On Section 3, the principle of this experimental scheme has been approved by the Minister. He is assured of goodwill on all sides for anything he has in mind to help the Gaeltacht but I should like to put this aspect of the problem to him. He says that his primary object is to attract tourists to the area in respect of the chalets. The hostels have a dual purpose, the accommodation of students and the possibility, if there were periods where there were some vacancies in the hostels, that non-students might be accommodated also.
I wonder is he moving on the right lines here. I note that he has accepted the principle of hostels for students with all the ancillary accommodation that can be provided where you have, potentially, 20 lodgers. What I am thinking of is tourists coming here from, say, America, or from Great Britain, and who are touring through the Gaeltacht. What do they anticipate when they are told of this chalet accommodation? I think I know what they anticipate. That means to them what are called in America, and indeed in Great Britain, motels. When you go into a motel in the United States of America, or in Great Britain, the amenities provided in common are very extensive. For instance, every chalet on a motel site will incorporate in the chalet not only a bedroom—sometimes it is a bed-sittingroom or sometimes a small bedroom and a small sittingroom— but also a water closet and shower, or a bath, where there is hot and cold water available.
That may seem to us to be a fantastically extravagant expectation in what we know to be an area remote from facilities of that kind, but tourists are not in search of what we think ought to be adequate for them. They are in search of what they expect to get. The point I am making to the Minister is this: in respect of these hostels he has accepted the concept of a committee of local people combining to provide a hostel. I wonder if in addition to the scheme here envisaged whereunder each individual smallholder can build a chalet on his own holding, the Minister ought not leave himself free where a village like Rosmuc, or Carna, but particularly Rosmuc, proposes to adopt this scheme. Suppose all smallholders in the parish came together and instead of electing to build an individual chalet on each man's holding—and mind you these holdings are very small, four acres perhaps—said: "We should like to avail of a bloc grant and with expert advice from the tourist board construct a motel which would comprise, say, six or ten or twelve chalets with central accommodation for eating and with modest sanitary arrangements annexed to each individual chalet, and thus give a tourist family which arrives in the family car complete privacy and comfort in their own chalet."
Can the Minister really conceive that we can hope that amenities of that kind will be provided and maintained in individual chalets set on the several holdings of the people who may venture to build them under this Act? Would the Minister not agree with me that if you had what we will, for the purpose of discussion, describe as a motel, that is a group of chalets with common facilities, in regard to the problem of maintenance one caretaker could be charged with the responsibility of keeping these chalets in the winter? He could replace a slate, or fix a window, or put back a pane of glass readily if anything of that kind were necessary. One caretaker would be there to receive the guests, to meet any complaint or difficulty, or meet any emergency that arises and be a source of local information for any family parties that came to occupy one of those chalets. I am not saying that the Minister should abandon all thought of individual chalets being erected by specially enterprising families but if he wants the scheme to be a success I wonder would be not be wise to acquire power to have the motel idea developed where the circumstances make that the more practicable application of this plan?
