Mr. Maurice Pratt:

I agree with most, if not all, of what the Senator said. I made the point in my opening comment that the great opportunity for Ireland is rural tourism in terms of the spread of tourists. We must be conscious of the fact that tourism internationally is increasingly urban tourism.

Therefore, a policy is needed to ensure there is no overpopulation of key areas to which tourists naturally want to come.

The point on the importance of hotels as social infrastructure is absolutely correct. I would like to believe that the €230 million investment being made by Centre Parcs in Longford will help to spread infrastructural development. The project will be an absolute revelation to people when it arrives. It will be fantastic for jobs in the area. That is the sort of investment we need.

We need new product. Tourism, as an industry and sector, is no different from many other business sectors in that it needs regeneration, new projects, new initiatives and new ideas. Part of what we call for is the development of stronger tourism attractions in the north west to counterbalance the Cliffs of Moher in the south, for example. Slieve League is one of the finest attractions in the entire world; it just needs better infrastructure. We need reasons for people to stay there longer. That is what develops the whole infrastructure element.

I absolutely take the point on the importance of the decisions the Government made in 2009 at 2010, in more difficult times, to the success that tourism has enjoyed. It is not unfair to say that tourism has led Ireland's economic recovery. Decisions on VAT and the airport tax have been quite seminal. I chaired a mid-term review of the Irish tourism strategy in 2009, at which time there was a call for an even more severe reduction in our investment in tourism, including expenditure on overseas tourism marketing. As somebody who spent almost his entire life in the brand business, I called at the time for no reduction, if possible. I referred to equity the State has created in "Brand Ireland". If one reduces one's investment in the market, other markets will take it from one.

The point about the United Kingdom is well made. There is no question but that Brexit is a threat. It is partly currency driven thus far but there are other factors. There is uncertainty for UK tourists now so they are more likely to go on staycations than to go overseas, in the short term at least. That is a challenge. The United Kingdom has been our most natural tourism market, for obvious reasons. We did and do need to rebalance from where we get our tourists. The progression of tourism has been lumpy and we need to try to flatten it out better. That is why, looking to the next decade, markets such as Hong Kong, China and the east will be much more important. They will help to rebalance the lumpiness of tourism.

When one considers very large capital expenditure, the operational side, and significant reductions in one's share of voice in these markets, one notes decisions made now will affect us in two, three and four years. Our worry about the UK market is such that more money needs to be invested now in marketing Ireland and its attractiveness to British tourists. I will not say we have taken it for granted but, although it has been such an important market for us, we might be inclined to overlook it because America has been so strong. Clearly, Aer Lingus, Ryanair and international airlines have been key deliverers of the success we have enjoyed.

We should not forget, however, about how bad things were in 2008, 2009 and 2010. That is why, as Mr. O'Mara Walsh states in the tourism strategy, we want to see increased State investment. We agree with much of what is in the long-term capital plan for the period to 2040 but just believe there should be more recognition of the fact that tourism is Ireland's biggest industry. One would not think that considering some of the other industries that may have a more powerful and cohesive voice.