On the section, I am opposing it because it has for its purpose the changing of the name of An Bord Fáilte to the Irish Tourist Board. I expressed, on the Second Reading, my objections to the change proposed here and I think they are valid objections. The Minister then said that he did not feel very strongly about the need for this change and that he would leave it to a free vote of the House; but I would urge him not to let the matter go to a vote. If he does not feel strongly on it he will appreciate that there are others who may. He will also appreciate that the change is not one which is required. The point which the Minister made was that the board has got to describe itself in its stationery as the official Irish tourist organisation when doing business in English-speaking countries—in Britain and America. There can be no possible objection to that and I am quite certain that the tourist organisations of France, Switzerland and Italy also describe themselves in the English language when conducting publicity work in English-speaking countries. The practice which developed in this State of giving Irish names without English translations to these semi-State organisations is in conformity with the wishes of this House to encourage the use of the Irish language in its daily application and our experience has been that when we tried to give a statutory English translation the English title was the one ordinarily used and the Irish fell into disuse. My objection is not to Bord Fáilte putting the English translation on its stationery but the section is making it a statutory obligation on the board to put an English translation whenever it has to print its name. That is what the object of this section is—to change what is a common-sense practice when dealing with English-speaking people in other countries into a statutory obligation. I can see no need for that and I would urge the Minister not to proceed with the change. I do not know if the Minister's proposal has been brought to the attention of the various organisations interested in the Irish language. I feel they would object very strongly to it. Even if the Minister personally does not feel very strongly on the subject I think he should be cognisant of the fact that it is likely to lead to antagonism.
Committee on Finance. - Tourist Traffic Bill, 1954—Committee Stage.
Mr. Lemass
I wish to support Deputy Lemass's objection to the purpose of this section. I think it departs from the desires which we all have to promote the language, and I think the argument put forward by Deputy Lemass that the thing is not necessary should be sufficient to convince the Minister. We do not require a translation of "Dáil Éireann" and there are many other appellations such as Bord na Móna which have established themselves. I take it every member of this House can cite several other appellations of various sorts which we have accepted ourselves in the English language and for which we do not require any translation. I think the point Deputy Lemass made was that it was likely to confine people to the use of the translation which would result in the original Irish title falling into disuse. I have no doubt that translations will be forthcoming: somebody in America or in Germany may ask what Bord Fáilte means and they will be told what it means. We may have had to do the same thing in respect of titles that we have seen here for the first time but having heard them once or twice the meaning of the original became sufficiently clearly embedded in our minds so that it caused us no further trouble. Córas Iompair Éireann has definitely demonstrated that this system of not having a double title is the proper one. Unfortunately, there are still a great many people in our own country who find as much difficulty as people elsewhere about Irish names but they seem to manage quite well about it. There does not seem to be any reason why the Minister would not fall into line on this particular matter as he and his predecessor have done in respect of similar instances.
I do not see why there should be a change now from what has been the general policy with regard to boards up to now. They have been given an Irish name and an Irish name only. The difficulty which is visualised of Bord Fáilte being in communication with persons outside the country and that it would accordingly need an English name does not apply to Aer Lingus. Therefore, I do not see why it should apply here. After all, Aer Lingus is in communication with persons from outside the country and no difficulty has arisen. This is not the first time that this body has been given a name. Had it been something new there might have been a reason for doubts in our minds as to whether the change was necessary but since 1952 the Irish name and the Irish name only has been in use and has been in use in correspondence and so on and no complaints have been voiced, publicly at any rate, that it caused any dislocation to tourist traffic. I am surprised that some of the Irish bodies like Comhdháil Náisiunta na Gaeilge and the Gaelic League publicly have not voiced opposition to this. They did voice such opposition in respect of others—when it was proposed to give the Store Street bus station a name. In that case the bodies managed to contact representatives with a view to getting them to use their influence to have an all-Irish name given to the Store Street bus station. I have seen no public pronouncement by these two bodies. We feel it our duty to protest against the proposal to give this body a dual name. The Irish name has been sufficient since 1952, when the Tourist Traffic Act was passed, and there is no reason whatsoever to change that now.
There was a proposal in one of the daily newspapers, either yesterday or to-day, to amend the Irish title to "Bórd Fáilte Eirinn." I think that might commend itself to the Minister by getting rid of some of his uneasiness on the matter of identification abroad.
It is time we got out of this ostrich-like attitude in regard to the name of our tourist organisation. "An Bord Fáilte" is comprehensible to Irish speakers. To at least half of the population of our own country it is not comprehensible. They do not understand what it means. We are setting up this body, apparently, to promote tourism, to attract to our shores people from other countries, principally people from England and America and, if possible, further afield. What chance have we of getting contact with such people, of telling them of the advantages of this country from a tourist point of view, if we are to communicate with them through this organisation if it describes itself as "An Bord Fáilte"?
Mr. Lemass
How do the French do it?
The French have been doing it for a much longer time.
Mr. Lemass
The Swiss or the Italians do not use English titles.
The French language is better known throughout the world than Irish, and the same may apply to Italian.
Mr. Lemass
How do the Finns manage?
You can ask these questions for the rest of the night. I shall explain what I think is the attitude of the ordinary man in the street. This is an unnecessary discussion. I do not think this matter is of such importance that it should take up the time of the House. Realism is called for. Are we to use this piece of legislation as an instrument to promote Irish or are we to use it for the purpose of attracting tourists? If we are to be sensible about it we must recognise that the great majority of the people in foreign countries to whom we will be appealing to come here will be English-speaking. Propaganda advocating the advantages of this country from the point of view of tourists must convey instantly the fact that it is issued by an Irish tourist organisation, and I suggest that that will not be achieved by using the words "An Bord Fáilte" and nothing else.
Mr. Lemass
Who says there should be nothing else?
The average person who gets tourist literature likes to see at a glance from where it emanates.
Mr. Lemass
Anybody can buy a ticket on Aer Lingus without being told that it means Irish Air Lines.
Aer Lingus is in a very different position.
Mr. Lemass
Not at all.
Aer Lingus is in a different position. There is no comparison between the name "Aer Lingus" and the subject of this debate. We are discussing the setting up of a board to deal on a world-wide basis with the promotion of tourism in Ireland. What objection is there to the immediate revelation to the person reading any of our tourist propaganda that it comes from Ireland, that they have not to get a dictionary to discover what the words mean? Common sense indicates that there should be an English sub-title for this Irish organisation.
It should be quite unnecessary, and I am sure it is, for the Minister to alter what has become established practice in the naming of boards established in this country for the promotion of national wealth or tourism. There is no person in this country who does not understand the meaning of the word "Bord". Whether you spell it bord or board, it means the same thing. Wherever Irishmen are assembled, when they use the expression "Céad Míle Fáilte" people of other nations understand what they mean. They know the word "Fáilte". They know that it means "Welcome". Therefore, "Ireland of the Welcomes" is used in the journal of An Bord Fáilte. That does not take away from the fact that the established and recognised name of the organisation is "An Bord Fáilte". I do not think we in this House at this stage should ask organisations like the Gaelic League to intervene in a matter of such simplicity. Deputy Dunne has asked do we mean to promote Irish. We wish to give a distinctive Irish name to an organisation which is to bring certain advantages to this country. It is because Ireland is Ireland and has all the characteristics that past generations have established here that people are invited to come amongst us.
The Minister when introducing the measure said sufficient to show that he needs no urging now. Naturally, explanatory words will be used in tourist literature but, whatever may appear in that way, the recognised name will be An Bord Fáilte. Aer Lingus, Bord na Móna, Córas Iompair Éireann, An Bord Fáilte, are all very simple names and there should be no criticism of the proposal to continue the practice of using these titles.
I do not think Deputies opposite have made a very good case. This organisation will be known as An Bord Fáilte. Every Deputy accepts that it should be known as An Bord Fáilte. We must be realistic. The organisation is for the purpose of attracting people to our country to spend their money. Deputy Lemass, by way of interruption, mentioned French. I am sure Deputy Lemass is an intelligent man and must know that French ranks amongst spoken languages second in the world, if not first. How many people speak Irish in relation to the number of people who speak French? The same applies to English. The majority of people who come to Ireland for holidays speak English. The object of this Bill is to set up an organisation to bring people to this country. I do not see what possible objection the Deputies opposite can have. The premier name of the organisation is "An Bord Fáilte" and in brackets there is an interpretation in English. In the case of advertisements published by agencies in any part of the world the principal object is to use a language that the people who see them can understand. This objection on the part of the Opposition is frivolous and nothing else.
Mr. Lemass
That speech could have been made in Stormont.
That reveals the fact that this is a political racket and nothing else, which has failed.
When I was speaking on this Bill on the Second Stage and when the point was raised by Deputy Lemass as to the name of the new unified organisation, I indicated that the use in brackets of the term "Irish Tourist Board" was done in order to enable the organisation to identify itself to a large number of travel agencies and individuals and organisations in a great many countries where the aggregate English-speaking population was in the vicinity of 250,000,000 people and I made the case for the use in parenthesis of the English title that that would help to have the organisation identified more readily there than the use of the term "An Bord Fáilte". Looking at the thing purely from a utilitarian point of view, I still think that that is so and that if we are going to sell something we ought to make it clear to those who are likely purchasers of the goods what the wares are. The sole reason for offering this to the House from my standpoint was that that enabled this international tourist organisation—because that is what we hope it will be—to make its existence known and its pulling power felt much more effectively in those countries by reason of the fact that its name was one that you could easily recognise and easily pronounce and one that was understood by those who, whatever the country in which they may be, nevertheless use English as a means of expressing their views; but I say this, that I had not any profound feeling on the matter and I offered it to the House for its utility and as a means of enabling the board to use that title if they so desired on its extern advertising literature.
Mr. Lemass
Does the Minister appreciate that if he puts that in the Bill in the way he has it in now, it is going to create a situation where they will have to use the English title even when advertising in Germany?
Yes, well, I agree, but again I want to be realistic. The drawing power of this country from the tourist standpoint has not been flowing towards Eastern Europe. The drawing power of this country, from a tourist standpoint, has been in the main the Six Counties and Great Britain, and we have been making and we are able to make an appeal to the vast Irish empire over the seas and to English-speaking people who are not of Irish birth in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa—all countries where Irish people have emigrated and where there are people who are not of Irish birth but who have a profound regard for Ireland because of its contribution to the causes of national freedom and human liberty down through the ages. That is the appeal I think we must make for a very long time to come, and it was with a view to aiding that appeal that I included the title Irish Tourist Board as a method of identifying the organisation to those who do not speak Irish.
I do not say that my viewpoint is the right one, nor do I accept the view that those who say we should drop the title Irish Tourist Board are necessarily right. I think it is desirable to do something which will command the support of the House. It was to enable that support to be tested and to find out what the House would desire that I suggested that if an amendment were moved on the Committee Stage I would leave this to a free vote of the House; and that still represents my view.
Mr. Lemass
The Minister knows that that means the bell will ring and 100 Deputies will come in who will not know what it is all about and who will feel that Party loyalty commands them to vote in a particular way.
I am willing even to say to them then that it is a free vote, so that they will be under no impression that they are tied to any loyalty. All I want to do is to test the feeling of the House. If I got an amendment to the Bill seeking to delete this, I would have left it to a vote of the House.
Mr. Lemass
That was the amendment I put in, to delete the words in brackets; but the Chair ruled that this had to be taken on the basis that the section was being opposed.
My offer still stood to leave it to a free vote of the House. I have heard the views which have been expressed now, and if the House is agreeable I will look into the matter in the light of what has been said. If I do not table an amendment on the Report Stage, at least I will give Deputies an opportunity of doing so then, within the Rules of Order.
Mr. Lemass
I was going to say that we would give all stages of the Bill now, but in view of this I say we can give the Committee Stage now.
That is a very generous prize. There would be some consequential amendments for the Report Stage, even so.
Mr. Lemass
The suggestion made in a newspaper letter is one that I would not refuse to consider, making it Bord Fáilte Éireann.
My mind was moving along that line as a kind of compromise between An Bord Fáilte (Irish Tourist Board) and An Bord Fáilte alone.
Mr. Lemass
There is the argument that they have a lot of stationery with An Bord Fáilte on it, and any change means changing the stationery. However, we can let it stand over.
Yes, for the Report Stage.
I put in some amendments to Section 6.
The Deputy has been informed that the amendments are out of order.
While I respectfully submit to the ruling, I am not exactly satisfied at not being allowed to move them. I believe that amendments can be moved to all Bills that have passed the Second Reading, even to such an extent as to make the Bill in its final form something entirely different from what was introduced.
The Deputy has been informed that his amendment was in conflict with the principle of the Bill as read a Second Time.
I still object to that section.
The Deputy can vote against the section.
It was hoped that the Irish Tourist Association would receive some statutory recognition under this Bill, but there is no reference at all in it to that body. The Irish Tourist Association is a very important factor in the tourist industry. Its directors are mainly representatives of the local authorities which vote funds to the association. In that way it represents a good cross-section of the country. To my mind, it is an ideal vocational body. Its local knowledge is always of immense use to State boards and it has never been slow to give those boards the benefit of its advice and local knowledge.
At the present time the Irish Tourist Association operates under a licence from the Minister for Industry and Commerce, but that could be revoked at any time. At the moment, so far as I know, its only function is the management of internal tourist bureaux under an agreement with Fógra Fáilte. As it has played such an important part in tourism during the past 30 years or more, it would have been advisable and desirable that certain functions should be allotted to the Irish Tourist Association. That is why I wished to move these amendments to the Bill by which the present functions of Fógra Fáilte would be allotted to the Irish Tourist Association. Even at this stage I would try to impress on the Minister that if anything could be done to allot some statutory function to that body, I am sure it would be for the welfare of tourism in this country.
I, like Deputy Palmer, would like to make some remarks on this Section 6. It says:
"The board shall have the following additional functions—
(a) to engage in any kind of publicity both inside and outside the State, in connection with tourist traffic..." etc.
Being a member of the Irish Tourist Association, representing Louth County Council, I imagine there is an omission there in relation to the Irish Tourist Association. Most people interested in tourism know that since 1925, the Irish Tourist Association have carried on a very intensive campaign to promote the cause of tourism in this country. They have just and proper claims to more official, more statutory recognition on the part of the Minister in this particular Bill.
As Deputy Palmer has pointed out, they have been recognised by local authorities who have allotted funds annually from the rates to help them bear their expenses and that is a very important fact—that local authorities consider that the Irish Tourist Association is important enough as a body to warrant the donation of funds to promote the work it was set up to do. The Irish Tourist Association has set up bureaux throughout the country and, I think, also abroad to advance the cause of tourism. It has also carried on a very intensive campaign of publicity-work in general, in addition to having established cookery scholarships, which are very important things. The Irish Tourist Association is the parent body of tourism, and I, like Deputy Palmer, would urge the Minister to reconsider his attitude towards the Irish Tourist Association and to allot them more important functions and to give them statutory recognition other than the mere representation on the board of An Bord Fáilte. I would urge him to reconsider these points and bear these remarks in mind having realised that the Irish Tourist Association has 30 years' experience behind it and is a well-known body in the promotion of tourism in general.
The first point we must recognise about the Irish Tourist Association is that it is a voluntary organisation based on the unselfish efforts of its members and to some extent on contributions from those who willingly give for the purposes of the organisation, and it may in consequence be undesirable to tie it up too closely with statutory bodies which may, perhaps, bring about in the course of time a neglect of the work which is now being done and a throwing-over of effort on to the statutory board. At the same time sufficient recognition should be given to it to ensure that the valuable work done over the years should be continued and it is a question of how the two things can be linked up—the voluntary efforts of the Irish Tourist Association and the statutory work of An Bord Fáilte—without interfering with the special character of either the one or the other, particularly the Irish Tourist Association, which should be preserved and recognition given to its efforts and to the officials who have done so much over the years. What is the best way to do that—that is the point that we would ask the Minister, I presume, to give due consideration to, before he finalises this Bill. The general character of this measure is to establish this board, to do away with An Bord Fáilte and so on. The Irish Tourist Association will probably be hanging a bit in mid air in that interval. I cannot see quite clearly what I would propose to the Minister except that I am not too keen, as I have said, on having a link-up of a voluntary body which would be too closely regulated in a statutory one.
The pattern of all tourist legislation in recent years has been to assign to two statutory bodies, An Bord Fáilte and Fógra Fáilte, certain duties in the matter of promoting tourism. These two bodies, An Bord Fáilte and Fógra Fáilte, have had certain opportunities of functioning on their own, and it was in the light of the experience that this dual type of organisation did not make for efficiency and that it caused waste and overlapping that I was induced to introduce this Bill in the hope of getting one comprehensive organisation to deal with the whole question of tourism. I think there is no greater opportunity for waste and overlapping than is to be found where you create a number of bodies to do functions which are interrelated because there the scope for waste and overlapping is considerable. It is because I have had personal experience, and reports on the difficulties of getting these two bodies to work in the way it was originally contemplated, that I was coerced logically into asking the House to approve of a Bill to marry these two bodies into one organisation. I propose to do that by dissolving Fógra Fáilte and continuing An Bord Fáilte, and transferring to the latter the functions which are at present discharged by Fogra Fáilte. But the case made by Deputies Palmer and Coburn would restore all the weaknesses of having two bodies. The House has agreed on the Second Stage that we will have one body. At least, that is going to get a trial now, and that single body will be on trial having the comprehensive functions which were previously discharged by two separate organisations. It will be on trial, and it knows it will be on trial, and we have to see if this is a better way of looking after tourism than by dividing responsibility over two separate autonomous bodies.
The case made by Deputy Palmer and Deputy Coburn would repeat all the weaknesses in the old structure and would still leave two bodies dealing with what ought to be, in my view, unified functions. But it would have even further weaknesses—it would transfer some of these functions which are now statutory functions to a body which is not a statutory body but is purely a private organisation and, as Deputy MacCarthy has pointed out, a voluntary organisation in its main structure. I think, therefore, for the reasons which I gave on the Second Reading of this Bill it would be a fundamental mistake at this stage to divide again the responsibilities for tourist promotion, recreating a position which, I think, has led up to the weaknesses which this Bill seeks to remedy. I said that I hoped to ensure the Irish Tourist Association would be preserved by giving it representation on the new board and whatever fertility of mind the Irish Tourist Association have from the standpoint of ideas on promoting tourism can all filter through the new body.
So as to make sure that that representation of the Irish Tourist Association on An Bord Fáilte will be an official type of representation, provision will be made that the representation of the Irish Tourist Association on An Bord Fáilte will be official inasmuch as the person or persons nominated to the directorate of An Bord Fáilte must have an official connection with the Irish Tourist Association. In that way, I think I am providing in a reasonably satisfactory way for the continued nexus between the Irish Tourist Association and the official statutory tourist body. It may well be, as Deputy MacCarthy has rightly said, that it is better for an organisation like the Irish Tourist Association, which is a voluntary organisation, which had a certain type of birth and a certain kind of upbringing, to stand back from an official statutory body such as this and to do the valuable work it has been doing down the years.
The I.T.A. receive approximately £16,000 per year for the promotion of tourism in this country and there is power in this Bill whereby An Bord Fáilte can make grants to the Irish Tourist Association and, in the light of experience, perhaps these grants can be varied. In the light of experience of the valuable work the Irish Tourist Association is doing, An Bord Fáilte may say that that work is perhaps costing more than it originally cost and may filter out moneys that way to this purely voluntary organisation; but while I think that, in itself, is a desirable situation, I think it would be at this stage not only contrary to the principle as passed on Second Reading, but contrary even to prudent administration if we, after deciding to unify tourist promotional activities under one board, set about, so soon after deciding to do that on the Second Stage, recreating a second body and by doing so inherited again all the weaknesses which were inseparable, in my view, from the existence of the two bodies.
I think we ought to give this a trial. It may well be that it will not satisfy our hopes and our ambitions, but at least we ought to give this new tourist body a trial and endeavour to ensure that it will be staffed by people who will push and drive our tourist potentialities. By continuing the official association through the directorate with the Irish Tourist Association, I am making provision that that train of thought represented by the Irish Tourist Association approach to tourist problems will always filter through to the directors of An Bord Fáilte and they have my assurance that that provision will be continued. At all events, there was some years ago a likelihood that the Irish Tourist Association would have been annihilated. That danger is past and it is now recognised that they have a place here in our tourist organisation. It is again recognised and emphasised in this Bill, and, in going so far, I think I am going as far as could reasonably be expected in all the circumstances and having regard to the overriding consideration of trying to get one unified body to direct our tourist promotional activities.
Mr. Lemass
While supporting the Minister's conclusion, I want to make it clear that I do so for a slightly different reason. I do not think that having a separate body to deal with tourist publicity as distinct from all the other activities which an Bord Fáilte has under the Tourist Traffic Act necessarily represents a waste or inefficiency. On the contrary, I believe that there is a far greater risk of inefficiency if you overcrowd one organisation with too many duties. If it is true that there has been friction between the two bodies set up by the 1952 Act, that was due to a weakness of personalities and not to weakness of the system, but I would strongly oppose the suggestion in this amendment.
This legislation authorises the Government to go to the taxpayer to get money for tourist promotion purposes and it requires the Minister to see that that money is spent through organisations with constitutions and powers defined by legislation. It would be entirely wrong to use that public money for that purpose through an organisation that was not responsible to the Minister. The essential difference between An Bord Fáilte and the Irish Tourist Association is that An Bord Fáilte is responsible to the Minister, and, through the Minister, to this House, as to how it performs its duties, while the Tourist Association directors are responsible only to the main body of members who are ordinary private individuals who become members by paying a subscription.
The Irish Tourist Association can be used as an agent by An Bord Fáilte for various purposes and it is at present being used as an agent by Fógra Fáilte. There are many directions in which it could work more efficiently and effectively than some subsidiary organisation set up by An Bord Fáilte. I certainly would encourage An Bord Fáilte to use the Irish Tourist Association as its agent wherever the work is of a character which the Irish Tourist Association is capable of doing, but that would be the right relationship between An Bord Fáilte and the Tourist Association. Ultimately, the public money is to be spent by a body that is responsible to the Minister and concerning which the Minister is liable to be questioned in the House and it would be a very bad principle indeed to create a situation in which these large sums of public money would be entrusted to a body over the rules or constitution of which this House has no control.
My objection to Section 6 is that it hands over to this new body which unifies the two previous bodies more or less complete control over Irish tourism. I think it is a very good thing that there should be State support for tourism, but I should like to draw the Minister's attention to this fact, that the Irish Tourist Association is a voluntary body, and voluntary bodies in this country should be encouraged. It is true that the Minister says he intends to appoint three directors to this new board, but that does not give the Irish Tourist Association the guarantee that they are going to get any real benefits from this State body. The association will depend entirely on these three directors who may become immersed in the State outlook in that they are absorbed by and carried into the State body and may turn their backs on the organisation to which they previously belonged. I should be far happier if the Minister would give us some indication as to what functions are to be allocated to the Irish Tourist Association.
I subscribe to what the Minister says that it is a good thing to have an organisation like this with a certain amount of State control, if the State is to provide, as it is, £500,000; but, as against that, this section with its different sub-sections gives An Bord Fáilte full functions in relation to the doing and the regulating of everything connected with tourism. Therein I see the danger. I do not like State bodies, although I know that in present circumstances, in the changing conditions of the world, State control may be necessary, but I do like private enterprise bodies, and I maintain that the Irish Tourist Association has proved its worth. When there was no State to do anything, they carried on and gave us the limited organisation we had, gradually increasing over the years, with the very limited funds at their disposal.
I would like, therefore, if the Minister would give us some indication of the functions it is suggested or thought will be delegated to the Tourist Association and what funds may be placed at their disposal. According to the letter I have—I am sure all Deputies received a similar letter recently—over the years from 1925, the date of its foundation, right up to 1951, the total sum at their disposal is in the neighbourhood of £300,000 and a State body is going to get £500,000 in one year. It will be a safeguard for private enterprise and for what it stands if the Minister will give us some indication as to what allocation they are going to get and what funds are going to be allocated to them.
As a previous speaker pointed out, Section 6 gives very wide powers to this new board. Paragraph (b) refers to the preparation and publishing of guide books. I hope that, when this new board is set up, there will be some system whereby those who prepare the guide books for world publicity cannot commit the unpardonable sin of completely ignoring any county. I mentioned this matter on Second Reading the other day and since then I studied the correspondence in connection with the matter. Not alone have they completely left out an entire county from their guide books but they have not had the courtesy to answer letters which were written to them by interested people. They left them for weeks. On the last occasion they left them over a month. They have not acknowledged receipt of a letter from a private organisation that caters for one-tenth of the holiday-makers who come to this country.
If the Minister is going to give these powers he should also put in a safeguard to make sure that the people responsible for making Irish tourism known all over the world should not do what was done by the present body very recently. I should like to impress on the Minister the necessity to have the job done properly this time.
I think it is a very good idea to amalgamate the two boards because the situation where you had two bodies —one a State-controlled body and the other a voluntary body covering almost the same ground and both jealous of the other's powers—was not for the good of tourism in this country. I think it can be improved. It is one of the biggest money spinners we have. I think if this present body helps, as it should, to straighten out the question of tourism in this country we should all welcome the Bill.
Deputy Esmonde raised the question of the functions of the Tourist Association. The functions of the Tourist Association are not affected by the amending Bill the purpose of which is to bring An Bord Fáilte and Fógra Fáilte together as a single organisation. This Bill does not in any way limit the functions of the Irish Tourist Association. As I said, it is a private body. It is a voluntary organisation and it has functioned down through the years in that capacity. The Irish Tourist Association gets its revenue from voluntary contributions which are made by local authorities for tourist publicity purposes. It gets approximately £16,000 per year and by arrangement with Fógra Fáilte it runs and staffs the tourist bureaux within the country out of the moneys so received from the local authorities.
In addition to that, by an administrative arrangement, they were tied in at directorate level with Fógra Fáilte. I propose in this Bill to tie them in again with the new board, thereby, as I said, providing a conduit pipe for such ideas as may fertilise in the minds of the Irish Tourist Association and to enable these views to be transmitted through the directors of the Irish Tourist Association to the meetings of the directors of An Bord Fáilte. So that this Bill leaves the Irish Tourist Association as a body untouched and leaves its functions unimpaired so far as this particular Bill is concerned.
Mr. Lemass
It extends the functions of the directors a little.
That can be said at the moment. As Deputy Lemass points out, Fógra Fáilte is solely responsible for publicity activities and An Bord Fáilte deals with the other aspects of tourist promotion, including the supervision of hotels and a variety of activities of that kind. Under this scheme, with a single organisation in existence, An Bord Fáilte and Fógra Fáilte will, in the future, take part in the entire directional activities of the single unified board.