With regard to Section 2, apparently we cannot get any more information than the Minister has already given us. We simply get the same kind of approach on this measure at this stage that the Minister gave us originally, namely, that the board are determined not to invade the sphere of private enterprise.
In Committee on Finance. - Tourist Traffic (Amendment) Bill, 1946—Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."
I have already explained to the Deputy that it is not possible to give more information now. The plans of the board in the majority of cases are still only plans and they depend for their execution upon the co-operation given by the local authorities who are now being approached in that connection. I would prefer that this Bill to increase the limit of the advances to the board should have been held over until the end of this year because I think at that stage it would have been possible to have shown in a more practicable way the nature of the work on which the board will be engaged and the extent to which it would be able to carry it out. Many of their resort development schemes, even those in relation to which there is no difficulty, either existing or anticipated, in the matter of acquiring property or securing the co-operation of local authorities, will not be undertaken until the end of the present season. In so far as these schemes involve the expenditure of money at existing holiday resorts, it is obviously desirable that such work should not be carried out until the winter months when visitors would not normally be patronising these resorts. At the present time, therefore, we can only talk in terms of plans on paper and I have given the House all the information at my disposal concerning these plans. Obviously the officers of the board may have ideas concerning the fuller development of these plans —ideas which may or may not prove to be practicable or justifiable when put to the test. But it would be wrong to give as plans what are no more than ideas at the present time.
I have given the House all the information I can as to the board's projects, which have been approved of by me and the amounts of the advances that will be approved to the board for the completion of these projects, together with a general indication as to the nature of the projects themselves. I am not in a position to give any further information at this stage. I have certainly no desire to withhold information from the House. If I had any further information I would be very glad to give it to the House.
Assuming that in the course of this year people operating in a private capacity undertake, say, development of a locality which the board proposed to develop under their scheme as outlined, will the board cease to operate in that locality if it appears to them that a private individual or a private company are undertaking a suitable hotel or suitable cafés or whatever other amenities may be necessary in the area? If the board realises that at the end of this year a private person or private company will have got sufficiently under way with a hotel or other facilities, will the board then allow such private enterprise to operate free from competition in the area?
Let us leave aside for a moment the question of hotels. As I explained, the board acquired hotels more or less because of an accidental combination of circumstances and will dispose of these hotels. It is not intended that the board should go into the hotel business at all and certainly there will be no approval of any plan of the board to erect hotels or acquire hotels which will put them into direct competition with private enterprise. The hotel properties or the properties which will be developed as hotels are being transferred to another company and will ultimately be disposed of to private owners, if private owners are willing to acquire them on terms and conditions that the board would regard as fair to itself. Apart from the question of hotels acquired by the board, or the assistance which the board gives to ordinary private hotel owners, its main activities will be the development of holiday resorts. The Deputy asks me if the board will allow other people to build cafés and, if other people build cafés, will the board refrain from doing anything that would involve competition with them. I want to make clear what are the obligations on the board. The board is obliged to recover all the money it gets for these resort developments. These moneys for resort development are in no way being given as grants. The obligation is on the board to get back the whole amount and to get it back with a profit, if it can. It goes to a resort.
I will take Tramore as an example, because work has been done at Tramore. It took an area of waste land, which had been subject to flooding and was of no commercial value until a great deal of work had been done upon it and a great deal of money expended on drainage. It has been engaged in the reclamation of that land with a view to developing it as an estate. The aim of the board will be, having provided amenities and facilities of various kinds for that locality, to dispose of that land in lots to people who are willing to put up shops, hotels, restaurants, or other facilities which the resort requires, getting back in ground rents or in the sale price of the land its own expenditure. Clearly, if other people proceed to develop these businesses, not upon the board's property, but in some other part of the locality, then the board would have to take positive measures to ensure that it was not just left with its developed estate and nobody using it. It would have to promote, as they have done, in fact, in the case of Tramore, a local company, which is going to undertake the development of the area. While, therefore, the board would not ordinarily seek to go into competition with private enterprise, its primary concern will be to develop the property which it acquires and to dispose of that property in a manner which will secure it against loss. That was the development scheme in the case of Tramore. In some other case it may consist of the development of baths or tennis courts or of some other facilities of that kind, again with a view to enhancing the value of the property in the immediate vicinity. It will endeavour to dispose of that property at its enhanced value, but may have to recover its money by utilising the land for the erection of buildings to rent to people or in some other way to get back the amount it expended. I think the Deputy will understand the limitations there will be upon the board's activities in these matters if he keeps in mind that the money so expended must be recovered by the board. It is in no sense a grant, but a repayable advance which must be got back by the board by raising the value of the property it acquires.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."
I beg to move the amendment in Deputy Dillon's name.
That would be quite unusual.
I understood that in the past when Deputies were not present, another member moved for them.
Of the same Party. For instance, if a Front Bench member of Fine Gael or of Labour had a motion down, another member of the same Party might move. Am I to take it that the Deputy has the express authority of Deputy Dillon?
I think you cannot take that.
That is the trouble. I am afraid I cannot.
Perhaps it would help if I explain that the accounts of the board are in fact audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General and that the balance sheet and profit and loss account, with the Comptroller and Auditor-General's report, must be published and, in fact, are submitted to the Dáil. Deputy Dillon may not be aware of these facts.
They do not come before the Public Accounts Committee, I think?
No. The Act does not require that the accounts of the board should be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. It was the board itself that decided to ask the Comptroller and Auditor-General to discharge that function for it.
That is more or less in a private capacity?
In a private capacity but the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General plus the accounts are submitted to the Dáil every year.
Question put and agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, 28th May, 1946.