Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 12 Jan 1966

Vol. 60 No. 9

Tourist Traffic Bill, 1965: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

This Bill contains a number of provisions related to the programme for the development of tourism. It provides for the registration of caravan sites and camping sites, the continuation of the scheme of Ministerial guarantees in respect of loans raised for the construction or improvement of holiday accommodation and the provision of resort amenities and continued arrangements for the financing of the various activities of Bord Fáilte Éireann.

There is already in existence a scheme for the registration by Bord Fáilte of hotels, guest houses, holiday hostels, youth hostels, holiday camps and motor hotels or motels. The effect of the registration system is that no person may describe or hold out any premises as an hotel, guesthouse, etc., unless the premises are registered in the appropriate category with Bord Fáilte. To secure registration, premises must comply with standards prescribed by Bord Fáilte with my consent and proprietors must file with the Board a statement of maximum prices. Registered premises benefit from inclusion in the Official Guide published annually by Bord Fáilte and also from various schemes of financial assistance for works of improvement and extension.

As a result of the expansion of tourist traffic, caravans are playing an increasingly important part in holiday-making and Bord Fáilte say that the present patronage for caravans is predominantly for static caravans for hire on site. The patrons are mainly family groups and include many families who for financial or other reasons could not take a holiday in hotels. Caravan sites do not always present an attractive appearance and close control over this form of development is essential to ensure the safeguarding of scenic and other natural amenities. The Local Government (Sanitary Services) Act, 1948, provides for the control of certain aspects of caravan site development and general standards for such development have been laid down by the Minister for Local Government. These powers are operative only in areas to which they have been applied by Order of the Minister for Local Government. In addition, the use of land for the purpose of caravanning is subject to the approval of the local planning authority under the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963. Local Government legislation in the matter of caravan sites, however, relates mainly to standards for physical planning and covers such matters as the layout and location of the sites, density of caravans per acre, the provision of water supply and sewerage facilities and disposal of litter. Bord Fáilte, however, are anxious to encourage higher operational standards also.

The introduction of a system of inspection and grading is an essential step in the provision of caravan sites to a standard comparable to the best sites in Britain and on the Continent. Bord Fáilte intend also to attract camping visitors from European countries where camping holidays are very popular and it is proposed, therefore, that the registration system should extend also to camping sites. Provision has accordingly been included in the Bill for the registration of caravan sites and camping sites by Bord Fáilte in accordance with regulations made with the consent of the Minister for Transport and Power after consultation with the Minister for Local Government.

The Bill also provides for certain minor amendments of the scheme of guaranteed loans for the provision of holiday accommodation and tourist amenities, which is operated by my Department under section 17 of the Tourist Traffic Act, 1952. Under this scheme the private developer raises a loan from a bank or other lending institution and the repayment of capital and the payment of interest is guaranteed by the Minister. All loans guaranteed to date have been in sterling and there is some doubt whether the existing legislation would enable a guarantee to be given in other currencies. This doubt is being removed under the Bill by making it clear that guarantees can be given in currencies other than the currency of the State.

The 1952 Act restricted guarantees for loans raised for the provision of amenities and services to works related to particular tourist resorts. With the creation of the Regional Tourism Organisations, and the growing popularity of motoring tourism, initiative in tourism is now growing in places other than those which are traditionally regarded as resorts and it is considered desirable that guaranteed loans should be available for worthwhile tourist enterprises, even though they may not be in a recognised tourist resort or associated with a particular hotel. This is being effected by a modification of the scope of the scheme as set out in the 1952 Act.

The 1952 Act limited the operation of the scheme of guaranteed loans to a period of five years from the date of the passing of that Act. This period was extended by two further periods of five years by the Tourist Traffic Acts, 1957 and 1961, so that the present scheme is due to expire in 1967. The Bill provides for a further extension of five years which would have the effect of authorising the continuation of the scheme until 1972.

The Bill also contains provisions for the future financing of the various statutory functions of Bord Fáilte. These functions are paid for out of funds voted annually by Dáil Éireann in the form of grants-in-aid to the Board. There are statutory limits on the aggregate amounts that may be issued to the Board for specified purposes and accordingly it is necessary from time to time according as these statutory limits are reached, to ask the Oireachtas to enact enabling legislation to permit the voting of further funds so as to provide for the continuation of the Board's activities. It so happens that we are at present nearing the statutory limits applicable to the three main divisions of the Board's activities, namely, the major resort development scheme, the scheme of cash grants for the development of holiday accommodation and the general function of increasing tourism in Ireland. Accordingly, the Bill contains enabling financial provisions relating to all three functions.

The resort development scheme was inaugurated under the Tourist Traffic Act, 1959, which provided for the payment to Bord Fáilte within a ten year period of sums not exceeding in the aggregate £1 million for the giving of grants for major tourist resorts. From this fund a grant scheme has been operated by the Board to enable such essential schemes as basic site development, provision of promenades, parks and other recreational activities to be undertaken. The major resorts and resort areas selected by Bord Fáilte for development were: Galway/Salthill, Killarney, Bray, Dún Laoghaire, Tramore, Skerries, Kilkee, Youghal, Ballybunion, Lahinch, Arklow, Greystones, West Cork, County Donegal, Achill Island, Dingle Peninsula, River Shannon and Lakes. The scheme is carried out by Bord Fáilte in consultation with the local authorities and other local interests. One of the main conditions of the scheme is that there should be a minimum local contribution of 20 per cent.

The progress of the scheme in the first four years was slow in terms of physical work but a great deal of work was undertaken in the form of discussions with local interests, formulation of proposals and drafting of plans, the acquisition of land and so on. With the acceleration of actual development work in the last couple of years, grant payments have increased and we are now reaching the £1 million limit. The scheme was the first comprehensive programme of its kind and the initial plans and estimates were necessarily of a tentative nature and were subject to modification as the scheme progressed and experience was gained. The work programme for some resorts had to be varied because of local conditions, resulting in the abandonment of some items and the substitution of others.

Overall, Bord Fáilte have found it necessary to adopt a more extensive programme to ensure that a significant impact was made and that moneys would not be wasted through inadequate scale or incomplete planning. Costs have risen considerably since the first estimates were prepared so that, even to finance the original proposals, additional moneys would have been needed. A further factor is that the Shannon waterway was not originally included among the areas to be developed and the subsequent addition of the Shannon has absorbed some of the initial fund. It will be clear from all this that the original £1 million provision is now inadequate. It is estimated that by the time the complete programme of works at the seventeen resorts and resort areas has been carried through the total cost will amount to £2.5 million. The rate at which the work can proceed will, of course, depend on the availability of capital. The provision of funds for this purpose will be covered in the usual way in the annual Vote for my Department.

This is an opportune time to look ahead and to consider what form resort and amenity development should take to meet the requirements and the tastes of the tourists of the future. All the areas selected for development under the original scheme, with the exception of Killarney and the Shannon waterway, are coastal and the basic attraction in each case is proximity to the sea. With the development of additional early-season and late-season traffic it is clearly necessary to consider other types of amenities also, as coastal resorts have diminished attraction outside the main summer season.

Visitors outside the peak season are increasingly of the "special interest" type, seeking active sporting holidays such as game-shooting, pony trekking, hunting, angling and golf, as well as national monuments and places of historic interest, and they can thus be attracted to inland as well as coastal tourist centres. A major increase is expected in motoring tourists from Britain during the next few years as a result of the improvements in the cross-channel services. The motoring tourist will circulate extensively and will expect to find inland places to visit for interest sake. I am, therefore, asking Bord Fáilte to undertake the planning of a new resort programme with these criteria in mind.

The introduction of a new scheme involving new centres would obviously involve the provision of additional funds. It is not possible to make any precise estimate at this stage of what funds would ultimately be required but I am proposing to make provision for a sum of £750,000. Expenditure from this fund will be authorised annually in the light of the availability of capital moneys. Should the financial position permit relatively early exhaustion of this fund, the Oireachtas will be asked to increase it in due course. The Bill, therefore, provides for the raising of the existing limit on the resort development fund from £1 million to £3.25 million—an increase of £2.25 million, of which £1.5 million is in respect of the completion of the present programme and £0.75 million to provide for a second resort programme.

The Bill also provides for the raising of the limit of the amount which may be provided in the form of grants for the development of holiday accommodation. Provision was made in the Tourist Traffic Act, 1959, for the payment to Bord Fáilte of amounts not exceeding in the aggregate £500,000 for this purpose and this limit was increased to £1.5 million by the Tourist Traffic Act, 1963. From these funds grants have been provided by Bord Fáilte for the construction of additional holiday accommodation, the improvement of existing accommodation, the provision of indoor and outdoor entertainment facilities for visitors and the provision of staff accommodation.

The grants, which amount generally to 20 per cent of the cost of the works subject to certain maxima, have stimulated a considerable amount of hotel development involving a total investment of approximately £10 million, including the grants, over the past five years. The scheme of grants was revised in February, 1964, to provide for increased assistance for new accommodation in resort areas and the grants were extended to include guesthouses providing at least ten guest bedrooms. Provision was also made for assistance for youth hostels and other categories of visitor accommodation such as colleges or other institutions catering for groups of visitors during the holiday period.

The amount issued to Bord Fáilte at 31st March, 1965, out of the existing £1½ million fund for holiday accommodation was £1.166 million and the sum voted for the current year is £225,000. The position at the end of the current year will, therefore, be that £1.42 million will have been expended, leaving a balance of only £79,000. It is, accordingly, necessary to raise the limit of the existing grant fund in order to provide for the continued financing of accommodation development.

Despite the expansion of accommodation that has taken place, it is clear that further expansion is necessary to accommodate the increasing number of visitors that are being attracted to Ireland each year in accordance with the Second Programme target of doubling 1960 tourist income at constant values by 1970. In recent years we have been recording an annual increase of 500 to 600 registered rooms, not counting rooms in supplementary accommodation such as boarding houses, private houses. etc., but a recent assessment of the position carried out by Bord Fáilte following detailed investigation, revealed that a far greater rate of increase will be necessary if the 1970 target is to be achieved.

We must, therefore, continue the scheme of grants for a further period. It is impossible to make firm estimates of what grant commitments will amount to as this will depend on the rate of investment by the hotel industry itself. The proposal in the Bill is to raise the limit on the amount which may be provided for holiday accommodation grants from £1.5 million to £3 million. This provision, like the provision about resort development grants, is of an enabling nature. The amounts to be provided in any year will fall to be voted by the Dáil in the normal way under the Vote for my Department.

Apart from the special funds for accommodation grants and for the development of major tourist resorts, the cost of administration and general activities of Bord Fáilte are met from an annual grant-in-aid. From this grant-in-aid the Board are required to meet the cost of overseas publicity and advertising and a wide range of activities, including improvement works at minor resorts, access works and other improvements at places of historic or other special interest, assistance towards developing angling tourism and other sporting attractions, assistance to hotel staff training schemes, grants to meet interest on loans for accommodation and resort development and promotional work in connection with festivals and international conferences.

Up to 1961, this grant-in-aid was subject to a limit of £500,000 in any year but this limit was removed by the Tourist Traffic Act, 1961, and replaced by the provision of a global sum of £5 million, the intention being that for a limited period the level of State expenditure on the development and promotion of tourism would be substantially increased. It was indicated at the time that, on the basis of annual provisions related to the then current requirements, the sum of £5 million might be expected to meet requirements for a period of seven years.

Circumstances have since made it necessary to modify the objective of allocating the £5 million over a seven-year period. Increased interest grant commitments, resulting from the increased rate of investment by the hotel industry in the development of holiday accommodation, made it necessary initially to reduce the period to six years and the annual grants-in-aid to Bord Fáilte up to and including the financial year 1963-64 were allocated on the basis of a six-year period.

The grant-in-aid for 1964-65 was, however, increased very substantially to allow Bord Fáilte to initiate a programme of increased activity, particularly in overseas publicity and in marketing. This was necessary because of the growing competition in international tourism, because of the great importance of tourist income in the national economy and particularly because of the formidable target set for tourism in the Second Programme for Economic Expansion. At the beginning of the current financial year the amounts issued to Bord Fáilte were just in excess of £3.5 million and the sum of £1,847,000 voted for this year will bring expenditure above the £5 million limit. This renders it necessary to enact new legislative provisions to cover the Board's future activities. The fact that the statutory limit is expected to be reached very shortly makes the enactment of the present Bill a matter of urgency.

It would be difficult to work out in advance a rigid programme of expenditure on tourism. The amount to be provided in any year will depend on the progress made towards the achievement of the 1970 target and also, of course, on the availability of resources. I am proposing, therefore, to depart from the concept of any fixed limit. Accordingly, the Bill provides for the deletion of the existing limit of £5 million contained in the Tourist Traffic Act, 1961 and does not substitute any new limit. The position then will be that in accordance with section 2 of the 1961 Act the amount to be provided to Bord Fáilte in any year will be determined by the Minister for Transport and Power and the Minister for Finance and will be included in the annual Estimates. There will be no diminution of the degree of Parliamentary control as the money will form part of the Estimates for my Department which will have to be voted annually in the usual way.

As I have already mentioned, the Second Programme for Economic Expansion aims at doubling income from tourism between 1960 and 1970, in terms of constant 1960 prices. This is a formidable target and represents an average annual increase of 7.2 per cent compound over the ten year period. When the Second Programme was adopted in 1963 this rate of increase had not been achieved and consequently the actual rate required from 1963 onwards to double the 1960 income was in fact 7.8 per cent. It was recognised that competition from other countries was increasing, that the target could not be regarded as an automatic projection of a previous trend and that active promotion and the provision of adequate Exchequer assistance would be necessary during the period of the Second Programme if the target was to be achieved.

The actual income from tourism, including income earned by Irish carriers, in 1960 was £44.2 million. Senators will have seen from the Bord Fáilte Annual Report for the year ended 31st March, 1965, that the income for the year 1964 amounted to £68 million which in terms of 1960 values represented £57.4 million. A tentative estimate for the year 1965 indicates that the income for that year was in excess of £77 million and Bord Fáilte anticipate that the income for 1966 should reach £85 million approximately.

These figures show that the increased promotional activities of recent years have been successful and that if the present rate of increase can be maintained the 1970 target will be achieved. There are no grounds for complacency, however, and continued efforts will be necessary in the shape of promotional activities, resort development and provision of accommodation to maintain and provide for the required increase in tourist traffic. With the increase in the number of visitors to the country the services provided at local level and the interest and enthusiasm of local enterprise take on great importance.

The new Regional Companies have provided a new impetus for local and regional activities and I would like to take this opportunity of saying how valuable is the contribution of the Regional Companies—the officers and members and all who co-operate with them—and I have no doubt that we can look forward to the continued growth of this excellent work.

The tourist industry makes a very important contribution to the country's economy. In about half the countries of Western Europe tourist receipts account for three to six per cent of total external receipts and the average is just under six per cent. In Ireland by contrast the income from tourism is about 16 per cent of total external receipts which is almost three times the European average and only in Spain, Austria and Greece is a higher percentage attained. Income from tourism accounts for nearly 50 per cent of invisible exports. It exceeded the income from exports of live animals in 1964 by more than £1 million. An important feature of the tourist industry is that it is primarily based on domestic resources, involving little dependence on imported goods. Because of the decentralised character of the industry its benefits extend to all parts of the country and it is an important factor in assisting the less developed areas of the west and south.

I am confident that as a result of the increased promotional activities of recent years and the improvement in travel facilities, the upward trend in tourist traffic to this country can be maintained, provided the necessary resources and facilities are made available. The principal purpose of this Bill is to enable these resources to be provided and I accordingly recommend the Bill for the approval of the Seanad.

I must say the Minister is in a very flaithiúl mood this evening. I had thought I would get in after Senator Garret FitzGerald and that I would have an opportunity of totting up millions the Minister proposes to make available for tourism, in sharp contrast to his attitude to the workers in CIE. However, let that be for the moment. All of us agree that the tourist industry is a very important one and that we must all co-operate in making it as successful as we possibly can. If I have any criticisms to make in my contribution to the debate, I would ask the House to accept them as not intended to be unhelpful but rather to try to direct attention to some shortcomings in the hope that we can correct them and thereby get further revenue from tourism and so help to develop the economy.

We all agree that the development of hotels in recent years has been largely directed towards improving the grade A hotels, making more bedrooms available. Great progress has been achieved in that direction. We have now more bedrooms with private baths attached. We have largely geared ourselves for the American market in that respect. A fair measure of success has been achieved. Reference has been made to encouraging more American tourists to visit this country. I have already said that progress has been made in that direction but I want to contrast that with what I regard as lack of progress in the development of B grade hotels. I refer particularly to B grade hotels because these are largely the hotels favoured by British tourists. We have next door to us one of the biggest tourist markets. This could provide a lot more income for the tourist industry of this country.

I have been looking through the register of hotels and it seems to me that we have 183 grade B hotels registered, with 8,000 odd beds. Most of them are twin-bedded rooms and that seems to work out that we have about 25 bedrooms on an average in a grade B hotel. I want to suggest that that is an uneconomic size for the operation of hotels. One of the results of this is that the rates charged for the type of accommodation available in those hotels is relatively too high. Miss Elizabeth Nicholas expressed the same point of view. She said for the style of hotel, the charge was somewhat excessive for the size and standard offered. We all agree that the British tourist is inclined to be price-conscious to a certain extent. It is noteworthy that there was an increase in the number of British tourists last year but there is no corresponding increase shown in the revenue from hotels. Therefore, there seems to be a tendency for the British tourist to find unregistered accommodation. That seems to me to point to the inadequacy of grade B hotels and also to their relatively high cost.

People who know more about this business than I do have expressed the view that a more economic unit would be a 60 bedroom and upwards hotel. There is a very serious need for this type of hotel if we are to expand the tourist industry and cater adequately for the British market. We should encourage the building of more hotels of this type, the larger grade B hotel instead, of gearing ourselves to the American market. This is being catered for adequately. We should instead be gearing ourselves for the British market which is available to us. I do not know whether the Minister would agree, in view of the shortcomings in this direction, that it would be desirable to provide larger grants from Bord Fáilte to encourage the building of this type of accommodation.

I remember when the Minister was dealing with a subsidiary company, Córas Iompair Éireann, it was hinted that this would enable that subsidiary company to expand and promote the hotel industry. I wonder has any consideration been given to that because that subsidiary company have been very successful in providing grade A accommodation. Would it not be desirable in the national interest that the enterprise available in that organisation should be directed towards the provision, around the country, of more grade B hotels of a larger size than exist at the present time?

Another important aspect of the tourist industry is trying to even off the peak, trying to get more tourists to visit the country in what we regard as the off-season. We have been making efforts in that direction but I believe the degree of success has not been very marked. The season is still too short and this tends to be reflected in hotel costs. It has an effect on the availability of trained staff. I am sure the Minister and Bord Fáilte are conscious of the need to do everything possible to encourage off-peak tourists. I notice that in many English resorts, they go to a great deal of trouble to get people to visit them during the off season. I notice that these resorts, in May, particularly, are crowded with old age pensioners. They go out of their way to provide accommodation for old age pensioners. They extend the season by doing this. They give those people special facilities and special rates. Perhaps we could explore the possibility of doing the same thing here to try to extend the tourist season, keep hotels occupied for a longer period and thereby keep trained staff in employment. This would affect the overall cost and the economy of the hotel industry as such.

I have already said I thought the British tourists were price-conscious. Perhaps people will not agree with this. In connection with that, may I say that I deplore the introduction by the shipping companies of the 5/- charge for sailing tickets for the 1966 season. Up to now people coming from England were required to make a deposit of 10/- for their sailing ticket and when they purchased their travel ticket that 10/- was reckoned against the cost. In other words, there was no extra charge, because it was regarded as a deposit. Now it is proposed that there will be a charge of 5/-, in addition to the price of the ticket. I wonder if the Minister has anything to say about this, in view of his policy of price control? I consider it is an unnecessary irritant. It is the Minister's responsibility because now we are not simply dealing with British Railways. The same applies to the B. and I., which concern is under the control of the Minister.

I have mentioned British Railways. We have often been critical of them in previous years in relation to tourists. I would like to say, having travelled recently on British Railways, on the mail steamer and on their trains, that I would commend them for the very great improvements they have made. Certainly the accommodation is very much improved from the days when we in this House criticised them for the service they gave to the tourist industry here. I am sure the Minister would like to compliment them, because we, as I said, have often been very critical of them in the past.

There is another unnecessary irritant, the airport charge. This is under the control of the Minister. Up to now there has been a 7/6d airport fee charge. I read in the papers today that that is to be increased to 10/- and that it will be effective from this year. It will be effective on tours which have already been booked. This means that the tourist agents will apparently be at the loss of this money. I know the charge is small but it will be an irritant to them. They will resent it. We spend a lot of money trying to encourage these people to channel tourists to this country. I do not know whether the Minister, in his reply to this debate, will clarify the issue as to whether, in fact, this 10/- will apply this year, and to tours already booked.

On the subject of air travel, another criticism that is made is that this country is the only one in Europe that lacks the benefit of inclusive tour fares by air on week-ends during the summer. I am told this discourages foreign tour operators from selling inclusive tours to this country when week-end travel is involved. We are increasingly entering an age when individuals do not themselves decide: "I will go to a particular country; I will visit a particular place; I will plan my own travel arrangements." Now they go to a tourist agency and are sold a package tour. It is essential to have the goodwill of the person behind the counter, the person selling the tours. I believe that in every other European country a concession is given to these tour operators by way of reduced fares, but Aer Lingus will not allow reduced fares for week-end travel during the summer, so these operators will avoid selling tours to Ireland and will try to direct the traffic elsewhere. I know there is a very good reason for this. I know there is an excessive demand on the seats by air during the week-ends in summer. I know it is very good business for Aer Lingus not to make any concession during that peak period but I suggest it may not be very good business for the tourist industry as such. I wonder would the Minister let us know what he thinks about this: whether this campaign is worth the candle, whether the gain to Aer Lingus is worth the possible loss to our very important tourist industry.

I mentioned the grade B hotels and their importance to the British market. I was rather alarmed recently to read in the Belfast Newsletter an article which was headed: “Éire Misses the Holiday Boom”. When you read the Belfast and the Dublin papers, you sometimes get the impression that the papers in the North will report something bad about the South, and vice versa. I thought this might be another one of that type of article, but I found that in fact they were quoting from the publication Retail Business. I do not know the importance of this publication, but apparently it is a British publication. The article stated that between 1961 and 1964 the number of Britons going abroad increased by only two per cent but their expenditure abroad increased by 34 per cent, that during the four years the amount spent on holidays in Britain had fallen, but that Éire had suffered worse. I quote:

There has been a rapid decline in the popularity of Southern Ireland.

I do not know if the Minister will agree with that.

Complete nonsense.

Personally, I do not agree with it. I think it is contrary to what we have seen. We have increasing numbers coming from Britain. I wonder if our publicity on the other side is adequate and whether this sort of publication could be told the truth, because it appears to give a bad picture, and a picture that I do not think is correct.

May I say a word now on the grading system, a difficult, thorny and vexed question, I am afraid? I suggest this system requires re-examination. To a great extent it seems to be historical. If a hotel gets into a particular grade, it tends to stay in that grade, and I am afraid account is not taken of occasions when its standard drops. I also think the grading system is directed to physical considerations, improvements in the hotels, the size of the rooms, the number of bathrooms and lounges, etc., but no account is taken of the quality of the service and the administration of the hotel. I think these are important. You can have much greater enjoyment in a hotel where the administration is right and the service particularly good, even though it may not have the same number of bathrooms or lounges as another hotel in which the atmosphere is cold and quite impersonal, and where you cannot feel very welcome.

I am wondering also why an A star hotel in Killarney has that particular rating. I believe it has not got central heating in all the rooms, and I thought that was a minimum requirement for an A star rating. I also understand that the same hotel is not opening until 1st June this year. We know that Killarney has a very important part to play in the tourist industry. It is a great target for our American visitors who tend to go there during the summer. I believe there is congestion in, and a shortage of, the A star hotel accommodation which they require in Killarney in May because of the attitude of this hotel in not opening until 1st June. I am raising this because I think a lot of State money was invested in this hotel. As it got a grant from the State, I am sure the Minister has some responsibility in the matter.

One other point I want to deal with very briefly is the question of student travel. Perhaps students do not spend a good deal of money, but they make an important contribution to our tourist industry. If they have been made to feel welcome and if they have enjoyed themselves, we can only hope that they will come back again when they have more money to spend. Up to now these students have been accommodated almost exclusively in private houses. I am not saying anything against the accommodation provided. I am sure it is very good, but I know that in Britain many of the residential schools provide accommodation for foreign students during the summer holidays. In those schools they can provide classes and amusements which would probably make the stay of the students more enjoyable than when they are scattered in houses all around the city and trying to meet other foreign students to chat in their own language—as they invariably do. I wonder would the Minister and Bord Fáilte consider encouraging our schools to make such accommodation available? I know there is at least one school in Dublin that does make its accommodation available to foreign students during the summer, but the majority of the schools do not. This is a shortcoming because these students contribute something to our tourist industry.

As I said, this is a very important industry and we should explore every avenue in order to encourage more people to visit Ireland, and in particular to enjoy their visit.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share