Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 27 May 1952

Vol. 132 No. 1

Tourist Traffic Bill, 1951—Committee (Resumed).

Debate resumed on amendment No. 1 in the name of Deputy Hickey:—

To add to the section a new subsection as follows:—

(2) Within three months after the passing of this Act the Minister shall appoint a representative of labour to the board, and he shall hold office on the terms and conditions prescribed by the Minister.

Mr. Hickey

I hope the Minister has changed his mind since we last discussed this amendment. On that occasion, I was rather surprised at the views he expressed. I think the Minister will agree that the times are demanding a change in the status of the worker, a change more in keeping with his capacity to take a more responsible part in the economic and social life of the country, and particularly in reference to the undertaking in which he is engaged. I also feel that the labour of the workers employed in the tourist industry is as necessary to the industry as is capital. I think that they should be represented not only on negotiating committees and on joint industrial councils, but at meetings at which decisions are made on major issues of the undertaking. I think that if we did give the workers a sense of responsibility that, as time went on, the trade unions, instead of being as they are at the moment a fighting force for wage conditions, would become a training ground for bringing about that industrial peace which is so badly needed.

I have long thought and believed that the worker who invests all that he has in industry—his brains, his physical power and experience—has as good a right to have a say in the industry in which he is engaged as the owners of the capital employed in it. I would be surprised if the Minister maintained the views that he has on these matters.

We have a number of people engaged in the catering business and in the hotel business. I do not think, for a moment, that everybody employed in the industry is capable of taking a place on a board such as the Tourist Board, but I do think that those engaged in it—the managers, the technicians and the ordinary workers— ought to be given an opportunity of pooling their knowledge and of working together as a team. I am asking that the Minister should put a representative of the workers on the Tourist Board. If he does that, I am sure he will not be disappointed or regret what he is being asked to do.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass)

Personally I was hoping that since we last discussed this matter the Deputy would have realised that his proposal is impracticable. There is another amendment by Deputy Costello which refers to the appointment of representatives of the hotel industry. I do not know what Deputies have in mind in this regard. You cannot run a board of this kind by a conference. The persons appointed on it must be appointed because of their individual qualifications and their suitability as members of a team and not as delegates of outside organisations. Every Deputy has, I am sure, experience of the fact that a delegate conference cannot perform executive functions. That is what Deputies are asking: that persons should be appointed not because of their individual suitability, not because of their capacity to fit into an executive team, but as representatives of outside organisations to whom, presumably, they would be responsible.

Mr. Hickey

Do not interpret my statement as meaning that.

Mr. Lemass

That is what the Deputy's amendment means. He is asking for the appointment of a representative. Now, so far as I know, there is no statutory executive board in this or in any country composed on that basis. Whoever has the responsibility of selecting persons for work of this kind must obviously be free to choose the persons whom he regards as having the qualifications and competence for the task. If he is to take the representatives of outside interests he cannot have that assurance.

In any event, as I have said, the Deputy's amendment is impracticable. If I say to him that the five members of the existing board are representative of labour he probably will challenge my assertion. If I say to Deputy Costello that the five members of the board are representatives of the hotels, he may challenge my assertion; but who is going to decide the point? Who is going to exercise judgment upon the representative capacity of anybody appointed? If we are going to have persons on these boards as representatives it will mean the setting up of very elaborate machinery for choosing the people who would be regarded by the interests concerned as representative. If it is left to the Minister for Industry and Commerce for the time being to choose the people whom he regards as representative, then his choice will, I have no doubt, frequently be challenged.

In the case of all previous boards, the practice has been to put upon the Minister concerned or the Government the responsibility for selecting a properly constituted team. If the Minister fails in that responsibility, he is subject to criticism in the Dáil. I think that Deputy Hickey would be entitled, knowing his viewpoint, to criticise the selection if there was not a person on it whom he regarded as having the qualifications of a labour representative. Other Deputies would criticise the board if it did not contain representatives of the hotels, transport or some other interest that might appear to be involved in tourist development. There is no alternative, in my view, to the proposal in the Bill of putting the responsibility of making the choice on somebody and of retaining the right to criticise the choice that he makes.

There is one final point, and I think it is no harm to emphasise it again because there still appears to be a misunderstanding about this board. An Bord Fáilte will have no function whatever in relation to employment conditions in hotels. I do not think they should have. I do not think they should have any power or duty to interfere with the normal negotiating machinery between hotel proprietors and their staff.

Mr. Hickey

Is there not something in the Bill about the setting up of training centres for hotel personnel?

Mr. Lemass

Certainly. They can facilitate and are, in fact, facilitating the making of arrangements by the vocational education authorities for that purpose. As regards the direction of these training schemes, undoubtedly the representatives of the trade unions concerned must be consulted, and, so far as I know, it is the practice of the vocational education authorities to do that and only to establish these schemes in full agreement with the parties concerned. The Tourist Board are undoubtedly able and do assist in financing the development of such schemes, but their practice has been in the past and, I am sure, will be in the future, to operate through the vocational education authorities. If the board were to operate directly a centre of that sort, then for the management of that training centre they would undoubtedly require to have a representative of the trade unions concerned.

Mr. Hickey

People may think that it is a new idea to be advocating such a proposal as this. I suppose the reason is that people are not yet attuned to the new idea. The fact is that you have 2,000 or 3,000 workers in the tourist industry. Is there anything wrong in advocating this idea? Do we think it impossible to find amongst these workers intelligent persons having views in regard to this industry which, from their point of view as workers, would not be helpful on a board selected by the Minister or somebody else?

Mr. Lemass

There are people on various boards in this country who became known because of their work in the trade union movement. They have been appointed to these boards because of their personal qualifications. I am not challenging these appointments. In fact, I think that their number is likely to be increased in the future, but I am challenging the wisdom of putting on any board a person who is a representative of any outside interest.

Mr. D. Costello

I do not think the Minister has dealt fairly with my comments or with Deputy Hickey's amendment. I do not wish by any means to have the Minister or any Minister bound to appoint more delegates to this board. I agree with the Minister that it would be wrong in principle to have delegates in a sort of discussion group from various interested parties. I would support Deputy Hickey's amendment and naturally my own on the basis that the Minister should be under some obligation, and subsequent Ministers after him, to see that the persons who are going to be vitally affected by this legislation have a say in the development of the tourist industry. I can see no objection to a sort of general direction, such as Deputy Hickey's amendment would be, to the Minister to appoint a representative of labour to the board; similarly, when it comes to the amendment that I propose to move, I can see no objection to the Minister being given a direction to see that two representatives of the hotel industry are also included on the board.

As I say, the Minister is not bound and should not regard these amendments as forcing him to set up a sort of delegate board. I would regard this amendment moved by Deputy Hickey as meaning that the Minister must have regard to the fact that he must choose, when setting up his board, a representative of Labour. I can see no objection to that and, as Deputy Hickey has already said, there is a lot to be said for having representatives of Labour on such a board. As at present constituted, the Minister may put on it a representative of Labour, but I would prefer to see that written in the Bill. That is why I support this amendment.

Mr. Lemass

It is not to be assumed that because of the passage of this Bill there will be any change in the personnel of the board. At the moment this board consists of people appointed by my predecessor for a five-year term, approximately 18 months ago. One of the persons he appointed resigned, and I filled the vacancy. These people are there, and they were chosen because the Minister regarded them as suitable for the work involved. Their position on that board will not be altered by the passage of this Bill. The Bill does provide for the possible expansion of the existing board by two additional members. It does not mean that it is certain that two additional members will be appointed. I think the statutory limitation in the 1939 Act was too restrictive, and that is the only change I am proposing here.

Mr. Hickey

I want to convey this to the Minister from years of experience of sitting in front of boards of directors who have been appointed mainly on their qualifications of holding big bank balances——

Mr. Lemass

No.

Mr. Hickey

I am not saying this board is like that, but the fact is that many of these people who were appointed as directors have no knowledge of the particular industry which they are governing. I am not suggesting that that applies to the Tourist Board, but appointees should not be selected casually for such important work. In the catering trade and in other sections of the tourist business I am sure you will find men at the moment dealing with tourists and tourism who might not know the business properly. I am at a loss to understand why we are not trusting the workers more than we are. It seems that we take them too much for granted, and they seem to be looked upon as not being trustworthy and capable of carrying out responsible jobs. They have to clock in and out, and they are paid by the hour. That is not a very healthy state of affairs, and the Minister is in a position to rectify it. By giving the workers a sense of responsibility, it will engender in them a sense of their importance in the community. I am surprised that the Minister does not see fit to change his views and give those workers a chance to prove their ability.

Mr. D. Costello

Would the Minister be prepared to accept the amendment and my suggested amendment if it was not made mandatory on the Minister, if there was some clause to the effect that, "where possible, a representative from Labour", in order to write into the Bill some direction to the Minister?

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy can try his hand at drafting an amendment which would require the Minister to have regard to the desirability of ensuring representation for various interests, but it will mean nothing.

Mr. D. Costello

The Minister would have to come to the Dáil and answer questions.

Mr. Lemass

He would have to do that anyway.

Mr. D. Costello

He will not have any direction now——

Mr. Lemass

If I say there are five labour representatives on the Tourist Board, who is going to disprove the assertion?

Amendment put and declared lost.

Question proposed: "That Section 4 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Cosgrave

On the Second Stage of the Bill I asked the Minister how the name "An Bord Fáilte" was arrived at. There was quite a good deal of confusion between the two boards and, in fact, it went to the extent that in at least two bulletins from the Department of External Affairs reference was made to the following fact. The bulletin from which I now quote was dated 10th March, 1952:-

"The Irish Tourist Board, An Bord Fáilte, will spend £50,000 in setting up new tourist bureaux at Birmingham, Glasgow and Manchester, and in improving and developing the present London office in Regent Street, the board's chairman, Mr. J.P. O'Brien, has announced in London."

That was in one issue. I have not got the other issue, but this question involved at least two issues. It is obvious that if a Government Department is confused about a matter of this sort—

Mr. Lemass

What is the confusion? I am not quite clear.

Mr. Cosgrave

They refer to the fact that Mr. O'Brien was chairman of An Bord Fáilte with the Tourist Board. Under the provision in the Bill for the establishment of Fógra Fáilte, it is inevitable that there will be confusion between them. I do not know whether the Minister has considered the advisability of a different name, but the fact that the two names are similar will lead to some confusion. I think consideration should be given to this question. It is not easy to see what name could be suggested that will not involve a longer description, but I think the Minister would be well advised to consider leaving the existing name.

The Irish Tourist Board has come to be accepted as a body responsible for directing tourist activities. Whether or not everyone agrees with what was done before, or what is being done at present, is another matter, but it is accepted as the national body dealing with tourism, and now to make a change and to establish and rename an existing board with a new title, which in this case may lead to confusion such as I have mentioned, does not seem to make for much progress.

Mr. Lemass

I do not think there will be any more confusion between An Bord Fáilte and Fógra Fáilte than there is between the Irish Tourist Board and the Irish Tourist Association, except that the confusion will be in Irish instead of in English. I am responsible for the name "Irish Tourist Board". It was a very unimaginative title for the organisation, and on the whole it is advantageous to have something more characteristic of the country, and not merely an Irish version of an organisation that might exist in Britain. I am not wedded to the title "An Bord Fáilte". It was the best that was suggested to me. I think the title should be in Irish. There is an advantage, and I mean a commercial advantage, in having a distinctive title of that kind. It must, however, be of a character that will convey something to outsiders and be easily pronounced by them, otherwise it will not be used.

I do not think that the similarity in title between An Bord Fáilte and Fógra Fáilte is a disadvantage. They are both operators of the one scheme. In so far as the principal organisation responsible for the general direction of tourist strategy is An Bord Fáilte, and the other organisation is responsible for publicity and propaganda work, the linking up of the two names in the manner in which it has been done is not, in my view, a disadvantage. I do not want to suggest to this House that I am so wedded to this name that I would not consider altering it. I asked a number of people likely to be helpful in this matter to suggest suitable titles, and I laid down the conditions that the titles should be brief and of such a character as to have a meaning for outsiders and to be easily pronounced by them. The present title was the best suggested and that is why I adopted it. However, if between now and the Report Stage somebody can produce a better one, I will be the first to accept it.

Mr. Cosgrave

I think it is desirable to have an Irish title. It may not be a disadvantage to have two bodies with somewhat similar names, but it was suggested to me that the description at present contained in the Bill does not describe accurately in Irish the title of the board. Whether or not consideration should be given to that matter, I cannot say. If it is possible to get a better title between now and the Report Stage it could be moved on the Report Stage.

Mr. Lemass

We do not need to have a completely descriptive title. As long as it refers sufficiently clearly to the functions of the board it will serve its purpose.

Mr. Sweetman

The Minister would get out of the difficulty of having one board mistaken for the other if he would agree to drop Fógra Fáilte.

Mr. Lemass

An Bord Fáilte will always require an organisation to do the Fógra work.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 5.

Mr. Cosgrave

I move amendment No. 2:-

In sub-section (1), line 40, to delete "the State" and substitute "Ireland".

I think that, while the functions and the responsibilities of the board established under this Bill will be the development of tourist traffic in the Twenty-Six Counties, we should frame the legislation so that it will cover the country as a whole, especially when it may be anticipated that, at some time or another, the responsibility of the board will extend to the area at present not included within the jurisdiction of the Oireachtas. Accordingly, I suggest the deletion of the words, "the State" and the substitution of the word, "Ireland". Any tourists who come to this country, either to the Six Counties or to the Twenty-Six Counties, will react favourably on the tourist trade and, consequently, I think we should endeavour to extend the welcome of Ireland rather than the welcome of a particular portion of it.

Mr. Lemass

We all hope to see the day when the two terms will be syonymous, but, until that day comes, the utilisation of the word, "Ireland", instead of the words, "the State", would lead to the creation of legal difficulties. As the Deputy knows, there are at present the most cordial relations between the tourist organisations of the Six Counties and the tourist organisations here. Recently there was a meeting between them for the purpose of co-ordinating their work. That development is to be welcomed and encouraged, and it would be very doubtful if it would be encouraged by an amendment to this Bill which would suggest that there was going to be a conflict of jurisdiction between the organisations which have maintained very close contact at all times since they were founded. My main argument against the amendment is the fact that I am advised that legal difficulties might develop on questions as to the jurisdiction of the board, particularly with regard to the expenditure of its funds.

Mr. Cosgrave

I do not wish to press the amendment if it is going to create legal difficulties. It is difficult to accept the suggestion that legal difficulties can arise, considering that in a number of official publications, as well as in the Constitution, the Government is referred to as the Government of Ireland. A number of official documents giving statistics relating to Ireland carry a head note or a foot note indicating that a certain matter does not apply to the Six Counties. At the same time, we have no uniform public policy in connection with matters of that nature. In some official documents matters are described as referring to Ireland, while in others they are described as referring to the Twenty-Six Counties. In the case of some of these publications referring to Ireland, there is some sort of addendum indicating that they do not apply to areas outside the jurisdiction of the Oireachtas. To that extent, it is very difficult to accept a suggestion that the amendment that I have suggested would create legal difficulties. I can see the point that it might react un-favourably on the cordial relations which exist between voluntary organisations here and in the Six Counties.

Mr. Sweetman

In my view, the Minister is wrong in thinking that this amendment would lead to legal difficulties. I think that the section as it is is going to lead to legal difficulties. For instance, if money is spent on a "See Ireland First" poster in America, the Minister enabling section in this Bill does not provide for that, but the amendment which Deputy Cosgrave has put forward would do so.

Mr. Lemass

I do not anticipate any legal difficulties in that section.

Mr. Sweetman

I seriously think that the Minister is wrong in assuming that there would be legal difficulties in the use of the word "Ireland".

Mr. Lemass

There would be no objection to the board entering into arrangements with the various authorities in the Six Counties mutually to publicise each other's areas. It is in defining an area within which the board may do certain things that difficulties may arise. We are giving very considerable powers under this Bill.

Mr. Sweetman

It is only in respect of the development of traffic in and out.

Mr. Lemass

That is the first sub-section of a fairly long section.

Mr. Sweetman

I would press the Minister to reconsider it between now and the Report Stage.

Mr. Lemass

I have no firm views one way or the other. I was advised that complications would arise.

Mr. Sweetman

Will the Minister go back to his advisers?

Mr. Lemass

Yes, I will have it reconsidered.

Mr. McQuillan

This section says that it shall be the duty of the board to encourage and promote the development of tourist traffic in and to the State. I think it is a disgraceful thing that a tourist Bill should be passed in this House where the words "the State" have been substituted for the word "Ireland". I am not interested in the legal difficulties involved. As far as I am concerned, the word "State" means Ireland, and I am sure that goes for the general public. When people are invited to come here for a holiday, we hope to give them the impression that they are coming to a united country. I think it is quite wrong to bring a Bill into this House and to make out that, due to legal difficulties, we must use the words "the State" instead of the word "Ireland".

Mr. Lemass

There is no use in closing our eyes to the fact that we can only give powers within a certain area of this country.

Mr. McQuillan

In the publicity that will take place in America, Britain and elsewhere outside this State, publicity should be given to Ireland as a whole.

Mr. Lemass

It is not merely a matter of publicity.

Mr. Sweetman

In this sub-section it is.

Mr. Lemass

The board is authorised to do a whole lot of specific things under this section.

Mr. Sweetman

I agree, but this has to do with the development of tourist traffic to Ireland.

Mr. Cosgrave

When the matter is being reconsidered, the Minister should direct the attention of his legal advisers to the apparent conflict between the advice now tendered to him and the constitutional description of the Government of Ireland, because whatever power is derived under these Acts, in turn derives from the Constitution, and it does seem to me that there is no clear and consistent policy in the matter of descriptions in specific cases and this proposed description.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy will appreciate that what the Oireachtas is doing now is proposing to delegate powers to a body which it will not control directly after it has been set up, and we have to define in a fairly definite way how it is to exercise these powers.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. McQuillan

I move amendment No. 3:-

In sub-section (2), page 4, line 8, before "at" to insert "including the removal of unsightly obstructions and weeds in rivers and the demolition of derelict buildings".

I was prompted to put down this amendment because I had a bit of a "stink" with the Minister's Department and some other Departments with regard to the condition of the river Shannon. I tried to get the Board of Works, the Department of Agriculture or the Department of Industry and Commerce to take the responsibility for clearing the weeds out of the Shannon near Athlone. We all realise that the Shannon is an attraction, so far as tourists are concerned, and with the weeds in the river at present, there is a very unsightly view near Athlone. Nobody will take responsibility for their removal. They are an eyesore, and they hinder boating and fishing to a certain extent. In view of the fact that none of the bodies I have mentioned is willing to take responsibility, I thought there might be a possibility that the Minister might consider giving power to the Tourist Board to take action where no other authority was willing to do so.

The same applies with regard to derelict buildings. I know that local authorities have power to remove or demolish buildings of such a nature. The trouble is that, in many parts of rural Ireland, the local authorities are very slow to move in the matter, with the result that we have many unsightly buildings set right in the heart of some of our best scenery. I can see difficulties from the Minister's point of view in accepting that portion of the amendment, but I should like to see some authority given to the Tourist Board to urge on local authorities the desirability of doing their duty in the matter of derelict buildings and these other eyesores in many tourist centres and in many small villages.

Mr. Lemass

I have very considerable sympathy with the object the Deputy is trying to achieve, and, in fact, I have spoken publicly on many occasions about the failure of local authorities to avail of the powers given to them under the Acquisition of Derelict Sites Act, 1940, and the offer which was made from time to time of willingness on the part of the State to appropriate various grants to that purpose. I think I can claim to have had some part in the enactment of the legislation to which I refer, and my interest arose out of my responsibility for the development of the tourist trade and the belief that these derelict and unsightly buildings and obstructions are a detriment to its development.

I have been told, however, that one of the reasons why the Acquisition of Derelict Sites Act, 1940, has not been more extensively used by local authorities is the safeguards which were put into it to prevent arbitrary interference with private property. Perhaps these safeguards were too extensive, and that is a matter which I am prepared to ask the Minister for Local Government to look into. Clearly, some safeguards must be there and, that being so, it is, I think, impracticable to give a body like An Bord Fáilte power to do these things, because it also would have to be ringed around with restrictions such as might be deemed necessary to prevent them declaring somebody's house to be an eyesore and proceeding to demolish it.

Under the Sanitary Services Act, 1948, I think that local authorities have power to remove unsightly obstructions in rivers. I have no objection whatever to An Board Fáilte taking the initiative in these matters and discussing with local authorities the things that should be done by them in order to improve the general appearance and amenities of any area. My idea is that that work should be done mainly by the local development companies for which provision is made in this Bill. I should think that they would be the spearpoint of any agitation directed to the local authorities in order to become active in that field. I think I can say, although I should have to make some obvious reservations, that local authorities proposing to exercise their powers under these Acts could hope to get some contribution to the cost from the various funds which are voted for unemployment relief purposes and distributed by the Board of Works. Certainly the Government would be quite willing to see funds used in this useful way, provided the other conditions for the allocation of these funds to particular areas were fulfilled. I do not think it is practicable to give An Bord Fáilte powers in this matter. Their general responsibility, however, would undoubtedly give them the right to approach local authorities and endeavour to get public opinion working locally in order to get plans developed which local authorities could implement and for which they could hope to get financial assistance from the State.

Mr. McQuillan

I agree with most of what the Minister has said. I should like to see the board, even though it did not accept responsibility for the removal of these obstructions, taking an active interest in urging on somebody, the local authority or the development association, the desirability of moving in that direction.

As it is, I have given the Minister a concrete example in regard to Athlone, the case of the Shannon, where no body in the world will move. If the Minister is prepared to give a guarantee that when this Bill goes through one of the first functions of the board will be to goad whatever Department is responsible into doing that, I will let the amendment drop.

Mr. Lemass

It would be reckless to guarantee what the board will do but I will give the guarantee that I will prod the board in this matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 5 agreed to.

SECTION 6.

Mr. Cosgrave

I move amendment No. 4:-

Before Section 6 to insert a new section as follows:—

The board may encourage the formation of companies under the Companies Acts, 1908 to 1924, having the object of providing amenities and facilities at tourist resorts and developing tourist traffic at or to such resorts and may make grants to any such companies towards the expenses of their formation and administration (not exceeding £200 in any one year, to any one company).

In effect this amendment only adds the words "and administration" to the section as drafted in the Bill. The reason for this proposal to put in the words "and administration" is that if the section is passed as it stands the payment of a grant of £200 will be confined to the formation of a company. It is reasonable to assume that for a short time after its formation certain administrative work will be essential and I think it desirable to add these words so that the payment of the £200 may be used by the company not merely in its formation but in the initial stages of its actual administration.

Mr. Lemass

I want to tell the Deputy the process of my thinking on this subject. I thought of this point. It seemed to me at first a reasonable provision to make, that if we are to secure the establishment of local companies it is desirable that in addition to covering the foundation expenses some aid should be given for continuing administrative costs. Finally, I decided against it, and I hope I will be able to convince the Deputy that that was wise. The feeling I have is that local development companies of the kind contemplated here will be very useful provided they are established and managed by active people. They will be a handicap on the development of tourist resorts if they are merely brought into existence by the promise of Government financial aid and kept in existence by continuing Government grants.

Mr. Sweetman

Continuing?

Mr. Lemass

We are proposing to help any such company in regard to the initial non-productive expenditure —mainly legal, as Deputy Sweetman knows.

Mr. Sweetman

The legal people would not get as much as £200.

Mr. Lemass

There are also grants towards the payment of interest on loans for a period. If these local companies are to do any good they must be composed of people prepared to take the rest of the burden themselves; and I think we can reasonably expect that any active company, one worth having, will be able to raise by its activities enough to pay its administration expenses. I would regard that as a test of the capacity of the company to do useful work. I would hesitate to call into existence local companies of that kind so incapable of doing effective work that in order to continue in existence they would have to get continuing Government grants, and would only remain in existence in order to pay the Government grant to some official. Therefore, I think it better to leave the section as it stands, and make no provision for continuing assistance. I would be prepared to reconsider that if, after a period, it was obvious that quite a number of useful local companies were working, and that we were not giving them sufficient help; but I would like to see them established initially on the basis set out here.

Mr. Sweetman

The Minister used the words, "continuing administrative costs". I do not think the amendment asks for continuing administrative costs. We agree with the Minister's point, where the company has started to make money. I am thinking, and so is Deputy Cosgrave, of the case of a company being formed. For the first three months, for example——

Mr. Lemass

The Bill covers that. It is not legal costs only; it is the expenses of formation, which is a wider term.

Mr. Sweetman

I think the Minister would be tied on that by the analogous interpretation of "expenses of formation" in the Companies Acts.

Mr. Lemass

I will look into that, as, certainly, that is not what was in my mind.

Mr. Sweetman

What the Minister has in mind is probably the same exactly as we have; but we are doubtful whether the section, as drafted, explains it.

Mr. Lemass

If a group came to me and said they were prepared to form a company, but would incur certain expenses before getting to the stage where they would have an income, I would be prepared to help them.

Mr. Sweetman

That is the idea of the £200, and not as a continuing administrative grant.

Mr. Lemass

I want to be sure that there will be no misinterpretation of the phrase used there.

Mr. McQuillan

Would that question arise in the case of the formation of a company that intended to put on, in different bays or lakes, steamers or boats for pleasure cruises?

Mr. Lemass

Yes, any activity of that kind. Necessarily some of them will have to be profitable.

Mr. McQuillan

They would have to be profitable.

Mr. Lemass

I was brought to consider the setting up of these companies by what I saw myself in some tourist resorts, where some local organisation or tourist association had developed certain amenities, which were not merely paying for themselves but were making contributions towards the expenses of the local body. I think it is the right type of development, when we have the right people behind it.

Mr. Sweetman

Enniscrone being one of the best.

Mr. Roddy

I would suggest that companies already in existence such as the Tourist Development Board——

Mr. Lemass

The reference is to local companies.

Mr. Roddy

They were local bodies. We had one in Sligo town. Is it the Minister's intention to stop those?

Mr. Lemass

No, on the contrary.

Mr. Roddy

Will the Minister issue them with a certificate the same as heretofore?

Mr. Sweetman

Not under this.

Mr. Lemass

I think I have made my peace with the Sligo body. At least, I hope so.

Mr. Roddy

I do not think so. They are not satisfied yet that the Minister is dealing with them fairly. They are a pretty representative body, their members being spread all over the whole county. They are doing very useful work. That local body is recognised and is helped by way of grants and contributions. I think they would do just as useful work as a local company set up under this.

Mr. Lemass

I have reason to believe that the company formed in Sligo is an active body and likely to do useful work. I gave them a certificate under the 1931 Act last year but they understood it was for last year only and to meet the special circumstances which then existed. They will be qualified to get loans and grants towards the interest on loans under this Bill.

Mr. Roddy

Is not the Minister bound by the 1931 Act all the time?

Mr. Lemass

Yes, in the sense that a local authority cannot make a contribution towards any tourist organisation unless I give that tourist organisation a certificate. My intention is to confine such certificates to the Irish Tourist Association.

Mr. Roddy

The local authority is prepared to continue giving that local body a contribution and they are satisfied that the money is being used to good advantage. I do not see why a certificate should be withheld.

Mr. Lemass

In fact, what we are proposing to do for these local companies in this Bill is far more extensive than anything the local authorities can do. We are proposing to do more than local authorities.

Mr. Roddy

The Minister is not prepared to do more than finance certain expenditure.

Mr. Lemass

This is more than the local authority would do.

Mr. Roddy

The Minister mentioned in connection with derelict sites, that the local people should be active and able to deal with derelict sites and have funds raised to have those eyesores removed. That is what the Sligo Tourist Board envisages. They have a very extensive programme on hands. They have already a tourist guide, which is very much appreciated. It was compiled and published at great expense, and they are at some financial loss at the moment. I would urge on the Minister that he should issue the certificate again.

Mr. Lemass

What it is proposed to do under this Bill is far more important.

Mr. Roddy

That is not the mind of the Tourist Development Association in Sligo.

Mr. Lemass

Do not be so sure about that.

Mr. Roddy

I am positive about it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 6 agreed to.

Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.

SECTION 9.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 5:-

Before Section 9 to insert a new section as follows:—

Sections 7 and 8 shall not apply to any building which is for the time being used for ecclesiastical purposes.

Following publication of the Bill, I had an approach from certain interests who urged that we should insert this safeguard, the effect of which is to ensure that the powers given to the board under Sections 7 and 8 will not apply to any buildings which are for the time being used for ecclesiastical purposes, even though some of them might be historic monuments in every sense of the term. While it might be considered hardly necessary to provide the safeguard, I thought in the circumstances, as it was asked for, it was better to do it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 6:-

In sub-section (1), lines 1 and 2, to delete "In the financial year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, and in every subsequent financial year" and substitute "In each financial year".

It is now obvious that the Bill will not become law by the 31st March, 1952. The effect of this amendment is to empower the Minister for Industry and Commerce to make a grant to An Bord Fáilte in the current financial year consequent on the fact that the Bill was not passed on the 31st March, as had been anticipated.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 7 not moved.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 8:-

Before sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

(2) In respect of the financial year ended on the 31st day of March, 1952, the Minister for Finance, on the recommendation of the Minister, may pay to the board out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas such sums, not exceeding in the aggregate £27,000, as the board shall require in addition to the sums provided under Section 15 of the Act of 1939.

As Deputies know, the Act of 1939 put a limit of £45,000 on the amount which could be paid to the Tourist Board in any one year. During the course of last year my predecessor authorised the board to incur expenditure beyond that limit with the intention of seeking legislative sanction before the end of the financial year. I confirmed that authorisation when I became Minister for Industry and Commerce and had intended myself to get the legal sanction for the higher expenditure within the financial year. That did not prove to be practicable and it is now necessary to authorise the payment of the additional sum, £27,000, in the financial year ended 31st March last to the Tourist Board. That is the purpose of the amendment.

Mr. Sweetman

There would be some interesting surcharges by the Comptroller and Auditor-General if this Bill did not become law in time.

Mr. Lemass

He is getting very worried about the delay in passing this Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 9, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 10 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 15.

Mr. D. Costello

I move amendment No. 9:-

To add a new paragraph as follows:—

(c) by the addition of the following new sub-section after sub-section (6):-

(1) The Minister shall ensure that at least two members of the board are representative of the hotel industry.

There is not much point in my going into this matter again in view of the fact that it has been discussed already on Deputy Hickey's amendment. As I am sure the Minister is well aware, the whole backbone of the tourist industry is the hotel industry, and if the hotel industry is properly run and if adequate and proper hotel accommodation is given to tourists the rest of the work of the Tourist Board will be comparatively easy. I regard the cooperation of the hotel industry in the development of the tourist industry as vital and I proposed to ensure by this amendment the maximum amount of co-operation between the hotel industry and the Tourist Board, by getting the confidence of the hotel industry in the Tourist Board. The great danger, which may very well be realised, is that the hotel industry may become antagonised by the actions of the Tourist Board. Friction can easily develop between a board which has such great powers as the proposed board will have and an industry like the hotel industry, which is operated by private individuals, whose livelihood depends on the manner in which their industry is controlled by the board. In order to get over this friction, in order to enable confidence to be generated between the Tourist Board and the hotel industry, I was suggesting by this amendment that representatives from the hotel industry should be appointed on the board.

I realise that the Minister may very well say that members of the hotel industry are already on the board. I realise that it may be good policy, and in probable fact in the past has been found to be good policy, to put members of the hotel industry on the Tourist Board. I should like to see it written into the Act. It would help to generate the confidence which I regard as vital if the hotel industry as such is to co-operate with the Tourist Board in the development of the tourist industry. By putting in a clause like this into the Bill I do not think the Minister would be in any way tying his hand by having, as it were, mere delegates appointed from the industry to the board. I would regard the effect of such an amendment merely to be that the Minister when selecting the board would have to have at least two members of the hotel industry on it. The hotel industry is a very large industry. It is the most important branch of the tourist industry, and it surely would be possible to find in that industry two persons capable of being members of the Tourist Board. I should like it to be mandatory on the Minister for the time being to ensure that at least two members of that industry were represented on the board.

Mr. Lemass

If my recollection is correct, when the 1939 Tourist Bill was before the Dáil there was an amendment to prevent the appointment on the Tourist Board of persons who were the proprietors or managers of hotels in the belief, which was expressed, that the individuals on the board would have an unfair advantage over other hotel proprietors when it came to deciding questions of grading and so forth. I think we have all changed in our outlook since then because of experience in the working of this board and in the operation of the hotels grading scheme. I think any Minister who appointed a board which did not include people who had got clear qualifications, arising from their own experience in hotel management, to speak about the problems of hotel proprietors, would be subject to criticism. There is no reason to apprehend that at any time any Minister selecting personnel for a board of this kind will fail to ensure that people who have got that experience are adequately represented on it. I do not think it needs a statutory condition in order to secure it. It is almost difficult to imagine anybody trying to pick seven men to direct the tourist industry not including on it people who had experience in the hotel business, and I am quite certain that if any Minister succeeded in picking seven men without including such persons he would not be able to defend his choice here.

Again, my difficulty is in the use of the word, "representative". There is more than one hotel association, They might easily claim that nobody is representative of the industry except their nominee, whereas many of us could think of hotel proprietors who would be suitable members of this board who may not be members of any association or, if members of one, would not be of another.

There were appointed on the present Tourist Board two people who could claim to speak with considerable experience in hotel management, and I think it is inevitable that any board, ever functioning, would include persons who could make similar claims. I do not think, however, that they should be required to be representative of the industry. They should be appointed because of their personal suitability for the position.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 15 agreed to.

SECTION 16.

Mr. D. Costello

I move amendment No. 10:—

To add a new sub-section as follows:—

(4) When, in consequence of the expenditure of a loan guaranteed in accordance with the provisions of this section, the valuation of any premises is increased, the valuation of such premises for the purpose of the assessment and levying of any rate raised by a local authority for the service of any local financial year commencing ten years after the passing of this Act shall be deemed to be reduced by two-thirds of such increase.

I raised this matter on Second Reading and I regard this amendment as very important. I would ask the Minister, if possible, to accept it or to suggest some alternative to it which would cover the idea behind it.

The Minister, I am sure, is well aware of the difficulty facing hotel proprietors in developing their premises when they do not know what the extent of the increased valuation will be after they have carried out the work. So far as hotel proprietors are concerned it is not merely a question of spending so many thousands of pounds in increasing the facilities and the accommodation of their hotels; there is also the question that in future the rates payable to the local authorities will be increased. They have no idea at the time they are making the alterations what the increase in their valuation is going to be. I am sure the Minister knows from experience that this is a real deterrent to the carrying out of improvements in hotels, and I am sure he is well aware that there are many hotels in this country which need improvement. One of the big purposes of this Bill is to endeavour to provide funds to make it easy for hotel proprietors to improve their premises. It is recognised by everybody that it is desirable and necessary if the tourist industry is to be developed on proper lines. With that in mind I would suggest that this further inducement should also be held out to hotel proprietors to improve their premises. In fact, they are given great inducements under Part III of the Act but I still think, even though the interest on the loans will be guaranteed by the Government, they will nevertheless be faced with a difficulty if they carry out large-scale improvements and they do not know at the time of carrying one the improvements by how much the rates on their premises will be increased as a result of these improvements. The purpose of the amendment is to give a remission of rates for a period of ten years after the passing of the Act to people who carry out improvements under the Bill. I am not wedded to this particular form of amendment and if the Minister could suggest any other form which would be preferable to him I would be prepared to accept it. The idea, however, behind the amendment is to enable hotel proprietors to obtain a remission of rates for such portion of their premises as are improved as a result of loans under the Bill.

Mr. Lemass

I may as well confess at this stage that when I drafted the heads of the Bill I had a provision of this kind in it. I thought at the time that it would be a useful concession to hotel proprietors which would stimulate the improvement of the hotel industry and I held that view until I discussed the matter with the Minister for Local Government. The Minister for Local Government convinced me fully that this is a provision which should not appear in the Bill. His view was that the hotel industry should not be singled out for a concession of this kind, that if we argued that the development of the tourist industry was of sufficient national importance that it required aid, and if we proposed to give it in this form, then other industries would make a similar claim and ultimately the finances of local authorities would be seriously undermined. The Minister for Local Government said: "If the State wants to give financial help in the development of the hotel industry, by all means give it but do not give it at the expense of the local authorities." I think that is a fair argument. I certainly accepted it as such and I then withdrew the original proposal which I had in the draft heads.

The State, under this Bill, is proposing to give substantial help to hotels. It proposes to guarantee loans, to give grants towards the payment of interest on these loans which will help to offset any additional charges that may initially become due because of improvements. If there is a feeling that the help we are giving is not sufficient, then we can discuss whether it should be improved, but I think the Minister for Local Government is on sound grounds in arguing that whatever help we consider necessary we should give out of State funds and not compel local authorities to give it, because if we do that the concession cannot be confined to one industry. Arguments would certainly be made for a similar concession for other industries and finally the whole financial position of local authorities would be affected. As most Deputies are aware, local authorities are finding it very difficult to get out of their rates a sufficient sum to meet their expenditure and, in fact, rate increases are the order of the day. I think that the case is against the proposal in this amendment, however advantageous it might be to hotels to have this concession.

Mr. Sweetman

Deputy Costello is not a member of a local authority. I am, and perhaps from that aspect, I have more sympathy with the point of view put forward by the Minister. I want, however, to put forward another view to support the case made by Deputy Costello. In this Bill later on we provide a new method in regard to the granting of a licence to an hotel. You are told to bring forward your plans and specifications and that if you erect a building in accordance with them, you will get your licence. The same analogy could very well be followed with great advantage in respect to valuation. We could make a provision that if a person delivered to the valuation office his plans and specifications, he would get from the Valuation Commissioners a determination to this effect: "If you build according to these plans and specifications, your valuation is going to be such-and-such." If a person knew that, then I think he would with certainty be able to compute his overheads and decide with certainty whether it was worth his while proceeding with the proposed building.

I believe myself quite frankly that quite a considerable number of people refrain from entering on reconstruction, or work of that nature, because they believe that a higher valuation would be put upon the reconstructed building than would in fact be put upon it when it is finished. I think that if we could under this Bill, or if not under this Bill, under another Bill, provide for a certainty that if a person carried out work according to certain plans and specifications, his rates or his valuation would be £x, it would be much easier for everybody concerned and it would mean that a person who wanted to carry out improvements would be able to decide beforehand whether they were worth while and what his overheads would be.

Mr. Lemass

I had that idea examined and, in fact, discussed with the Commissioners of Valuation who convinced me that the administrative difficulties would be so great as to make it impracticable. They also said, if my recollection is correct, that the principles on which they make their valuations are fairly well known. There is no reason why they should not be better known and why any valuer, knowing these principles, should not be able to give an hotel proprietor a fair estimate of what his new valuation would be, as fair an estimate as the commissioners themselves could give.

Mr. Sweetman

With all respect, might I suggest to the Minister and to the commissioners that both of them should pay a visit to the next hearing in the valuation revision court by the Circuit Court judge in Dublin, and they will find that if genuine evidence is given on one side the evidence of the valuation office on the other side is entirely at variance with the statement the Minister has just made? I think it is due to the actual conservatism of the valuation office.

Mr. Lemass

That may be so.

Breanndán Mac Fheórais

I do not think that people, especially business people, would look too kindly on such a proposal. If I were reconstructing my house, I would feel very sore if I did not get a rates remission for a number of years like the big hotel owners get.

Mr. Cosgrave

I agree with the Minister's reply to Deputy Costello's amendment, but I think there is a good deal to be said for it. It may not be strictly relevant to this section, but provision is made in this Bill for the improvement of resorts, to try to do away with derelict buildings and generally to try to brighten the appearance of the country. One of the greatest deterrents to improvements is the fear of revaluation. Some very large businesses may be capable of absorbing it; it may be a loss in one way but it is a gain in another. But, in a number of the smaller towns where reconstruction work is obviously required and a number of buildings require to be repaired, not merely redecorated, the owners are deterred because of the revaluation which will follow any works which are carried out.

I think what Deputy Sweetman stated with regard to the evidence in the Circuit Court is correct. It is true in some respects that the basis on which revaluation is carried out is known. Some time ago, however, the valuation office decided on a basis for licensed premises. It was a very high basis and it generally became known, but in some cases it was exceeded. In some cases it was three times the former valuation. In instances which have come to my notice it was as much as five times the former valuation. Nobody is prepared to reconstruct premises on the basis that he does not know what the revaluation will be. In one particular instance it was three times what it was formerly and in another instance four or five times.

Mr. Lemass

I nearly fell at one time, with Henry George, for the idea of a single tax, that the only tax should be on the valuation of a building or rather on the valuation of a building as it should be built.

Mr. Cosgrave

There might be something to be said for that. It is a fact that the only bright buildings in a number of towns now are the new buildings.

Mr. Lemass

My opinion is that there is a need for a re-examination of the principles on which valuation is based. The main objection I have had from hotel proprietors is that when they add additional bedrooms or make some extension to their premises the valuation is not increased by some mathematical relation between the number of new bedrooms and the number of old bedrooms, but the whole premises are revalued and generally they have to meet a much bigger bill than they anticipated.

Captain Cowan

There have been cases to my knowledge where the owner of a public-house made it brighter and more attractive by constructing a lounge bar, but as far as the size of the premises was concerned he was restricted from the beginning. He could not add an inch to the premises. By the time he had finished, however, his valuation went up something like £40.

Mr. Cosgrave

I know one case where it was revalued at five times what the original valuation was. As the Deputy says, you cannot add any additional space to a public-house without getting a new licence.

Mr. Lemass

It is a question of the letting value of the premises.

Mr. Sweetman

Surely it should be possible to have some sort of definite anticipation.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy will see, of course, that a predetermination of the valuation for hotel premises alone would be very difficult. At some time you would have completely to revise the whole basis of working generally. You could not hope to do it for one industry.

Mr. D. Costello

Have not plans to be sent for approval?

Mr. Lemass

They have.

Mr. D. Costello

Surely the machinery would be very simple.

Mr. Lemass

That is what I have been told by the Commissioners of Valuation. I personally was not in a position to judge. They seemed strong enough to convince me that the administrative problems were very grave and that the resulting advantage to the individual would not be considerable; that in some cases a person could, with expert advice, find out for himself what the valuation was likely to be.

Mr. D. Costello

I am thinking of the small hotel proprietors in the country who do not often get expert advice in these matters, and such a provision would be of very great assistance to them.

Mr. Sweetman

Does not the fact that the Commissioners of Valuation say that the administrative difficulties would be great automatically belie their suggestion that the principles underlying valuation are simple?

Mr. Lemass

The administrative difficulties are those associated with the making of a valuation on the basis of a plan.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section put and agreed to.

Sections 17 to 26, inclusive, put and agreed to.

SECTION 27.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 11:—

Before Section 27 to insert a new section as follows:—

Sub-section (4) of Section 30 of the Act of 1939 (which relates to renewal of registration) is hereby amended by the substitution, for paragraph (a), of the following paragraph:—

(a) the board shall serve notice upon the applicant that the board is of opinion that such premises have ceased on stated grounds to be eligible for registration in such register and that the applicant may, within fourteen days after service of such notice, make written representations to the board with a view to showing that such premises have not ceased to be eligible for registration in such register;

Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 are designed to meet points raised during the Second Reading debate concerning the circumstances under which the registration of an hotel in the register might be withdrawn. Amendment No. 11 deals with the service of a notice on the applicant, and amendment No. 12 deals with the question of failing to maintain the maximum charges. Amendment No. 14 also deals with the same point. I hope Deputies will find that these amendments meet the arguments advanced on Second Reading. I think they do; at any rate they are some safeguard for the hotel proprietor whose registration may be withdrawn for one reason or another.

Mr. Cosgrave

As I understand, the recent practice of the board is that all appeals against refusal to register are considered by the board and a decision is taken by the board and conveyed to the applicant. I think these amendments will meet the views of the House if the Minister will undertake to convey to the board the view of the House that any question of an applicant appealing against a refusal to be registered should be considered by the board as distinct from being left as an executive function.

Mr. Lemass

I think that would be a wise provision.

Mr. Cosgrave

I think it is important. In the past there was a good deal of dissatisfaction with the grading system. I suppose it is not possible for any system to please everybody. An appeal against refusal to register should be considered by the board as distinct from some single member or possibly an official of the board who, maybe, has investigated the premises and conveyed a report. If the report of an inspector is considered by the board, the application or appeal against refusal to register should be considered by the board.

Mr. Lemass

It will go three times. He will have ample opportunity.

Mr. Sweetman

In other words, the function cannot be delegated?

Mr. Lemass

That is so.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 12:—

Before Section 27 to insert a new section as follows:—

Sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 30 of the Act of 1939 (which empower the board to refuse an application for renewal of registration where the applicant has failed to adhere to his specified scale of charges) shall be construed as if the word "wilfully" were inserted before "failed" wherever the latter word occurs in the sub-sections.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Section 27, as amended, put and agreed to.

Section 28 put and agreed to.

SECTION 29.

Amendment No. 13 not moved.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 14:—

In sub-section (1), page 9, line 30, and in sub-section (5), page 10, line 14, before "failed" to insert "wilfully".

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 15:—

In sub-section (3) (a), page 9, line 45, after "ceased" to insert "on stated grounds".

Amendment put and agreed to.

Section 29, as amended, put and agreed to.

SECTION 30.

Mr. Cosgrave

I move amendment No. 16:—

Before Section 30 to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) There shall be established an Advisory Committee to be known as Fógra Fáilte (in this part referred to as the Committee).

(2) The provisions of the Schedule shall apply to the Committee.

I should just like to refer to an amendment to Section 31. This, in effect, is the only controversial part of the Bill at present before the House. On the Second Stage of the Bill a number of Deputies expressed the view that it was not in the interests of the tourist industry that there should be two separate bodies. In effect, there are three, but under this particular Bill there is provision for two bodies.

If this Bill becomes law in its present form, three bodies will have responsibilities of different kinds in connection with the development of the tourist industry. I know a case can be made that the work of the oldest body, the Irish Tourist Association, and the work which was given under the 1939 Act to the Irish Tourist Board had to be merged in some way, and that a case can be made for joint representation on the tourist publicity body to be known in this Bill as Fógra Fáilte. There is no doubt that it has led, and is leading, to confusion in the public mind, and that the responsibilities of the different bodies have, to a considerable extent, become confused. It may be that the bodies themselves are working separately, but two separate bodies dealing with the same type of work lead to unnecessary administrative expenses and to duplication and overlapping.

I said earlier that the External Affairs bulletin had confused the two bodies or certainly confused the position of an individual who is a member of the two bodies. That may or may not be very important. I think it is obvious that any work which is carried out by either of these bodies could be carried out by a single body. There is no place for two separate bodies dealing, in the main, with the same work. Tourist publicity is an inherent part of any tourist policy. Consequently, the responsibility for guiding tourist publicity should be part and parcel of the body charged with the responsibility of developing the tourist industry. As this Bill is at present framed, there is a separate body with a separate staff and there is provision for a separate sum of money to be voted to it which, in effect, is half of the provision which it was originally intended would be provided under statute for An Bord Fáilte or the Irish Tourist Board. It seems that, on the estimate of the work which will have to be carried out, it is a considerable sum of money to divide between two bodies both of which have similar work which, normally, could be carried out by a single body.

The Christenberry Report, which was the result of the mission under the E.C.A. investigation carried out here by Mr. Christenberry and his advisers, recommended the establishment of a single body and suggested that the Tourist Association and the Irish Tourist Board should be merged into a single body to be charged with full responsibility for development of the tourist industry. There were a number of difficulties in the way of the immediate accomplishment of that ideal and of that suggestion but however great those difficulties might be they cannot and will not be lessened by the establishment of a third body.

The suggestion contained in my amendment is the establishment of an advisory committee. I think the Christenberry Report had in view the establishment of committees under the direction of the Tourist Board and operating as part of the Tourist Board personnel which would advise on particular aspects of the tourist trade. The Bill as at present framed will have a separate body operating tourist publicity. There is some general guidance that the tourist publicity will be directed in accordance with the policy of An Bord Fáilte. My amendment seeks to establish a committee which will have on it representatives of the Tourist Association and representatives of the Tourist Board, but which will be subordinate to An Bord Fáilte and will operate tourist publicity in the knowledge that that publicity is directed by An Bord Fáilte and in accordance with its policy. It is conceivable that there might be a conflict and that tourist publicity would be directed towards the attraction of tourists at a time when the accommodation here was already taxed to the full. That is only one of the difficulties. The main objections to the proposals in the Bill are that it is unnecessary overlapping and duplication and that it creates large adminstrative staffs at a time when we should endeavour to keep to a minimum administrative expenses rather than start with a top-heavy administrative machine to deal with the problem on which already a considerable amount of time has been lost and which can be effectively dealt with by a single body.

If the Minister accepts this amendment I suggest it will be possible to achieve the same objectives as he has in mind and that the establishment of a committee will avoid unnecessary administrative staff and the unnecessary overlapping and expenditure that will inevitably flow from the establishment of two separate organisations to deal with the same problem.

Mr. Lemass

I do not think it matters very much whether we call Fógra Fáilte a committee of An Bord Fáilte or not. On the whole, I would be against it, because it would seem to me to be a misuse of the term and, therefore, even more misleading than anything in the present Bill.

In so far as it is intended to secure that responsibility for the main strategy of tourist development should rest with An Bord Fáilte, I am in complete agreement with Deputy Cosgrave. The Bill, as he will have noted, provides that in the discharge of its functions Fógra Fáilte is obliged to ensure that tourist publicity is directed in accord with the policy of An Bord Fáilte. That sub-section of Section 31 was put in deliberately to make it obvious that the direction of publicity activities was to be designed to carry out the programme and policy of An Bord Fáilte.

I would not dispute the contention that, if we were starting with a clear field to set up organisations to develop the tourist trade, we would not think at this stage of creating more than one organisation even though we recognised that that organisation would have to divide its activities into two main parts and would need to set up two instruments to discharge its obligations.

We are not, however, starting with a clear field. In 1939, when the Tourist Development Act of that year was passed and when the State for the first time decided to come into this business of tourist development and make State funds available for it, there was in existence the voluntary body which had been established many years previously, the Tourist Association which had received some official recognition by the Tourist Act of 1931.

As I reminded the House during the Second Reading debate, the intention then was to leave the conduct of tourist publicity to the Tourist Association and to give the Tourist Board all the other functions which were set out in the 1939 Act. That situation would have continued until now if the funds available to the Tourist Association were sufficient to do a proper job in the publicity field. Some time after the war, however, when the full potentialities of the tourist trade became more clearly recognised, it was realised that the funds of the Tourist Association would be completely insufficient to do adequate work in the publicity field. Therefore, the need to make State funds available for publicity work became clear, but with the recognition of that need problems also arose. If State funds—very substantial State funds—are to be provided for publicity work can we hand them over to a voluntary organisation such as the Tourist Association?

Must we not ensure that the aim of the Oireachtas in providing these funds is achieved by entrusting them to an organisation whose functions will be defined by statute, the directors of which will be responsible to the Government and through the Government to the Dáil?

That problem faced my two immediate predecessors and, as I reminded the House, not for the purpose of arousing any controversy, but as an indication of the complexity of the situation, they took divergent views about them. Deputy Morrissey, I think, was in favour of wiping out the Tourist Association and handing over the whole job of tourist publicity work to the Tourist Board. Deputy O'Higgins, who succeeded him, did not share that view. At any rate, he was hesitant about accepting it, and came to an understanding with the Tourist Association, which involved leaving their position unchanged during one year and not indicating very clearly what he intended to do at the end of that year. There was considerable discussion and agitation, and, recognising that this was one task which had to be given priority, this task of securing the enactment of new and more extended tourist development legislation. I had discussions with the representatives of the Tourist Association and the Tourist Board.

Arising out of these discussions, I got the idea—I am not trying to put the fault on anyone else—of entrusting the direction of tourist publicity to a joint organisation, three directors of which would be representatives of the Tourist Association and three of the Tourist Board. Deputies will have noticed my hesitation, because my original idea was three directors on the Tourist Board and two directors on the Tourist Association. I put that suggestion to the Tourist Association, and they intimated to me their willingness to accept it, provided I agreed to their suggestion that there should be three directors on each body, which I did.

The Tourist Board nominated the three members and the Tourist Association arranged the nomination of their three, and that was the origin of Fógra Fáilte. I do not agree that it is going to prove a cumbersome or expensive arrangement. I think there is a misunderstanding in the minds of some Deputies as to the danger of duplication of organisation.

Fógra Fáilte took over the existing publicity organisations. There was some duplication existing. They took over the organisation of the Tourist Association and the organisation of the Tourist Board. At any rate it was my intention that it should take over these organisations and combine them into one effective instrument of tourist publicity which would not be changed in respect of a single person, whether the direction of that organisation was left with Fógra Fáilte or transferred to the Tourist Board or An Bord Fáilte.

I do not see that there is any duplication of staff at all. Even if we wipe out Fógra Fáilte and give the whole of these functions and all the responsibility to An Bord Fáilte they will have a publicity organisation of that kind under their control working up to some manager. It does not seem to me that that organisation will cost a penny more if it is working up to Fógra Fáilte instead of An Bord Fáilte. If we wipe out Fógra Fáilte then we will have a problem on our hands—the problem of the Tourist Association, about which it is possible, I admit, to take different views. We could say that the Tourist Association, whatever useful work they have done in the past, is no longer required and could just as well disappear. I do not share that view. I think that the main problem we have in securing the development of the tourist trade here is to awaken our own people to its importance. I cannot conceive any organisation better constituted to discharge that task than the Tourist Association, an organisation which, as the House knows, is composed in part of voluntary members who are interested in tourist development, and in part of the representatives of local authorities who contribute from their rates to tourist development expenditure.

I do not think that it would be practicable to apply the idea of a joint board to An Fógra Fáilte itself. It would give the representatives of the local authorities in the Tourist Association functions in tourist development that they had not got previously. In any event, it seems to me that it would lessen the power of the Minister to carry out the results he desires by taking out of his hands, in part at least, the selection of the directors of the tourist development body. The present arrangement may not strike Deputies as perfect but it is not open to all the objections that have been suggested here. I do not think it necessarily involves any increased expenditure whatever. It does provide a basis for the continued existence and activity of the Tourist Association. It gives that body a very definite voice in the tourist development work that they have been doing up to the present and for the time being it is as good an arrangement as we can devise. It avoids immediate controversy and conflict and still gets the job done. It may be that in the course of time the circumstances which give the Tourist Association a right to a voice in the direction of tourist publicity will cease to be as strong. In that case the position can be reviewed, but if we decide now to wipe out Fógra Fáilte and hand over the whole job to An Bord Fáilte there would be immediate problems of conflict with the Tourist Association, of a surplus number of directors available for reappointment and a general reorganisation would be necessitated. I think it is unnecessary to face that task of general reorganisation when we can get smooth working upon the basis which is established in the Bill, a basis which, as I understand it, has been accepted by, and is still acceptable to, the Tourist Association.

I do not think there is any risk of overlapping. I cannot see how that danger of operlapping occurs. Deputies have not, I think, adverted to the fact that the Tourist Board has three members on the board of An Fógra Fáilte, one of them being the chairman. That gives the Tourist Board ample power to ensure that the work of the two bodies is properly co-ordinated and that the publicity activities for Fógra Fáilte are carried out in accordance with the general plans and ideas of An Bord Fáilte.

In that connection the House will appreciate that a great deal of work will be put upon these tourist organisations in the immediate future. Not merely will they become under this Bill responsible for new activities but they will be given greater funds than ever they had available to them in the past. New projects like An Tostál are emerging. All these will impose a considerable amount of work upon the members of the board and the task of spending effectively upon publicity £250,000 a year is big enough in my view to justify entrusting it to a specialised separate organisation which can exercise the necessary supervision over it.

An Bord Fáilte will have enough to do in spending on its particular activities a corresponding sum as well as carrying out the exceptional job of organisation involved in projects like An Tostál. That is why I think Deputies have a misconception of the amount of work involved in this when they talk about entrusting the two jobs to one board. I do not think one board entrusted with the two jobs could exercise reasonable supervision over the doing of them. That board would be obliged to appoint managers and sub-managers and leave the job to them. By the arrangement proposed here there will be more effective and regular supervision of the work done by the persons responsible for policy than there would be if we adopted the other arrangement.

I have some hesitation in arguing this case strongly because I am conscious of the fact that before coming to the decision that the best arrangement is that set out in the Bill I explored a multitude of other possible arrangements. I know that in seeking the agreement of the Tourist Association I was motivated by the idea of avoiding trouble. I think it is worth while avoiding trouble when one can, and certainly it is worth while doing it when the result is that efficient operation is not made more difficult. By the arrangement made with the Tourist Association we did avoid trouble. We got a system of working which is practicable, which is worthy of experiment, which gets over all the immediate controversies and which has permitted tourist development activity to get going with some effect even in advance of the enactment of this legislation.

I think it is worth while doing that. I have a feeling that, if one were to try to reverse that now, we would find ourselves bogged down for another year in rather futile controversies as to the functions of the Tourist Association and the Tourist Board, and in the end we would produce no better system of administration.

Mr. Sweetman

I want it to be quite clear that I am discussing this measure on principles as apart from personalities. The Minister will not misunderstand me when I say that I could equally well discuss it the other way, but I deliberately want to avoid doing so. I want it also to be perfectly clear that, due to circumstances over which nobody had any control—least of all the Minister—we are discussing this project much later than we intended to in the first instance. We are all glad to see the Minister back, but we find some difficulty in retracing our steps now and more difficulty than we would have had if this Bill had been discussed at an earlier date. The Minister, most of all, disliked being the cause of the delay.

Mr. Lemass

Quite so. I can assure the Deputy of that.

Mr. Sweetman

However, we are glad to see him back again. I think this is a rotten arrangement. I think the Minister succeeded in selling the idea to the Irish Tourist Association that, under this arrangement, that association would be kept alive. I think it would have been better to kill the association in an open way rather than kill it in what I regard as a hidden way. I cannot see any prospect of life for the Irish Tourist Association for any period when this arrangement comes into operation. I think the Minister persuaded the directors of the Irish Tourist Association.

Mr. Lemass

It is the other way round. They persuaded me.

Mr. Sweetman

Somebody persuaded somebody. I will not argue who did the persuading but, knowing the Minister's persuasive powers, I suspect he did it. I do not think this will have the effect he contemplates. I think that as a result of this arrangement the Irish Tourist Association will atrophy and eventually fade out. I do not want to see that position come about. At the same time I can equally see the difficulty that the Minister has in having a voluntary body dealing with the very substantial sums of State moneys involved in this, but it should have been possible to arrive at a solution of the difficulty somewhat on the lines of sub-section (2) of Section 31 as between An Bord Fáilte and the Tourist Association. The present position is that in the discharge of its functions under the Act, Fógra Fáilte is to act in accordance with the policy of An Bord Fáilte. I think it should have been possible to have found a solution along the lines that, having regard to the very substantial funds made available, the Tourist Association must act in accordance with directions——

Mr. Lemass

The Tourist Association is a very large body, is it not? The Deputy will appreciate that there would have to be some arrangement.

Mr. Sweetman

If I may take this analogy, I would rather have the directors of the Tourist Association considered on the lines of a general meeting of the Irish Public Bodies Insurance Company electing a committee.

Mr. Lemass

The question to consider is whether, instead of having An Fógra Fáilte constituted as proposed here, it would not be better to have An Fógra Fáilte constituted of persons chosen from members of the Tourist Association under a chairman appointed by the Minister. But that would seem to exclude the Tourist Board altogether from the direction of publicity, and I doubt if that would be right.

Mr. Sweetman

I think there would be the possibility of marrying the Tourist Board quite satisfactorily into such an organisation. I think that such a method would keep the Tourist Association a living thing. I agree that, so far as making people conscious of the benefits of tourism, of the benefits of the tourist industry and of what requires to be done, quite apart from anything else, the Tourist Association fulfils a very useful function. For that reason I think that a scheme by which it would be kept in existence as a living organism, rather than allow it to atrophy—as I believe it is going to be allowed under this proposal— would be far more satisfactory.

I agree with the Minister that we are not starting anew and afresh, and that we have to tackle the situation as we find it. If we were starting afresh, without any 1939 Act, it is probable that we could tackle the problem in a different way. We have the Tourist Association and the Tourist Board there. I think that we would be doing a much better job if we married one into the other rather than try to tie them together with an entirely new and strange body.

I do not agree with the Minister that this was done as, so to speak, a piece of goodwill to the Tourist Assosiation, and that it would be kept alive. I do not think that the Tourist Association was in any way wedded to An Fógra Fáilte. The Tourist Association wanted some method of being kept alive. Some of the members believe that An Fógra Fáilte will do that. I, frankly, do not. Time will tell whether the views of the members who believe that, or whether my views, are correct. We can only see the results after a period.

I am afraid the Minister is not quite correct in his line about the duplication of staff. Before the institution of An Fógra Fáilte you had the staff of the Tourist Board and the staff of the Tourist Association. In any tourist organisation, whether it is the board or the Tourist Association, you are inevitably going to have, and should have, an integration of work and of function. That, perhaps to some extent, does not apply to the very limited function in regard to the grading of hotels. But in regard to the grading, you must consider what the customer wants and consider it also from the point of view of making things as easy as possible for the people in the industry. You can only get an idea of what a customer wants by appreciating the type of inquiry you are getting through the bureau. It seems to me that in any tourist organisation, whether you call it the Tourist Board, the Tourist Association or the publicity board, that the functions of the whole lot are inevitably linked together, and that the staff of each one of these, though possibly doing some type of specialised work at the moment, must have a general background, or else they will not be able to do that specialised work.

You have the staff of the Tourist Association, the staff of the Tourist Board and now, under this Bill, the staff of the new publicity board. You are, for example, providing different methods of superannuation for the staffs of An Bord Fáilte and the staffs of An Fógra Fáilte. In doing that, you automatically show that it is envisaged that they will be kept in watertight compartments. Even if you are going to keep An Fógra Fáilte it would be far more satisfactory to provide that the staff doing the work of An Fógra Fáilte would be the staff of the Irish Tourist Board seconded to An Fógra Fáilte for such time as was decided on by the two boards. I cannot see what the idea is of having the provision there in Sections 13 and 14 for An Bord Fáilte in respect of superannuation of staff, and the provision there is under Clauses 5 and 9 of the Schedule in respect of An Fógra Fáilte, unless you are going to have the personnel of the two boards in separate compartments.

I think the Minister will agree with me that the job that is to be done under this Bill, whether it is a job to be done by An Bord Fáilte, or a job to be done by An Fógra Fáilte, or a job to be done by the Tourist Association under the limited functions that are being left to it with, as I say, the local authority money that is given to it, is all part of the tourist job, and that the fact of having separate staff organisations, quite apart from the organisation at the top, is going to cause unnecessary administrative expense and to prevent efficient working. I think that anybody, no matter in what aspect of tourist work he is going to serve, must have a general tourist background. I do not think you could even have an inspector grading hotels without that inspector knowing what type of publicity work was being carried out, and what type of inquiry the publicity organisation was getting at the counter from the bureau, whether the bureau is here, in London or in America.

I am not suggesting that it is necessary for the inspector to serve an apprenticeship so to speak, in connection with these bureaux, but the whole thing must be linked up into one job. If one is going to have two types of organisations in watertight compartments with different superannuation provisions, with a different allotment of funds and with a different allotment of functions, it necessarily means, as provided by this Bill, that one is not going to get the best results.

The only argument put up by the Minister, in which I can see any force, is the argument, unfortunately, that we obviously could not afford to lose this tourist season. I am entirely at one with the Minister in that but, at the same time, we should bear in mind that we are trying to plan, not merely for the 1952 tourist season but that we have a long-term tourist plan in this Bill. I feel that, no matter what temporary expedient we arrive at to get over the short-term difficulty of this tourist season, we should try to make sure that the first thing we provide by this Bill, when it leaves this House and the more rarefied atmosphere of another Chamber, is a body that is going to function properly in the long-term development of the tourist industry. The best method of doing that is to ensure that there will be as few bodies as possible to do the job. You could assure that you will get the best of both worlds by having the Tourist Board and An Bord Fáilte. You could tie those two associations together quite satisfactorily, but once you get into the realms of the third then you are adding an unnecessary development.

There is a lot of argument put forward for having only one, but I believe that the argument for keeping alive local enthusiasm overrides the argument for having only one. Mr. Christenberry's argument was for one body. I feel that the argument for keeping alive local enthusiasm overrides that, but I cannot see the force of a third organisation. I think the line the Minister has been taking in saying that this is not a separate organisation is a false analogy. The very fact that certain funds are set aside for it and it alone, the very fact that there is a provision in the schedule for separate superannuation for its members and for the members of itself alone inevitably means that it is a separate organism. A separate organism is bound to mean additional administrative expenditure, and additional overhead expenditure. It also means there will be a tendency amongst officials, leaving out the members of Fógra Fáilte, to feel that they are doing a different job. They are not, but only the one aspect of the same job.

Mr. MacCarthy

In my view, the Irish Tourist Association, apart from its link-up with Fógra Fáilte, is really an advisory committee or body. More so, it is a number of advisory bodies or advisory committees, with local contacts in different parts of the country. It is a body which is linked up with the experience of 25 years and which has local contacts which no centralised body in this city would have, and, to my mind, therefore, it would have a better influence on public opinion. In my view, we are talking too much about the small, local bodies which are centralised here in Dublin. This is a wider aspect of the matter than what we are talking about, and it should have more impact on public opinion than any local Dublin organisation would have.

The Minister stated that the Irish Tourist Association got some kind of recognition from the 1931 Tourist Act. It was in this peculiar position that, though it was not a statutory body itself, statutory bodies were empowered to make advances from the rates, and so on, to it. Therefore it occupied a unique position in the country in that regard and it had some responsibility for the spending of the funds advanced to it.

At the present time we have the Irish Tourist Association, with its local committees and its advisory committees, and it is the custodian, more or less, of the local bureaux where these bureaux exist. Through their organisation and their representation, for the time being at any rate, and I hope permanently through Fógra Fáilte, they are in a position to give the benefit of their experience, contacts and advice on matters placed before them at the various monthly meetings throughout the country. They have an impact that no centralised body would have.

To my mind there is no duplication whatever except, perhaps, here in Dublin in the central office. That will rectify itself. There were certain staffs in the central office of the Irish Tourist Association and certain staffs in An Bord Fáilte, and it was just a case of planting those together for particular purposes. I feel the situation is very fair. We should encourage in every possible way in this age the voluntary effort which the members of the Tourist Association have put, over the years, into their work—work which, to my mind, they have brought to the pinnacle of success, and through which they have shown to the Government that there was something worth while in their efforts over the years. It would be very poor recompense if, after all their activity, their co-operation and their work, they were just pushed aside and if it were said to them: "We will have one or two central bodies in Dublin and the rest of the country can have their ideas put forward through some other channel."

Mr. Sweetman

That is what you are going to do under this.

Mr. Cosgrave

I would remind Deputy MacCarthy that the amendment which I propose does not mean the end of the Tourist Association, but it intends to utilise the contacts which the Tourist Association has in various parts of the country so as to make them available to An Bord Fáilte. I think that nobody should be under any illusion about the proposals in this Bill. When the discussions were proceeding prior to the introduction of the Tourist (Amendment) Bill last year, it was intimated to the Irish Tourist Association that it was proposed to establish a single body. Then the general election intervened and, as the Minister said, he had adopted this proposal mainly because it achieves a working arrangement and enables a difficult situation to be surmounted. However, the difference between the proposal as originally contemplated is that under the first one the Tourist Association would have a painful death and under this one it is going to have a painless one.

Mr. Lemass

That is an advantage.

Mr. Cosgrave

The net result will be the same. The Tourist Association in this case will die from inanition. The funds which were formerly made available to it both from a Vote of this House and from the local authorities will now be made available solely from the local authorities. With mounting expenses, the existing rate of contributions from the local authorities will be entirely inadequate to meet the needs of the association. It is obvious, therefore, that the association has a very limited life, and nobody need be under any illusion about its prospects under this Bill. I feel that any proposal which would achieve a single body would be worth trying. If the proposal which I put forward here is not acceptable, I feel the Minister should consider an alternative: that is, to have a single board. Under this Bill the Tourist Board will now consist of seven members. Three of the seven members should be drawn from the Tourist Association, but confine representation to membership of the board or to individuals drawn from members of the association and leave the responsibility for tourist publicity to a single body. No matter how we may argue around it this will mean larger administrative staffs.

It would have been possible with a single body to absorb the staff that existed under the Tourist Association and whatever staff were assigned to publicity work in the existing Tourist Board for that particular type of work. But under this Bill, as Deputy Sweetman pointed out, and as is set out in the schedule, there is provision made for a separate superannuation scheme for the staff of An Fógra Fáilte as well as provision for An Bord Fáilte. If, as will happen, whether it is in the immediate or in the more remote future, the Tourist Association ceases to exist, then the particular provisions contained in the Bill will cease to have any validity, but I think there is no cause whatever for a separate organisation dealing with the tourist publicity. Whatever argument may be made in favour of an easy working arrangement this Bill, in effect, means the end of the Irish Tourist Association. It is true, as has been said, that there may be something to be said for a painless death, but it would be better from the point of view of the tourist industry generally and a more efficient method, to establish a single board with representatives of the Irish Tourist Association on it—and under the increased membership of this board there is plenty of room for members drawn from that association—to deal with tourism, providing that body with the funds which it is at present proposed to devote to two bodies, An Bord Fáilte and An Fógra Fáilte.

I cannot see how it is possible to argue that there will not be duplication and overlapping. There must be some increase in administrative staff, an increase which, with existing financial resources strained to the limit, it is difficult to justify. It will achieve no advantage except the temporary advantage which the Minister suggests, an easy workable arrangement. Anyone associated with the industry at the moment, either members of the Tourist Association or persons at present on the Tourist Board will readily agree that the establishment of a single body is the most efficient and the most effective way of dealing with the tourist industry.

I do not suggest that the amendment proposed by me here has anything particular to commend it. It is an attempt to get over a complicated situation. The real solution of the difficulty is to establish a single board with representatives of the association and with whatever other directors are considered necessary and establish responsibility under that board for all aspects of the tourist industry.

Mr. Lemass

I never contemplated that the effect of the provisions of this Bill in relation to superannuation for staffs would be to restrict the transferability of staffs from one organisation to the other. I will examine the position to see if it could possibly have that effect. I think it is largely a financial requirement that necessitates duplicated provision under the Bill for superannuation arrangements. If it were possible that one superannuation scheme would cover both staffs it would be desirable, but that would be subject, to my view, to service in the employment of the Tourist Association being reckonable for pension purposes. There would be some people in the Tourist Association who have been a long time engaged on work there, who may be transferred, and should be entitled to count their previous service. I do not want to give a final decision on it. I will examine the provision to see that there is anything which will prevent the possibility of free transferability of staff within the two sections of the organisation.

Apropos of what Deputy Cosgrave said, I would like to make it clear that if the Tourist Association fails to develop in the field that I think is open to it, or fails to command the support of the local authorities in the same degree as heretofore, then this situation will have to be reconsidered. If the association existed merely to provide a panel of persons from whom directors of Fógra Fáilte would be selected, then there would not be much value in this arrangement at all. It does not seem that his argument is very sound because if their absorption in the larger activities which are now contemplated in conjunction with the Tourist Board, either through the board itself or through Fógra Fáilte, is likely to atrophy their own work and cause a painless death, it seems to me that it would be still more certain if we decided to have the principal work done through the Tourist Board rather than through a specialised organisation dealing with the particular work that they have been engaged on. Fógra Fáilte has made an arrangement with the Tourist Association regarding the management of the bureau in this country, which the Tourist Association managed in the past.

Mr. Cosgrave

It is easy enough to speculate on what may happen if the Tourist Association gets only the same contribution which they got heretofore from the local authorities. With money at its present value that contribution is entirely inadequate and it will not have available the amount that was formerly available from the Exchequer.

Mr. Lemass

That is not quite correct.

Mr. Cosgrave

Is it not true to say that the Tourist Association will only have available the funds provided by the local authorities?

Mr. Lemass

That is all they had up to the present. The Tourist Board provided out of its £45,000 some funds to meet the cost of the Tourist Association work but in so far as there will be available to Fogra Fáilte a much larger sum it is open to Fogra Fáilte to enter into agreement with the Tourist Association, such as they have done. This agreement can provide for making available whatever funds are required to ensure that the work is properly discharged.

Mr. Cosgrave

In effect, there you have one body acting as a channel or a conduit for the transfer of public money to another body.

Mr. Lemass

That was the situation up to the present.

Mr. Cosgrave

I agree——

Mr. Sweetman

I thought that was the situation we were trying to avoid.

Mr. Lemass

So far as the utilisation of the Tourist Association as an agency to do some of the work entrusted to Fogra Fáilte is concerned, that is a matter for Fogra Fáilte. The Bill does not require them to enter into that arrangement. They did it because they thought it was the most efficient method of keeping the organisation going for the present, and it seems to me to have a great deal to commend it. Apart from expressing that view I would not, nor I think would any Minister, attempt to dictate the details of an arrangement of that kind.

Mr. Cosgrave

The only thing I can say is that the whole purpose of this Bill was to develop the tourist trade and particularly the publicity, at least, one aspect of it, that required development. Without reflecting in any way on the work which the Irish Tourist Association did, the whole machinery did not lend itself to the development of tourist publicity in the way in which the provisions in the Bill or the Tourist Board itself contemplated. If something better than what was already done under the auspices of An Fógra Fáilte is not carried out, then it is obvious that any expenditure by Fógra Fáilte, through the agency of the Tourist Association, will not meet requirements which were anticipated when legislation was drafted.

Mr. Sweetman

The Minister, when replying, pinned himself to the superannuation provision, but throughout the whole of the Bill there are provisions which make it abundantly clear that it is intended that the employees of Fógra Fáilte will be entirely different from the employees of An Bord Fáilte.

Mr. Lemass

It is intended that they will work under the direction of Fógra Fáilte.

Mr. Sweetman

That they will be entirely different employees. I think there is a very strong case for having employees who would at one time be doing work on the publicity side and, at another time, a different type of work. There is very great pressure at certain times of the year and that pressure is not there at other times. The pressure operates now in regard to publicity and now in regard to another aspect of administration, and surely it is desirable to keep complete fluidity, so that, as long as people are competent, they can be switched from one type of work to another.

This schedule envisages that the employees of Fógra Fáilte cannot be employed by An Bord Fáilte and vice versa. It is the only possible way of understanding particularly the provisions of clause 8 of the Schedule, which even goes so far as to give the board an opportunity of getting the Local Appointments Commission to select nominees. I do not object to the Local Appointments Commission being brought in for an appointment as such —that is a good provision—but the whole tenor of clause 8 of the Schedule is that they are to be an entirely different, non-interchangeable set of employees. That is not going to produce the results.

Mr. Lemass

On the whole I think that is likely to be so, but do not forget that the effective control of Fógra Fáilte is still with An Bord Fáilte through its directors.

Mr. Cosgrave

There is a provision in paragraph 8 of the Schedule, as follows:—

"(3) The officers of the board may, with the consent of the Minister, include a general manager whose appointment, terms of office and removal from office shall be subject to the approval of the Minister."

That is an extension of anything contained in the powers granted to the directors of An Bord Fáilte.

Mr. Lemass

There is a general manager of An Bord Fáilte.

Mr. Cosgrave

In the case of An Bord Fáilte he is appointed by the board. In this case he is appointed by the board with the consent of the Minister.

Mr. Sweetman

And not with the consent of An Bord Fáilte.

Mr. Lemass

I will look into it.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Section 30 agreed to.

Amendment 17 not moved.

Sections 31 and 32 agreed to.

SECTION 33.

Mr. Cosgrave

I move amendment No. 18:—

To delete sub-section (2) and substitute the following:-

(2) The board shall notify the Minister of every grant received under this section and shall utilise such grants for the purpose of its functions under this Act.

This amendment has not the validity it would have if the earlier amendments had been accepted. Section 33 (2) says:

"The board shall notify the Minister of every grant received under this section and shall utilise such grants for the purpose of its function under this Part."

I propose to substitute "Part" for "Act" at the end of the sub-section. Under the Bill, whatever grants are received will be subject to the discretion of the board and will be confined to tourist publicity. I do not know whether it is desirable to confine any grant received, if the board receives grants. I take it that the grants in this case are grants from local authorities under the 1931 Act.

Mr. Lemass

Fógra Fáilte will have no functions except under this Bill. It is a drafting point really. These functions are defined in Part V and, therefore, that would appear to be the more appropriate word to use.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 33 agreed to.

Section 34, 35 and 36 agreed to.

SECTION 37.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 19:-

Before Section 37 to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) For the purposes of this Chapter "hotel" means a house containing at least ten, or, if situate in a county borough, 20 apartments set apart and used exclusively for the sleeping accommodation of travellers and, unless licensed on the 31st day of July, 1902, or at any time between the 1st day of January, 1902 and that date, having no public bar for the sale of intoxicating liquor.

(2) The Dublin Metropolitan District shall be deemed to be a county borough for the purpose of this section.

The purpose of this amendment is to make it clear that an hotel which was not, under the 1902 Act, licensed on 31st July, 1902, would not under the Bill be able to obtain a licence which would permit it to open a public bar. The purpose of the second part of the amendment is to make the Dublin Metropolitan District a county borough for the purpose of the section, which will bring the Bill in line with the existing licensing laws.

The Dublin Metropolitan District, for the purpose of the licensing laws, is not coterminous with the County Borough of Dublin, but it is considered desirable that it should be the metropolitan area and not the borough, and that should apply. It was urged during the course of the discussion on the Second Reading that this provision in relation to the opening of a public bar was required in the Bill, and I think this amendment makes the matter quite clear. The only facility which can be obtained under this Bill is that which could be obtained by an hotel licensed since 1902.

Mr. Sweetman

The Minister has not dealt with the wording of the amendment: "Unless licensed on the 31st day of July, 1902, or at any time between the 1st day of January, 1902, and that date." I thought at first it said "this date". I am afraid I cannot remember on what date the 1902 Licensing Act was passed—except that it was passed in the year 1902. Does the Minister know on what date it was signed?

Mr. Lemass

I assumed up to this that it was the 31st July, but I may be wrong.

Mr. Sweetman

I do not see the significance of the two dates, or what relevance it has. However, that was 50 years ago, and there is not much to be gained by chasing back into it now.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 37 agreed to.

SECTION 38.

Mr. MacCarthy

Deputy Cowan has asked me to move formally amendment No. 20:—

In sub-section (3), line 42, after "premises" to add "prepared by a fully qualified architect who must be either a graduate in architecture of an Irish university, or a fellow or member of the Institute of Architects of Ireland".

Mr. Lemass

I take it that the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that foreign achitects will be prevented from being employed to prepare plans for the purpose of Section 38. I would have a particular difficulty accepting it. As the House knows, there are no statutory qualifications at present limiting the practice of architects as a profession, and I think it would be wrong to impose a limitation for that purpose in this Bill. In any event, I would be doubtful of the wisdom of it in the present circumstances, because if we start imposing limitations of this kind here it might provoke retaliatory acts elsewhere.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 21:—

To add to the section two subsections as follows:—

(4) Any person who would be entitled to object to an application for a certificate entitling the applicant to a licence in respect of the premises shall be entitled to object in like manner to the application under this section.

(5) A declaration under this section shall remain in force for three years from the grant of the application or for such longer period as the court may in any particular case think proper to provide.

The purpose of the first paragraph is to make it clear that the person who is entitled under the existing licensing laws to object to the granting of a licence will be able to object to the granting of a declaration under Section 38. In view of the fact that the declaration under Section 38 deals only with the fitness and the convenience of the proposed premises, the only valid ground for objecting to the granting of a declaration would be in respect of unfitness or the inconvenience of the premises.

The purpose of the second paragraph is to limit the period of validity of a declaration granted under Section 38 to three years or such longer period as the court thinks fit in the circumstances of a particular case. If that limitation were not provided for, cases might arise where a declaration might be obtained and nothing done about building, so that by the time the application for a licence would be made under Section 39 the neighbourhood might have changed, and the circumstances might no longer be "convenient" in the sense in which that term is used in the licensing Acts.

Mr. Sweetman

If I might bring in here the amendment to Section 39 I would like if the Minister could make it clear as to whether any objection that is to be made to the application for a declaration—once the declaration is made there cannot be any objection to the application at a later stage—is limited in grounds, so far as the number of licensed premises is concerned, to the number of licensed hotels in the vicinity or to the number of licensed premises of all sorts? In other words, does the Regent Hotel case cover this?

Mr. Lemass

There cannot be any objection in this case except on the sole ground of the fitness of the person or the convenience of the premises.

Mr. Cosgrave

Otherwise he is entitled to a licence?

Mr. Lemass

To a declaration of the court. There cannot be any objection on the ground of the number of other licensed premises in the vicinity. It can only be the unsuitability of the person or the inconvenience of the premises.

Mr. Sweetman

We are just adding in, amendment No. 21, that a person who would be entitled to object to an application for a certificate shall be entitled to object in like manner to the application under this section.

Mr. Lemass

But Section 38 deals only with the fitness of the person and the convenience of the premises. They are the only valid grounds for objection.

Mr. Sweetman

The amendment we are writing in does not revive the other reasons for objection contained in the Licensing Acts?

Mr. Lemass

No.

Mr. Sweetman

I had read it otherwise.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment 22 not moved.

Section 38, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 39.

Amendment No. 23 not moved.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 23a, as on the Order Paper:—

In sub-section (2), paragraph (b), page 12, lines 15 and 16, to delete "which provides for the charging of a reduced duty where" and substitute "and that"; and in line 18, after "preceding year" to insert "for the purposes of that section".

This is a drafting amendment, which does not change the principle underlying paragraph (b). When the Bill had been drafted and was in circulation, it was found on re-examining the position that the Finance Act of 1910 —the Act which provides for the charging of reduced duty where the receipts on the sale of intoxicating liquor are in the preceding year less than one-third of the total receipts— had been amended in 1920 and the effect was to increase the proportion of the total receipts from one-third to one-half. The purpose of the amendment is to maintain the one-third proportion for the purpose of the renewal of the licence under the sub-section. The effect will be that the licensee, besides satisfying the court that the excise duty payable was reduced under the Finance Act, will also have to show the court that the Revenue Commissioners were satisfied that the receipts from the sale of intoxicating liquor were less than one-third of the total receipts. The Bill is being left as we intended it to be, but we had to change the form because we discovered this amendment of the 1910 Act.

Mr. Sweetman

This is a six mark question. There are provisions in the Licensing Acts by virtue of which certain extensions can be given for certain functions. In the case of a dinner in an hotel, the licensee can go to the District Court and get permission for an extension to the time at which the dinner concludes. Will the same provisions, in regard to ability to get extensions, apply to licences given under this Chapter?

Mr. Lemass

Yes. The person who gets a licence under this Bill will have all the rights of an existing licensee.

Mr. Cosgrave

No, only the rights of an hotel licensee.

Mr. Lemass

Yes, an hotel licensee.

Mr. Sweetman

Leaving out the bar.

Mr. Lemass

He will not have the right to a public bar.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 23b:—

To add to the section a new sub-section as follows:—

(3) A certificate purporting to be under the hand of an officer of the Revenue Commissioners authorised in that behalf by the commissioners that the commissioners are satisfied as aforesaid shall be evidence that they are so satisfied, without further proof.

This is consequential. Whereas before the mere fact that a lower licence duty was payable would have been evidence that the receipts were less than one-third, now we have to get a special separate certificate from the Revenue Commissioners as to the receipts and the Revenue Commissioners have agreed to facilitate us in the matter.

Mr. Sweetman

If the Minister is getting the Revenue Commissioners to agree, he is getting somewhere.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 39, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 40.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 24:—

To insert before the definition of week-day, a new definition as follows:—

"rateable valuation" includes a provisional valuation issued by the Commissioner of Valuation;

Section 41 provides that an applicant for a licence in respect of a holiday camp has to satisfy the court, amongst other things, that the rateable valuation of the holiday camp is not less than £400. The determination of a final valuation for new premises under the Valuation Acts often takes a considerable time and, as the Bill stands, a holiday camp owner would not be able to get a licence for the sale of drink until the final valuation of the premises had been determined.

The effect of the amendment will be that the court will be able to accept a provisional valuation issued by the Commissioner of Valuation, pending the determination of the final valuation.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 40, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 41.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 25:—

In sub-section (2) (b), page 13, line 11, after "unfitness" to insert "or inconvenience".

Section 4 of the Licensing Act of 1833 makes one of the valid grounds for the objection to the granting of a licence for the sale of drink in any premises the unfitness or inconvenience of the premises, and the purpose of this amendment is to bring the provisions of Section 41 into line with the provisions of the existing licensing laws. The effect of the amendment is that the inhabitants of a parish would be able to object to the granting of a licence in respect of a holiday camp on the ground of the disturbance which the licensing of the camp might cause to the amenities of the neighbourhood.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 26 not moved.

Section 41, as amended, agreed to.

Section 42 agreed to.

SECTION 43.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 27:—

To add to the section a new sub-section as follows:—

(2) Every person who shall sell or expose for sale any intoxicating liquor or open or keep open any premises for the sale of intoxicating liquor or permit any intoxicating liquor to be consumed on licensed premises in contravention of this section shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof, in the case of a first offence, to a fine not exceeding £20 or, in the case of a second or any subsequent offence, to a fine not exceeding £40.

I mentioned this during Second Reading. The Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1927, provides penalties for the sale of drink during prohibited hours. Section 50 of this Bill provides that certain sections of that Act of 1927, including Section 2, which provides these penalties, shall not apply to licensed holiday camps. It is therefore necessary to provide a special penalty clause for the sale of drink in a licensed holiday camp during prohibited hours. The penalties provided are the same as those provided under the existing law.

Mr. Sweetman

Is it visualised that the whole ambit of the camp will be licensed or that there will be, so to speak, a bar in the middle of the camp?

Mr. Lemass

It can be either.

Mr. Sweetman

I see grave difficulties from the point of view of supervision if it is the whole ambit of the camp.

Mr. Lemass

As we read it, it can be either.

Mr. Cosgrave

It is customary in these camps to confine it.

Mr. Lemass

To separate premises— that is right.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 43, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 44.

Mr. Sweetman

On behalf of Deputy Rooney, I move amendment No. 28:—

In line 5, before "between", to insert "or who is employed therein".

I understand that Deputy Rooney's anxiety is to provide that if a member of the staff working on the premises has a drink, it will be within the provisions of the licence. Obviously, the employer will see that the privilege is not abused. It does seem unfair that a man who has gone off duty and finished his work, if he wants to have a drink there, has to pack up his bag and go somewhere else to have it.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy will understand that I am not anxious in this Bill to establish new principles of licensing legislation. What I set out to provide here is that employees in holiday camps will be in exactly the same position as employees in other licensed premises. I think it is better to leave it like that.

Mr. Sweetman

Will they be?

Mr. Lemass

I would not be able to assess the possible consequences of giving special facilities in these cases or to gauge whether that was likely to lead to agitation for amendments of the licensing laws relating to other licensed premises. The Deputy can look at it again. I can assure him that, as I read it, these employees are in exactly the same position as employees of other licensed premises.

Mr. Sweetman

I will withdraw the amendment. If on investigation I am not satisfied I can put it down again.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 44 agreed to.

Amendment No. 29 not moved.

Sections 45 and 46 agreed to.

Amendment No. 30 not moved.

Sections 47 to 50, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 51.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 31:—

To delete sub-section (1) and substitute the following:-

(1) The Commissioner of Valuation may, at the request of the owner or occupier, apportion to the licensed premises such part as he thinks proper of the rateable valuation of the hereditament or tenement of which such premises form part, and the part so apportioned shall, for the purpose of the law relating to the charge of duty upon the licence, be taken to be the valuation of the licensed premises.

This is a drafting amendment. Its purpose is to clarify the section which was to ensure that the licence duty will be charged on the valuation of the part of the premises actually licensed and not on the valuation of the holiday camp as a whole.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 32 not moved.

Section 51, as amended, agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 33 to 45, inclusive, not moved.

Schedule agreed to.

TITLE.

Amendment No. 46 not moved.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 47:—

That the title be amended by the insertion after "hotels" of "and holiday camps".

This is a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Title, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, 3rd June.

The Dáil adjourned at 9.50 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 28th May, 1952.