Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 2 Nov 1966

Vol. 225 No. 1

Committee on Finance. - Vote 41—Transport and Power (Resumed).

Minister for Transport and Power (Mr. Childers)

I propose to repeat two paragraphs in relation to electricity in order that Deputies may have a full comprehension of the position.

The demand for electricity continues to increase. During the year 1965-66 the total output at 3,546 million units was nearly 10 per cent higher than in the previous year. The rate of growth in demand for electricity reflects the progress in the economic development of the country and the improvements in the living standards of our people, but some portion of the increase was inflationary in character. The peak demand on the ESB last winter was 815 mw; the previous winter's peak was 755 mw. Generation from native sources in 1965-66 was almost 56 per cent of total output.

The Board's long term programme of generating plant is related to an average annual increase in demand of nine per cent as envisaged in the Second Programme for Economic Expansion and which compares with the European average increase rate of about seven per cent. Between now and 1970 the Board's plans provide for two new oil fired stations, each having two 60 mw units, at Great Island, County Wexford, and Tarbert, County Kerry. In 1970-71 the first of two 120 mw sets will be commissioned at the new Pigeon House "B" station and the second will be commissioned in the following year. The implementation of these plans, together with 100 mw already commissioned since 31st March, will bring the Board's total installed capacity to 1,649.5 mw by 1971-72, as compared with 1,069.5 mw at 31st March, 1966.

The Board has again had to incur substantial expenditure on the strengthening of the distribution system to meet increasing local peak loads.

There has been some slowing down in the post-development work on rural electrification due to the need to augment and strengthen the network supplying existing customers and to the need to conserve capital finance. Nevertheless, almost 10,000 new rural customers were connected during the year bringing the total to 321,000. This represents 83.5 per cent of rural premises. The amount voted this year for repayment of the subsidy advanced from the Central Fund for rural electrification is £627,700.

Heavy rainfall during 1965-66 resulted in greatly increased output from the hydro-electric stations. This, in conjunction with increased production from oil stations, led to a reduction in fuel costs and helped the Board to finish the year with a modest surplus of £243,000 on the profit and loss account. Had normal weather conditions prevailed in 1965-66 the Board estimates that, instead of a surplus, the accounts would have shown a deficit of £800,000. As Deputies are aware, costs of material and labour are mounting and because of these the Board has found that an increase in charges is necessary to enable it to fulfil its statutory obligation to balance its accounts. In the circumstances, the Board applied to the Minister for Industry and Commerce under the Prices Acts for permission to increase prices by 7 per cent. That Minister decided to establish a Prices Advisory Body under the Prices Acts, 1958 and 1965 to conduct a public inquiry into the proposed increases and in the meantime has permitted the ESB to bring the increase into force provisionally on the understanding that the new tariff rates will be subject to review if, on considering the report of the Prices Advisory Body, he decides that the increases were not justified.

The Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Act, 1965, raised to £225 million the borrowing powers of the ESB for general purposes. The total amount to be invested in rural electrification was raised from £37 million to £42 million. The total fixed capital invested by the Board at 31st March, 1966 was in the region of £165 million of which £38 million was in rural electrification. It is worthy of note that the ESB is to a great extent self-financing. The self financing ratio for 1965-66 was 44 per cent.

The ESB had a stock issue on 23rd February, 1966, for £6 million which was fully subscribed on the same day.

The report of the joint committee, which the Minister of Commerce for Northern Ireland and I set up in March, 1965, to investigate the possibilities of co-operation between the two electricity systems, was recently published. The substance of the report is that interconnection of the electricity supply in the two areas is technically possible and economically desirable. In the early years of interconnection, the net saving on generating capacity would be £200,600 a year and it is estimated that there would be additional savings of £164,000 a year from the use of larger generating sets earlier than would otherwise be possible.

The two Governments have invited the electricity undertakings on both sides of the Border to work out in detail how the technical and commercial recommendations in the report can be implemented. When this has been done, the Northern Minister of Commerce and I will consider the resulting proposals. I may say that I consider the report an excellent one and I would like to thank publicly Sir Josiah Eccles, the Chairman, and the members of the Committee for the expeditious manner in which they discharged their task. The report reflects credit on them and it seems to me that many benefits could result from its implementation.

There has been no significant development in the nuclear energy field from the point of view of the ESB.

Matters concerning industrial relations in the ESB now come within the purview of the recently established Department of Labour. As Deputies are aware, the Minister for Labour has informed the Irish Congress of Trade Unions that he is prepared to initiate discussions with the unions and the ESB on negotiating machinery whose effect will be to end the possibility of major strikes.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

Mr. Childers

Following the establishment of the Department of Labour I have been in touch with the Minister for Labour regarding labour relations in the ESB and I have made reference to the multiplicity of unions within the ESB and have pointed out that the Statutory Tribunals not only divide the ESB staff into two groups, a practice which will tend to be more and more outdated, but are a cause of prolonged unrest since frequently their decisions on major questions of wages and salaries are not accepted. As a result, appeals have been made in the Labour Court culminating in references back to the Tribunal. In the new Trade Union Bill it is proposed to abolish the Tribunals, leaving the ESB to set up conciliation Courts for purely internal wage conditions negotiations. The proposal, with others in the Bill, is not final and has now been referred by the Minister for Labour to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.

During the fitters' strike a number of Deputies without further inquiry implied that the Board of the ESB was showing a restrictive and—as stated by one Deputy—an arrogant attitude to the staff. I have informed the Minister for Labour that remuneration paid to the engineering and allied staff, to the fitters and secretarial staffs as of June 1966 was in advance of remuneration in the British Electricity Authority.

I would again remind Deputies that some time ago I asked the Board of the ESB to consider negotiations leading to some form of arbitration procedure which could eliminate the strike weapon. There was no response at that time. The Minister for Labour has now this matter under his general aegis.

With reference to the allegation by Deputy M.P. Murphy that in West Cork the only people who can get electricity are the foreigners who are building houses because they can afford to pay the capital cost, the ESB report that, during the past year, 15 applicants obtained electricity in West Cork on payment of capital contributions. Of these three were Irish nationals and the remaining 12 were believed to be British. During the same period the Board connected 13 chalets in West Cork, ten at Barley Cove and three at Red Strand, Clonakilty. The applicants were all Irish nationals. No capital contribution was called for in the case of these chalets because the costs of making the connections were small.

It is expected that the rural post-development scheme will be completed in West Cork within the next three years and that all applicants will be given an opportunity of obtaining supply without being required to pay capital contributions. Any capital contributions paid will be reviewed at the end of the post-development programme and may be then refunded in part or in whole.

Finally, I should advert to the question of administrative efficiency within the ESB. The ESB turnover of activities doubles every ten years while at the same time there are peak and valley periods. Both these factors determine the character of staff organisation. I have naturally repeated to the Board, as a monopoly, at every meeting, the need for work study and the most modern procedures for investigating costs at every level. The ESB have a trained team of officers whose duty it is to increase productivity and efficiency. In the last few years they have carried out surveys into the following matters:

1. Decentralisation of the ordering function for certain standard goods.

2. Introduction of new methods of determining economic order quantities of purchases.

3. Use of computer installation in continuous inventory control.

4. Re-design of paperwork and recording procedures.

It is inevitable that weather conditions must be taken into account when turf production is considered. All production operations of Bord na Móna depend fundamentally on natural drying caused by evaporation resulting from the effects of sunshine, drying winds and high temperature during the months from April to September.

Bord na Móna, with the assistance of data supplied by the Meteorological Office of my Department, have compiled an index, known as Poulter's Index, which reflects the factors of sunshine, temperature and rainfall, at Birr, County Offaly, for the months April to September for each year back to 1880. This chart shows that the six-year period which ended in 1965 was the longest sustained period of below-average weather in these relevant respects since 1880. The previous worst was a succession of four below-average years from 1907 to 1910. The chart indicates that the weather in the 1965 production season was not only the worst in the experience of Bord na Móna, it was the worst in any year since 1880 with two exceptions.

The favourable years have also been of significance in the Board's production programme. The chart shows that the summer weather during the decade 1940-49 was the best in the relevant respects for any ten-year period since 1880. This was the period during which Bord na Móna experimented with milled peat production at Lullymore and it is clear that the high yields achieved in this abnormally favourable decade influenced the assessment of probable subsequent years. Following on the experience in the 1960s, so far the Board's production targets have been set in accordance with a lower standard of drying weather. This reduced standard is nearer to the mean conditions indicated in the chart. Acceptance of this lower standard means a lower yield of milled peat per acre. The Board are bringing more bog areas into production in order to offset the reduction in yield.

As a result of the bad weather in 1965 the harvest was late in starting and a great deal of production was also lost all through the season. This applies particularly to milled peat, the harvest of which, at 1,379,143 tons, was less than 50 per cent of target. Even sod turf, which is normally not so vulnerable to adverse weather conditions, was, at 717,418 tons, only 81 per cent of target. As a result of the shortage of milled peat and the claims of the milled peat fired electricity generating stations, briquette production for the year ended 31st March, 1966, was only 251,468 tons compared with 291,000 tons in 1964-65 which itself was anything but a good year. Production of moss peat was also below target but higher than the previous year by 13 per cent. A new factory, completed during the year, will enable output to be doubled. Moss peat production is not so vulnerable to weather conditions, but unfortunately, it represents only a minor part of Bord na Móna's operations.

Because of the disastrous weather, the losses of Bord na Móna for the year amounted to £1.6 million after allowing for payment of interest amounting to £1,083,993. The results for 1966 are expected to show some improvement. The estimate of milled peat production is 1,950,000 tons or 41 per cent higher than the 1965 figure, while sod peat is also expected to show a slight increase. However, because of unfavourable weather at the start of the season the output will still be far short of the production target for the year.

The succession of bad summers has caused the Board to give serious thought to methods of milled peat production which might be less affected by adverse weather conditions. They are experimenting with a new system which involves the harvesting of the milled peat by a process of extrusion in small sods, four sq. inches in cross section. These will dry rapidly and will reduce losses caused by wind and moisture absorption. There are, of course, many problems to be solved before an appraisal can be made of the working of the new system but Bord na Móna consider that the results to date are encouraging.

Consumption of coal in 1965 was approximately 1.4 million tons or about 10 per cent less than the previous year. Native production declined to about 160,000 tons, compared with 227,000 tons in 1964. The decline in production was caused mainly by the difficulty experienced by the anthracite producers in the early part of the year in disposing of their output, due to accumulated stocks and to the closure for part of the year of the Castlecomer anthracite mines.

The situation in regard to anthracite changed radically in the later part of the year, however. Demand started to exceed supply and generally, the Irish anthracite producers had no difficulty in selling their full production of graded anthracite. Nevertheless, to help to solve the long-term marketing problems of the anthracite producers, my Department, with the agreement of the mineowners and representatives of the coal merchants, engaged consultants to carry out a preliminary investigation into the marketing of Irish anthracite. The report is at present being examined by my Department in consultation with the mineowners and coal merchants.

With regard to semi-bituminous coal, my Department, with the aid of specialist consultants, has carried out a very full investigation over the last few years, into the technical and economic possibilities of utilising the reserves of "crow" coal in the Arigna area for the generation of electricity. The disappointing results of the investigation clearly rule out the practicability of asking the ESB to undertake the erection of a new station to utilise these reserves of "crow" coal.

It must not be overlooked that the existing generating station is absorbing about 50,000 tons of Arigna coal a year. The average annual production in recent years has been about 65,000 tons. In view of the disappointing outcome of the investigation, it would appear that the only way to improve the position of the Arigna mines would be to increase sales to consumers other than the ESB. If sales to other consumers were to amount to even half the total sales to the ESB, a good level of regular employment could be maintained at the Arigna mines.

A year ago, I set up a temporary committee to advise on the composition and function of a Nuclear Energy Board. The committee have since reported to me. The report is clearly the result of careful study of all aspects of the question and I am having it examined at present. As the Deputies are aware, the United States authorities have brought to this country the very informative "Atoms in Action" Exhibition and I am confident that the House will wish to join with me in expressing thanks to the United States authorities.

Total consumption of primary energy in terms of coal equivalent in 1966, is expected to be in the region of 7 million tons representing an increase of some 20 per cent in the past five years. About one-third of our energy requirements are supplied from native sources—turf, hydro power and native coal. As we have virtually reached the limit of exploitation of our native energy sources, imported fuels— mainly oil—will supply a gradually increasing proportion of our growing energy needs in the years ahead.

My Department operates a scheme which provides for payment of half the cost of fuel efficiency surveys carried out in Irish factories and hotels. Considerable savings in costs of up to 20 per cent have been achieved especially by heavy fuel consumers, by improving the operation of their fuel consuming plant. The object of the scheme is to encourage consumers to obtain expert advice on the efficient use of fuel which would benefit not only the firms concerned but also the national economy. Technical courses for boiler operators are provided. The number of grants sanctioned for such surveys up to the end of March, 1966 was 81, costing a total of £19,427.

Before closing, I would refer Deputies to the long and detailed statements I have made in previous debates on the position of Ministers and the Oireachtas in regard to the State companies. A few, and only a few, Deputies continually question the legislative enactments which govern the Ceann Comhairle's decisions in refusing to allow questions relating to day-to-day administration of State companies. I will give one hypothetical example. If questions were allowed on the fares charged by CIE, either for particular special trains or on special excursions, there would be no limit to the extension of such demands, accompanied by local and undesirable pressures of every kind.

I have discussions with CIE on rail fare trends on a general basis. I have criticised the management for not considering at an earlier date family fares. I have pressed for experiments in reduced fares in the off-peak season. I have made known any constructive criticism offered in the Dáil during debates.

CIE have greatly increased the number of special trains carrying schoolchildren and trains hired by organisations. They have extended the general cheap week-end special excursion fares.

I do refer to CIE individual criticism of their fare structure. If there is not a reasonable explanation which would cover not one individual case but every application of a similar case I would ask for reconsideration. CIE, as with other State companies, must be permitted to operate as a commercial company.

The number of services run for purely social reasons indicates that CIE are alive to their general responsibilities for transport provision.

The same observations apply to the other State companies. This debate can, I hope, result in my referring to the companies, constructive criticisms of all kinds for consideration and this annual opportunity is useful and far better than deluges of questions of these companies, apart from the fact that the companies would certainly become inefficient and costly to the taxpayer.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

I formally move:

That the Vote be referred back for reconsideration.

Each year when the Minister brings in his Estimate, he reminds me of an accountant bringing in a balance sheet at the end of the year. He gives facts and figures but we have no way of investigating: we must take them as they are. It is only when one brings a balance sheet to the inspector of taxes that he begins to find fault and flaws in it. We have no way of querying the figures given by the Minister for the various companies for which he is responsible. He told us at the very end of his speech that we should not come here and ask questions on the day to day management of the various companies for which he is responsible. If he has no function in the day to day working of these companies, then it is time that some Minister got such power and it should be sought from the Oireachtas. There should be power for Ministers to give directions to these companies for which the Oireachtas provides funds and grants-in-aid. It is time, if we decide that legislation is necessary, that it should be introduced.

While we have no opportunity of querying the Minister's figures, others sometimes do. Quite recently I read in one of the newspapers a letter querying Bord Fáilte on the breakdown of the £78.2 million income from tourism last year. That was an open letter to the Board published in the Press but there has been no reply from the Board. So far as 1965 is concerned, we were told that £78.2 million was the income. We can break it down provided we have time. If we go back to the Trade Journal, we find what the £78.2 million consists of. A considerable amount of it comes from day trippers from Northern Ireland and day trippers via Northern Ireland. Then we have visitors coming here to visit their own relatives who cannot be counted as tourists attracted by the money which the Oireachtas has voted for the attraction of tourists. We have others who are merely birds of passage to and from other parts of Europe. The Trade Journal breaks it down and states that the real tourist income for 1965 was £27.6 million and not £78.2 million as stated by the Minister.

Have we ever considered what value we get for this money? Far too much is spent on the entertainment of foreign tourist agents and on entertaining our own people when they go abroad promoting tourism. Recently we had tourist agents from Sweden, Denmark and, above all places, Switzerland, brought on a conducted tour of this country, and entertained lavishly for three or four days. A friend of mine had an opportunity of interviewing one of them last month and he asked: "What do you think of Ireland?" The answer was: "As far as we are concerned, this is a gimmick. For the past three or four years we have been invited to come and see your country. We have been putting it off, but, as this is a slack period, we are able to partake of your hospitality." My friend asked: "Do you think there is any future for Irish tourism in your country of Switzerland?" He said: "Are you mad? In Switzerland, we have the very same climate as you have." The Dane butted in and said: "We are in the same position. Our tourists are now seeking sunshine. They are not seeking the type of coastal resorts you have in Ireland and which we have ourselves." These people have been entertained, and entertained lavishly, here.

Our Bord Fáilte representatives are going abroad to Hong Kong, New York, and even as far as the west coast of America. What are they offering to potential tourists? Is it a gimmick like Bunratty Castle? I do not decry what is being done there, but it is merely a gimmick. I have said here on many occasions on this Estimate that we have been looking west for far too long and not looking east half enough. If we are to increase tourism, it is from the middle class of England and the Six Counties we must procure our tourists, not from the Americans. We welcome them, but the American, other than the Irish-American, coming here to spend a holiday drops off to see a gimmick such as Bunratty or to see Killarney, and we are spending far too much money in trying to attract these people. I often think we are merely trying to create an image for our civil servants or quasi-civil servants whom we send abroad on these trips.

We are told that in 1965 the tourist industry brought in £78.2 million. If we compare prices in 1965 with 1960 prices, we find it is £44 million. It is price increases that have increased our returns from tourism, not the numbers of tourists and the money spent by them in the country. It is only an imaginary inflation in the tourist industry.

Mr. Childers

The Deputy is utterly wrong. He has grossly distorted the figures and he does not know what he is talking about.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Have I got under the Minister's skin already?

Mr. Childers

Deputies in his own Party disagree with him totally.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

The Minister said tourism brought in £78 million in 1965. I ask him to compare the costs with those of 1962, and he will find the true increase in tourism. That is the only way it can be done. All this is codology and nothing else. The Minister has told us Bord Fáilte has spent a considerable amount in promoting tourism. Does he remember the amount that was spent in promoting An Tostal and what became of it? I remember the Taoiseach, then Minister for Industry and Commerce, coming in here and speaking at length on the advantages to be gained from the promotion of An Tostal. The only money I ever saw spent on An Tostal was the money which the State spent in entertaining officials who came in here on the various festive occasions.

An Tostal is now gone and forgotten, but we have other gimmicks coming up, particularly the sea angling festival. I am a great believer in sea angling festivals. These are functions which should be held to encourage anglers to come to our country to fish, but I do not believe in annual angling competitions on which State money is being spent or in which money is given by sponsors which becomes free from income tax. In a town like Westport or Killybegs, this deep sea angling festival extends over two or three week-ends, but do we see any anglers coming in during the remainder of the year? Is any effort made to cater for the angler who comes here in what I might call the off-festival time? None whatever. This spending of money is merely a gimmick and a cheap way of promoting Ministerial propaganda on the western seaboard.

This year the money for seaside resort development is one of the figures being cut back. I wonder why. About two years ago, the Minister came to Bundoran on another festive occasion and announced that the Government were to spend £100,000 on the development of that magnificent seaside resort. That was not the first occasion that had been promised. It has been promised since 1957. On every occasion on which there is a general election, a Presidential election or a local election, Bundoran is told what money is to be spent on it. The only money spent on Bundoran for the past 15 years was the money given by the inter-Party Government for the development of the seafront there. Not one penny has been spent since.

As I said, two years ago, the Minister announced at a dinner of the Fianna Fáil Party in Bundoran that they were about to spend £100,000. I remember exactly two years ago attending a meeting of the urban council and representatives of Bord Fáilte. I was accompanied by two other Deputies from the constituency and we were there told that before 1st February the following year work on the development of Bundoran would commence, but not a thing has been done since. Bord Fáilte acquired the railway station property from CIE on behalf of the Bundoran Urban District Council. Plans were prepared by Bord Fáilte for the development of a site as a car park. Bundoran Urban Council was to contribute one-fifth of the cost. The plans were sanctioned by the Department of Local Government for more than two years. There were visits by Department officials and deputations from the Bundoran Urban Council. The Bundoran Council were eventually informed this year by the Department that it was not the function of Bundoran Urban Council to provide a car park in Bundoran. This property had been acquired by Bord Fáilte from CIE. It was merely transferring money from one page to another. This site in the centre of the town is now an eyesore. The Minister and Bord Fáilte now have a monument in this derelict site.

In relation to seafront development at Bundoran, plans were prepared, negotiations took place and in one case negotiations for the acquisition of a site went on for over five years. The properties required for development have not so far been acquired although the actual sale price has been agreed and all the owners concerned are willing to sell. Not one penny was spent until prior to the general election in 1965 when a prominent Fianna Fáil supporter was paid for one small plot. Nobody can deny this. I have visited Bord Fáilte many times but not a thing has been done about it.

Again, prior to the Presidential election some short time ago, it was announced that deposits on the properties had been paid into the urban council offices by Bord Fáilte. Not one penny by way of deposit has been paid and not one penny will be paid until next summer when we have the local elections, if we have not a general election before then.

It was suggested that there should be public toilets erected in Bundoran and there is a crying need for them in the town. Plans were prepared by Bord Fáilte. The work was to be carried out by the urban council by way of local government loan. There were three years of negotiations and meetings. For three years in succession, after the plans had been approved by the Department of Local Government, Bundoran Urban Council each year, out of the rates, made funds available to meet the loan charges but the loan has not yet been approved by the Department.

I am referring to Bundoran because I have not an opportunity of knowing the unfulfilled promises made to other towns. There was a West End scheme for Bundoran. There was to be a new promenade and car park. A grant from Donegal County Council was sanctioned of £7,500 from the Road Fund and there was a promised grant of £16,000 from Bord Fáilte on condition that other moneys would be forthcoming. The "other moneys" included a loan to be raised by Bundoran Urban District Council but that loan has not been sanctioned and there has been no progress for two years.

Year after year we who vote money for the development of seaside and tourist resorts know the frustration of all this. We know the frustration in procuring loans and additional money from the rates. But, having incurred all this expense, we find that Bord Fáilte do nothing. I do not know if any other Deputy has had the experience of approaching the Board seeking accommodation for the repair and renovation of hotel premises. I know how frustrating it is and how often one must visit Mount Street before a grant is sanctioned. However, I do know of a case quite recently where a company were agreeable and willing to promote a 20 bedroom hotel in Donegal. They were advised, and rightly so, that unless they were going into the luxury class they would not get the priority to which they were entitled and, eventually, a grant of £90,000 has been sanctioned on the basis of a local contribution of £20,000 to £24,000. That is the sort of frustration that we all know as far as Bord Fáilte is concerned.

The luxury hotels of Bord Fáilte are open for three or four months of the summer. I wonder if the Minister or the Board have ever considered what is the greatest tourist attraction in this country. After the war years it was the cost of living—the cost of holiday luxuries such as drink and cigarettes. How do we compare today with other countries in so far as the cost of these commodities is concerned? We all know that the gimmick which brings tourists to the Channel Islands is the cheap rate of customs duty on cigarettes and tobacco. There is very little more sunshine there than there is in the southern parts of this country. We have priced ourselves out of the tourist trade by the deliberate action of the Government. We are now trying to promote inland angling, whereas the Minister knows as well as I do that sea trout fishing, salmon and grilse fishing are gimmicks, that we have only one type of angling, namely, coarse fishing, and that we are not making the efforts which we should make to advertise it. If we want to attract the angler from the Continent, we must foster and encourage the coarse fishing industry.

I have discussed this matter with Austrians recently who told me that when they were asked to come here and fish for sea trout and grilse, the first thing they did was to inquire the number of fish that had been killed. Remember, our rivers are very short and remain in spate for a very short time. The killing of grilse and salmon is a gimmick in so far as the tourist industry is concerned and we need never try to advertise it. If we could concentrate on the magnificent coarse fishing lakes we have and if we could ensure that proper accommodation, whether by way of farmhouse, guesthouse or hotel, is provided, we would do much better in attracting anglers to the country.

Only last night, a friend of mine who is President of the Irish Hotels Federation, Mr. Barry McDonnell, told Bord Fáilte in Dublin that they had overdeveloped the hotel industry. I do not agree with Mr. McDonnell. Certainly, it is overdeveloped in the city of Dublin. If we had scattered throughout the country some of the luxury hotels which have been built here, the luxury hotels which we have throughout the country would very soon bring down their prices. It is only in the city of Dublin that we have overcatered for these hotels. When we find in County Donegal merely one hotel in one seaside resort, one hotel in one tourist attraction area it is time to inquire into the costings and see if we are really pricing ourselves out of the tourist trade.

It is a most peculiar thing that, this year, the price of foodstuffs in hotels has not come down by one per cent whereas everybody knows, and any tourist knows, that the main outlay in the purchase of foodstuffs is in respect of beef, mutton and lamb. We know that the price of beef cattle has fallen by a minimum of £20 per head. Has the steak fallen by one-twentieth of a halfpenny? No. What have Bord Fáilte done to inquire into that? It is time the Minister took these matters into account. If he wishes to attract tourists to this country, he must be more realistic with regard to these matters.

The Minister has told us that the only branch of CIE which loses money at the moment is the railways. I am rather surprised to hear that, because we have so few railways left. I thought the Minister had closed not only the uneconomic lines but also the economic lines and that we had a very short rail mileage left. Has the Minister ever inquired why railways lose money such as CIE have suggested they do? I remember one day standing at Enfield and seeing three vehicles moving west, three vehicles competing with each other, all the property of one concern, CIE. There was a barge passing through on the canal. There were a bus and a lorry passing. At the same time, there was the iron horse, the railway, running parallel. The three branches of CIE were competing against one another. How could the system possibly pay?

It is well known as a fact that when CIE wish to close any branch of the railway, they put on a bus and lorries and show a loss on the railway and then make a case for the closing of the railway.

Unlike, possibly, many Deputies, I should like to pay tribute to Dr. Andrews. I knew Dr. Andrews very well and I knew how sincere he was in endeavouring to make a go of CIE, but he never got a chance. That is my candid opinion. I am only afraid that his successor, Mr. T.P. Hogan, will find himself in the same position. Once we decide to form a semi-State company, the first people we look for to run it are ex-civil servants or serving civil servants. We never think of looking for a businessman. If we looked less towards the civil servant and more towards the businessman or the man with business training, we would have less false economy so far as these matters are concerned.

I remember endeavouring to assist the Minister two years ago when I suggested to him here that if he were serious about making the express bus service a paying concern, the first thing he should do was to ensure that proper buses were put on these long routes, for instance, the route from Donegal to Dublin. I was assured by the Minister that no more luxurious bus could be put on than the one then running, which was nothing more than a bone-shaker. I appealed that during the winter months the CIE tourist buses when not in use should be put on these routes. Still nothing was done. The result is that these long distance services are scarcely economic. People had to find alternative transport. It is only now, when CIE find that alternative transport is being provided by others, they have done what I asked them to do two years ago and put on a proper semi-luxury bus which encourages people to travel by it. But they are a little late. If this had been done long ago, people who made alternative arrangements possibly would not have continued to use such arrangements.

I do not know whether I should refer at this particular time to the manner in which CIE have treated their ex-employees. Sometimes when we talk here about the subsidy the State pays towards CIE, I wonder do we get the true figures? Take prior to the introduction of the contributory pension. If an ex-CIE official was laid off at the age of 65 he was given a small sum of superannuation. The maximum was £4 13s 9d and the minimum £3 2s 6d. He was told when laid off: "We are laying you off because you are over 65. We are giving you a small superannuation but that does not prevent you going to the labour exchange where you can prove and sign a document you are available for work, that you are fit for work and that you are genuinely seeking work." How can the Minister reconcile the fact that his Board lay off a man and then expect him to go to the labour exchange and draw unemployment assistance? However, that was done. No person appeared to take any objection to it. These men were subsidised by the State by way of unemployment assistance.

When these men reached the age of 70 they became entitled to what was known in those days as a non-contributory old age pension. But that non-contributory old age pension was based on a means test. The Minister, again to draw from the State instead of drawing from CIE funds, reduced the superannuation to enable the ex-employee to qualify for the maximum amount of non-contributory old age pension. Then we had the contributory pension reduced at a later date. When an ex-employee became entitled to superannuation at 65 he had to sign an undertaking that he would agree to take a lesser sum when he reached 70 than he got at 65. That was because at the age of 70 he also became entitled to a contributory pension, to which he contributed, but as there was no means test then the Minister sought this method of reducing the superannuation and at the same time making the State pay the balance by way of contributory old age pension. In that way we are again from State funds subsidising the superannuation of CIE officials. I do not think that is fair to the officials or to the State, because we are not getting a true picture of the position as it happened.

In 1965 the Government purchased the B & I Company. Actually, we took it over on 1st January, 1965. In the year before, the B & I made a profit of £57,184. After running it for 12 months up to 31st December, 1965, we showed a loss of £87,752, despite the fact that in between the rates were increased by, I think, as much as seven to ten per cent. Simply because one of our subsidiary bodies took it over, we lost £87,000 as compared with a gain of £57,000 in the year before.

Then we have Irish Shipping. The Minister tells us the only reason we should have Irish Shipping is to provide for times of emergency. That statement I would agree with in 1938 or 1939. But surely, with hovercraft, aircraft and all the alternative means of transport, we are not justified in keeping Irish Shipping for that reason and that reason only—to provide for the case of an emergency? Irish Shipping could be made and should be made an economic concern. Our ships could be much better employed than they are today. I note that we purchased two large tankers and sold them at a loss. I do not think that is good business. It is something the Minister should look into and, if necessary, seek legislation to amend.

I do not know what to say about Bord na Móna at all. Bord na Móna was established not only for the purpose of supplying fuel to State subsidised bodies such as CIE and the ESB but for other reasons. In my own county, for instance, we could use a considerable amount of turf from Bord na Móna at Kilraine near Killybegs. We could give much more employment in a county where there is certainly under-employment. We have a considerable number of people seeking employment with Bord na Móna, but we are not able to provide the turf. I do not know what is wrong. Bord na Móna will not employ the men. If they did, they would have more turf.

We have now reached the stage that we have a quota for turf in County Donegal. We were encouraged at one time to buy machine-won turf. Some of us switched over from handwon to machine-won turf. We now find it is on a quota basis. The same thing applies to briquettes. I know one vendor of briquettes who had a quota of 600 tons per year. This year he got 300 tons. We can make allowances for bad weather. If the weather is bad, if we have rain, then we need not depend on home fuels for our electricity. So long as we have a fairly high standard of water in the rivers and lakes, surely we should have sufficient turf to supply the demands of Bord na Móna throughout the State: it should not be very much.

I should like to pay a compliment to Aer Lingus and to Aer Rianta for the manner in which they carry out their services. The efficient manner in which they operate and the courtesy they show to the public not only in this country but abroad are an example to all State bodies. Great credit is due to them and I should like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to them.

The Minister mentioned the package holiday. The package holiday will help Aer Lingus. It will help the tourist trade. It will help Irish Shipping. It is a matter to which more attention should be given. I do not think, in catering for the all-in package holiday, that we should confine it to the hotel. We should have the alternative of a holiday in a small farmhouse, a guesthouse at the seaside, a guesthouse inland where coarse fishing is available or a hotel. If we are to do that, we must speed up the grants to these prospective guesthouse keepers. I know a number of people who have applied to Bord Fáilte and to various Departments in respect of amenities to enable them to become guesthouse proprietors and hoteliers, particularly during the off-season, during the coarse fishing season, and at other times, but the frustration experienced in regard to grants has held them up considerably.

May I conclude by suggesting to the Minister that the leaflets and particularly the pictures which Bord Fáilte paint of this country are completely false? There is nothing more frustrating than to see a beautiful postcard of a beautiful strand on the west coast of Ireland with the sun shining and everybody bathing. We have not that attraction: nature has not given it to us. However, we have many other attractions which, if known to the prospective tourist, would be equally attractive to him. If we build up our tourist trade not for sun worshippers but for people who will come here for other reasons and who will be welcome, they will go home satisfied and recommend their friends to come here also.

Mr. T. O'Donnell

This is a very large Estimate covering many different fields but I suppose the best approach for any Deputy is perhaps to concentrate on those aspects of the Estimate in which he is particularly interested. I propose, therefore, to start midway in the Minister's speech and to say a few words about the Shannon Free Airport Development Company and Shannon Airport. The Shannon Industrial Estate which was established some years ago has made reasonably good progress. In the Minister's brief, I read that on 31st March, 1966, there were 16 manufacturing and 12 commercial firms operating there, employing a total of 3,163 people, of whom 1,699 were men. I also note that five new industries were established during 1965-66 and that two firms ceased operations.

To me, however—apart from the actual statistical information—the most significant information in the Minister's speech relating to the Shannon Free Airport Development Company— SFADCO—is that the Minister said he had given certain instructions to the company on future development. He says: "I have told the Board of SFADCO that the general policy it should pursue should be as follows..." and he mentions four main points. The first point is that they should endeavour to seek industries and services likely to increase airfreight at Shannon. Now, I have referred on every Estimate in recent years to the question of the success that has been achieved by the Shannon Industrial Estate in developing airfreight traffic at the airport.

The Minister will agree that, when the Industrial Estate was established, one of its main objectives was to generate airfreight traffic to counteract what then seemed to be a permanent feature, namely, a continuous decline in passenger traffic at the airport. When the Industrial Estate was established to generate airfreight traffic, among other things, the position in the early years and up to quite recently was that it was not remarkably successful in doing so. I am glad to note that the Minister has now issued special instructions. Of course, I realise that surface traffic, and particularly containerised traffic, is being utilised in a very considerable way by some of the companies at the airport and that it is often very great competition to airfreight companies. It is probably cheaper in the long run and the question of transport costs is a very important item with many of these industries at Shannon.

I have often said here that one criterion in selecting an industry to operate at Shannon should be the suitability of its products for transport by air. An industry in the Industrial Estate producing heavy goods, machinery and otherwise, might not, by reason of weight, volume and value, be suitable for transport by air. On the other hand, industries such as the recently established synthetic diamond processing industry which manufacture products of very high value in very small amounts are ideally suited to air transport. I would now go so far as to say that it should be laid down as a pre-condition for any industrialist contemplating establishing a factory at Shannon that certain guarantees should be given that all or part of their products would be exported by air.

I realise of course, as most people do, that airfreight is still in the transition stage and that the aircraft manufacturing company are doing considerable research into the development of aircraft suited to air transport. Hire charges, I understand, have been reduced in recent times and it has been established now that for certain types of products air transport can compare very favourably with surface transport. I do hope, now that the Minister has issued this directive to the Shannon Free Airport Development Company, that we will see in the future the Shannon Industrial Estate making a far greater contribution to the generation of airfreight traffic.

The second point in the Minister's advice to the company is that they should plan ahead for a total population of 6,000 persons and should provide the necessary ancillary services. That is a logical development following the development of an industrial estate. We have to provide the houses and community services if it is agreed that an industrial estate is to be established. It has been established and is an accomplished fact now. Therefore, it is logical that the community services, many of which have been provided, such as schools, and so on, must also be provided. I am interested in the figure of 6,000 persons. I presume the Minister has based this figure on information available to him following studies by experts at Shannon and in his Department. I would be very interested to know how he has arrived at this figure of 6,000 people in the community at Shannon, whether this indicates that the Shannon Industrial Estate has now reached the limit of its development and whether any further industries are to be established there.

On that point, I have noticed also that one of the firms at Shannon, which have been operating very successfully has now opened, or hopes to open, another plant in the west of Ireland, at Tuam. This has raised many questions. One begins to wonder why is it necessary for this industry to have an auxiliary plant, or a subsidiary firm 100 miles away from the parent plant. Surely from the point of view of economy, trained workers in the various skills and so on, it would be more logical and more economic to have any expansion of the existing industry taking place where the industries already are. Why is it necessary? Is it because there is a scarcity of labour; is it because of difficulty in transporting workers long journeys, and so on?

On that point also I have a grouse in this respect. I am not at all happy about the movement of the Shannon Development Company in extending its development, not merely in industry but also in tourism, away up the west of Ireland. I have explained to this House on many occasions, and it is my conviction, and the more I see things, the more convinced I am becoming, that there is now a very strong case for having Limerick city and Ennis brought in under the one development authority with Shannon. It is a logical thing now and I certainly am not at all in agreement with this idea of firms already existing having to move a hundred miles away to expand.

The third directive in the Minister's speech to the Shannon Development Company is that they should maintain a satisfactory proportion of male employees, while recognising that employment for females is an extremely important factor in rural economies. One of the complaints levelled at the Shannon Industrial Estate is that there is a large proportion of female employment there. The position is not, in fact, quite so bad as people seem to think because, roughly on the figures the Minister has given for 31st March, 1966, an even balance exists as between male and female employees in the Industrial Estate.

I represent an area which is vitally interested in the Shannon Industrial Estate by reason of the fact that perhaps 60 per cent or more of the working force at Shannon reside in Limerick city and in County Limerick. I personally have always supported, and will continue to support, any plan which will generate more employment at Shannon. But, I will not support, and I certainly do not agree with, Shannon expanding by making leaps and bounds to other parts of the country. Surely regional development is a regional thing, and the regional development embraces Limerick, Ennis and Limerick city.

A further point made by the Minister is that the Shannon Development Company should co-operate with Bord Fáilte and make Shannon a gateway for tourists in Ireland. He points out that the local Regional Tourist Board, the Shannonside, as we call it, has a very real responsibility in this matter. Tourism and in fact tourist development in the Shannon region is a tremendously important factor in so far as the continuation of Shannon air traffic is concerned. The more tourist development that takes place in the Shannon region, and that includes the west and the south-west, the more passenger traffic there will be at the airport.

I want to pay tribute, as I have done on a number of occasions, to the officials of the Shannon Development Company who are concerned with promoting tourism in this region. They have done a colossal job. In fact, the work of the Shannon Development Company in tourist promotion has made the job of the Shannonside Regional Tourist Organisation very simple. The development of Bunratty Castle, whether we agree with it or not, has been a very great success. This year the company has included Dunguaire Castle linking the area up with Kinvara in County Galway. Perhaps I am being parochially-minded in this but what I said about the Industrial Estate extending its activities far afield up the west applies here also. The Shannon Development Company seems to be concentrating on moving its development towards the west and north-west. Of course my colleague and namesake who spoke before me will welcome that but while I have tremendous admiration for the work that has been done by the tourist officers of the development company, I suggest to the Minister that he should now issue a further directive to the Shannon Development Company that in the field of tourist development, they should look towards the south and south-west.

Mr. Corish

You will get four different opinions on that.

Mr. T. O'Donnell

I should like to point out that in Limerick city we have some very historic landmarks, notably King John's Castle. Definite steps have not yet been taken to exploit this and develop it as a tourist attraction. I hope that both the Shannon Development Company and the Shannonside Tourist Organisation in Limerick will go ahead with this. I realise that local effort is necessary but I feel that a certain amount of prodding is necessary to get enthusiasm at local level. In addition to that there are other places in County Limerick which I think should be included in the medieval tours.

I am very pleased to say that Limerick County Council have recently had a survey made of a very well known and historic place, that is Lough Gur, which is not merely in my constituency but in my neighbourhood. A report has been issued within the past couple of weeks entitled An Amenity and Tourism Survey of Lough Gur. It was carried out by Nathaniel Lichfield and Associates under the direction of Limerick County Council. This is an excellent production. It breaks new ground in many ways in the field of tourist development. As far as I am aware, it is the first really scientific survey of a particular area. It has been carried out by experts using the most modern methods and techniques.

The report of this survey leaves nobody in any doubt whatsoever that this place called Lough Gur has a tremendous potential as a tourist area. It is well known in the archaelogical world by reason of the fact that excavations were carried out by the late Professor Ó Ríordáin over several years. There is a potential there for the development of angling, boating and one hundred and one other things. All these have been dealt with in detail in this report. I hope that the Shannon Development Company, Bord Fáilte and the Minister will not allow this excellent report to be consigned to some locker in a back room in Baggot Street but that immediate steps will be taken along the lines recommended in it.

This type of survey is one which could be carried out in many other parts of the country. Very often a certain area will suggest itself for development. Local enthusiasm can be generated for the development of the locality, as I have experienced, but one finds that having taken steps to get the particular centre off the ground, so to speak, when professional advice is consulted, the area may or may not have the potential which local people and amateurs like myself think it has. I feel that Bord Fáilte and the Shannon Development Company and the regional development bodies will have to adopt a much more scientific approach to this question of selecting centres for development, suggesting lines of development and deciding the best type of development for a particular area.

It would be remiss of me, when referring to this survey, not to pay tribute to one man who, perhaps more than any other, was responsible for having it carried out, our County Manager, Mr. O'Connor. We are very fortunate in Limerick in having a farseeing official like him who is interested in all aspects of development.

Within the context of the Shannon Development Company, I want to refer to the tourist development in the Limerick-Clare region. It is very closely bound up with the work of the Shannon Development Company. Tourism has played a very large part in keeping our airport viable and extending terminal traffic at the airport. It is our desire to see this passenger traffic increased every year. One of the ways of doing it is by attracting more tourists to the region. I recommend to the Minister that he should suggest to the Shannon Development Company that they look towards Limerick, King John's Castle, River Shannon and Lough Gur which have a colossal potential for development.

Two years ago I played a part in having a survey made of the stretch of the River Shannon from Limerick to O'Brien's Bridge with a view to assessing its potential for development as a centre for angling holidays. The survey was carried out by two leading British angling experts under the direction of Bord Fáilte. They found that the village of Castleconnell, a couple of miles up the Shannon from Limerick, was ideally suited to development as an angling centre. Steps have been taken and brochures produced and there has been a reasonable influx up to now. We hope that this will develop in the future.

I feel that from the point of view of the Shannon Development Company's work in the field of tourist development, which, of course, has the ultimate aim of promoting greater passenger traffic to Shannon, they should concentrate on the development of King John's Castle and the angling facilities at Castleconnell and should put into effect the recommendations contained in this survey of Lough Gur.

To sum up about the Shannon Development Company and its activities, the position on the whole is quite good. Certainly the most recent annual report was the best ever and gives great grounds for hope that the future of Shannon, both as an airport and an industrial centre, is reasonably assured. There are a number of other problems relating to the Industrial Estate and to the airport about which I could spend the next two hours talking but I shall not do so.

It might be no harm to avail of the opportunity provided by this debate on the annual Estimate for Transport and Power to refer to what has become a very controversial subject, one which hits the headlines periodically but, unfortunately, has not done so for a while past. It is the question of the granting of permission to the American airlines to utilise Dublin Airport. This is a matter which causes grave concern, worry and anxiety in the Limerick-Clare area, and at Shannon, whenever it is mentioned. Unfortunately, every time it comes up, and when a Member of this House in that region expresses his viewpoint on it, he is accused of playing politics.

It is to be deplored that, when an announcement regarding Shannon Airport has to be made at Government level, the occasion chosen to deliver it is a meeting of the Fianna Fáil cumann in Limerick city. Surely every Deputy in that region is entitled, and has a duty, to express his view? If he, in conscience, feels inclined to do so or feels he has reasons for worrying about the future of the airport or any aspect of it, he is entitled to express his view. Matters have now calmed down in this regard but we are continuously on the alert for any indication of a further move on the part of the Americans to get into Dublin.

We are very concerned about this question. We are determined to resist it by every means within our power, and we have gone into all aspects of the argument. We try to have a commonsense viewpoint on it. Surely, in this small country, one international airport is adequate? Secondly, it is our conviction that if permission is granted to the American airlines to come into Dublin Airport, much of the work and a considerable amount of the expenditure on tourist development in the south-western region will have gone down the drain. None of us wants to see that happening.

There are other aspects of this problem also. If permission is granted to the Americans to come into Dublin, it will raise very serious issues for our national airline because the question of continuation flights to the continent would then arise. I appeal to the Minister, in the event of any renewal of the application by the Americans to come into Dublin Airport, to be as firm as he has been in the past, and to assure us that the answer will be an emphatic "no".

The most recent move in this direction was made, when the American President asked the Civil Aeronautics Board to select one American airline to fly into Dublin. Of course, one airline flying into Dublin will not do a whole lot of damage but we are as much worried about permission being granted to one airline as to two airlines because, if permission is granted to, say, Airline X to come into Dublin, nobody will tell me that Airline Y will be satisfied to continue to come into Shannon. Therefore, from the point of view of investment at Shannon Airport, investment in tourist development in the region and, last but by no means least, the fact that we are a small country, there is no ground whatsoever for granting permission to the American airlines to come into Dublin Airport.

On the ground of hard economics, this would entail considerably more expenditure on the runways, etc, at Dublin Airport. We have these facilities at Shannon Airport and Shannon enjoys an international prestige second to none. I hope this question will not be raised any more but, if it is, I can assure the Minister that I and my colleagues, irrespective of our politics, will be up in arms and will resist any such attempt by every means in our power.

Another aspect of Shannon Airport —and again I am distinguishing between the airport and the Industrial Estate—which has been a source of a considerable amount of revenue is the fact that Shannon has been chosen by a number of airlines as a training centre for familiarisation courses on new aircraft. BEA and BOAC have been utilising the airport and, in the off season particularly this has been of immense value. I hope this will continue and that perhaps our national airline will carry out all its training programme at Shannon in future.

Quite recently an independent private company which operated an airline business at Shannon was taken over by Aer Lingus. I refer to Shannon Repair Services, which is a servicing and maintenance outfit at Shannon. I asked the Minister by way of a question here recently if the trainee aircraft technicians at Shannon engaged by the SRS company would now come under the Aer Lingus training scheme for apprentices. The Minister said "no", as it was the intention of Aer Lingus to run this company at Shannon on an independent basis. My reason for asking the Minister that question was that the parents of some of the apprentices employed by SRS were not happy with the training these young men have been receiving.

I urge on the Minister that he should indicate to Aer Lingus that if they intend to keep this company in operation at Shannon—and I sincerely hope they do—Aer Lingus should provide adequate work of a suitable nature in the servicing, maintenance and overhaul of aircraft. To my knowledge, three of these young men have their leaving certificates and are anxious to secure their civil aeronautical licences in aircraft maintenance. If these young men are not brought into the Aer Lingus training scheme, which is second to none, at least an interest should be taken in them to ensure that they receive the theoretical and practical training which will enable them to qualify as aircraft technicians.

The Estimate we are dealing with deals with the period up to 31st March, 1966. I understand that the season just past has been very satisfactory so far as Shannon is concerned. If a more aggressive approach is adopted by the people concerned with the development of Shannon, we can look forward to continued expansion in the future.

I have referred to certain aspects of tourism arising from the activities of the Shannon Development Company. I want to look at this industry in a general way, but with particular reference to certain aspects of it. The Minister said:

One of the matters to which I gave particular attention on assuming responsibility for tourism was stimulation of increased local and regional effort. Following discussions with Bord Fáilte and other tourism interests, a scheme was formulated for the establishment of eight regional tourism organisations.

These companies have been in existence for a couple of years now. They have made reasonable progress and, so far as I am aware, all of them have justified their existence. Again, I am speaking of one with which I am familar. The Minister referred to the need for local effort, for community involvement, for community participation in tourist development, and to the need for local financial contributions.

Looking at this regional development in the field of tourism, one thing is lacking, in my opinion. The regional tourist companies have not paid sufficient attention to arousing local interest, generating local enthusiasm, and encouraging local contributions, financial and otherwise, in the development of particular centres. There are not enough of what I call field or project officials. The regional development companies operate information centres; they engage in the production of literature; and they do one hundred and one other valuable jobs.

I want to get down to what I consider a very important aspect of this matter, that is, the method of selecting the centres. I am not interested in the major resorts. I am not interested in the development of angling centres or anything else. I am interested in the selection of centres for development as tourist centres. Generally the approach is that a local meeting is called and someone from Bord Fáilte or from the local regional development company is in attendance. There is a lot of talk and discussion, and the local community are bombarded with facts, figures, statistics and practical knowledge. The meeting ends after several resolutions have been passed. Everyone is full of good intentions and the official returns to Bord Fáilte or whatever organisation he is attached to, and the local community are left on their own.

I believe this is a vitally important factor in the further development of our tourist industry. It is a vitally important factor from the point of view of the development of the rural areas. I believe there is need for continuous advice, guidance and direction for at least 12 months, while a centre is being organised and developed, and while it is getting off the ground. At every meeting following the initial meeting, there should be a projects official, a man qualified to give technical advice on the many aspects of tourism. I look upon this type of individual in the same light as I look on the local agricultural adviser, the horticultural adviser, the poultry instructress, or the domestic economy instructress. If we are to develop tourism further and cater for the large market in Great Britain to which my colleague, Deputy P. O'Donnell, referred, we will have to develop these centres. There are numerous places, many decaying towns and villages in rural Ireland, which are crying out for development as tourist centres. The local people cannot be expected to have the technical know-how and knowledge to produce brochures for the market abroad.

I would go so far as to advocate that there should be three, four or five —depending on the area—full-time field men attached to every regional tourist company, who will not be sitting behind a desk but will be out on the job, guiding and directing the local people, selecting areas and summoning meetings. I regard this type of advisory service as absolutely essential. Apart from the regional tourist groups, local voluntary organisations such as Muintir na Tíre and the Irish Countrywomen's Association can play a big part in tourist development work. They cannot, however, provide the technical know-how, now that tourism is becoming a highly organised business. I recommend strongly the appointment of these project officers who understand what the words "community development" mean and who would set the ball rolling and keep it in play until the final goal has been scored.

There are other points in the Minister's speech relating to tourism, such as his reference to what he called a vast number of miscellaneous activities which have to be fostered if tourism is to grow and flourish. Everybody will agree this is very definitely so. The Minister's speech goes on to deal with examples. The first one referred to is the growth of farmhouse and guesthouse accommodation. This is an integral part of the type of tourist development I have been speaking about during the past ten minutes—the development of local centres in rural areas. The provision of adequate accommodation is a vital part of local tourist development. This is where the technically qualified persons come into the picture. I found to my amazement that certain guesthouses and perhaps farmhouses which may not come to the high standard required by Bord Fáilte are perfectly adequate for a certain type of tourist. I have been advised on this by a number of people in the tourist business, particularly in relation to the large number of anglers who come here, especially the coarse fishermen. They are not interested in luxury accommodation: all they want is clean, comfortable, ordinary type accommodation.

On the question of the growth of farmhouse and guesthouse accommodation, I asked the Minister questions on numerous occasions regarding the minimum amount of accommodation necessary to qualify for Bord Fáilte grants. I asked a question as recently as a week ago and the Minister informed me that Bord Fáilte had now reduced the requirements as to number of rooms from ten to five. Heretofore nobody could get a grant for the provision of tourist accommodation unless a minimum of ten rooms was provided. That has been reduced to five and I welcome it as being a necessary decision, but I think there is a case for going a step further in relation to the category known as farmhouse accommodation.

Farmhouse holidays have become very popular and definitely have a potential but it would be very difficult to find in the average farmhouse five spare rooms that could be made available for tourist accommodation. Therefore, I suggest to the Minister what I more or less implied in a recent question, that some type of financial assistance should be made available to people who are prepared to provide some farmhouse accommodation for tourists. I do not want a golden handshake or free hand-outs but I submit there is a case, if we are convinced there is a potential in farmhouse holiday accommodation, for providing special financial assistance. Of course, we must lay down minimum standards.

I came across another problem in relation to the provision of tourist accommodation. I understand that when application is made to Bord Fáilte for a grant or financial assistance in some other form towards the provision of certain types of accommodation, the Board may and very often do say: "In our opinion, there is adequate accommodation of the type you are about to provide in your locality and, therefore, we cannot allow you a grant." I had such a case recently and during the past 24 hours, I dispatched two pages of a stinker of a memorandum to Bord Fáilte on the question. A certain individual engaged an architect and submitted plans to Bord Fáilte for the erection of a motel beside the Killarney road outside Limerick. The place is a natural and obvious location for a motel. The person has been informed that no financial assistance of any description can be provided for the project.

When the Minister rises to reply to the debate, I should like him to inform the House on what grounds Bord Fáilte reached their decision, of the standard they adopted when saying: "We consider there is adequate accommodation in your area of the type which you propose to provide and, therefore, we shall not give you a grant." In the case of the Limerick motel application, the decision is ridiculous, completely contradicting everything the Minister has said about the development of tourism in the south-west, everything I have said and everybody has said about the potential of the south-western region as a tourist area.

The Minister referred to certain other activities that will have to be fostered if tourism is to grow and flourish. He lists 12. I have only mentioned one and I would be here all night if I went into the others. I do not intend to do so but I should like to mention the third on the Minister's list, relating to the use of schools for student accommodation in some areas.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.