Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 27 Feb 1952

Vol. 129 No. 7

Tourist Traffic Bill, 1951—Second Stage.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

I should imagine that it is not necessary, in moving this Bill, to stress the importance of the tourist industry in the national economy; I think that is now generally recognised. However, as the Bill does propose to authorise the expenditure of substantial sums from the Exchequer on the development of the tourist industry, it may be no harm to emphasise how important to the national economy its development may be.

At the present time over-all earnings from the tourist trade are second only to earnings from agricultural exports and as a matter of particular current interest it may be mentioned that receipts from tourism represent the largest single item in the list of our dollar earnings. During the year 1950 the gross receipts from tourism were estimated at £32,400,000. They exceeded by about £3,000,000 the gross receipts from all live-stock exports and fell short by only £12,000,000 or £13,000,000 of the receipts from all agricultural exports. These figures help to demonstrate the value of the tourist trade as a source of revenue and that it is, in so far as its effect upon the national economy is concerned, an export trade. It would be no exaggeration to describe it as a corner stone of the national economy.

Certainly on the success or failure of our efforts to expand tourist revenue will depend whether we can maintain, much less improve, the present standard of living of our people. As was made clear in recent debates here, the deficit in the nation's balance of payments in 1951 constituted a very serious threat to the stability of our economy. That deficit last year was in the region of £66,000,000. It is obvious that an adverse balance of that magnitude cannot be permitted to continue for any appreciable time. The only satisfactory way, the only way of solving the problem which it constitutes without hardship to our people, is to step up both production and exports. Any other solution would involve undesirable social and economic consequences. Plans for the expansion of agricultural and industrial production have been made but they are likely to provide a long-term rather than an immediate solution of that problem.

The tourist trade, however, offers an opportunity of expansion and the prospect of a quicker return than any other trade. We believe that if the approach to the problem of expanding the tourist revenue is properly planned a substantial increase in tourist earnings can be achieved. I have expressed the view already that it is conceivable that tourist revenue could be doubled. I am sure that the House will recognise, however, that an expansion of that dimension and having such consequences for the welfare of the country cannot be achieved unless the State takes a far more active part in securing it than it has heretofore and is prepared to undertake expenditure in promoting it to a much greater extent than previously. State expenditure alone will not, of course, produce the results desired. There must also be a considerable investment of private capital. The aim of State policy should be to secure that investment.

At the present time we have, as the House is no doubt aware, excellent opportunities for expanding tourist revenue. The reduction in the currency allowance to British citizens travelling to continental countries should result in an increase of British visitors coming here; the reductions in transatlantic air fares which are coming into operation in 1952 create conditions favourable to an increase of dollar earnings from tourists. I think it is true to say that many Americans could come to this country for holidays at an all-in cost including transportation substantially below the cost of holidays in their own country.

These opportunities, however, must be fully exploited if we are to get the most out of them. The aim must be to get the maximum number of visitors from abroad, English and American visitors in particular, to visit this country and to do so in circumstances which will keep the trade expanding when the temporary favourable conditions are passed, when travel to continental countries becomes easier for British citizens and despite the attractions which these countries may have to offer to American visitors. If these opportunities are not fully exploited, we may lose the chance of expanding our tourist earnings.

Under existing legislation, that is, the Tourist Traffic Act, 1939, the Irish Tourist Board, which was established by that Act, may be paid an annual Grant-in-Aid fixed at £45,000. My predecessor early last year authorised the board to incur expenditure above that limit in the present financial year, with the intention of submitting to the Dáil—and and securing the enactment of a Bill revising that statutory limitation. That is the reason why a Supplementary Estimate is now before the Dáil—and I suggest that that Supplementary Estimate be debated, if it requires to be debated, in conjunction with the Bill—and why it is necessary that this Bill should be passed before the end of the financial year. If for any reason it should be delayed in its passage through the Oireachtas, it will be necessary to put through a short Bill within that period, authorising the expenditure which the Tourist Board has already undertaken in this financial year. Under that Act of 1939 also, the board could be given repayable advances within a limit of £1,250,000. These advances, save as otherwise authorised by the Minister for Finance, were confined to works, investments and loans which were certified by the Tourist Board to be profit-earning.

When I resumed office last year, I undertook a very careful and thorough review of policy in relation to tourist development. I considered the legislation which had been prepared by my predecessor and which did not secure enactment by the Dáil because of the dissolution last year and I studied the reports on tourism which had been presented as a result of a number of technical assistance projects under E.C.A., and particularly the report furnished by Mr. Christenberry and his colleagues. I think the Dáil will expect me to express appreciation of the help given to the preparation of plans for tourist development by the Government of the United States under their E.C.A. technical assistance programme.

I had a number of discussions with members of the Tourist Board and with representatives of the Irish Tourist Association, and I also had the benefit of a personal discussion with Mr. Christenberry. His report had been submitted before the change of Government, but I invited him to come back here to review the position as it had developed since his report was made and to advise me upon ideas which were under consideration by me at the time. The technical assistance project under which Mr. Christenberry operated provided for that second visit by him. I perhaps should mention that he indicated almost complete agreement with the plans I outlined to him, except in regard to the establishment of a separate publicity board. He was not in agreement with that step, although he said he appreciated the considerations which led me to take it. The drafting of this Bill took somewhat longer than I anticipated, but the delay was unavoidable. It will be seen, however, that the Bill is a fairly comprehensive one and one which, I hope, will form a sound basis for the development of the tourist industry over the next five years.

I have expressed the view that the aim of doubling our revenue from the tourist industry will not be achieved unless expenditure, both by the State and private interests, is substantially increased. Mr. Christenberry said in his report that the State must get completely into the swim of tourism and not be content with merely wetting its feet, as it has been doing heretofore. This Bill is designed to enable the Government to contribute funds towards tourist development and publicity on a scale which is substantially in excess of anything previously attempted. There is power for the making of State grants amounting to £500,000 a year, if that much is required, for general development and publicity purposes.

I should, perhaps, make it clear that the method of financing the activities of the tourist organisations is changed. In the Act of 1939, the Tourist Board received a Grant-in-Aid of a fixed amount per year and was not obliged to surrender to the Exchequer any portion of that sum which was unexpended and its expenditure was entirely at its discretion within the limits of its powers as fixed by the Act. The proposal here is to fix a ceiling to the amounts that may be given for tourist development purposes. That ceiling cannot be exceeded without further legislation, but the intention is that the organisations set up under this Bill will prepare annual budgets of expenditure, and, subject to their approval by the Government, will receive whatever amounts they require within these limits, the amounts being indicated in the Estimates for the year.

There is also provision in the Bill for giving over a period of five years guarantees of loans amounting to £3,000,000 for the improvement of holiday accommodation and tourist resorts. Deputies who are familiar with the Trade Loans (Guarantee) Acts will understand that the provisions of this Bill relating to these guaranteed loans are similar to those of the Trade Loans (Guarantee) Acts, with this difference, that the purposes for which these loans may be guaranteed are those defined in the Bill and the further important difference that the advisory committee which will consider applications for loans will be An Bord Fáilte, the Tourist Board, and not the advisory committee under the Trade Loans (Guarantee) Act. These provisions are designed to assist private interests who are willing to invest their own money in the tourist industry.

I express the hope that private interests will avail of the opportunity given them by this Bill to the full. Unless all those who are directly or indirectly concerned with the tourist industry play their part, the efforts of the Government and the two statutory organisations which will be functioning under this Bill cannot achieve a full measure of success. The public in general, the hoteliers, the local authorities and groups interested in the development of particular holiday resorts must be educated to understand how important the industry is in the national economy and how important it is that they should co-operate with the two official organisations in making a success of it.

I think I should say that the evidence is that we have not yet succeeded in arousing sufficient interest in the potentialities of the tourist trade, even among those whose livelihood would seem to depend on its development. When the various reports were received under the E.C.A. technical assistance projects, it was decided to publish a synopsis of these reports in the form of a brochure, of which Deputies have received copies.

Two thousand five hundred copies of that synthesis, as it was called, were printed. Up to the 19th of this month, only 260 were sold. When one realises that there are over 1,000 registered hotel and guest houses in the country whose business it should be to learn the opinions of experts upon the potentialities of their industry, of what they might do to exploit those potentialities, it is very disappointing to find that so few were sold.

Breanndán Mac Fheórais

Is this the report of the delegation that went to the States in September, 1950?

Mr. Lemass

No. I think there were six technical assistance projects altogether. Some of those projects took the form of sending representatives of the hotel trade and others from this country to America. The principal report was that presented by Mr. Christenberry and his colleagues who came here. Those reports were summarised together in the synthesis.

Breanndán Mac Fheórais

Even the report of the delegation that went to the States in 1950?

Mr. Lemass

Yes, they are all published in this booklet. Each particular aspect of the tourist trade is dealt with in a separate part of the report and the various observations are set out.

Breanndán Mac Fheórais

I had a complaint from a fairly big hotel that he did not get that report and I am sure he would have purchased it.

Mr. Lemass

I thought we gave it sufficient publicity. There were six reports embodied in the synthesis.

Under this Bill there will be two organisations, the first of which will be the present Tourist Board under a new name, An Bord Fáilte. I think it is desirable that we should get away from the unimaginative kind of name that we established in 1939. I am not particularly wedded to the name suggested in this Bill and if some Deputy can suggest a better name I would be prepared to consider it, provided it conforms to the requirements, the first being a name likely to be used and the second that it is sufficiently clear to make its meaning known to people coming from outside.

Breanndán Mac Fheórais

And one that can be pronounced properly.

Mr. Lemass

Section 4 provides for the change of the name of the Tourist Board to An Bord Fáilte. Section 5 gives a picture of the future functions of An Bord Fáilte. Its general duty will be to encourage and promote the development of the tourist traffic in and to the State but apart from that general duty it will have the specific functions set out in that section. Those functions are, in the main, similar to those given to the Tourist Board by the Act of 1939. The two important additional functions which are being given to An Bord Fáilte are (1) in relation to historic buildings and (2) in regard to the signposting of roads. Because of the establishment of a separate board to deal with tourist publicity, it is not proposed to give An Bord Fáilte power to provide publicity and the power it had under the 1939 Act to build, establish, operate and equip hotels and guest-houses is not being repeated.

Perhaps I may refer at this stage to these two new functions. The first, as I have said, relates to national monuments and historic buildings and is probably the most important of the new functions for which the Bill provides. The Christenberry report stressed very definitely the tourist potentialities of many of our historic buildings, sites and shrines. In the discussion which I had with Mr. Christenberry, he represented himself as being particularly impressed by the large number of those shrines and sites of historic and general interest. He thought that if they were properly maintained and easily accessible they would prove a great attraction to Americans of Irish origin. He pointed out, however, that in his tour of the country he found—as all of us know to be true—that many of the shrines were in a state of disrepair and others were practically inaccessible. There is, of course, also a great lack of the type of descriptive notes which visitors from abroad would expect to find.

That state of affairs appears to be due primarily to the fact that many of those places are not under the protection of any national organisation. Though the national monuments which are in the ownership or under the guardianship of the Commissioners of Public Works or of local authorities are properly protected and maintained, they are not always easily accessible to people who wish to visit them. It is proposed here that An Bord Fáilte should be given power to protect and maintain historic buildings, sites, shrines and other places of particular interest to the public and also power to erect notices and fences and provide means of access.

I should stress that the board will not undertake that work solely from the tourist point of view. Apart altogether from the tourist angle, it is most desirable that places of that sort should be preserved for reasons of national dignity. Under the National Monuments Act of 1930 the Board of Works and local authorities have certain powers of protection in relation to national monuments. In the case of those monuments, monuments which are in the custody of the Board of Works or of local authorities, it is proposed that An Bord Fáilte will not exercise its powers under the Bill without the consent of the commissioners or of the local authority, as the case may be. The board will, however, be able to help the commissioners or a local authority financially in any case where these bodies opt to do the required work themselves.

It is proposed to give the board power to acquire land compulsorily where a private owner refuses to permit the erection of fences or notices or to provide means of access. I hope that the board will never be called upon to use this compulsory power and that private owners will co-operate fully with it in its task of preserving these historic buildings and shrines and making them accessible to the public. I should mention that the board will not be able to use any compulsory powers in connection with a national monument which is in the guardianship of the Board of Works or a local authority. I have stressed in this connection monuments, shrines and buildings of historic interest, but the powers of the board are not necessarily limited to such. Access to places of public interest, such as the Cliffs of Moher in County Clare, could also be arranged by the board under the powers given to it here.

The second of the new powers provided relates to the signposting of roads. I think there is no doubt that there is room for considerable improvement in the present standard of signposting of Irish roads. I have no desire to belittle the voluntary efforts of the Automobile Association, which provides the present signs, or the work of the local authorities in the matter. They have been doing good work within the limits of their resources. I trust that they will continue and, in fact, intensify their efforts. Nevertheless, the present standard of sign posts is deficient in many respects. Mr. Christenberry told me that when he arrived in Dublin, for the purpose of carrying out his tour, he hired a car there and that his driver lost his way 20 times during the course of the tour because of inadequate sign posts.

It is thought that all the main tourist routes should have on them distinctive signs directing the attention of visitors to places of interest on these routes. This would enable them to make short detours so as to visit such places. At the present time most tourists, especially those from abroad, might pass close to an important shrine, monument or other place of interest without even being aware of its existence. It is considered that the ordinary direction signs, especially those on the tourist routes, could be improved in design and erected at more frequent intervals. That is a field in which Bord Fáilte can usefully engage itself, and I feel that the best way for it to do so would be to help by providing local authorities with special signs for erection and maintenance by them, subject to the approval of the Minister for Local Government. Section 5, sub-section (2) (g) of the Bill gives Bord Fáilte the necessary powers to do that. It is intended that Bord Fáilte should co-operate with the Automobile Association in this task, and it is hoped that the local authorities will play their part by maintaining the sign posts in their area in a proper state of repair.

One other important function has been given to the board and that is to provide, or assist in providing, financially and otherwise, staff training schemes. The present Tourist Board has been considering this, has hopes of establishing a staff training centre and expects to be able to encourage vocational education committees to co-operate with local hotel interests in the extension of staff training facilities. They are working on the idea of "on the job" training schemes in which experts would instruct and train hotel staffs under actual working conditions.

There is no doubt that a vigorous programme of improvement and extension of hotel and guest house accommodation is necessary if there is to be any hope of attracting a considerably increased number of visitors as well as providing adequately for the holidays of our own people. In fact, it is true to say that the increased tourist earnings which we are hoping will materialise will depend largely upon the provision of increased accommodation.

Deputies who have read the reports will realise that a great deal of consideration has been given by all who have examined this question to the best manner in which the problem of increasing the accommodation available should be tackled. In accordance with the general policy of the Government and, I feel, of the House, it is considered desirable that the initiative should come from private interests. It is true that the hotel industry must have made substantial profits in recent years and should, therefore, be able, to some extent, to finance independently any improvements which are required.

There are cases, however, in which State assistance and encouragement would be justified, and the proposals in this Bill are in general accord with the recommendations we have received. The Government accepted these recommendations, which were in accord with its own view, that the stimulus which was required could best be provided by means of a system of guaranteed loans for the construction, extension, modernisation or improvement of hotel accommodation.

Deputies will note that I use the term hotel accommodation whereas the Bill speaks of holiday accommodation. The intention is that the facilities which will be available under the Bill for the extension or improvement of hotels will be confined to hotels which cater in any way for the tourist trade. The term "holiday accommodation" as used, therefore, was intended to indicate that the Bill is limited to the extension of tourist facilities and, of course, that term covers both hotels and guest houses.

Mr. Cosgrave

Would that exclude hotels in the boroughs?

Mr. Lemass

No. In fact, as the Deputy will remember, the reports received indicated that the cities were likely to prove as strong an attraction to visitors from outside as any other part of the country.

Under Part III of the Bill the Minister for Industry and Commerce is given power, upon the recommendation of An Bord Fáilte and with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance, to guarantee loans for the construction, extension, modernisation or improvement of holiday accommodation and may, with similar consent, give grants towards meeting, for a period of three years, interest charges on the loans in respect of which guarantees are given. It is recognised that substantial capital investment on the construction, extension or improvement of hotel accommodation might not begin to yield increased revenue to the proprietor for some years and, therefore, it is proposed to authorise the giving of grants against interest charges up to a period of three years.

I should perhaps say something in that connection with reference to the provisions in the Bill introduced by the former Government which made reference to incentive grants. It was contemplated that money would be provided out of the American Grant Counterpart Account for an incentive grant scheme, and a sum of £100,000 had, in fact, been earmarked by the previous Government out of that account for such purpose. The intention was that that amount would be increased to £500,000 and it was, I think, agreed amongst the Departments concerned at the time that the making of that fund available was conditional upon the allocation of the money from the grant account. Deputies will understand that under the agreement with the American authorities they have to concur in any proposals for expenditure from the grant account as distinct from the loan fund.

Before that Bill was passed, however, and before any action had been taken to secure consent to a higher allocation from the grant account for these purposes there was a change of policy or a change of outlook amongst the American authorities and it was made clear that proposals for the utilisation of any further part of the grant funds for tourist development purposes were not likely to be approved in the changed international circumstances. The emphasis had come upon more material forms of production and the position, therefore, was, as I found it, that whereas provisional agreement had been made to provide £100,000, there was no likelihood of any more than that being provided. The Tourist Board considered they would prefer not to have that sum; they could not see how they could operate any effective incentive grant scheme with such a very small amount and they thought it would be only an embarrassment to them to have any obligations in that regard without additional funds.

The question as to how that £100,000 earmarked for tourist purposes will now be utilised is an open one. As the House is aware, E.C.A. has wound up and the present position is that the scheme for the utilisation of the whole of the grant funds has to be submitted to the American Congress for approval.

It is not intended that loans should be confined solely to the improvement or extension of hotels and guest houses. There is also the matter of our holiday resorts. Deputies who followed the course of the debates on the 1939 Bill will realise that the providing of help or inducements to secure the improvement of holiday resorts is fraught with considerable difficulty. Under the 1939 Bill it was intended that advances should be made by the Tourist Board for resort developments but only where the Tourist Board was in a position to certify that the developments would be profitable and likely to yield a revenue that would repay the advances. That did not always turn out to be easy. It was not always possible for the Tourist Board to co-ordinate their plans with those of local authorities in the matter of extending water supply and sewage schemes and other necessary adjuncts to such development.

Apart altogether from the fact that there was a change of policy following the change of Government, it was clear before that that the plan of the 1939 Act was not working out as we had hoped. That may have been due to the abnormal circumstances that prevailed between 1939 and 1948. But I am not proposing now to revive that plan. I have become doubtful whether it is in fact possible to direct any useful scheme of resort development by means of a central organisation and the aim of this Bill is to encourage the formation of local companies in each holiday resort for that purpose. Inducements are being provided to encourage the formation of such companies in the shape of grants towards their formation expenses and if established and approved by an Bord Fáilte they will qualify for guaranteed loans under the Bill.

I think there is no doubt that many of our holiday resorts are lacking in the facilities, amenities and services, including indoor and outdoor amusements and sports, which the majority of holiday-makers expect to find when they go on holiday. There is no doubt also that if these resorts were improved in respect to those matters they would attract many more visitors from both Ireland and from abroad.

Again, it is proposed to try to get work done in that direction by private enterprise, by encouraging the investment of private capital aided, as I have indicated, under this Bill. If these local resort development companies are organised—there are a couple in existence already—they will be able to plan the provision of amusement and recreational centres, and other amenities and facilities which they deem suitable in the locality and which they think are likely to yield revenue which will permit the liquidation of the loans advanced for the purpose of financing them.

It would be necessary, of course, for these local development companies to procure the active co-operation of local authorities. It was mainly in that connection that the 1939 scheme broke down but I think it is possible that local development companies will be able to secure the co-ordination of their plans with the plans of the local authorities and obtain help from the local authorities in greater degree than the centralised national organisation under the 1939 Act was able to realise.

It would, of course, also help if local authorities would utilise their existing powers to remove derelict and unsightly buildings in the vicinity of these resorts and, in fact, in any other part of the country. I have spoken of that already. It is a depressing experience to enter many otherwise thriving towns in this country to find on the outskirts of these towns ruins of mud wall cabins that have long since been out of occupation and which give an air of depression and poverty to the whole locality. Legislation was passed before the war giving local authorities power to deal with these matters. That legislation, I admit, was hedged around with legal safeguards against possible claims from the owners of the property but I am sure that the Minister for Local Government would be prepared to revise it if that was thought necessary, but I am not sure that it is. The fact is that very few local authorities, even though they were often offered funds out of the Unemployment and Emergency Schemes Vote for the purpose, have, in fact, taken action against these unsightly ruins. These loans which may be made for the improvement of holiday accommodation or resorts are limited in the aggregate to £3,000,000 and in time to five years.

In putting that figure into the Bill, there was a great deal of estimation. It is not possible to say to what extent the facilities given in the Bill will be utilised. If the limit of £3,000,000 should be reached before the five year period, I am sure there will be no difficulty in securing the enactment here of amending legislation to raise it and most of us will be glad to vote for it.

I should, perhaps, give the House at this stage some information concerning the advances made under the 1939 Act. Under the provisions of that Act, these advances were repayable by the Tourist Board and were spent chiefly on the acquisition of various properties. All the hotel properties which were acquired by the board have been sold. Most of the other properties have also been sold or will be disposed of in the near future and the board has repaid advances totalling £110,000. The capital sum outstanding amounts to about £311,000 and it may be assumed that most of that will have to be written off eventually.

I mentioned that the Grant-in-Aid to An Bord Fáilte may not exceed £250,000 in any one financial year. There was a rather careful calculation of the amount which the board might require to discharge its functions and it was felt that, on the basis of present costs at any rate, it could do so within that limit. That amount includes provision for the making of grants towards interest charges on guaranteed loans as well as the cost of the board's own organisation and head office expenses.

It is not considered that An Bord Fáilte will be able to develop its plans so as to involve expenditure to that limit in the present year. In fact, the Estimate prepared for this year is £85,000. That is a realistic Estimate. It represents the extent to which the Tourist Board, which has been consulted, believes it will be possible to carry out its present and new functions during the present year. If it does not prove to be sufficient, then a Supplementary Estimate can be taken. It is expected that the activities of the board will expand and continue to expand and that in future years the sum required will be substantially in excess of £85,000.

Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll

Could the Minister give the House any idea of what the present occupancy figures are, the amount of accommodation that is available and what target would be likely to be reached if a big increase in tourist industry were brought about?

Mr. Lemass

There were certain figures published in the report and, while it relates to the year 1950-51, the changes since would not be very substantial. The calculation made in the Christenberry report indicated that there is available at the present time in the country 3,046 hotel bedrooms, providing sleeping accommodation for 4,763 and it was estimated that it was necessary, on the basis of their estimation of what was required, to increase the number of bedrooms by 150 rooms in the Dublin area, 100 rooms in the Cork area and a further number in other areas. I will find the figures for the Deputy. Perhaps he may look them up himself. It is in Section 3 of the Christenberry report.

Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll

There are no figures showing what the present occupancy rate is?

Mr. Lemass

No. There are certain calculations as to the average length of stay and of the number of visitors that could be entertained on the basis of existing accommodation.

Mr. Hickey

In other words, there could be only about 4,000 accommodated in any one week?

Mr. Lemass

Yes, but the number that can be accommodated over the season is very much larger.

Mr. Hickey

I know, yes.

Mr. Lemass

I mentioned here last year that I was not convinced that the decision announced by the Tourist Board to suspend the grading of hotels in the present year was a wise one. I have accepted that decision, however, because the board convinced me that it would not lead to any deterioration in the standard of hotel accommodation in the present year, that, in fact, it is on the basis of inspections carried out this year that future gradings will depend and that, consequently, the hotel proprietors are more likely to be maintaining and improving the standard of accommodation this year than otherwise. A new system of grading is required, a more intricate system than we have at present and that is being prepared by the board. I discussed this matter with the board and I have pressed on them my view as to the necessity for their securing the full co-operation of the hotel industry in the improvement of hotel accommodation. I have asked the board to arrange for a trained staff of inspectors who will be qualified to discuss with hotel managements, on the basis of equality of knowledge of the subject of hotel management, the improvements which are necessary or desirable in their premises.

Mr. Hickey

How many more grades of hotels are there likely to be?

Mr. Lemass

I am awaiting the proposals of the board on their new grading scheme. I could not indicate what form these proposals are likely to take.

Part IV of the Bill provides for the amendment of the Tourist Traffic Act, 1939. The amendments are in the main similar to those which were proposed in the Bill introduced by my predecessor last year and probably it will be considered by the Dáil more appropriate to discuss them on the Committee Stage.

There are certain other minor matters relating to An Bord Fáilte to which I should refer. The Bill permits the increasing of the number of members of Bord Fáilte from the present limit of five to a new limit of seven. Deputies will have read the comments of the Christenberry report upon that point and on the need to extend the membership of the board so as to permit of the inclusion of persons with certain specialised knowledge. In fact, the Christenberry report indicated some nine types of specialists that should be on the board but it also intimated that some of these classifications could be grouped together and, generally, the creation of a board of seven members would appear to be in accord with their recommendations.

There are some minor changes in that regard which I may also mention. At the present time the remuneration of members of the board is fixed at the time of their appointment and cannot be changed during their appointment and it is proposed to permit variation of the remuneration from time to time if circumstances should require it.

Mr. Hickey

Are they full-time men?

Mr. Lemass

Not full-time, not at present, anyway. Under the 1939 Act it was provided that the accounts of the board should be audited by qualified auditors approved of by the Minister. It is proposed in this Bill to require the accounts to be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

There is also a proposal to authorise the board to prepare a superannuation scheme for its members and its staffs. I think it is desirable in an organisation of this kind that such a scheme should exist. There is no scheme in the Bill; we are merely empowering the board to prepare a scheme, which will require to be sanctioned by the Minister for Finance before it comes into operation. The board has been in existence for a long number of years now and if it is to remain in existence, as we hope, and to attract into its service people of the quality required, I think it is necessary to have some provision for the payment of superannuation allowances on retirement.

I want to deal now with the proposal to establish An Fógra Fáilte because it is likely to be the more contentious part of the Bill.

An Fógra Fáilte is the organisation which has been already set up to handle tourist publicity. When we enacted the Tourist Traffic Act of 1939, we intended that all tourist development activities would be divided between the Tourist Board and the Tourist Association on the basis contemplated here, that the Tourist Board would be responsible for hotel improvement, resort development and all activities designed to attract visitors and to make them comfortable here, whereas the Tourist Association would be in sole charge of publicity activities. That was the 1939 scheme but, when the war ended and the much larger potentialities of the tourist industry became apparent in the post-war years, the Tourist Board came to the view that the publicity activities of the Tourist Association were inadequate. The Tourist Association has limited funds. Its total revenue varies between £15,000 and £18,000 and its revenue had not increased as against the pre-war period. So the Tourist Board also began to undertake publicity activities, as it was empowered to do so under the 1939 Act. We then had two separate organisations engaged in publicity—the Tourist Association and the Tourist Board. That was a situation which obviously called for examination. The Christenberry report said that there should be only one body handling all aspects of the tourist trade, the Tourist Board. In fact, they were prepared to wipe out the Tourist Association altogether.

I think I am right in saying, although Deputy Cosgrave can correct me in this, that at one time that view was accepted by the members of the former Government. At any rate, they took a decision which was acted upon in one instance, to permit local associations to secure certificates under the 1931 Tourist Act. The 1931 Tourist Act empowered local authorities to strike a rate within certain limits for tourist publicity purposes but the proceeds of that rate could be paid out only to organisations that were certified by the Minister for Industry and Commerce under the Act. From 1931 to 1950 only one association, the Irish Tourist Association, was so certified and so had the benefits of the proceeds of the rate struck by various authorities for tourist publicity purposes. At one stage early last year, my predecessor decided to license local associations. In fact, one such association was formed, in Sligo, and inevitably succeeded in persuading the local authority to divert to it a proportion of the proceeds of the rate which would otherwise have gone to the Tourist Association. It was clear, therefore, that the recognition under that Act of local associations would reduce very substantially, and might wipe out altogether, the revenue of the Tourist Association from local authorities. It was also decided by my predecessor to withdraw the financial assistance which the Tourist Board was giving to the Tourist Association in connection with its publicity activities. These decisions naturally caused great perturbation in the ranks of the Tourist Association and there was a number of recommendations made in favour of a change of policy. In fact, there was a change of policy decided upon, at least on a temporary basis. Deputy Dr. O'Higgins, my immediate predecessor, decided to leave things as they were for a period of a year, that is, to permit the Tourist Board to continue to give financial support to the Tourist Association for that period.

That is the situation as I found it, with the future of the Tourist Association in doubt, its position established only for a period of a year, and I had to do something about it. Having still the view which I held in 1939 that the work of publicity, in the widest sense of that term, is sufficiently big to require a separate organisation, I felt that there were many reasons why it was desirable that it should not be handled by the same organisation which has responsibility for hotel improvements and resort development. I met the Tourist Association to consider whether we could not get back to the 1939 position. Of course, the situation had changed enormously since 1939. Then it was contemplated that the total expenditure on tourist publicity would be what the Tourist Association succeeded in getting from local authorities or raising by voluntary subscriptions. It is now recognised that a very much larger expenditure will be required and also that by far the greater part of the publicity funds must come from the Exchequer and through the Tourist Board. I do not think that the Dáil would contemplate the payment out of the Exchequer of substantial funds to be disposed of by a voluntary body like the Irish Tourist Association. I think the Dáil would feel that some statutory control of the funds and of the body administering them would be necessary.

I met the Irish Tourist Association and discussed the matter with them. They agreed that the best course was to set up a body on which they would have equal representation with the Tourist Board, and which would be entrusted with the management of all tourist publicity work. I accepted that proposal and that is the origin of Fógra Fáilte—a board consisting of three members of the Tourist Board and three directors of the Tourist Association chosen by me from a panel of six submitted by them. Probably if the slate was cleared, if we were starting de novo in building up an organisation to develop the tourist trade, we might not create precisely that type of organisation but the slate is not cleared and we have to have regard to the fact that this Tourist Association exists, that it was, in fact, the first organisation that ever undertook the development of public interest in the tourist trade, and that it had been operating under the sanction of legislation and of certificates from the Minister for Industry and Commerce authorised by legislation, for a number of years before the Tourist Board was set up. Therefore, I think we would be taking the risk not merely of controversy and agitation, if we were to decide to elimininate the Tourist Association from this picture altogether, but that we would be losing something of real value and that it is better to arrange for their continued participation in tourist publicity work in conjunction with the Tourist Board through the joint organisation which was created and which it is proposed to put upon a statutory basis by this Bill. The name given to the organisation is Fógra Fáilte. I have the same to say about that name as I have to say of the name which it is now proposed to give the Tourist Board.

The amount which it is contemplated would be made available as a maximum for tourist publicity work is £250,000 per year. Again, the procedure will be as I described for An Bord Fáilte. That figure represents the maximum that can be voted by the Dáil without amending legislation. It may be that in some particular year the actual expenditure will be below that figure. A budget will be prepared and an Estimate brought to the Dáil. It is contemplated that in this year the expenditure will not exceed £150,000.

Deputies must not think all publicity work is being confined to the publication of brochures, maps or literature of that kind, or the insertion of advertisements in newspapers abroad. By far the most important part of the publicity work intended is the operation of tourist bureaux both here and in other countries. I understand that Fógra Fáilte have made an arrangement with the Tourist Association under which that association will, as their agents, operate the tourist bureaux in Ireland and that Fógra Fáilte will operate the bureaux outside Ireland. There is a bureau in London. It is considered that there would be advantage in having similar bureaux in certain other English cities. There is a bureau in New York, too, and an extension of activities there may also be practicable. I think there is need also for the extension of the number of bureaux in Ireland and that there should be in every place of entry of visitors from abroad some facilities for visitors to get detailed information concerning hotel accommodation, resort areas and all the other knowledge about the country which any visitor to a foreign country would like to receive. These will be the functions of Fógra Fáilte—to engage in any kind of publicity inside or outside the State; to prepare and publish guide books, time-tables and other publications; to establish and operate the information bureaux and any other similar form of activity in connection with tourist publicity, and to co-operate with other bodies in that connection. While Fógra Fáilte will be engaged in the publication of guide books, maps and tourist literature, I hope private enterprise will do so also. As most Deputies are aware, in other countries some of the most useful tourist guide books and maps are published by private firms and sold by way of commercial enterprise. I should hope the same will happen here.

Some doubt was raised in recent statements, published outside, concerning the future position of the Irish Tourist Association. I am quite anxious, within the limits of a workable and efficient organisation, to utilise the widespread connections of the Tourist Association and the goodwill which it has enjoyed and the enthusiasm and the ability of its council, while at the same time giving it functions which will not clash with any of the official organisations.

One of the most important things which have to be done in this country— and it is a function which, I think, the Tourist Association is particularly equipped to do—is to educate the Irish people in regard to the economic importance of the tourist trade and as to the methods by which they can co-operate in developing it. The American experts—Mr. Christenberry and his friends—came here and gave us the benefit of their views. They said, in effect, that it would be a waste of money to spend anything on the tourist trade unless we first succeeded in getting the Irish people to understand its value. I think that the Association, having regard to its constitution and widespread connections, can do very valuable work in that field. In addition, it will have, I understand, the function of operating the tourist bureaux as agents within the country for Fógra Fáilte and will have, through its representation upon that board, the opportunity of influencing the whole tone and direction of tourist publicity. It will also be—what I hope it will regard as its major function—the critic of these organisations and the channel by which useful suggestions and ideas may come from those who are involved in any aspect of the tourist industry to the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Government.

The provisions for election to Fógra Fáilte, the appointment of its members, its powers, the appointment of staff, the auditing of accounts, the preparation of a superannuation scheme and the submission of an annual report to the Dáil are, generally speaking, similar to those under the 1939 Act and which, in the present Bill, operate for An Bord Fáilte.

There is one further matter to which I must refer. I am quite certain it will prove to be a matter of some debate and perhaps controversy before the Bill leaves the House. Certain amendments of the licensing laws are proposed here. The first one is simple enough. It is based upon the recommendation in the Christenberry report. Its purpose is to provide that any person proposing to build an hotel or to spend capital upon the extension of an hotel can find out, before the work is put into operation, whether or not he will get a licence for the sale of intoxicating drink. As the law stands at present, an hotel having not less than ten bedrooms and no public bar may apply for a licence to sell liquor but there is no certainty that they will get the licence and, in fact, in many cases there have been refusals on account of the number of licences operating in the locality or on some other ground not related to the suitability of the premises or of the applicant. The proposal here is that a person who is about to invest money in the building or extension of an hotel can bring the plans of the new hotel or the extension to the court for approval and get an undertaking that if, when the work is completed, it is found to be in accordance with the plans, he will get a licence and that licence must be issued to him without any further reference to the suitability of the premises—that having been decided in advance—or to his personal character—that having also been decided in advance—or to the number of other licensees in the locality.

Having made that provision in relation to hotels, I came to the consideration of the conditions which exist in holiday camps. This matter was discussed in the Dáil on a Private Member's Bill which was introduced in 1949. While I think the attitude of the Dáil to that Bill may have been influenced by the view I held at the time—that it was not a suitable Bill to be introduced by a Private Member but that, rather, it was the type of Bill that should be promoted by a Government—we have to record the fact that it was defeated then. At the present time there is no provision under the licensing laws to deal with facilities for the sale of drink in holiday camps and these holiday camps have to seek occasional licences which permit of the selling of drink to residents. The proposal here is that a holiday camp which is registered with the Irish Tourist Board or, after this Bill passes, with An Bord Fáilte, which has accommodation for not less than 250 guests at one time, a rateable valuation of not less than £250, and consists of buildings which are wholly or mainly of a permanent character, should be authorised to sell drink to residents and non-residents on weekdays and to residents only on Sundays and certain other days which are restricted under the existing licensing laws.

I think I should emphasise that it is not proposed to permit of the sale of drink to bona fide travellers in these holiday camps. That is a matter which we can, perhaps, discuss more fully in Committee, if the House desires to express any view regarding it. In my view, it is important for the development of the tourist trade that we should, to some extent, liberalise the law regarding the sale of drink to residents in hotels and, if we do that, it is obviously desirable that we should make a similar provision in relation to holiday camps.

Mr. McQuillan

Why not take the opportunity of changing the licensing laws as they exist at present with regard to rural areas?

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy will understand that that would not be a matter either for the Minister for Industry and Commerce or relevant to this particular Bill. We are dealing with the development of the tourist trade, and the amendment of the licensing laws only arises because it is felt that it will assist the development of the tourist trade, which is considered to be important for this country. In conclusion, I should mention that I am advised that, if the proposals in relation to the licensing of holiday camps is passed by the Dáil in Committee, some amendment of the Long Title will be necessary.

Mr. Cosgrave

I think it is correct to say that the main provisions of this Bill are the outcome of a series of reports on investigations conducted by a number of experts which were published in the synthesis made available to Deputies and which had received careful consideration by the previous Government. I say the main provisions because the Minister has mentioned a number of changes. But, in the main, the Bill is the outcome of a careful examination of tourist potentialities and an evaluation of the steps necessary to develop the trade to the maximum extent.

The investigation which was conducted by the various bodies represented in the synthesis which was published was carried out over a period of some months and involved the examination of tourist potentialities in this country and a consideration of the trade elsewhere with a view to advising the Government and the trade of the steps necessary in order to avail to the full of the attractions which this country is in a position to provide for visitors.

In that connection, it is essential to reiterate a number of the comments made, in particular by the group of American experts referred to by the Minister. The important part which the tourist trade plays in our economy is not sufficiently recognised yet by the people as a whole. It is difficult to appreciate that it has grown to such an extent in recent years that it now plays a part second only to agricultural exports. In addition, it offers the best hope of a rapid expansion. It was because of these considerations that the Government decided at the time that the question required the most careful examination and that the proposals which would be brought before the Dáil should meet with universal approval. In that regard, the speech which the Minister has made and the general proposals in this Bill meet with the approval of the tourist trade and, I believe, will meet with the approval of Deputies. There are, however, one or two notable exceptions.

The tourist trade in this country has grown very rapidly in recent years, and when the E.C.A. decided to assist the industry by direct action the Government expressed their appreciation at the time, which has been endorsed by the Minister to-day, of the gesture which the E.C.A. made and undertook to accept the services of a mission which has come to be known as the Christenberry mission. When the delegation arrived here, I had the privilege of addressing them. The delegation undertook a rapid and exhaustive tour of the country and they submitted in the course of a few weeks a lengthy report. Almost at the same time a commission consisting of a group of hoteliers, selected by the Irish Hotels Federation and a number of members of the Tourist Association undertook, under E.C.A. auspices, a tour of the county, and then some of them visited the United States of America. In addition, there were a number of other reports, mainly from representatives of the existing Irish Tourist Board, the general manager, the architect, and one or two other persons selected with the assistance of the Irish Tourist Board and the Department of Industry and Commerce.

These delegations submitted the reports which have been referred to and, in view of certain references to a possible difficulty over personalities, it was decided to publish the reports in the form of a synthesis. It is disappointing to learn that so few copies of that report have been availed of, because the report, as published, is short, it is easy to understand and it will serve as a guide to everyone who is anxious to learn from the study which these experts made what steps are necessary to develop the tourist trade and what attractions should be provided.

I do not propose to discuss the reports except to say that the Americans concentrated on a number of aspects of the tourist trade and, in particular, the fact that there is in this country a wealth of attractions for tourists and that we should not attempt to compete with other countries by providing something that we have not as a natural-asset or by the adoption of certain American techniques to attract tourists here.

I believe that was sound advice. They did stress the necessity of proper hotel accommodation and facilities, good food and a number of other matters concerning information and guidance to persons anxious to visit particular parts of the country, and especially the suggestion, which has been incorporated in the Bill, of making the same body responsible for national shrines and monuments and designating them, as well as providing literature and information of historical or topographical interest. I should say in that connection, that the booklet which was published recently by the Tourist Board and the Tourist Association represents a distinct advance on anything that was published before, and it will, no doubt, serve, as the Americans expect it, as a guide and a source of information to those who visit any of the national shrines or monuments.

The provisions in the Bill deal with that matter. It will require consideration by the Tourist Board as to what steps are necessary and desirable in order to provide the facilities which should be provided and can readily be provided in that connection.

The main provisions of the Bill deal with the establishment of the new board, the board which the Minister has referred to, and the financial assistance. In that connection, I would like to know how it was decided to call the board "An Bord Fáilte". I confess I do not know what that is intended to translate or describe. I think the Minister should consider, before the Committee Stage, an alternative title. Part II of the Bill provides a number of directives to the Tourist Board on policy. In the main, those directives are additional to the powers and functions of the Tourist Board under the 1939 Tourist Traffic Bill. Part III of the Bill deals with the financial provisions. The original proposals were somewhat different, but I do not think anyone will disagree with the financial proposals in the Bill because, if availed of, they should enable all those who are prepared to expand, modernise or equip their hotels to do so. In addition to the funds which are being provided for the Tourist Board itself, that is the parent body, these seem adequate to their requirements.

I think it is necessary to say in that connection that, when the Tourist Board was reorganised at the end of 1950, it was reorganised on the basis of the recommendations made in the Christenberry report, as well as some of the recommendations made in the other reports, and on the assumption that the legislation which is now being introduced would be introduced with one or two differences to which I shall refer later.

Deputies will notice from the report, the synthesis and the Christenberry report, that the Christenberry delegation recommended a board composed of nine named categories, or representatives of these, but agreed that it could be reduced in number by amalgamation, or by combining some of these functions under one particular individual. At that time, the statutory number which the legislation provided for was five persons. It was decided, when the legislation was being drafted, that the number would be increased to seven, and this Bill amends the law in that respect.

When the board was reorganised, it was decided to put on the board, for the first time, persons connected with the hotel trade because it was recognised that if a board concerned with the development of the tourist trade in general was to function, while there may be arguments for and against it, experience had proved that the best hope of a satisfactory development would result from the establishment of a board of business men and of persons competent to advise and, in addition, of persons trained in hotel management. That was a departure from previous practice, but it enabled, I believe, valuable knowledge and experience to be acquired by the Tourist Board, with the availability, through the personnel placed on the board, of knowledge and experience that would otherwise have to be got from outside sources. Therefore, I think it is correct to say that the board as established, with whatever additions may be made to it, fits the conditions laid down by the Christenberry report. The many improvements and advances that have been made since, in collaboration with the Tourist Association, are themselves indicative of the manner in which the Tourist Board is approaching its responsibilities.

The various reports agreed, in the main, with the principle of having one body responsible for tourist development. On that, I think it is right to say that the previous Government agreed with that view. It is undoubtedly true that the fact that two bodies had been charged with different responsibilities for the administration of the tourist industry complicated the problem of establishing a single body. Undoubtedly, the fact that the voluntary organisation preceded the establishment of the statutory body, although the voluntary organisation was assisted or maintained by a statutory contribution, gave rise to a good deal of confusion and, to some extent, of resentment on the part of the members of the Tourist Association. the problem of harmonising these two conflicting authorities and establishing a single body charged with responsibility for guiding and directing the activities of the tourist industry as a whole had to be examined when earlier legislation was under consideration. There may be something to be said for continuing the Tourist Association and for availing of the goodwill and widespread connection which that organisation has established over the years. Nevertheless, I think that the method adopted in this measure is entirely contrary to the best interests of the industry and entirely at variance with the recommendations of all the commissions which have reported on this matter.

The Christenberry report recommended that the Tourist Board and the Tourist Association should be merged into one body on the basis that, while many of the present functions appeared to be individual ones, there is at least some duplication and the ultimate aim of both groups is, or should be, the same, namely, to promote tourism. It also recommended the introduction of a new name for whatever body was eventually established.

The Irish Hotels Commission said that it considered the function of the Irish Tourist Association in the light of modern conditions—

"and desires to record its appreciation of the pioneer work which was performed by this body on a voluntary basis".

It went on to say:—

"The creation of a statutory body has, however, altered matters and it is difficult to justify the present decision under which two bodies would appear to be looking after the interests and development of tourism."

It is, I think, significant that both of these bodies—one composed of outside experts brought in to advise here and the other a group of hoteliers, some of them members of the Irish Tourist Association, who recognised the practical difficulties in the way of the proposed establishment of a single body— agreed on the necessity and the desirability of establishing one body charged with the direction of the tourist trade and tourist industry. It was obvious to anyone that with either or both of these bodies charged with responsibility for the tourist trade there was bound to be overlapping and a good deal of confusion. This Bill now proposes the establishment of two bodies in effect and with the existing Tourist Association we shall have the extraordinary position of three bodies guiding or in some way having responsibility for directing the tourist industry.

It is essential in a matter of this kind to avoid any merely personal considerations or any question of personalities and to recognise that the interests of the tourist industry transcend both personalities and the importance of any of these organisations, however long established or however well-intentioned the members of them may be. The industry is far too important to allow it to be handled in a way which will result in either confusion or overlapping of functions.

The proposals in Part V of the Bill and in the Schedule contemplate the establishment of a board which has already been functioning, namely, the Tourist Publicity Board. That board will be given the same funds as the Tourist Board with the exception of the question of guaranteeing loans for development. The funds available to the Tourist Board and to the Tourist Publicity Board total £500,000, £250,000 to each board.

Anyone who has any experience of the functioning of the Tourist Board or the Tourist Association will readily recognise that, even though it may take some time, the desirable end to be aimed at is the establishment of a single body, having on it, if necessary, representatives of both organisations. In that respect, I think this Bill should be radically amended on the Committee Stage.

The Minister, when he addressed the Irish Tourist Association last year, said that when the terms of the legislation were published he would like all associations and organisations concerned directly or indirectly with the tourist trade to examine them critically and send him their observations and suggestions and he added: "When doing so I hope they will pull no punches." This third board, or third organisation, with responsibility for tourist publicity must inevitably mean overlapping and confusion. Anybody concerned with the tourist trade or anybody visiting the country is bound to be confused by the tripartite establishment proposed under this measure if the Bill goes through as it is at present framed.

It is desirable, I admit, to avail of the reservoir of goodwill, experience and the wide connection which the members of the Tourist Association have. In that regard, the experience of the personnel available in that association could be utilised by having representatives of that association on the Tourist Board and by the establishment of a consultative committee which would be in a position to advise on tourist publicity. To have a separate board with the same amount of financial assistance and consisting of a very large number of persons for whom superannuation and other schemes are made available obviously contemplates the establishment of a board of a permanent character.

Any statutory organisations that are intended to continue for any period of time should have superannuation schemes and I do not think there will be any objection to the principle in the Bill of providing a superannuation scheme for the staffs of the Irish Tourist Board. To have two boards with large staffs, with separate directors, plus a Tourist Publicity Board with two or three directors drawn from the Irish Tourist Board, dealing with the same problem or different aspects of it, must create confusion; I believe it is getting the worst of both worlds because it will increase the administrative personnel and administrative costs without any commensurate gain in the development of the tourist industry or without increasing the efficiency of the organisation established to deal with the potentialities of the tourist trade. I think it is desirable, therefore, that this proposal in Part V of the Bill should be deleted, and the Tourist Board should be expanded to include representatives of the Irish Tourist Association; and both the Irish Tourist Association and Irish Tourist Board should collaborate in providing a publicity scheme and in dealing with publicity matters.

Debate adjourned.