promotion and tourism development. Therefore cost per visitor in 1990 was £7.50 and each visitor in turn spent an average of £371, including carrier receipts, during their Irish stay.
Grant in aid covers all costs, including those relating to the administration of ERDF and international fund schemes, registration etc and it is not possible to allocate all this expenditure accurately across the markets. However, I propose to circulate a tabular statement in the Official Report showing the relationship between Bord Fáilte direct expenditure in the main markets and visitor numbers and spend in 1990.
Relationship between Bord Fáilte Marketing Expenditure and visitor numbers and spend in 1990
|
Market |
Marketing Spend per visitor in 1990 |
Average Visitor spend (excluding in 1990 carrier receipts) |
|
£ |
£ |
|
|
Britain |
1.19 |
180 |
|
Mainland Europe |
5.48 |
336 |
|
North America |
6.59 |
377 |
|
Other Areas |
1.92 |
427 |
|
Average |
2.99 |
254 |
On the basis of the limited amount of information supplied to us by the Minister — I appreciate that a tabular statement is being circulated — may I ask whether the amount of money to Bord Fáilte was increased by a few million pounds each year for five years as promised in the programme set out by this Government in 1987, we would now be in a position to say that tourist numbers this year would be increasing by a substantial number?
I do not think you can say that if you spend proportionately more you will get an exactly proportionate increase in visitor numbers. The reciprocal question would be whether, if we did not have Bord Fáilte and did not have marketing we would not have visitors either. Obviously, the answer to that question is that we would have some visitors. The direct relationship between the pound spent by Bord Fáilte and the visitor numbers is not a clear line, it is a dotted line.
Can the Minister give a commitment here that in the Estimates for 1992 sufficient extra funds will be made available to reverse the position we have this year, the tourism industry being faced with a reduction in numbers?
I will do my best to secure constant and increased marketing funding for tourism. I will have to point out, as I have pointed out to the industry, many times that between ERDF, capital allowances, the BES — part of which still exists for industry — Bord Fáilte's grant and the additional funding, which I have brought forward under the structural programme, the State's investment in tourism this year is almost £100 million, and that is an all time record. Given the overall financial situation it is one of the few sectors that has not been the victim of very substantial cutbacks in State spending, it has held its own.
Deputy Jim Higgins and Deputy Gerry Reynolds have been offering. I will call them if they will be brief.
Is the Minister aware that Mr. Seán G. Ronan, former Irish Ambassador to Japan, stated recently that we are missing out on the huge Japanese tourist market, that we simply have a consultant there who has a budget of a mere £60,000 per annum? In view of the fact that we have no historic or ethnic ties with Japan it requires an extra special effort to sell the high interest areas such as golf and fishing which are of enormous interest to Japanese tourists and which are being exploited on a large scale by the British.
I did not see the statement to which the Deputy refers but I agree that Japan is an exciting area from Ireland's point of view. The difficulty is that the bulk of the Japanese come through London. Much of Bord Fáilte's effort is geared towards trying to get them to come onwards once they have reached the UK. Having said that, we have not by any means sufficient resources in Japan. I would like to see us correcting that position. It is a matter I will discuss with Bord Fáilte.
We have half a man there.
The Minister is no doubt aware that the CSO today produced figures stating, for the first time, that continental tourism revenue was larger than North American tourism revenue. A number of months ago in the House the Minister said he was trying to get a major American air carrier back into this country. From the marketing point of view that would be beneficial to the country and would also help to increase the number of tourists from North America. Has any progress been made in that area?
Regretfully not Deputy, other than the fact that I have visited most of the North American airline companies at senior level; at chairmanship and executive level. They are all extremely nervous about the aviation industry at present and are reluctant to commit themselves to 1991 and to 1992. There is a very strong interest among USA airlines in flying direct to London and this is something to which Ireland will have to give serious attention: I am giving it much attention at present.
Let us come to Question No. 14.
May I ask a very brief question?
A brief question.
With regard to the last point made by the Minister and given the ongoing controversy about the Shannon stopover policy, can the Minister tell the House whether in the near future he will issue a positive statement as to whether it is his intention to review the position? Two reports appeared in today's newspapers——
That is a separate matter worthy of a separate question.
It relates to the North American——
Please Deputy Byrne, this is a very specific matter.
Can the Minister answer that question? Can he clear the air once and for all on the issue?
Question No. 14, please.
The Minister will have to ask his ministerial colleagues whether he can answer that question.
Obviously, all Deputies on the opposite benches are in unanimous agreement on that issue.
