Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 17 Jul 1979

Vol. 315 No. 16

Tourist Traffic Bill, 1979: Committee and Final Stages.

Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 2, between lines 17 and 18, to insert a new subsection as follows:

"(2) For the purpose of the giving of grants referred to in subsection (1) of this section, "development of holiday accommodation" shall include all aspects of hotel development including improved hygiene and catering and the provision of additional or improved facilities and the grants may be given in respect of holiday accommodation in any part of the State.".

The purpose of this amendment is to broaden the scope of the Bill. The Minister was inclined to indicate that hotels already had these facilities but, from my discussions with some hoteliers, they assert that any improvement works, such as extending of bedrooms, enlarging a dining area, kitchens and so on, are all tied up in one major operation. My amendment seeks the inclusion of all aspects of hotel development, including improved hygiene and catering and the provision of additional or improved facilities.

The second object is that major areas such as Cork and Dublin be included, in other words that such grants be applicable to hotels in all parts of the State and should not exclude such places as Cork, Dublin, Killarney and so on. It is obvious to all of us Deputies who try to get a bed at short notice that Dublin is in a bad way for bed space. Therefore it is unfair that Dublin or Cork be excluded from the Bill.

I have already made the point that if a tour operator does not succeed in getting first-class accommodation in Dublin or Cork then the danger is—and I have checked this with the Hotels Federation people—the entire tour will be cancelled. Obviously we must pay attention to these places, particularly to ensure that there is first-class accommodation available in Dublin and Cork.

Reverting to the first part of my amendment, I would exclude bars from these grants because, from what I can ascertain, they are fairly well self-supporting and bar areas should not be included in any grant aid. Indeed my own view of some of these hotels is that they have turned out to be types of drinking factories, which is a pity. I should much prefer to see more interest being taken in the provision of afternoon tea or coffee, catering for families and so on.

I know the Minister has made a very valid point about additional bedrooms, and we must keep our priorities in order. Certainly there is one aspect the Minister should consider, that is, that where these people have to undertake the work in conjunction with the provision of extra bedrooms they should have the guidance and advice of Bord Fáilte in all aspects of their development. Bearing in mind also that in the future tourists will not be as mobile the provision of some sort of indoor recreational facilities not needed heretofore should be afforded some grant aid. Also, I emphasise that for the hotels who are having financial problems we might look at restoring the aid formerly given towards meeting the financial commitments by way of interest-free loans or helping where interest rates are now around 20 per cent and are a real burden. We might look at hardship cases.

In so far as those who undertake developments are concerned they will have the guidance and advice of Bord Fáilte. I cannot accept the amendment. Far from broadening the scope of the Bill, it would narrow it. Under the Bill as it stands, nothing is excluded. "Accommodation" has a very broad meaning and, therefore, if the Deputy is dissatisfied with what we are proposing he is dissatisfied more with the Minister than with the legislation. We can introduce any type of scheme under the legislation as it stands.

In other words, the Minister is saying that it is possible that where a hotelier is putting up 15 to 20 extra bedrooms, if in addition to that he has to improve his kitchen and dining areas, it would be possible to grant aid for that as well.

It would, if I were to have that as part of the scheme, but I have not. There is nothing wrong with the legislation. It depends on what we decide we are going to do under the legislation as it stands, and we are confining it to bedrooms. While it would be possible for me to introduce a scheme relating to kitchens, I do not propose to do that.

There seems to be double talk there. The Minister, when replying on Second Stage, said that the grants would not apply to catering facilities and other such areas.

That is right.

Now, from what he said to Deputy Hegarty, it seems to be quite possible.

No, what I said was that it would be possible but it was not part of the scheme as I proposed the scheme. The legislation itself does not affect it.

But why not allow the amendment to stand?

Because it would narrow the scope of the legislation. As it is at the moment we can introduce any scheme under the legislation.

Any scheme?

Then is the Minister's original statement, that catering and so forth would not be included, incorrect? Can it be included?

It can be included but it will not be included. I do not want to be misunderstood.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill".

Before we move on——

In the interest of Deputies, I point out at this stage that we have a very heavy programme for the remainder of the evening. All matters on the Order of Business will be put at 10.30 p.m. and some Deputies may be disappointed that matters of interest will not be reached.

I appreciate the concern of the Chair, and I share it. On Second Stage I raised the question of the Department of Tourism and Transport communicating with local authorities in relation to the Government's strategy of extending hotel accommodation. The Minister in his reply did not indicate clearly if he accepted that proposal or if he would look at it.

I will take note of what the Deputy said. I am not clear in my mind as to what is involved but I will have a look at it.

The final regulations that will be drawn up by Bord Fáilte in conjunction with the Minister by virtue of this enabling legislation will be the concern of the Minister and the semi-State body concerned. Is that the position?

That is right.

Would the Minister then consider that all we can do is make written suggestions rather than take up the time of the House but that they cannot be party by way of amendment to this legislation?

Would I consider what?

Written suggestions in relation to that scheme.

I will certainly consider suggestions. That does not mean that I will accept suggestions, simply that I will consider them.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment and passed.

This Bill is certified a Money Bill in accordance with Article 22 of the Constitution.

Top
Share