I think that, in considering this Bill, we might cast our minds back to what happened during the Second Reading discussion on the Principal Act of 1939. It may be within the recollection of some members of the House that I had grave concern as to whether, except within very narrow limits, this tourist development holiday provision should be financed by the State. I had the gratification, on that occasion, of obtaining, which is unusual for me, agreement on that general principle from the Minister. He said—I am quoting from the Seanad Debates, volume 22, column 1914—in concluding the debate:—
"When I concluded my remarks in introducing this measure, Senator Sir John Keane jumped up——"
I do not know what the significance of "jumped up" is——
"to defend private enterprise against another attack from the totalitarian Minister. I have joined issue with Senator Sir John Keane on many occasions in the past, on the comparative values of private enterprise and State enterprise, but we need not fear about it to-day, because on this occasion I am on the Senator's side."
I am very gratified about that. The Minister went on:
"I am all in favour of private enterprise in this matter of the development of our country. I think if we are going to develop our holiday facilities here and take the greatest advantage from the opportunities that we have, we must really largely depend on private enterprise. The Senator and myself, therefore, will be on the same side for the moment, because I share his views in that regard largely—much to his astonishment, no doubt."
The Minister then went on to refer to certain matters, such as swimming pools, public conveniences, the stocking of rivers and the general supervision of hotels which, in his view, were proper matters for State action. That was the position seven years ago. Owing to the war, the Tourist Board has been able to do very little since. Now, we are told that the Tourist Board intend to set up a subsidiary board, financed by public money, to establish and manage three luxury hotels. I think that I am right in so describing them. They are to charge something in the region of £10 10s. a week. That represents a very wide departure from the principles upon which the Minister and myself were in agreement seven years ago. The House had a right to expect a statement from the Minister regarding this very drastic departure from his original intentions. Personally, I am against State enterprise in the matter of hotel management. But, if it is to be conceded, can one imagine anything more dangerous or more hazardous than to embark public money on luxury hotels? Surely, it is a commonsense to realise that that is the most speculative class of hotel business. If you were catering for tourists of more moderate means, the risks would be far fewer, because there is a far larger volume of custom of that class offering. It is very doubtful whether the country will continue to attract visitors—it will, I think, be largely visitors who will be concerned—who will be prepared to pay in the region of £10 10s. a week for hotel accommodation. The circumstances of the present time are no indication of future probabilities in that regard.
I consider it highly speculative to invest money in hotels of this character. I take it that the Minister must know what is going on. Has the advice of any experienced hotel managers been taken on this proposition? It would strike me, and I think a number of Senators present, that if one were going to embark on business of this kind, one would go to somebody of experience for advice. We have a number of experienced hotel people, people who have made a success of the better-class hotel business. Has the Tourist Board said to those people: "Would you be prepared to take over the management of a few of those hotels which the board has in view, the board providing the money"? That would be a business-like approach. You would then commence with somebody of proved experience to handle the proposition. So far as I understand, this proposal came out of the blue. I do not think that the board would claim experience of all the details and technicalities of hotel management. Yet they are about to embark on this hazardous form of enterprise, with the future most uncertain and with present conditions no indication of what is likely to happen when the Continent is open to normal holiday visitors of the richer type. It is to me incomprehensible that the Minister, holding the views he did in 1939, should now be prepared to sanction a speculation of this kind. Surely, if the State is to embark in this business, it would be much more prudent to proceed on the lines of the smaller trust hotels. It would be possible to go to well-established trust houses elsewhere and ask if they would consider financing an Irish company, financed with Irish capital and under Irish management, which would have their experience at its disposal. That would be a modest venture and it would stand the test of time, because it would cater for the customer of moderate means. As Senator Hayes rightly said, hotel management is a very personal business. It is essentially a question of connection. You cannot establish a hotel to attract visitors as you would establish a factory to make commodities. There are all sorts of social inhibitions in regard to hotels. Some people will not go to one class of hotel and others will not go to another class. Hotel business is built up by experience and by the managers having connections. None of these conditions seems to apply in this case. This seems to be the wildest conceivable scheme for the investment of public moneys. I hope the Minister will give us some convincing reasons as to why a venture of this kind is to be undertaken. I think that the Minister should give us reasons, too, why he has executed a volte face in regard to the principles he laid down in the Principal Bill when it was passing through the Oireachtas.