I have rarely agreed with Deputy MacBride on any subject, but if I can just reinforce that last request of his, which bears very little relation to the Estimate for the Department of Industry and Commerce, I would beg the Minister, in the interests of the decency of tourism, to have removed, if necessary by Act of Parliament, that ghastly concrete submarine on O'Connell Bridge and, if it is considered good from the standpoint of tourists to have flowers on a bridge, there can be constructed some simple form of decorative railing which would conform with the harmony of the railings now bounding the bridge on either side in which flowers can grow, without insulting further the citizens of this fair city.
I was somewhat misdirected from what I intended to say on the subject of this Estimate by Deputy MacBride's last observation, with which I wholly concur. To come back to some rather more fundamental issues, the Minister is not going to be allowed by this side of the House to get away from the subject of his failure to reduce the cost of living and the absence of any comment by him, or any note in the course of his speech, is indicative of the desire of himself and his colleagues to escape from the realities in regard to this matter. Although we have said a great deal on this side of the House in regard to the utter failure of the present Government to carry out their promises and although it may be wearisome to repeat much of what has been said, I think we, for the first time, are beginning to get some conception of the new Coalition Government policy and, in particular, the new Labour Party policy in regard to price levels. It is embodied in the use of the word "stabilisation" rather than "reduction in prices". It can be noticed that Ministers of the present Government, speaking at various places through the country, at various functions, have now begun to use the phrase "reduction or stabilisation of prices" when referring to their promises to the electorate.
For example, at a Labour convention in Dublin, Deputy Corish, the Minister for Social Welfare, was reported in the Irish Press of March 23rd as saying the following:—
"If their efforts to stabilise or reduce prices were not successful they would not hesitate to say so and would take other steps to fulfil the undertaking."
Therein lies the clue to the new policy. No longer is it a question of crashing prices. No longer is it a question of exploding a balloon of inflation which was entirely the creation of the last Government and for which world circumstances had no responsibility. No longer is it a question of ignoring the profiteering hordes of business executives around the country. It is now simply a question of stabilisation. If stabilisation is effected that will satisfy the consciences of the Labour Party members of the present Government and when I say that I mean also the consciences of all those in the Fine Gael Party who, when they were not in the presence of the Press, promised the sun, the moon and the stars at every church and chapel in the country during the course of the general election.
I suppose it should be pointed out that the cost of living was virtually stabilised in May, 1953. We understand that the present Minister for Industry and Commerce relies on the statistics provided for him by the Director of the Central Bureau of Statistics. He has found no false or corrupt influence by the last Government in regard to the presentation of the cost-of-living statistics and apparently the basis adopted is sound. That being so, it can be remarked that the cost-of-living index showed a figure of 126 in May, 1953, and is virtually at the same level, having fallen two points and risen two points since the inception of the present Government's administration, and yet, the present Government have the audacity now to talk about effecting a stabilisation in the cost of living. The electors, when they heard the promises made, were not thinking in terms of a reduction in the price of butter of 5d. in the lb. They were thinking of something far more substantial; they were thinking of a general and substantial decline in the price of all essential commodities. Even if one were to take 1/2d. or 1d. in the price off the two-lb. loaf and add it to the 5d. in the lb. reduction given in the price of butter, that would not satisfy the electors if they expected the Government to honour their promises in regard to this matter.
In actual fact the cost of living has risen. Let us be frank about it, it has not risen by a very large margin but it has risen by a sufficient margin to make the position of the Government more than painful. We have, by means of a series of questions, asked of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach, obtained the list of commodities whose prices have risen between the months of February and April. The list is very substantial, and even though the rises are small and marginal it is laughable, in the light of the list of commodities whose prices have been increased, to suggest that the Government are in any way honouring their promises.
Some of these articles are not of great importance. Many of them are in common use, but the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture during the election campaign used to hold up a box of Aspro tablets to show that even the price of those had risen during the time Fianna Fáil was in office. I think, therefore, that we on this side of the House will be forgiven for mentioning this list of commodities: beef, mutton, boiling fowl, cheese, lard, oatmeal, bran, pollard, semolina, potatoes, cabbage, onions, carrots, dried peas, oranges, tomatoes, coffee, cocoa, boiled sweets, bars of chocolate, cotton meal, candles, paraffin oil, turf, firewood blocks, house rents, rates, men's raincoats, spring interior mattresses, boot polish, toothpaste, motor tyres and tubes, cycle tyres, blankets, sheets, cutlery, crockery, scouring powder, medicines, shoe repairs and pigmeal. I understand there may be some reduction in pigmeal.
In addition to those the rates have gone up, though the Minister for Defence made fulsome promises in Longford that not only would the central Government if possible take upon itself the entire cost of any new services operated by local authorities but also that some of the existing burden of rate liability should be transferred back from the local to the central authority.
There is a pretty list for a Government who managed to deceive some 20 per cent. of the electorate of Dublin and Cork. It is a good list upon which to justify their effort to reduce the cost of living. We come back again to the question as to whether we are to have some reasonable standard of honesty in making promises during general election campaigns. I defy the Minister for Industry and Commerce to produce to me a single reputable economist who at least had the reputation of being able to provide advice to Governments and businesses of note who could have told him in February of 1954, when this propaganda was being prepared by the Coalition Parties, that there was the remotest chance of there being any appreciable fall in the price of the main commodities used by the people of this State. The Minister will be unable to provide any such advice.
I am perfectly certain his own economic expert in the Labour Party, Mr. Roberts, some of whose writings I must say I find remarkably impartial— I should like to point out I am not criticising him here—could not give any reports to the Labour Party to show that there would be any appreciable reduction in the cost of living or that there would be any great improvement in conditions which prevail in European countries and in the dollar world. The only way of reducing the cost of living was by subsidies at the cost of taxation which the country could not afford.
Those facts were fully available to the members of the Coalition Government at the time the propaganda was being prepared for the election. There was nothing they could not have found out by putting a question to the Bureau of Statistics or by following the O.E.E.C. reports. They could have found out that there was no prospect that it would be possible to bring about a reduction in the cost of living. Everything pointed to the fact that there had not been any undue increase in the cost of living in this country during Fianna Fáil's term of office.
I do not want to go over the ground again. I do not want to repeat what I said earlier on the comparison between the cost of living here and that which existed in other countries from the time of decline in the value of the £ in 1948, which was recognised as the basic year for price comparisons, and 1953. During that period the cost of living rose in this country no more than in the major continental countries where subsidies have been imposed in large measure either during or at the end of the war to keep down the prices of commodities, and where there was a proper system of price analysis, of price stabilisation and of price control.
The reports of the International Labour Organisation in the interests of the workers can be regarded as reasonably accurate. In six, seven or eight countries, and particularly in Great Britain, the cost of living rise was comparable with the increase here. We used the same money as Great Britain; our £ was the same as theirs in value for the purposes of the purchase of raw commodities. During the period from the time of the devaluation of the £ and during the post-Korean boom the rise in the cost of living here was only nearly as much or perhaps a little less than in Great Britain. One country might have been able to afford some greater measure of subsidies than another and if that be the case the cost of living here should have gone up by still more than it did instead of being almost exactly at the same percentage.
I should like to hear from the Minister whether this new phrase "stabilisation" really describes the position because about two months ago we were given the impression that unless the cost of living could be reduced the members of the present Government would insist on some serious measure. Now the word "stabilisation" is being used and if this is their policy we can be assured that they no longer intend to take any action except perhaps what could be taken in the coming Budget by way of the kind of surplus we might expect, or if not in this Budget in the Budget thereafter. Nor had the Minister for Industry and Commerce anything original or of interest to say about the question of profits and prices. We have asked the Minister to tell us what kind of legislation he intends to introduce to replace the previous pre-war price control legislation; whether he has any new ideas on the subject; whether he has considered the whole question as to how far we should talk about prices instead of referring to the level of productivity or the efficiency of industry.
As the Minister knows, though some people are rather reluctant to say so here, some of our companies paying the very highest dividends in the land are at the same time producing the best articles at lower prices than their competitors. The whole of our price policy, from the point of view in which it was examined and conducted inevitably during the war, needs now a complete and drastic overhaul and change because, as I have already said, profits in a great number of instances bear no relation to prices. A great number of factors enter into the price of an article and to merely restrain companies from making profits is not a solution of the problem. Profits may or may not result in excessive prices; but it is quite obvious that we need now a new approach to the whole problem of production and profits if we are to have a satisfactory price policy.
The next observation I would like to make is that we note with some appreciation—it may be a little bitter —that the Minister has from the point of view of a number of policies relevant to his Department been given considerable assistance by the last Government. The tremendous flow of development projects about which he spoke and concerning which he made, I think, intelligent and useful observations were nearly all of them devised by Fianna Fáil at one period or another. One might say that the foundations of the Minister's Department rest almost entirely upon the inventive genius of Deputy Seán Lemass, the previous Minister. When the Minister spoke, introducing his Estimate, of harbour development, aviation development, turf power development and Irish shipping, and when he referred to the possibilities of an oil refinery and spoke of the changes in connection with our transport organisation, practically all the decisions of importance in relation to all those were made for him by the previous Minister.
I think it is time some slight reference was made to the fact that the dieselisation of C.I.E. was finally the sole responsibility of the previous Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Seán Lemass. I wish Deputy Morrissey were here now because I would like to remind him of the insults he hurled at the chairman of C.I.E., the chairman whom he removed from office, when he spoke of the first beginnings of dieselisation policy; all the implications in his speech were that dieselisation was going to be just one more extravagent fantasy of Fianna Fáil. I am glad the present Minister has accepted the dieselisation policy and has accepted also the fact that we took the ultimate responsibility for the large capital outlay involved for the very fundamental conversion required before C.I.E. could pay its way properly and become an efficient transport organisation.
Equally, legislation for the improvement in the conditions of the worker —the Factory Act—was on the stocks before ever the present Government came into office, not to speak of the body responsible for undertaking work under the Undeveloped Areas Act. The Minister can also be satisfied with the fact that the amount of capital engaged each year in the years before he took office for direct production showed a satisfactory increase. From the year 1950 to 1953 he can be satisfied to some extent with the high consumption of food, with the very high expenditure on goods and services of all kinds, even after allowing for the increase in the cost of living.
In the year before the Minister took office, 1953, people spent more than they had ever spent before, save in the year 1951, when they spent about 2½ per cent. more, because that was the year during which all countries were stockpiling for fear of war. Apart from that year, the people spent well and satisfactorily. The Minister can also be satisfied with the increase in production—8 per cent. in two years— which took place just before the last Government left office. He can be satisfied with the increase in the volume of exports. I think the increase was something in the region of 33? per cent. from 1949 to 1953, and the increase has been steady during the last three years.
Having said that, I think we on this side of the House have made it clear, as we made it clear at the time of the election and in subsequent speeches, that nevertheless we cannot regard the present situation with complacency. One of the things that surprised me in the Minister's speech was his evident complacency in regard to the problem of emigration. I have said frequently here that we now realise after some 30 years of independence that to make an election promise to reduce emigration damns a prospective Deputy almost automatically as dishonest because so many have promised what they were ultimately unable to fulfil in that regard.
The present Government got into office in 1948 partly on the wildest statements in regard to the emigrant ship and partly on promises to end emigration overnight and put every man to work within 24 hours. I think we are all a little bit sobered now about this problem. I think we now realise that it is a dangerous thing to promise to end emigration; but it is still more dangerous to be complacent about it. We have now the report of the Emigration Commission which states that unless the pattern of emigration changes some 38 per cent. of the young women and 25 per cent. of the young men will emigrate within the next ten or 15 years.
We now have a new type of problem to face in relation to emigration. We have the problem that England— perhaps temporarily: we do not know — is in a state of boom, a state which attracts labour because rates of wages are such as the average employer here is unable to pay. Young people are going to England every day seeking higher wages and being offered positions at wages which this community could ill afford to pay. There is a new pull from Great Britain. We know that most of the young people on small farms, with the exception of one, have to leave those farms and seek employment elsewhere. Now there is this additional inducement and I think all Deputies realise that emigration has reached a very high level of intensity. Many people have to emigrate; but to-day young men are leaving jobs at £8 per week to go to jobs at £12 per week in Great Britain.
I think none of us have yet really faced the only solution to this problem, namely, an immense and striking increase in productivity. Productivity here is still a specialised doctrine. I do not think we have, if I may use a somewhat unusual phrase, the wine of productivity in our blood. That may be due partly to our history. It may be due to climatic conditions. It may be due to a number of causes. I do not think we really have the necessary enthusiasm here for increased productivity. Yet, we know from the whole economic history of the world since the time of the industrial revolution that there is no way of increasing prosperity in order to retain our people here in profitable employment, so that only those will go abroad who are really seeking adventure or some occupation of so specialised a type that they cannot find it here, other than by industrial development and increased agricultural and industrial productivity. It seems to me that is the secret of success in the future.
We all know that there is a multiplication of small stagnancies and inefficiencies throughout the whole economic life of this country which have yet to be overcome. We can all of us see the progress that is being made. We can all of us see examples of improved efficiency and high quality goods at low cost. We can all of us see shining examples of individual factories and individuals everywhere who have been able to export in competition with the products of Great Britain and other countries and who have succeeded in capturing markets abroad. We know about those, but we also know of the stagnation that still exists, the stagnation born from many causes which exists, the elimination of which is the only possible method by which we can increase the level of earnings in this country so that this tremendous flow of emigration can be at least partly arrested.
I had hoped that the Minister would make some reference to these matters because I think they are of vital importance. If one compares, for example, the language used by public representatives of every type throughout the country in regard to economics in general with that used by the people of America or even by the people of Great Britain, there is far too much talk of giving employment for employment's sake instead of stepping up productivity which must in its turn produce more employment. It so happens that in countries that have been highly industrialised and where there is so large a market that all sorts of specialist agencies can be created for the studying of these problems there has been more opportunity for discussion of the question of productivity and of high output than there can be in a country like this where industry is just being started and where it is only in its first stages. I admit that in all this argument we have to bear in mind the recent character of our industry. We have to bear in mind the success of many of our industries, the comparative success of others and the stagnation of many more.
In other countries there has been an opportunity of discussing this question of productivity. We have here a small organisation created under the auspices of the last Government, the Institute of Management. It is doing good work, but I think a great deal more needs to be done from the highest possible level on this question. For example, I do not suppose many of the people of this country engaged in industry know that in a country such as Great Britain, where there are these great opportunities, there are productivity councils in which the employers and the trade unions take an interest. There are summer schools relating to productivity, to increasing output, to which representatives of the trade unions and the employers come. There is a very large measure of instruction, of teaching, throughout the length and breadth of Great Britain in regard to this whole subject.
I have noticed—not in all trade unions here but in a limited number— some of the members have referred to the general subject of productivity and to what is known as time and motion study in entirely old-fashioned terms as though an industry might dread the advent of any changes in its structure which might lead to greater productivity for fear there might be less employment, whereas, of course, I think most of our trade unions and most of the non-Communist progressive trade unions in Great Britain know perfectly well that the inevitable result of greater productivity is that people have more money to spend and can buy more things. People get employment to a greater degree and the level of employment goes up as a result of the use of machinery. It hardly ever goes down except for a very short and temporary period. We have never faced that issue completely. I read reports of county council meetings where public representatives talk about machines as if through the use of machines workers would lose their jobs whereas the use of modern machines can only increase the total number of persons employed in the servicing of the machinery and in the work of road building and road construction.
We need the greatest leadership from those at the very highest level on this entire subject. I think that the Minister should do his utmost to advertise to a greater extent the development of industrial consultancy. I think he should tell more about the co-operation of the trade unions in other countries when an industrial consultant comes to a group of industries and offers them assistance to increase productivity. I think he should lay far more emphasis on the fact that under present circumstances the whole conception of time and motion study as applied to workers as being something in the nature of slavery has entirely disappeared. We can now see where one unit in industry, having been the subject of a time and motion study, where the workers have a share with the employers in the profits made through the establishment of some sort of incentive bonus scheme related to the fostering of production in various parts of industrial activity, other trade unions in the remaining units of the industry will ask the employers to bring in a consultant so that they may also share in the incentive bonuses that result from the increased flow of work, from the increased flow of productivity.
The work of the industrial consultants in this country has been on the whole highly successful. I myself have had occasion to study the work of one group of consultants who succeeded in doubling the production of a very wellknown firm close to this city with the result that that firm got a share in an order from a world-wide concern that it had never been able to obtain before. Production per worker was doubled and with the entire consent of the trade union concerned knowing the inevitable effect it would have on the wage structure of the company.
Consultancy has also been applied in semi-state corporations with very great success. One semi-state corporation succeeded in saving £20,000 a year by the employment of a management expert who knew nothing whatever about the industry when he came to it.
The point is that if we are to have greater productivity there must be more advertisement from the highest level about what can be done, about the help given and the encouragement given to industrial organisations by industrial consultancy. I think the Institute of Management needs even more assistance than it is getting from the present Government and, as I said, none of the trade unions that are modern and up to date in their attitude have any objection to this because they know their members must inevitably share in the greater profits achieved.
I should mention the example of the cotton industry in Great Britain where there has been of necessity an enormous redeployment arising out of the change-over from out-of-date looms to automatic looms and where the number of looms per worker is enormously increased. It was found necessary to have the most careful analysis of the position in regard to each type of company because it was found that in the case of certain companies the cost of expanding the industry's physical volume would be greater than the result achieved. But the main point was this: that the trade unions concerned entered into an agreement with the cotton industry employers whereby they would agree to the redeployment of individual units in the cotton industry provided the firms would make use of the services of industrial consultants so that when there was complete reorganisation in manufacture the workers would inevitably benefit in some way or other through some kind of incentive bonus scheme or at least through sharing in the quicker flow of materials through the factory and the smoothing-over of difficulties and the greater flow in productivity of the industry.
All these facts are well known to many people. This question of industrial consultancy and improvement of productivity has become a fine art in the United States. I am not suggesting that we should get — shall I say— into the very high pitch of very fierce competition which is a characteristic of United States economy. I do not think it is possible for a people of our temperament ever to do so, but I do suggest that in between there lies a mean and we have never yet achieved that mean in this country and that the present Government, now that most of the post-war inflation difficulties have passed, have a greater opportunity than ever to study this whole subject.
I think the Minister ought to consider this whole question in relation to the level of tariffs. The Minister, we have noted, has commenced a study into the tariff level of two industries. We have now had industries under tariff here for a considerable number of years. All of us believe that tariff protection is essential at least at the commencement of life of a new industry. All of us believe that some measure of protection may be necessary at all times in certain instances because of the differential in the price of raw materials imported here and used in countries competing with us in our market and because of the other factors well known, such as the size of the units of the industry, and so forth. But both the previous Minister for Industry and Commerce and, I think, all of us on this side of the House realise that in the interest of industry, in the interest of productivity, in the interest of producing the best possible commodities at the lowest possible price, reviews of tariffs are wise if they are adopted in a sympathetic spirit.
I would like to suggest to the Minister that some sort of co-operative use of industrial consultants by a whole industry would be one way in which he could be presented with facts given on an independent basis which would enable him to determine whether the industry was properly grouped, whether it might have too many groups in it, whether it was being efficiently conducted. If such a consultant made a report to the Minister, the Minister would have the right to reject or accept it, to take into account all the factors which the consultant might not appreciate in making the report. I might add that in Great Britain and in America there are certain industrialists who, desiring to expand their exports and without any encouragement from the Government, have co-operatively among themselves employed consultants at different times in order to make recommendations on behalf of their industry as a whole. Instead of having consultants working on behalf merely of an industry with a very large turnover, huge capital resources, in giving a report it would be possible to apply it to an industry which was a very small unit making one special group of commodities; the consultant would examine the industry as a whole and examine all the implications arising from high costs in the industry and report to the Minister. It would seem to me that the Minister in designing permanent policy to preserve and expand our industry should take power to appoint consultants of that kind, making it a regular feature of Government examination, but, above all, encourage numbers of manufacturers to carry out examinations of that kind voluntarily among themselves and without any recourse to a Government Order or to Government insistence.
As I have said, we are only at the beginning of the field of examining productivity in all its aspects. It is a science which in itself is only about 30 years old and it is a science which has only begun to apply to small units of industry in the last ten or 15 years. Up to then it was associated with great and enormous corporations such as General Motors in the United States and other corporations. Now with the development of the science in which the flow of materials through the factory, no matter how small they are, no matter how small the factory is, can be calculated scientifically and now that the fatigue of the worker can be examined and comprehended sympathetically and now that the relations of the worker and the foreman in the factory can be established on a basis agreed by all, the whole of the science of industrial efficiency has extended far beyond what is imagined by most people in this country. I recommend the Minister to consider the whole of that question in very great detail as having very great importance both for the expansion of exports and in relation to the general problem of industrial efficiency.
As the Minister knows, the problem in regard to industry is very closely related to exports and I should like to ask him whether he thinks that the present panoply of services to aid potential exporters is sufficient, whether Córas Tráchtála Teoranta have sufficient resources at their disposal for the most difficult part of their work which is finding the right agents for commodities, or still further, improving our design, for enabling the risks in regard to payment in certain countries to be overcome, whether they have all the facilities they need or whether even something more is required if we are to expand our exports.
I would suggest also to the Minister that it would be no harm in certain instances if he linked to some degree the continuation of the very high level of tariffs with the productive effort made by the industries who export and, if there comes to his knowledge any group of industrialists who are not using a reasonable portion of their reserves for the exploration of the export market, that it would be right for him in the circumstances to question the extent of the tariff imposed upon the community for the benefit of that industry. Now that the post-war difficulties are over, now that the Korean inflation is at an end and now that we are set at least for the time being on a fair tide in regard to European and world trade in general, the Minister has an opportunity of bringing any rightful pressure to bear on groups of industries in order to ensure that they are doing their utmost to expand and increase their exports or to develop their exports if they have not done so.
I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to a statement which he can obtain from the Central Statistics Office relating to the net output per person in Ireland and in Great Britain and the Six Counties in each of the years 1950 and 1936. If he examines the figures he will find no cause for complacency in regard to industrial productivity. He will find that the comparative progress made between 1936 and 1950 in respect of British and Irish industries of the same type is nothing of which we can be proud, that there is a leeway to be made up in regard to that matter. If he will examine the table in which the 24 industries are compared and show the difference in the level of output between British and Irish in 1936 and the value of the output per worker, and the difference in the level of the output in 1950, he will come to a number of conclusions. First of all, a great war generally stimulates inventive genius as well as carrying out destruction among the participating powers but if the Minister examines the table he will find plenty of evidence of the kind I have already suggested, that the development of industrial consultancy on an increasing scale is vital to the efficiency of industry in this country and that he could perhaps play his own part in regard to that matter.
I wish now to say a few words about the tourist industry. I still think there needs to be far more improvement in the second-class hotels in this country and that sooner or later the Minister will have to face up to An Bord Fáilte in regard to the grading of hotels. I felt that only recently because of com parison which one hears from people who visit this country. I have had to spend a number of days in the smaller type of British hotel and I think it is true that we have to improve the second grade of hotel very substantially because enormous strides are being made in Great Britain, particularly since the end of rationing, in regard to that matter.
I want to repeat what I have already said, namely, that there is a familiar phrase used by certain classes of hoteliers in this country: "Let us not copy French cooking, because we cannot. Let us have good, honest, plain fare and the tourist will like it." That is a phrase which is only partially true. I have found that frequently it is an excuse just for thoroughly dull, over dull, plain cooking. I think the development of cooking in between that level of what is known as plain, ordinary cooking and the French cooking—which we are supposed to be unable to copy although we have all the raw materials here—is what we need. In my view, the tourist industry will not progress if it relies on that purely negative statement of "good plain cooking." I find that the variety to be found in a great many countries other than France is one compared with which we have not reached the proper point in regard to any grade of hotel below the de luxe grade in this country.
I should like to ask the Minister whether he thinks An Bord Fáilte have a sufficient grant for tourist fishing amenities. Is he going to reduce the grant for stocking inland rivers for fishery purposes — whether to the Inland Fishery Board or to An Bord Fáilte? Have An Bord Fáilte sufficient finance to advertise the fisheries of Ireland among fishermen's societies in Great Britain? I notice a certain effort was made in that regard but I have not noticed much emphasis on it recently. Has that campaign been abandoned or how far has it succeeded? Has an effort been made to contact the endless societies of fishermen in Great Britain, most of whom have about ten yards of a river bank from which to fish and all of whom are looking for reasonably inexpensive fishing and reasonably inexpensive hotels?
I suggest that the Minister should tell An Bord Fáilte to speed up the work of placing signs everywhere leading to historic monuments. I was in Sligo recently and, so far as the ordinary tourist is concerned, Lough Gill might never exist. I do not know whether the position has changed in the past few months but, on entering the town of Sligo a few months ago from the main or adjoining roads, Lough Gill might not exist. Lough Gill is one of the most beautiful loughs in Europe but it is completely ignored by the average tourist in this country. Unless there has been a change within the past ten days, there is as yet no sign leading to Clonmacnoise on entering Athlone or departing from it or on the roads leading from it. Similar things may be said about other areas. I trust the work of replacing these signs will be speeded up.
I want now to say a few words about An Tóstal. To some extent, I agree with what Deputy MacBride has said although I generally disagree with him on economic matters. At the end of this period of An Tóstal I think the Minister will have to re-examine the whole question of what An Tóstal is supposed to be. In the enthusiasm with which it was generated, it was quite natural and expected that there would be some confusion of mind as to what was intended. If it is meant to be a civic week—a week in which everything Irish is advertised and which is administered for our own purposes, a week in which we show ourselves to ourselves, a week in which the tourist element is only a minor one—let us develop it in that way. Let us have an organisation that will help its expansion in that way. Let the Government give what resources it can, with that in mind. If it is meant to be primarily a tourist attraction then we will have to reconsider the whole project of An Tóstal. It would be inevitable that it would require considerable examination because of the fact that it was started at a period when tourists do not normally come to this country and the period before the tourist season was chosen rather than the period of the end of the tourist season.
I have frequently tried to get from An Bord Fáilte the statistical facts in that connection. I have tried to find out if it is a fact that there are insufficient hotel bedrooms in Dublin and the main tourist areas in September and the early part of October—a period which is one of the most common periods throughout Europe for festivals, including Edinburgh, Salzburg, and the most popular form of festival in Venice where they have them continuously. I have in mind, now, festivals not associated with religious events where you have a different position, such as the Easter festival, and so forth.
If the period of September is uneconomic from the point of view of a great festival then I think we should ask why we have so few hotel bedrooms and whether the hotel industry has sufficiently expanded in Dublin. Secondly, we should ask whether the festival should be held at the beginning or at the end of the tourist season. Apparently, for people who have means of their own, and even for workers in industry who have a certain freedom in regard to the choosing of a time for their vacation, April and the beginning of May is not an easy time either for a worker or an executive to leave his business. It is quite evident from studying the statistics of travelling in Europe in September and early October that there is then still a tremendous flow of tourists throughout Europe.
In those months there are a number of festivals. Some of them end in the early part of September but at least they continue for the best part of that month. It seems to me that we need to make that second decision. We need to decide whether or not An Tóstal is to be for the tourist or mainly for ourselves and, secondly, we need to decide the period at which it should take place. The third point is whether or not we can continue, for tourist purposes, the present diffuse kind of festival which is a mixture of dramatic events, international sporting events and pageants. We have to decide whether that can really be a success from the point of view of tourist development. We must ask ourselves whether or not people in sufficiently large numbers are coming to this country as tourists to see international bicycle races or international golf tournaments. We must ask ourselves whether or not that will attract any kind of an inflow of tourists which would justify the continuation of An Tóstal as a tourist affair.
On the other hand, shall we not have to examine the situation and look abroad and ask ourselves whether the things which draw tourists to a country can be any different here in large measure from what they are abroad? We must ask ourselves whether there is anything we can offer which would interest the average foreigner and which would place us in a different position from other countries where they have had to specialise, and specialise in very considerable measure, in order to draw tourists. In passing, I should say it is evident that a country such as Italy with its wealth of art and culture is in an entirely different position.
We never had a chance of establishing art here. That was destroyed for us. There was no possibility of that so long as we lived under oppression. We must face the reality of that situation. Does the future of An Tóstal not lie in some form of specialisation either in the theatre, in music or in some other field? The Edinburgh festival has succeeded in a country with a tradition, a language, and a culture all its own and with beautiful scenery. It has succeeded in a country with as many castles and churches as we have, if not more. But they have perforce developed a festival of an international character to which they invite international artistes and orchestras. Music is associated to some degree with Edinburgh, but it was never considered a supremely Scottish gift. We have to consider along the same lines.
I agree with Deputy MacBride that, though there are immense difficulties in guaranteeing the arrival of foreign dramatic companies to play with our own at a particular period to be arranged at least a year or perhaps two years in advance and although there may be even insufficient theatres in Dublin, a theatre festival has much to commend it. I think that the Minister should consider the whole matter from its foundations and make up his mind about these various points because I do not think that An Tóstal is likely to succeed under prevailing circumstances. I think that has to be related to the fact that up to now the Minister has tried to satisfy the interests of every area. Both Ministers for Industry and Commerce have tried to organise An Tóstal so that the people in Galway will feel they will make money out of it as well as the people in Dublin whereas in fact, with certain exceptions, the flow of tourists here from abroad and particularly from America has not been exciting, has not been dramatically successful.
Last of all, I would like to ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether he, perhaps, if no other Minister, can do something to aid in the promotion of a concert and assembly hall in Dublin. There has been a committee working to provide a concert and assembly rooms in Dublin for four or five years. We are the only capital city in the world without a modern concert hall. The committee have called themselves the Concert Hall and Assembly Rooms Committee because they know that it is most unlikely that they ever could find the money just purely for musical purposes and so, with a sense of realism, they have linked it with the idea of assembly rooms with proper sound broadcasting, with facilities for translation, where international conferences as well as our own many conferences can be held.
There is in this city at the present time no completely modern conference hall. No one could call the Mansion House, which is booked out three times over, a modern conference hall of the kind that can be found in other capital cities. There is certainly no concert hall in Dublin and the possibility of having such a hall and even linking it with one or two small theatres is something which, quite apart from the cultural point of view, I think, would pay rich dividends from the standpoint of the tourist industry.
I think the Minister has got to decide, sooner or later, on a specialised form of An Tóstal and, if he does that, he will need, apart from international conferences, a concert hall of that description. I wish that he would consider with the other Ministers, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs who is involved in connection with the proper use to be made of the Radio Eireann Symphony Orchestra, and with the Taoiseach who is in charge of the Arts Council, whether they cannot examine this project. In my own belief it would repay in dividends in terms of tourists coming to this country all the money spent upon it and we could place ourselves in the position that we could tell the whole world that we had a Grade A assembly rooms and concert hall with all the facilities for translation, interpretation and for conferences, small and big. Although we have at the moment a good many international conferences we could have still more if we had that facility.
