Vol. 132 No. 4
I move amendment No. 1:—
In page 3, line 40, to delete "the State" and substitute "Ireland".
Has the Minister had an opportunity of examining into the position of the proposed insertion of the word "Ireland"? On the Committee Stage he mentioned that he had been advised that there was a legal difficulty, and I undertook on that occasion to withdraw the amendment in order to give him an opportunity of inquiring further into the matter.
I have had the position further discussed with the legal advisers and they are strongly against the amendment suggested here. They say that if the term "Ireland" is used in this Bill some ambiguity may arise. From a legal point of view, in order to eliminate the risk of ambiguity, it would be necessary to define the term "Ireland" in the Bill and that would be very objectionable. The normal practice here for a number of years past since the enactment of the Constitution has, in fact, been to use the expression "State" in legislation. The name of the State is, of course, Ireland, and there will be no problem whatever of the kind the Deputy thought might arise in directing tourist publicity so as to attract or advise people to spend their holidays in Ireland. If we were to amend the section it would be necessary to make various consequential amendments throughout the Bill because the term "State" is also used in other parts of the Bill.
I may say in this connection that the previous Government circularised all Government Departments and statutory bodies advising them to use the term "Ireland" wherever the State was being described, and wherever that term could be used without risk of ambiguity, and to use the term "State" wherever there was a risk of ambiguity. I think that was good advice, and it would be well not to complicate the practice now by introducing a change at this stage. There are numerous statutes in which this patricular phrase is used for the precise reason that it is used here.
Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 are out of order.
May I make a submission to you in respect of amendment No. 2? As far as that amendment is concerned there is an arrangement in existence by virtue of which Fógra Fáilte carry out certain of its powers through appointing the Irish Tourist Association as its agents to run bureaux. That matter was under discussion on the Committee Stage. I can find in the Bill no statutory provision enabling the board to appoint an agent in that way. On the contrary, there is in the Bill a provision by which the board may act through its advisers, servants, etc. In those circumstances, I submit we are entitled to put down this amendment for the purpose at any rate of getting the position clarified. If there is an agency section it was not adverted to on the Committee Stage.
That is the trouble. It does not arise out of the discussion on the Committee Stage.
The question of the agency of the Irish Tourist Association in carrying on the home bureaux was discussed at some length on the Committee Stage. I think the Minister adverted to the fact that the Irish Tourist Association was carrying out the functions attached to those bureaux as agents. That matter having arisen in that way on the discussion, surely I am now entitled to relate it by tangible means to some section of the Bill. If I am advised that there is this agency section elsewhere, then any discussion between us as to whether the amendment is in order or out of order is entirely theoretical and beside the point.
It does not seem to me that this arises out of the Committee Stage at all. It seems to me it is a kind of substitute for amendment No. 5, substituting some other body, and, of course, that was dealt with very exhaustively on the Committee Stage and a decision of the House was taken on it.
I submit it is an entirely different matter.
I have allowed the Deputy to make a fairly good case for it but I must rule it out of order.
Can the Minister tell us whether there is any section of the Bill which authorises the status quo as it is at present?
Section 34 empowers Fógra Fáilte to co-operate with other bodies in connection with publicity.
Does the Minister think that is enough to entitle Fógra Fáilte to appoint the Irish Tourist Association as agents for it? I will not argue on the form of the amendment. I had two birds I wanted to take with that amendment. I am beaten by the Chair on one and I am trying to get back on the other one. I would be quite happy if the Minister would consider with his legal advisers whether clause (d) of subsection (1) of Section 34 is enough.
I will look into that point, but I am not too sure that it would be wise to empower Fógra Fáilte to operate through agencies in the ordinary legal meaning of that term. They can make arrangements with the Tourist Association, as they have done, to run tourist bureaux, but it would be somewhat different, I think, to appoint them as agents for that purpose if that involved any delegation of power or authority.
Deputy MacCarthy feels the same as I do in regard to this matter. If the Minister makes inquiry he will find that it was because the directors of the Irish Tourist Association felt they were being appointed as agents for the running of the bureau in O'Connell Street, to mention one, that the matter weighed very definitely with those directors who felt it was a good scheme, but I was not amongest that number.
Personally, I would not like to be responsible through the medium of this Bill for foreing the termination of the present arrangement between Fógra Fáilte and the Irish Tourist Association and I shall certainly look into the matter to see there is no legal barrier to their continuing that arrangement for as long as they want to.
Amendment No. 3 suffers a similar fate.
Surely a consultative council is a different type of advisory body from the advisory body which suffered a certain fate on the Committee Stage of the Bill.
One of the main reasons influencing me in ruling this amendment out of order is that it is a very substantial matter being introduced at this stage, and a matter which was not introduced on the Committee Stage. If this is a new body it certainly is a very substantial alteration in the Bill, and one that was not touched upon at all on a previous occasion.
Is it not a different variation of the advisory committee that was introduced on the Committee Stage?
I do not see what I can do about it. I am afraid I will have to rule the amendment out.
Does the Minister not think that the council would be of assistance in keeping the Irish Tourist Association alive?
I am hoping that the Irish Tourist Association will discharge that function.
They could discharge that function better by having one or two joint sessions in the year with An Bord Fáilte.
Or with the Minister.
Amendment No. 4 not moved.
If the Chair rules out amendment No. 4, I cannot move it. If the Chair does not disqualify me, I will move it.
I cannot allow it to be moved. It is certainly out of order.
That is the point that I want to make clear, that the amendment is ruled out of order.
Amendment No. 5 is also being ruled out of order.
The Chair is also ruling this amendment out?
Yes. The amendment deals with a matter of great substance and importance. It could not be moved at this stage. It is an amendment which proposes to emasculate this entire piece of legislation.
That was my anxiety.
I move amendment No. 6:—
In page 14, Section 48, to delete line 23.
I am sure the majority of the members of the house will agree with me in proposing that between the hours of 12 and 3 on Good Friday, which include the hours 1 o'clock to 3 o'clock mentioned in the original Bill, it is only right and proper that no public-house should be open for the consumption of drink, and no holiday camp or indeed any place where drink is consumed. I feel that the Minister will accept the amendment. I have no objection to the other hours mentioned.
I do not wish to pose as a spoil sport and neither do I want to pose as a purist. It would be wrong and immoral, I think, to encourage the consumption of drink between the hours of 12 o'clock and 3 on Good Friday. Most of us in this and in other countries profess to be Christians. It was during those hours on Good Friday that Our Lord said: "I Thirst." Therefore, I suggest we should not encourage the consumption of drink in any camp on Good Friday. I hope the Minister will agree that between 1 o'clock and 3 o'clock on Good Friday there will be a complete close down. I am not making any proposal with regard to St. Patrick's Day, Christmas Day or the other days mentioned in the Bill.
This is an amendment in respect of which I will be influenced by the opinion of the Dáil. The position is that under the existing law an hotel can serve drink at any time on Good Friday to a resident. The holiday camps to which this section refers are a form of hotel. I was merely proposing to give them a limited right to serve drink on Good Friday, that is to persons who are having lunch in the camp on that day. The effect of the amendment is to prevent residents of holiday camps getting drinks with a lunch on Good Friday.
What I object to is the extension of that to holiday camps.
The proposal here is to give the holiday camps, by a simplified procedure, certain restricted facilities for the sale of drink which they may get under the existing law by a more elaborate procedure. It is true to say that a holiday camp is just a form of hotel. Convenience and justice would suggest that the same law should apply to both. I will admit that I was not applying the same law to both. If there is a strong feeling in the House to get this amendment carried I will not resist that feeling. I want to be frank with the House and say that is so because I think that, in practice, very few holiday camps will be open on Good Friday.
I think they would be open during the Easter week-end.
In supporting the amendment, I would ask the Minister and the House to realise that two wrongs can never make a right. The hotels, we are told, have the right to serve drink with a meal on this particular day which, so far as Christianity is concerned, is the outstanding day of the year. We have no means of getting at the hotels under this Bill. At the same time, we should not extend whatever facilities they have to holiday camps. I would ask the Minister to consider that the amendment is offered in the spirit that there should be no extension whatever of the facilities in respect of hotels to holiday camps. Even in the case of hotels we know the abuses that can be committed when what is called a substantial meal is served. As regards tourists coming to the country, I think we can claim that we have never tried to impose our religious belief on anyone. As a nation, we have been tolerant in that respect. I think that everyone in this country who respects the Christian ideals of life, irrespective of what religion they may hold, will agree with us when we say that tourists or others coming into these holiday camps should not have the opportunity of being able to get drink on Good Friday between the hours of 1 and 3 p.m. That should also apply to residents in those places.
I think the Minister might accept the amendment.
Amendment No. 7 not moved.
Not allowed to be moved.
On that question, there were one or two queries put to me during the Committee Stage discussion to which I should like to refer now. Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy Sweetman suggested that the use of the term "expenses of formation" in relation to local companies might have the effect of preventing the board from paying grants for purposes other than expenses arising directly from compliance with the provisions of the Companies Acts. I am advised that the expression "expenses of formation" has no precise legal meaning in relation to the Companies Acts, and that the section as it stands will not preclude the board from giving grants to cover formation expenses such as printing, advertising, legal costs, etc.
After the date of incorporation of the company?
Yes. The question was also asked as to whether the provisions of the Bill for separate pensions schemes for the staffs of An Bord Fáilte and Fógra Fáilte might affect the interchangeability of staff as between one board and the other. I have considered that matter with some care. First of all, may I say that I am satisfied that the legal interpretation of the Bill as it stands would not prevent the interchangeability of staff between the two boards and that nothing in the pensions schemes that may be provided under the Bill need have that effect? Whether or not it was desirable to make a more precise and definite provision in relation to interchangeability was a matter that I considered and, on the whole, I hardly think it is necessary or desirable. Presumably, in the main, the staff of Fógra Fáilte will be experts in publicity work, chosen because of their competence in it and are not likely to be transferred to An Bord Fáilte for the work that the board will be engaged in, namely, hotel registration and other such matters.
Similarly, those who are chosen as hotel inspectors for grading purposes are not likely to qualify to undertake the publicity work of An Fógra Fáilte. The position would only arise in connection with subordinate staff, such as typists, clerical workers, and so forth. There is nothing in the Bill which is going to prevent the complete interchangeability of staff on promotion from one section to another. If there is any danger that the pensions scheme might work out to that effect indirectly I will take steps to make sure that there is nothing like that when the schemes are submitted for approval.
This Bill is now going from us and the Minister knows, as far as we are concerned, that we consider Fógra Fáilte to be unnecessary and that it would have been possible for the Minister to have framed his Bill and his scheme without bringing it in. However, Fógra Fáilte being included, I feel the Minister will agree with me when I say that, if the scheme is going to succeed to the fullest of its ability, it is essential that the work of An Bord Fáilte, of Fógra Fáilte, of the Irish Tourist Association and of the other local organisations should be knit together as closely as possible. The Bill, as such, does not include any statutory provision in regard to a consultative council, and, therefore, though I am not allowed on the Fifth Stage of the Bill to urge that there should be such statutory provision, I feel I am permitted to urge on the Minister that a scheme for the development of the tourist business can only operate to the fullest and to the best advantage if there is the most complete liaison and harmony between An Bord Fáilte, Fógra Fáilte, the Irish Tourist Association and any other associations of a similar nature throughout the country—associations which are doing good work, such as the Inniscrone one which was mentioned in this House on the Committee Stage of the Bill, and the Sligo one, which was also acknowledged here. It is because I feel that so very strongly that I urge on the Minister to do all in his power, first of all, to ensure that there is no danger of the staffs of An Bord Fáilte and of Fógra Fáilte getting the feeling that they are working in different watertight compartments. If they do not accept the point of view that they are all doing the same work for tourist development, then I am quite certain that we will not get the co-operative effort that is essential. As the Minister is aware, one of the objections I have to this Bill is that it is going to be difficult, by means of it, to keep the Irish Tourist Association alive. Unless it is kept alive the country is going to lose one of the most invaluable methods of helping the tourist industry and the national economy.
I believe the Minister does a great deal, as did every other Minister who has been in his position, by his attendance at the annual ceremonies of the Irish Tourist Association. However, in my view something more than that is needed. I feel it would be extremely desirable if there were some discussion, at least once a year, between the members of An Bord Fáilte, the members of Fógra Fáilte, the directors of the Irish Tourist Association and the representatives of the large tourist associations throughout the country with the Minister presiding as chairman at the initiation of these discussions. I feel it would do a lot to keep interest aroused in the Irish Tourist Association and in those other organisations. I think the Ministers and the members of the two boards for which we are providing here would, in that way, get a slant on tourist business which, in the ordinary way, they would not get working purely from what I might term the official angle. I have no doubt that a good many schemes would be put up that would not be entirely feasible. Yet, I feel, that a satisfactory percentage of what would be thrown up at a meeting like that would be worth while. One or two worthwhile suggestions would, undoubtedly, go a very substantial way towards ensuring that there would be harmony between all the various bodies and would bring them to the full realisation of the fact that they are all sectors of an industry travelling along the same road, and not trying to pull each other asunder.
The Minister to conclude.
I feel it is a matter for satisfaction that, apart from the differences of opinion that developed amongest us on the desirability of having this joint board to direct tourist publicity work, the Bill as a whole has been favourably received by the Dáil. If we are going to get the effective development of the tourist trade, it will be because there is no disagreement amongest any section as to the advisability of doing so. To a very great extent, the success of the development of the tourist industry depends upon our succeeding in convincing the people of this country that it is not merely practicable to develop that industry but also worth while doing so.
I realised there might be some risk in our having two separate organisations; an element of rivalry might develop amongest them. However, while I did not contemplate that rivalry as taking the form of any friction between the staffs any more than if these staffs were just separate parts of the organisation operated by one board, I thought there might be some disposition on behalf of each board to take over functions that might properly be the concern of the other and that there might be some pulling between them on that account. I have tried, in personal discussion with the boards, to make it clear, and, in order to remove any misconception that there was, put into the Bill a section which says that Fógra Fáilte will direct its publicity activities in accordance with the general policy of An Bord Fáilte—the board that is responsible for the major strategy of the campaign.
With regard to the Tourist Association, I invited the directors of the Tourist Association to regard themselves as having, apart from other functions, the responsibility of acting as critics of An Bord Fáilte, Fógra Fáilte and, if needs be, of the Minister for Industry and Commerce; to be ruthless in their criticism where they thought that that was required, either to stimulate these organisations into greater activity or correct any wrong trends that seemed to the Tourist Association to be developing in their work.
I asked them also to regard themselves as the channel by which the views and suggestions, criticisms and proposals of the public, and particularly of the local authorities from which they draw their main strength, would be conveyed to the Minister and to these official organisations.
I think that there is always a danger that statutory boards such as we are setting up here, such as we have under other legislation, may withdraw within themselves and have insufficient contact with the general body of the people and that it will be a help to these bodies here, just as it might be a help to other statutory boards, if they have regular contact with such an organisation as the Tourist Association, an organisation which has directors drawn from the local authorities and can hear from them what the public are thinking of them and their work. That is why I would hope that the Tourist Association would continue to function, would continue to get the support of the local authorities and so develop as to regard it as its major function in the scheme of things to stimulate public interest in this whole business of tourist development and then, by their contact with the public, act as the official critics of the statutory organisation. I think the Tourist Association have a useful job of work to do in that field and that, if they do that job of work, it will help the whole scheme of tourist development.
