Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 6 Jun 1946

Vol. 31 No. 23

Tourist Traffic (Amendment) Bill, 1946 ( Certified Money Bill )— Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Sir John Keane

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.

Liam Ó Buachalla

Ós rud é gurb é cuspóir an Bhille seo an t-airgead atá riachtanach a thabhairt don Bhord Cuartaíochta ionas go mbeidh sé i ndon a chuid ghnótha a chur chun cinn go ceart agus de réir bheartais, is maith liom an deis seo a bheith agam cuidiú leis.

Is maith liom an Bille bheith os ár gcomhair mar is comhartha eile é go bhfuil suaimhneas agus síocháin, roinnt go háirithe, ag teacht ar an saol arís agus fós is comhartha eile é go bhfuil ceann eile de na pleaineanna móra atá ceaptha chun leasa na tíre ar tí a thabhartha chun críche.

Níl aimhreas ar bith orm nach tairbhe agus buntáiste a thiocfas don tír dá bharr. Ó thaobh na Gaeilge dhe, is maith liom na comharthaí atá ann nach ndéanfar faillí ina cúis. Tá súil agam go mbeidh tús áite ag an teangaidh ins gach ní dá mbeidh idir lámha ag an mBord; go bhféachfaidh an lucht ceannais chuige gur Gaeilgeoirí a bheas ina gcuid seirbhíseach, agus nach amháin gur Gaeilgeoirí a bheas iontu, ach go labhróidh siad an teanga ar gach ócáid, beag agus mór, a mbeidh an deis acu air. Ina gcuid fógraí agus foilsiúchán, freisin, tá súil agam go leanfaidh an Bord Cuartaíochta an dea-shampla atá tugtha cheana ag Bord na Móna. Is féidir do Chomhlachta agus d'eagraíochta poiblí mar iad a lán a dhéanamh ní hamháin ar shon cúise geilleagartha na tíre ach ar shon cúise cultúrtha mar chúis na teangadh chomh maith. Déanaidís sin agus tuillfidh siad moladh agus buíochas na tíre.

The value of the tourist industry has been stressed by all the Senators who have taken part in the debate so far. For myself, I am in complete agreement with the proposal to develop the industry. It is one that must, if properly organised, bring in its train very great advantages to the country. I do not intend to go in detail into the advantages as I see them. Other Senators have dealt with them in detail but it may be no harm just to remind ourselves what these advantages are. If the tourist industry is developed on the lines on which I believe the board intends to develop it, it must necessarily follow that there will be considerable expansion in trade, in commerce and in industry. It must necessarily follow that there will be considerable expansion in the national income—something that is certainly highly desirable. It must follow also that there will be a considerable amount of new employment of a very useful and a very valuable kind. It must follow also that the nation will be given a series of new and very valuable public amenities. One would like to take time to enter into a discussion of all these things but their importance is quite obvious as there was some discussion of them and there is no need to labour them. It will give us—I think the Minister referred to this matter yesterday—an opportunity of getting foreign currency. To an extent, I hope it will help to relieve our dependence on one particular market. That is an objective that I think we should be anxious to promote, something we should like to see achieved. We value the market we have but I, for my part, think that it is not in the best interests of the nation that all our eggs should be in the one basket. I would be particularly anxious to avail of any opportunity that would enable us to get directly a reasonable amount of foreign currency. If the industry is developed, as I believe it is going to be developed, then valuable strides will be made in that direction.

Reference has been made, and rightly so, to the great value of travel. Irishmen are often reminded that they should travel. It has often been said that, "He knows not Ireland who only Ireland knows." That may be an exaggeration but certainly those who have travelled, those who have visited other nations and other peoples, have come home generally speaking very much more national in their views and in their outlook than many of those who never leave our shores at all. Travel has its advantages for all and I believe that, so far as foreigners are concerned, there will be a considerable advantage to them in coming to this. country. For that reason, we should be glad to have them. The country has a great deal to offer, not alone in its scenery, in its food and in other services but culturally. There is a great deal to be gained by people who will come and see what this country has to offer, its culture, its historical ruins and mementoes, its life and so on. I was particularly glad that I was in for the Minister's speech. The Bill itself is a very short one, but it was well worth being in time to hear the Minister's speech. Those of us who are particularly interested in the Irish language are very grateful to him for the information that he gave us with regard to the intentions of the board to develop Gaeltacht areas, as far as that may be in their power. The board are to be thanked for what they have done for the Garryvoe scheme. I am particularly glad to learn that the board is undertaking to take over and to renovate Ardmore College. When that college is reopened and worked, as I think it should be worked and as I believe it will be worked, it seems to me that another area will be soon won back to the Fior Gaeltacht area of the country. Perhaps, however, the Minister would give us some indication, presently, whether, if people come forward in other Gaeltacht areas, formulate reasonable schemes, and are anxious to erect new buildings, establish new colleges or new centres for the promotion of the language and cultural activities generally, the board will be in a position to aid them. More than once I have appealed to organisations like the Gaelic League and Muintir na Tíre to take over in every county at least one or two of the mansions that are now derelict and convert them into colleges to which, every year, boys might be taken for instruction during a short intensive course in agriculture, horticulture and kindred subjects. During another period girls might be taken there for instruction in butter-making and poultry rearing and such other activities as might interest them.

Mr. Foran

On a point of order, are we considering a Tourist Bill?

An Cathaoirleach

Yes, we are.

Mr. Foran

Then are we permitted to go into every phase of Irish life on a matter like this?

An Cathaoirleach

I take it that the Senator is making suggestions by which tourist traffic may be improved.

Liam Ó Buachalla

I am anxious to get information on this point. It is the intention of the board, as indicated by the Minister, to provide facilities in certain areas for the promotion of the Irish language. I am not sure—but I would be very glad if it could be done —whether buildings may be taken over in different parts of the country to which boys and girls would be taken on holiday and at the same time given these courses here mentioned. It may interest the Senator to know that in various parts of the country schemes of a similar kind are already in operation. Children are taken, ostensibly on holiday—it is, in effect a holiday—but with the holiday is combined a certain amount of valuable education. Whether the board is free to give aid to activities of that kind I do not know. I am anxious to know because I do not like to be hitting my head on a stone wall. If financial and other help of that type is not available from that source then I will not trouble to go on looking for it and arguing about the matter. I will seek it in some other direction. That is why I raise the matter here and I hope I am in order in doing so. With regard to the activities of the board, I think it is only fair it should be acknowledged that throughout the country there has been in recent years a considerable improvement in hotel standards. I do not use hotels to a very great extent but in those that I have occasion to visit and stay in I have found that, compared with pre-war standards, there is now a decided improvement. One meets people who do a great deal of travelling and I think on all sides there is the ready admission that a great deal has been achieved. I believe that what has been achieved has been due to the activities of An Bórd Cuartaíochta. Of course more might be done. These improvements might be more widespread but when one considers that this work was started only at the beginning of the war and when one considers the difficulties of the period since then the achievement is all the greater. Now that the era of peace has come I believe that developments will be very much greater and the position very much more satisfactory within a short time.

A number of points raised in the course of the debate caused me some surprise. One was to learn that there exists, or seems to exist, a conflict between the board and the hotel keepers. I wonder to what extent that conflict exists and to what extent there is a lack of co-operation between the board and the hotel keepers. I wonder whether the whole thing is not exaggerated. Thinking over it, I can quite understand that some hotel keepers must have been annoyed when standards were fixed and they were literally compelled to conform to those standards. I can quite understand people like that being disgruntled, but I wonder to what extent there is a widespread conflict between the board and the hotel keepers. Certainly it does not give me any satisfaction to think that there should be any considerable disagreement between them and we ought to have the fullest information about it. It seems that the board has been given the power and the right to authorise the use of the word "hotel." I can quite understand many people being dissatisfied over that. It is, I think, only a number of people who are annoyed because they are forced to conform to the board's standards and it is, I expect, this limited number of people who are annoyed because they had to drop the word "hotel" when they failed to conform to these standards.

I cannot help thinking that the question of the luxury hotels has been over-emphasised. I wonder what people who talk about such hotels have in mind. Yesterday evening I tried to visualise what a luxury hotel is or is likely to be. I have been in different hotels in Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Galway. They are excellently run hotels, well furnished, well kept, with excellent service, good carpets and linoleum on the floors and so on. Are these luxury hotels? In what respect will any other hotel differ from them? Perhaps somebody would indicate to me what exactly is meant by the term "luxury hotel"? Is it a matter of the price? In hotels the situation will be important and the cost of the service will be important. The tariffs will have to be according to the advantages and services, but I cannot make out from the discussion so far whether it is the charge that indicates a hotel is a luxury hotel or not. The term is not clear.

I can quite understand, watching the activities of the board, that there will be two types of hotels. There will be first-class hotels in cities like Galway, Cork, Limerick and Dublin and there will be hotels of the type of those about to be set up in Ballinahinch and down in Termonfeckin. In what respect will these hotels be different from any other? I hope they will give as good a service—and I expect they will—as other hotels; that they will be as clean and that their floors may be carpeted as in the case of the city hotels. Attached to these hotels will be domains or extensive grounds. I expect it is the intention of the board to retain as much land as they can at these hotels, woodlands and gardens, etc. If that is what is meant by luxury hotels then, so far as I am concerned, I am all in favour of them. I hope the board will see to it that whatever lands they get control of with these hotels they will maintain them at least in as good order as they got them.

This question of luxury hotels reminds me of the discussion we had yesterday evening about the tyranny that might arise through the handing over of hotels like these to An Bórd Cuartaíochta. I know a large hotel in County Galway and I suppose, by such standards as I have been able to fix in my mind arising out of the discussion, it would be described as a luxury hotel. For years I have been going in and out of that place, for a long time indeed before the place became a hotel because there are a number of things around it that are of great interest. I have been there very often as I say and have taken friends there. Since it became a hotel I have visited it very often, too. However, when I arrived there a few weeks ago I found that the gate was closed. When I went to open it a keeper came along to demand that I pay a tax or admission fee of 1/- not alone for myself, but 1/- also for each person in my party. There was no refund of the fee and naturally I thought it very unfair. I may mention that very fortunately the historic buildings near this hotel and estate still remain under the guardianship of the Board of Works. We will have no tax to pay in going in there. I am not, however, going to find fault with the people who levied that charge at the gate. They want to maintain their gardens and woodlands as they got them and they are a very important amenity which contribute very much to the value of that hotel. If they feel that damage was being done by opening the place to all and sundry then they are entitled to take some steps to see that damage will be checked. Whether to demand 1/- from each person going in is the right way or the best way or not I do not know, but I have to admit that they have a right to protect their property. This is a private hotel but I can quite understand that if it were under the management of An Bórd Cuartaíochta and that it were to levy a charge on people going in, before they would get any service whatever, there would be a great outcry in the country. No protest against an action of that kind is considered necessary when it is done by a private company.

Another point that caused me a certain amount of surprise was the discussion on the memorandum of An Bórd Cuartaíochta. I have not seen the memorandum or articles of the company and was not ready to jot down the items when Senator Sweetman detailed them in the House yesterday. There was a considerable amount of objection to the board undertaking an activity such as hairdressing—that was adverted to a great deal. I think the point is exaggerated. One can visualise hotels in the city where in the interest of their patrons they provide a hairdressing apartment, and surely if a hotel is to be established in the country, say at Termonfeckin, or away at Ballinahinch in the heart of Connemara, or anywhere else for that matter, there is nothing wrong in the board seeking power to provide a service of that kind or any other kind that is necessary for the proper working of the business. It may be said that the difference is that An Bórd Cuartaíochta is a semi-State institution and, therefore, should be very severely curtailed. I fail to follow that argument. When a company is being founded the solicitor who is approached to draw up the articles of association and set down the objects of the company usually casts the net as wide as possible. There are very good legal reasons for doing so— it avoids difficulties. Because a company happens to have certain finances from the State, because the board itself is partly or in toto nominated by the State, should it be deprived of powers of that kind? Should we put it in a different position from an ordinary company? In other words, because it is a State company should it be handicapped? It does not seem to me that it would be reasonable to do so.

Reference has been made to the advisability of the board paying attention to the provision of hostels and accommodation generally for workers. That is something with which we all heartily agree. There are few things which give me greater satisfaction than to think that at long last workers are entitled by law to a holiday with pay. There is nothing would ever give me greater satisfaction than to see industry and trade unionism organised to such an extent that the workers' holiday would be not only a week but as long as it is possible to give them. At the same time I do not think we need look forward to any very sudden expansion of the demand for accommodation on the part of workers in holiday resorts. Those people who will take their children to resorts of that kind are taking them there already and have been taking them for some time. The new people who will be coming into the ranks of holiday-makers will be very glad to avail of the holidays to visit their parents and their grand-parents, whether they be in town or country. It will be some time before there is any great need for provision of the kind that was stressed here yesterday. Even so, it is time we began to think about it. I do not know whether those interested in trade unions are aware that a fair amount of attention has been paid already to the matter by the League of Nations. Before the war a considerable amount of material had been published and in countries like Belgium a good deal of attention had been paid to the problem and schemes had been developed and put into operation. It is well worth our while taking up the matter now and those interested in trade unions and in the workers should acquaint themselves with what has been done and see to what extent it might be adapted or developed here. It is very pleasant to find that we are now in a position to talk about the necessity for getting an examination made of the possibility of suitable provision for workers in seaside and other health resorts.

Reference was made yesterday to the indifference of the Minister for Education to the training of workers for this industry. I think that reference was uncalled for. Anyone who is familiar with the organisation of the vocational education system, with the curricula of those schools, cannot fail to be impressed by the amount of attention paid to this particular aspect of training. Not alone here in the City of Dublin but in other parts of the country, boys and girls are trained to take up positions as chefs and waitresses and many of them have already gone into employment throughout the country. I have the pleasant experience in the hotel which I most frequent, in Dublin, that I am able now to do my business through Irish with waiters who have come out of Dublin Technical Schools. These young people are very happy, very pleased and very proud to be able to do their business in Irish.

All over the country, it is an important part of the schemes of the vocational education committees to see that girls are trained to fit them for hotel service. I need not refer to what has been done in Cathal Brugha Street, but those interested in this matter will find that the Minister for Education has certainly not been remiss in doing whatever his Department could do to provide much of the personnel for this industry.

There is just one other matter in conclusion. Reference was made to the title that is contemplated for the company which it is proposed should run the hotels. A certain amount of play has been made of the title itself, "Failte, Teoranta." I think the comment in question is uncalled for. There is nothing wrong in that title.

Mr. Hayes

There is no suggestion that there is anything wrong; it is because it is right that it is peculiar.

Liam Ó Buachalla

I want to compliment the Minister on the policy of insisting that the names of these companies should be in Irish. These names may seem strange to people who are not using the Irish language frequently. It would not occur to me that there is anything strange about it. The title conjures up for me immediately a company "Incorporated by Law." The idea of "Teoranta" is that the company has a registered capital, that it is a limited liability company, no more and no less than that.

One might regard "Solus, Teoranta" as silly also, or feel that "Mianrai, Teoranta" is silly, but not so silly when one comes to think of it. You do not think that "Stationery Supplies Ltd.," is silly or that "Corrib Hosiery Limited," is silly.

Mr. Hayes

"Limited Corrib Hosiery" would be very peculiar.

Liam Ó Buachalla

Very, very peculiar, but one would never say "Teoranta, Failte," in Irish.

Mr. Hayes

No, that is what is wrong.

Liam Ó Buachalla

The Minister might and he has power to do so, authorise the deletion of "Teoranta" as he might delete the word "Limited." He could also change the name.

I could suggest "Failteoiri, Teoranta" and there would not be anything wrong about it, but I am not suggesting it. I think "Failteoiri, Teoranta" is good but no better than "Failte, Teoranta." Irish is growing up, and there is no cause for dissatisfaction over this title at all. That is all I have to say on the Bill, except this, that if the new Tourist Board achieve even half of what it appears to me it will achieve, it will have done a great deal for this country.

Mr. Duffy

Fortunately or unfortunately, I have not been listening to the whole of this debate because circumstances over which I had no control took me away for some hours last evening, and, therefore, I can only glean what I have heard from Senator Sir John Keane and Senator Ó Buachalla the line along which the discussion has proceeded. It appears to me that the real difficulty in which Senator Sir John Keane finds himself deserted to some extent by the Minister, is that, apparently, he gathered from the Official Debates that they had a very warm flirtation in 1939 when they both agreed that private enterprise must develop the country. I do not know whether the Senator was unjust to the Minister in suggesting, as he seemed to suggest, that private enterprise would be used to develop the country and that State enterprise would be used only to destroy it.

I do not think the Minister agreed with that suggestion which appears to be running through what Senator Sir John Keane has said to-day. What I feel, however, is this: the speech we have just listened to, when Senator Ó Buachalla appeared to be replying for the Government, seems to me to cause us to ask ourselves some questions as to the purposes of this Bill and the objects which a tourist policy should pursue.

Until I listened to the speech which has just been delivered, I understood that the policy was set out in the White Paper which was published in March with the title "Tourist Development Programme." I understood that the policy was that of the Government, as it was issued by the Government, and it appeared to me to be an outline of what was intended. That does not seem to fit in with what we have listened to now. I notice that in opening his speech, Senator Ó Buachalla laid particular stress on the material advantages. He stressed the material value of the tourist industry, and that made me reflect.

I have here an actual complaint from the County of Galway as to the lack of information as to what is the purpose, and the ultimate end of the development of, shall I say, tourism, on the lines which seem to be devised. Some people are inclined, even in County Galway, to contrast spiritual values with material values, and two priests—one is now dead and the other is still a revered parish priest in County Galway—expressed to me grave doubts from the point of view of spiritual welfare and from the point of view of Gaelic Ireland, about an expansion of the tourist industry in such a way that people with plenty of money would be attracted to Ireland in large numbers.

I put that view as a matter for serious consideration. It is not referred to in the White Paper, and apparently is not a matter on which the Government has reflected at all. I take it the Government must accept full responsibility for the policy in this White Paper, because I noticed that in evidence in the Circuit Court yesterday, an official of the Tourist Board swore on oath that what he was doing was being done on the instructions of the Department of Industry and Commerce, so that we are safe in assuming that the policy being pursued is the policy laid down by the Government, and is not policy devised on their own initiative by the board, and they have not got a free hand to devise policy.

Therefore, I draw attention to the fact that while we do recognise that a tourist industry can be a medium of bringing currency, as the Senator mentioned a moment ago, to this country, it does not begin and end there because there are other values to be considered.

Liam Ó Buachalla

I did not say that it ended there.

Mr. Duffy

The Senator forgets that there is anything else to be said about foreign balances. On that point alone, I would suggest to him that it is not of the slightest use to us to bring thousands of visitors from Britain because that merely brings in sterling to this country, a currency of which we have far more than we can use, or are likely to use in the next 20 years. I want to point out that I have the sworn testimony of the Assistant Secretary of the Irish Tourist Board that the visitors that are being attracted by the board are, in the main, British visitors. Here is a statement of his which appeared in the Evening Herald last Friday. He said there was “a tremendous demand for hotel accommodation in Ireland particularly from Great Britain.” I take it that that is the position: that the bulk of the visitors coming here are being attracted mainly from Britain. Let us not kid ourselves that that is going to make this country one penny richer. If we export butter, bacon and cattle we will get sterling for them just as well as we can get it if we bring in British visitors and feed them with butter, bacon and eggs. We ought not to exaggerate that aspect of it.

The advantage to this country, economically, will depend on the amount of what I think, in another connection, the Minister called hard currencies that we can get from visitors. In other words, the material advantage lies in getting visitors from America, Canada, Switzerland, and from other countries that do not use sterling, visitors who will pay us in their own currencies. Actually, we have not been handling much of these foreign currencies during the period when thousands of people belonging to the armed forces of America and Canada were in this country. They came here with sterling. Only a very small number of them arrived here with dollars. I am just wondering now when we listen to this discussion on the great value of tourism—I hate this word but we all know what it conveys—and when we hear so much praise of what is involved in it I am just wondering whether we have all forgotten that there was a lot of anxiety in this city for several months owing to the invasion of Dublin by a number of people who were visitors to our shores. May I say that this is not confined to Ireland? It is not merely a narrow Irish view. A lady who is a friend of mine, a very popular writer in English, one of the best paid women writers in London, wrote an article some time ago for an American magazine, the title of which will convey its meaning. The title was "Our girls do not like your boys". The Americans were willing to publish it, but the British Government would not permit it to be published because it would interfere with the inflow of dollars into Britain. Is that our policy? That is the line that is recommended to us now by Senator Ó Buachalla. I want this matter examined. I suggest that the members of this House should seriously examine it, and see what is involved. I am suggesting seriously that there is much more involved than dollars.

Liam Ó Buachalla

May I say that no such implication follows from my speech?

Mr. Duffy

I am in the difficulty that I do not know what follows from the Senator's speech.

Mr. Lemass

That is becoming obvious.

Mr. Duffy

I want to make clear what follows from mine. One of the things that I want to draw attention to is this, that in the White Paper it is indicated, at the top of page 4, what the purpose of this board is to be. It states:—

"The 1939 Act provided for the establishment of a board styled the Irish Tourist Board, with wide powers to extend and develop accommodation and other amenities for holiday-makers from at home or abroad."

Now, already reference has been made to the hotels that have been established. Senator Sir John Keane talked of them on the basis of ten guineas a week. But that is an understatement, because, in giving evidence yesterday before Judge Shannon, the assistant secretary of the Irish Tourist Board said: "It was proposed to charge 12 guineas weekly in August, ten guineas in September and seven guineas for the rest of the year." So that it could be 12 guineas a week in the posh hotels during the month of August, and that in a country where men are restricted to £2 a week as farm labourers. Surely "the amenities for holiday-makers from at home or abroad" to be provided in the posh hotels established by the board, are not intended for our farm labourers on their £2 a week? If the board were to establish holiday camps to provide accommodation for tradesmen, for clerks, for shops assistants and for farm labourers at from 30/- to 35/- a week, then I would say that we should hail that as a great achievement, as an indication of what I would regard as the correct development of the functions of the Tourist Board; but I cannot develop any interest whatever in the establishment of posh hotels for British millionaires to come over here at a cost of 12 guineas a week. I have not the slightest interest in that.

I want to say that I have talked to people in other centres in which this thing called tourism has been developed, that is the expensive end of it, and I have found that there is, almost invariably, hostility amongst local people against the influences introduced into particular localities by these wealthy sections. That is as true of Gleneagles as it is of holiday centres in Switzerland or holiday centres in Great Britain. If you want to find out what the Isle of Man thinks of the flocking of trippers there in the summer, talk to one of the ordinary natives who is a member of the local council, and ask him what he thinks of all this, and you will find that he is horrified at its influence on social life in the Isle of Man, and particularly in Douglas. It is a rather strange thing that there was not the slightest evidence that Switzerland desired to bring U.N.O. to Geneva. The local people in Geneva have a feeling that they would be better off, at least spiritually, if the League of Nations had never established itself there with its wealthy personnel. I have the same view, generally speaking, of the invasion of this country by wealthy holiday-makers. I do urge on the Minister that, if paid holidays are to be extended, if it is to become the general rule for wage-earners to have a week's holidays or two weeks' holidays at a time, there is an obligation on the Government, either themselves or by leadership of some kind, to encourage a plan for the utilisation of those holidays. Take the farm labourer in County Dublin down to Waterford or the Connemara Gaeltacht, if you like. Make it possible for him and, perhaps, his family, to live there during his holidays. Take the people at Navan and Kells to the seaside around Drogheda or at Portmarnock. That is the kind of thing we should encourage when we are considering the provision under this Bill of £650,000.

There is one other aspect of the matter to which I think I should refer. A number of complaints have reached me regarding the conditions under which the clerical and executive staffs are employed, particularly in the "posh" hotels. So far as Dublin and County Dublin are concerned, and I think other areas, there is protection for the kitchen staff and for waiters and waitresses—either trade union protection or protection provided by law— but that does not extend to the office staffs. Last week, I received a number of letters of complaint. I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to what is said in a few of them. A lady writes regarding her experience in a Dublin City hotel. If the Minister is interested, I shall tell him the name of the hotel. This lady has experience of three other hotels. She says:—

"The aim of the Government is to provide good food and a hearty welcome for the weary travellers from the war-worn countries but they overlook the fact that, if present conditions continue, these visitors are in danger during the coming season of being greeted by veterans even more weary, who wield not the sword but the pen."

She is a romantic young lady and she has been listening to romantic people in a city hotel. Another lady employed as a receptionist in a County Dublin hotel—not 20 miles from the city— which charges ten guineas or 12 guineas, I think, a week, writes:—

"When so much is done to decorate and improve hotels from the visitors' point of view it is lamentable that so little thought is given to the welfare of the clerical employees. Apparently, we have no legislation governing the working hours or the working conditions of the clerical and official staffs on whose efficiency the comfort and happiness of the visitors depend. In most cases, the hotel office opens between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. It remains open until 11 p.m. and, except for a short break in the afternoon, the office staff are on duty the whole of this time. The afternoon break is about four hours. This is considered to be a liberal time off in a 16-hour day! The futility of broken duty, in any event, is only realised by those who suffer its inconvenience. I am told that the guests who have queried staff conditions in this hotel were told that the clerical staff have one free day in the week, plus additional salary for Sunday duty. That is entirely untrue. We girls work from 7-7.30 in the morning until 11 p.m. on the seven days of the week, except for the afternoon break I already mentioned. We get no extra pay for Sunday duty. In fact, I am ashamed to mention the salary I am paid after ten years' experience."

A gentleman who knows the City of Dublin quite well and who has no contact with hotel life in Dublin sent me a note two days ago from which I made this extract:—

"In the —— Hotel, Dublin, the clerical and official staffs start work at 7.30 a.m. They are on duty until 4 p.m. when they get off for three hours. During this break, they must have tea and supper. They resume at 7 p.m. and remain on duty until 11.30. If there is a late dance, they must continue on duty until they have balanced their cash and books. Very often this means that they are working until 3 a.m. but, all the same, they have got to resume again next morning at 7.30. There is no extra pay for this and no time off is allowed. Apparently, there is no law dealing with hours or half-holidays for these unfortunate girls."

That is Dublin. I have recent experience of two or three other important centres. As this Bill was coming before the House this week, I made it my business to find out what I could in regard to the conditions of the office staffs in provincial towns. I found them deplorable. A half-holiday in some cases was provided for, but the girl could not take the half-holiday if her services were required in the office. In all cases, they had to commence work before 8 o'clock and in very few cases were they finished before 12 midnight. The wages were from 15/- to 25/-. I saw an advertisement in one of the Dublin papers last week for a manageress for a first-class hotel at 25/- a week. Under the Act, the Tourist Board sends its inspectors to the hotels. They examine them and decide whether the hotel is entitled to be so called or not. Apparently, they inquire if the beds are clean and all right, if the sanitary accommodation is all right and what the food is like. There the inspection stops. It is no part of the inspector's business, evidently, to inquire whether the hotels are engaged in white slave traffic. Some of them are. What W.T. Stead said on one occasion about London drapery houses might be said about some of the hotels—they are the ante-chambers of hell. When £650,000 is being provided for the Tourist Board, I suggest that there is a duty on us to see that the staffs employed in those hotels are not employed under degrading and dangerous conditions. I do not suggest that anything can be done by this House in relation to this matter on the Bill before us. It is a Money Bill and we cannot interfere with it but we can at least insist that the Government in providing this money will make it clear that they expect the Tourist Board to look after the health and the morals of hotel staffs as well as the physical cleanliness of the hotel bedrooms.

Mrs. Concannon

This Bill invites the Oireachtas to authorise the Minister for Finance on the recommendation of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, to provide £1,250,000 for the advancement of tourist and holiday traffic. It is quite right and proper then that we should give some indication of our views as to how this money should be spent. It is fitting that this advice should be given in two ways—by way of criticism of past action or inaction and by way of suggestions for future policy. With regard to the past, we must remember that the board started with at least two very grave disadvantages. The first in my opinion was fundamental—they had not a woman on the board. It is one of those aspects of life in which woman's experience and gifts, since she began to put humanity on the road to civilisation— and it was woman who did it—could be very well utilised, in the particular functions which the Tourist Board was called upon to fulfil. It is largely a matter of house-keeping, of developing amenities. I think that we know quite well that there are several women who would have the proper outlook, experience and ability to help in that direction—I do not mean to say people who are qualified only from the hotel-keeper's point of view. You need very much more than that. You want people with a national outlook, people who have a good business experience. They must have experience of the Ireland to which we want to invite people from outside and, much more, the Ireland in which we want to live ourselves. The Tourist Board can contribute to make this Ireland and if it does the money which is now being provided will be well spent.

A great deal of criticism has been directed to the suggestion that the money is being devoted by the board to the provision of luxury hotels. I am not a great lover of luxury hotels. They frighten the life out of me. One look at the commissionaire at the door and I think I would rather spend half a week in Lough Derg than in one of them but, then, I am not everyone. There are people who like to stay in such places—people on their honeymoon and people who like to have a glance at this type of life for some short period—and we should provide for them. I do not think there is anything wrong in the board devoting some of its funds to the provision of such hotels, especially when the hotels are associated with opportunities for sport, are near famous golf links or are situated in areas which provide fishing and shooting facilities. If it is not overdone, a few such hotels are all right.

At the same time I believe with Senator Campbell and others that what we really must cater for mostly are our own people who cannot afford, and who do not want, luxury hotels. We have increased the number of people who are now given holidays with pay but these people are not able to afford luxury hotels. We find a number of such people coming to Galway, for instance. The sort of hotel they like is the simple hotel with very clearly defined attractions. They want good plain food, properly cooked, good beds, clean and comfortable; they want good fires even in summer time. They want a welcome and they want efficient service. In my opinion, the Tourist Board should help, in an advisory capacity, private enterprise to provide such hotels. I think that now that the initial work has been got over—they have seen that a certain minimum of sanitary requirements is provided before a hotel can call itself a hotel and that other essentials are secured—they could act as advisers to hotel keepers and help them out of their difficulties.

The difficulties of the small hotel keeper are largely a matter of catering. Certain things have been suggested to me in relation to the requirements of Galway hotels. There might be for instance a sort of catering season and it might be possible to arrange for an extension of rations for hotels during the holiday season when there is a great demand on the hotels, and perhaps a diminution of rations during the rest of the year. Then there is the question of fuel. I think it would be a very good idea for the board, having consulted with the small hotel keepers, to press the Government to treat the hotel industry as an industry and to see that some of the machine-won turf is made available for the small hotels. I think that is really very necessary.

The next difficulty with which the small hotel keeper has to contend—and it is the small hotels in which I am interested—is the question of provision of staff. I am glad to see that both the Minister for Education and the Tourist Board have made a start in Courtown in the way of training young people for running these hotels. This college type of training is not exactly satisfactory but once the Tourist Board have got the hotels running, there might be a system of apprenticeship at such hotels. I think it would be a very fruitful idea for the class of hotels most of us have in mind.

The hotel industry offers great possibilities. I myself know Donegal very well and it has been famous, as long as I can remember, for its small, comfortably run hotels. If I might indulge in some personal reminiscences, my own family ran such an hotel. We never made much money out of it but we got a good living and we got a great kick out of it. The management of this sort of homely hotel offers a very interesting career for a girl. We made people welcome and we supplied them with good plainly cooked food. If women were trained in this work, it would be much better than training them for some of the professions. For that reason, I welcome the Bill. If the Tourist Development Board had a woman on it it could fulfil its functions in an ideal way. I commend that idea to the Minister.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass)

During the course of the discussion on the Bill yesterday Senator Hayes twitted Senator Summerfield with not having read the Bill. I think Senator Summerfield's speech did convey that his remarks were related to the Act of 1939 rather than to the Bill before the House. I feel sure, however, that Senator Hayes would not have risked twitting Senator Summerfield in that manner if he had not read the Bill himself and that, therefore, when he purported to tell Senator Summerfield what was in the Bill, he was consciously misleading him. Senator Hayes said that the Bill is a Bill to give more money to the board.

I say that is misrepresentation of what is in the Bill but it is misinterpretation which quite obviously has influenced a number of speeches made during this debate. The Bill is not a Bill to give more money to the board. It is a Bill which authorises the Government to make repayable advances to the board to finance approved schemes of a profit-making character to a greater aggregate amount than was authorised by the Act of 1939.

The fundamental difference between the provisions of the Bill, as I have described them, and the misinterpretation of the Bill for which Senator Hayes was responsible has I think been the explanation of the fact that this debate has in the main been irrelevant. I am not suggesting that in the form of criticism of the conduct of the debate but to suggest that it got going in the wrong direction in the beginning, largely due to Senator Hayes, and continued in the wrong direction to the end.

Mr. Hayes

That is very sad. As a matter of fact I was not first speaker at all.

Mr. Sweetman

I opened it.

Mr. Hayes

I must have immense influence in this assembly. I did not know I was so influential.

Mr. Lemass

Neither did I, previously. In this Bill there is no provision for grants of any kind to anybody. Senator Madden who talked about the taxpayers' money being devoted to the purposes of the Irish Tourist Board was equally misinformed as to the provisions of this Bill or of the main Act which this Bill amends. His suggestion that the money should be spent on various public amenities which should properly be provided by local authorities indicated that he also misunderstood the circumstances under which this money will be advanced and the purposes for which it can be used.

I endeavoured to make it clear to the House in introducing the Bill that no money can be given to the board under the 1939 Act until the board certifies that the scheme for which it requires the advance is one that will make a profit. Clearly, that restriction on the scope of the board's work precludes them from considering many of the matters which were suggested here. The board is obliged to prepare schemes which will ultimately yield it a profit and enable it to pay to the Exchequer the money advanced to it from the Exchequer. The bulk of the money which will be advanced under this Bill will go for resort development schemes. Not one Senator in the whole course of the debate referred to resort development schemes. More than 80 per cent. of the total amount mentioned here will be expended on such schemes and not a single Senator thought it worth his while to refer to that. They attached much greater importance to a minor and temporary activity in which the board is now engaged in regard to hotels.

Mr. Sweetman

If we thought that only of minor importance we might not have referred to it.

Sir John Keane

Will the Minister give an example of a repayable, profitable resort development scheme?

Mr. Lemass

Certainly, I am quite prepared to do it. I gave these examples yesterday. Perhaps the Senator was not here. If he was here he must not have paid much attention to what I was saying. I gave a list of schemes which the board is planning and for which advances will be made from the Exchequer.

One of the primary purposes for which the board was set up is to develop our holiday resorts. Our holiday resorts even though they may offer exceptional advantages of scenery or unrivalled beaches in so far as our seaside resorts are concerned or facilities for fishing, shooting or other holiday recreations, have never been properly developed. There is perhaps a historic cause for that. In the past holidays were the prerogative of the rich, and the rich in this country were mainly of alien extraction and preferred to spend their holidays outside the country. The normal development of holiday resorts which took place in other countries did not take place here. We must try to make good that deficiency in our national equipment by developing facilities at these resorts, to make them more accessible to our people and their use more enjoyable to our people. That is the primary intention of the board and the main purpose for which the money will be provided.

I gave here yesterday a list of the areas for which the board is preparing schemes. It could prepare a much longer list of more elaborate schemes for holiday resorts if it was administering Government grants, but it is not administering Government grants. The board must confine itself to schemes which will make a profit for it. If Senator Sir John Keane wants an example I will give it to him.

The board is acquiring an estate and house at Portmarnock. Portmarnock is a seaside resort adjacent to Dublin. For many years, however, it has been almost inaccessible to the people of Dublin, first because private individuals owned a large amount of the land there and closed the land to people who might otherwise have access to it; secondly because road and other facilities which would enable the people to reach the strand and enjoy the amenities of the seaside there were not available. The board is going to make them available. It will develop that area by the construction of roads, parks, shelters, bandstands and all the other amenities or facilities people would require to enjoy a holiday resort. Having done that, it will expect to increase the value of the land it bought and having increased the value of the land by these development works it will proceed to sell or lease the land to people who will erect cinemas, restauraunts, hotels or other buildings from which, through private enterprise, they might hope to make a profit. That is the aim. In every case where the board deals with a resort development scheme which has been duly certified then having completed the development work on which it is engaged it will endeavour to dispose of some of the property or lease that property in such manner as to recover the expenditure.

It is quite obvious that none of the resort development activity of the board will be remunerative to the board or serve the purpose which the Government and the board have in mind unless its activities are ultimately to be supported by private enterprise and in expressing the view that the development of our holiday resorts must be mainly taken up by private enterprise that is the idea I had in mind.

The board can provide parks, swimming pools, roads, walks and the other facilities which the public would like to have but the schemes themselves will be incomplete unless private enterprise follows in and undertakes the other more commercial type of development which will enable the board to recover its expenditure and give to the public the added facilities which they will seek.

Most of the debate however referred to the question of the operation of hotels by the board. I explained in the Dáil in introducing the Bill that the board came into the possession of certain properties which are being developed as hotels largely because of the abnormal circumstances which existed in the years since the board was established. The board could not undertake this resort development work during the war. It could not carry out precisely the plan which we had in mind in 1939 and consequently other activities engaged its attention. Certain properties in holiday resort areas became available. They were mainly large houses situated on demesnes where there were exceptional scenic attractions or other unusual facilities. It acquired these houses with the Government's consent, with a view to their development as hotels. The board is not going to operate the hotels, nor will its relationship to those hotel properties be any different from what it will be to other hotel properties. It is true that, having expended money on the hotels and having undertaken to provide capital for their development, it must retain such control over those properties until they are disposed of as will enable the board to sell them to the best advantage. The board is going to sell them to the best advantage, for the highest price they can get for them. In order to ensure that they would not have direct responsibility for the operation of these hotels, the board has set up a subsidiary company, established under the Companies Acts. Senator Summerfield was misled by Senator Sweetman's recounting of some of the provisions in the memorandum of association of that company. I think he assumed that Senator Sweetman was referring to the powers of the board. That company will be sold to the public. Shares in the company will be offered to the public and when those shares are bought, as we expect they will be, it will be a privately-owned company entitled to carry on any commercial activity which may be carried on by such a private company. It may sell shares to customers or run a private hackney service, or carry on any ordinary activity such as that.

Mr. Sweetman

There is special provision in the articles of association of this company that no shares are to be sold to the public.

Mr. Lemass

The company at present is a non-profit-making company and the board of directors consists of persons who have agreed to carry on the concern, at the request of the Tourist Development Board, without remuneration. The intention is that the company will be offered to the public. That may involve some change in its status, but clearly the provision to which the Senator refers is intended to give the company a special status for tax purposes which otherwise it would not have. That company will be offered for sale as a going concern to the public or it will dispose of the individual properties, if that appears to be the most advantageous method of getting back the capital invested.

Mr. Crosbie

How will the directors of the public company be selected?

Mr. Lemass

By the shareholders. I have no objection to the board establishing a subsidiary company for that purpose or for other purposes that I have in mind. Amongst the other purposes, there is the very important purpose of organising holiday camps. Senator Duffy, who spoke with some vehemence on this Bill, apparently read with great care the account of certain proceedings in the courts yesterday. He told us, however, he was not present during the initial stages of this debate and apparently he did not even attempt to read the newspaper account of that debate before participating in it. If the Senator had done so, he would have found that I made a special reference to the board's intention to organise holiday camps for workers.

Mr. Foran

I would like to point out to the Minister that he would not have got a lot of information in the newspaper regarding what some of the people said here.

Mr. Lemass

I hope the Senator is not blaming me for that. The board is particularly anxious to foster the establishment of holiday camps and holiday hostels in suitable resorts, for the advantage of working-class families who cannot afford to pay the higher charges which operate in ordinary hotels at seaside resorts. It will endeavour to get such hostels or camps established by private enterprise and will encourage and assist private enterprise to do so, either by technical advice or by the loan of money, if that is required. However, if private enterprise does not appear to be oncoming in that regard, I will certainly encourage the board to establish a subsidiary like Fáilte, Teoranta, for that purpose and certainly will be prepared to approve an advance to the board for that purpose, if the board put up schemes which appear to be attractive and in every way sound.

Mr. Duffy

What I was really concerned about was the very little consideration given to the matter in the White Paper, which appears to be public policy.

Mr. Lemass

I stated in 1939 that the board would not acquire hotels except in odd cases. The board has, in fact, acquired only one hotel, that at Lisdoonvarna. What is the position there? At Lisdoonvarna, there is a spa which may be—and many have contended that it is—as good a spa as exists in Europe. The board have advanced a substantial sum of money to the trust which owns the spa, for its development, for the erection of baths, shelters and other facilities one would expect to find at a spa. If the board advances money and otherwise concerns itself with the development of the spa, it is for the purpose of attracting people there—and there is no good in attracting people unless there is a suitable hotel for them to stay at. Consequently, it was felt to be a necessary part of the plan to acquire, enlarge and improve the existing hotel. It was acquired voluntarily and there was no question of compulsion. An offer was made to the hotel proprietors and it was sold to the board. They are spending a substantial sum of money on improvement and enlargement, but that is all part of one scheme, the main purpose of which is to develop Lisdoonvarna as a holiday resort in connection with the spa. There were special circumstances in that case.

The board would not ordinarily acquire existing hotels except as a necessary step in the completion of some wider scheme. It acquired for £500 the derelict hotel at Killarney, but they were not acquiring the hotel there but the site on which the hotel stood. The suggestion that the board, in developing new hotels, is going into competition with private enterprise has no foundation for it. There are 900 registered hotels in the country. The new company established by the board, "Fáilte, Teoranta", will operate five. There are not enough hotels in the country. The particular hotels which the board will operate are all located in special areas, where they will not be in competition with anybody.

The term "luxury hotel" has been used in that connection, and it was unfortunate that it was ever used. That term brings to mind a false picture and one is led to misunderstand the type of business in which the board is engaged when that term is used. People react against the term; so violently did Senator Honan react that he actually pronounced his opinion that people did not want luxury at hotels. I think we want luxury in all our hotels. I do not know the precise significance of the term, but while I agree it is quite true that people look in the main for cleanliness, good food and comfort, they also want luxury, and as much luxury as they can reasonably expect to get having regard to the tariffs charged to them. In fact, I should say that a very large number of those who go to hotels for holidays are people who are prepared to save money all the year round, denying themselves luxuries, for the purpose of living like a millionaire or a semi-millionaire for a week or a fortnight. That is a holiday to them and it is a very enjoyable one. I think those people would be very disappointed if, having saved their money and having paid their fees, they were given plain food and cleanliness, but no luxury. Part of the attraction of a holiday to them is the fact that they can get during that limited period of the year a degree of luxury which otherwise they cannot hope to experience.

Senators Hayes and Crosbie made adverse reference to the personnel of the board. There was even a suggestion that they were unfitted to be members of the board and were chosen for their membership solely because of their political affiliations. The Irish Tourist Board consists of five members The chairman and managing director of the board is Mr. J.P. O'Brien. He was manager, before his appointment to the Irish Tourist Board, of the Tourist Association and he was, perhaps, the one person in this country engaged in a professional, whole-time capacity, on tourist matters. I think that if any other person had been chosen for the post of managing director of the Irish Tourist Board, it would have required some explanation. He was chosen because of his special experience and qualification in tourist matters. I may say that his retention in that capacity will, of course, depend entirely on the manner in which the board is administered. Up to the present, there has been no cause for complaint. Another member of the board is Mr. Thomas Condon, a former Senator. At the time of his appointment——

A Senator

He was not a Senator.

Mr. Lemass

Well he tried to be a Senator.

Mr. Hearne

He was a Senator.

Mr. Lemass

At the time of his appointment, he was president of the Irish Tourist Association. Senator Sweetman was not president at that time, and if he had been, his claim as an occupier of that position would have had to be considered.

Mr. Hayes

He has no chance.

Mr. Sweetman

Senator Sweetman has no chance because he has not the one essential qualification.

Mr. Lemass

That is the kind of nonsense we have to listen to. There is no one essential qualification. I will deal with that later to-day. I intend to deal with it. Then, there is Mr. Joseph Gannon, Bachelor of Engineering and Bachelor of Science and company director. What his politics are I do not know, but I am satisfied that he is a competent member of the board. There is An Fear Mór who runs a very successful Irish College at Ring, County Waterford, and has unique experience in that respect. Another director is Lord Monteagle, and I do not think that Senators opposite can suggest that he is an ardent supporter of Fianna Fáil.

Mr. Hayes

He could be.

Mr. Lemass

I understand that he was, for a long number of years, a spokesman for Southern Unionists. He is widely travelled, and was chosen as a member of the board because of his high personal qualifications.

Mr. Crosbie

I do not think it is this Lord Monteagle who was regarded as a spokesman of the Southern Unionists.

Mr. Lemass

I would not dispute with the Senator.

Mr. Crosbie

The Senator makes no claims to be an authority on that.

Mr. Lemass

I am told here that these members were selected solely because they were supporters of Fianna Fáil. I can tell the Senators that there were good reasons for their appointments, no matter what party they supported. I say the Irish Tourist Board could not be described except as a very suitable board having regard to the special qualifications of the members who constitute it. Let me say this now: I know that Senator Hayes and his friends have never yet forgiven Fianna Fáil for putting them out of office in 1932. Their minds seemed to have stopped functioning in that year. Even now, they still think that we are trespassers, that the State and the institutions of the State are their special property, and that Fianna Fáil should have no right to interfere with them.

In that state of mind they have, therefore, developed an extraordinary point of view that anybody who supports the Government should not be employed in any capacity whatever——

Mr. Sweetman

Or, in every capacity.

Mr. Lemass

Senator Hayes also told us about Séamus Davin, former secretary of Fianna Fáil. Let me say to the Senator that Mr. Davin applied for a vacancy on the Tourist Board staff which was advertised and got it on his merits, and no other ground. He told us a rather peculiar story about the personnel difficulties of Fianna Fáil being solved by appointments to outside bodies. That story is not true. In fact, I could say that the story is obviously not true, in view of the discrepancies in it, without any further examination. But, nevertheless, it struck a very familiar chord.

The main facts of the story told by Senator Hayes seemed to fit very accurately the circumstances of the appointment of a director of broadcasting during the Cumann na nGaedheal régime. We are told that Fianna Fáil solves its personnel difficulties by putting these people into public appointments, or semi-public appointments. Cumann na nGaedheal had a difficulty which they tried to solve by making a person a member of the Dáil. I stopped that by defeating their candidate, so he was made director of broadcasting. The facts all correspond to the old story and Senator Hayes has merely changed the names. But, no doubt, he was trying to enliven the proceedings of the Seanad by recalling something which was really applicable to Cumann na nGaedheal.

I think it is about time that we stopped this business of suggesting that every supporter of the Government who gets employment in a public capacity gets it for political reasons. Senator Hayes got a job paid out of public funds. He was not the only one.

Mr. Hayes

What does the Minister mean that I got a job out of public funds?

Mr. Lemass

I will tell the Senator in a moment if he will allow me.

Mr. Hayes

When I went into University College, to lecture in 1912, when the British were here, does the Minister tell me that I got it through political influence?

Mr. Lemass

I am not suggesting it.

Mr. Hayes

You have made the allegation that I got the job through political influence.

Mr. Lemass

The Senator is not the only member of his party who is, even to-day, paid out of public funds.

Mr. Hayes

I tell the Minister that every effort was made by the Fianna Fáil Party to defeat me getting my present job in University College— every device was used to put in the wife of a Minister to defeat me.

Mr. Lemass

The Senator is free to make any allegations he likes.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Order. We are dealing with the Tourist Bill.

Mr. Lemass

And, Sir, we are dealing with allegations which could come only from Senator Hayes.

Mr. Sweetman

And you can take them as coming from me and I make them here, too.

Mr. Lemass

I am putting what I say in contrast with these allegations that when people get jobs paid out of public funds they are supporters of the Fianna Fáil Party. Yet, we hear no similar allegations when opponents get jobs out of public funds. We hope to maintain a proper standard of decency in public life and we will continue to do our best to maintain it.

Mr. Baxter

The Minister came down to my constituency and made allegations about me before ever he was a Minister.

Mr. Lemass

If that is true, I have no recollection of it.

Mr. Baxter

There is evidence that I was turned out of the Agricultural Credit Corporation because I am a supporter of Fine Gael.

Mr. Lemass

It is the first I ever heard of it.

Mr. Baxter

I challenge contradiction on it.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Order. I want to remind the House that we are discussing the Tourist Bill.

Mr. Lemass

Let us agree to drop it all now, and assume that until the contrary is proved, persons get posts on their merits only. I want to make it clear that in every employment which I control, political influence will not be effective as a qualification for getting a job. People appointed to these positions are appointed on their merits and will continue, so long as I am Minister, to be appointed on their merits.

To get back to some of the other important points raised in the debate, Senator Honan referred to the desire of the Ennis Development Association to have a new hotel erected there, and he asked that the Government should procure a new hotel. I cannot even undertake that the Tourist Board will embark on the erection of a new hotel. But I am sure that the board will assist local enterprise by advice and financial assistance to provide the new hotel in Ennis at least to the same extent as they are assisting a similar group in Limerick. The type of hotel business which Senator Honan regards as desirable in Ennis must be provided by private enterprise in the first instance.

Mr. Honan

I made that suggestion in reply to suggestions from the other side, that the Tourist Board were going into competition with the existing hotels.

Mr. Lemass

I understand.

Mr. Honan

My point was that if the existing hotels or any new company that may be started do not do it, then somebody has to do it.

Mr. Lemass

There is no question of competition at present and will not be for many years because we have not half enough hotels in the country. May I say, in connection with the suggestion that there should be more of the small class of hotels and workers' hostels that we want all kinds of hotels, and that it will be the function of the board to stimulate and assist in the provision of all kinds of hotels, hotels that will cater for every class of person?

Senator Foran referred to a case where a hotel proprietor was prosecuted for over-charging. He was not so prosecuted by the Irish Tourist Board. The Irish Tourist Board have, in fact, no power to prosecute for that offence. Over-charging is an offence only under emergency powers legislation, and I presume it was the officers of the Department of Industry and Commerce who were responsible for the prosecution in the case to which the Senator referred.

Mr. Foran

I approached the Department of Industry and Commerce and I approached the Department of Justice, and I was referred by both to the Tourist Board.

Mr. Lemass

There was some misunderstanding. On that matter, may I explain to the House the powers and procedure of the Tourist Board in relation to hotel charges? They do not attempt to fix reasonable charges. They ask every hotel proprietor when registering his hotel with the board to state the charges he proposes to make. He can state any charges he likes, from 20 guineas a week to two guineas a week, but once he states his charges he must stick to them. The board will insist on the hotel proprietor maintaining the charges which he determines, and these charges are published in the handbook issued by the board. The purpose of that scheme is to enable any person seeking hotel accommodation in Ireland to be told by the Tourist Board the hotels that are available and the charges for accommodation at these hotels.

Mr. Sweetman

The maximum charges.

Mr. Lemass

Yes, so that an individual can select the type of hotel which he regards as being within his means. Having selected that hotel, he can go to it knowing that he will not be charged more than the charge set out in the handbook issued by the Irish Tourist Board. There was an objection, and a well-founded objection, to the practice of hotel keepers pushing up charges when a customer came in who looked wealthier or softer than the ordinary run of customer, or, again, during special seasons when the demands for hotel accommodation were abnormally heavy.

Mr. Duffy

I suggest that the penalty for that is, that if there is any departure from the charges set out, the board can cancel the registration of the hotel, but that there is no prosecution.

Mr. Lemass

That is correct. Now that Senator Duffy is on his feet, it reminds me of the fact that he referred to the wages and conditions of employment of hotel workers. The board has no functions in regard to the regulation of the conditions of employment or wages of the hotel workers. I do not know if Senator Duffy intended to suggest that they should have functions in that regard.

Mr. Duffy

My point is that it should be part of the inspection duty of the board.

Mr. Lemass

There would be no good in merely giving the board powers in regard to inspection if they had no power to remedy anything which they might find to be wrong. The wages and conditions of employment of hotel staffs are regulated by private negotiation between individual employees and their employers, or by agreements negotiated between trade unions and the employers. Is the Senator prepared to leave it that way, or is he proposing to give to this board the power to regulate the conditions of employment and wages of hotel workers?

Mr. Duffy

I was interested in the people who are not members of a trade union and are not likely to become members of a trade union.

Mr. Lemass

I knew quite well what the Senator had in mind, and I am going to tell him. He knew that there were bad conditions of employment in certain hotels, and he wanted to put the blame for that on the Government.

Mr. Duffy

No, that is not fair. I suggest that the board has the duty to inspect and see that hotels are maintained in a state of cleanliness to enable them to be registered, and I wanted to ensure that the other conditions were as good as those in regard to cleanliness.

Mr. Lemass

The Senator can have it one way or the other, but I do not think he can have it both ways. Either the conditions of employment and the rates of wages for hotel staffs will be left to be fixed by the trade unions, through ordinary trade union action, or that duty will be taken away from the trade unions and will be undertaken by the Irish Tourist Board. You cannot have both doing it. I am certain that Senator Duffy, when talking on that, was talking without his book and without consultation with his colleagues.

Mr. Duffy

No. I was making a case for human beings.

Mr. Lemass

What the Senator was concerned with was to put responsibility for these conditions on the Government. I could easily retort by putting the onus on the trade unions, and say that those catering for hotel workers had failed in their job if the conditions which the Senator has described exist. If the Senator wants to say that he is authorised by the trade unions——

Mr. Duffy

I am authorised by no one. I am simply concerned with the case of these people.

Mr. Lemass

If the Senator is trying to convey that the trade unions concerned are prepared to give up the job and leave to the Tourist Board and the Government the regulation of wages and conditions of employment in hotels I am prepared to consider it.

Mr. Duffy

It is a grand escape.

Mr. Lemass

Well, which way do you want it? Do you want the responsibility put on the Government or do you want——

Mr. Duffy

Not by question and answer. I will reply to the Minister's statement later. I have further evidence which may interest him.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Minister must be allowed to proceed, without further interruption.

Mr. Lemass

I am quite willing to take over some responsibility in relation to the conditions of employment and the remuneration of hotel workers if I am assured that is the way the trade unions concerned want it. Is not that clear enough?

Some Senator suggested that the present trend in holiday traffic is transitory, and that the anxiety of people in other countries to come and enjoy holidays here will pass when normal conditions are restored throughout Europe. I do not know that that is true. There are abnormal conditions prevailing at the moment. The number of people who may wish to come here for holidays is very much larger than the number we can accommodate. It is entirely incorrect to say, as Senator Duffy tried to convey, that the Tourist Board is endeavouring to attract visitors from abroad this year. It is not doing so.

Mr. Sweetman

That is correct.

Mr. Lemass

As I explained yesterday, the board and the Tourist Association are limiting their activities in so far as visitors from abroad are concerned. They are impressing on such visitors that they should not come here unless they have their accommodation arranged in advance. Otherwise, they have no certainty of getting accommodation. There is no effort being made to attract visitors from abroad until we are in a position to cater for them properly. At present we have not enough hotel accommodation, nor have the efforts of the board to raise the standard of hotel accommodation yet borne sufficient fruit. I think, however, there is big business here for the future. We must not regard the volume of tourist traffic as stationary. It is not stationary.

The development of travel facilities, and the inauguration of the practice of giving holidays with pay to workers as well as many other changes not merely in this country but in almost all countries, is raising the total volume of holiday traffic everywhere. This traffic is going to become much bigger business in the future than ever it was in the past. If we are to get a substantial share of that business, I am certain that we can get it only if we prepare the basis on which the business can be built up: that is, proper accommodation and proper facilities which people will remember and speak about when they go back. It is not primarily for the purpose of attracting visitors from abroad we are developing our holiday resorts. We are developing our holiday resorts for the benefit of our own people in the main. It is not primarily to attract visitors from abroad we are raising the standard of hotel accommodation. It should be raised in any event. We can, through those methods and other activities of the Tourist Board, interest private enterprise in the immense possibilities of the holiday traffic business which has developed not merely amongst our own people but all over the world. We can attract a substantial part of that business here and it is export business. Senator Duffy said that there is no use in attracting English visitors at present because they will pay us only in sterling and we have plenty of sterling. He might as well say that we should stop shipping cattle or shipping other produce to England, because precisely the same argument applies. If we ship cattle or goods to Britain, we do so not because there is an immediate need to obtain sterling for our own purposes but to maintain a trade which will be necessary and advantageous to us in the future. In the same way, if British visitors come to the country this year for holidays, we hope they will enjoy their holidays and that they will, as a result, become propagandists for holidays in Ireland amongst their friends and neighbours in their own country. That will bring trade to us which we shall need and be glad to get in the future.

I might say, however, that the activities of the Tourist Board and the potentialities of this trade are not confined to Great Britain. American air and shipping companies have expressed to me their belief that there are very substantial possibilities in the future of tourist trade from the United States. These companies are expending at the present time very large sums of money on popularising holidays in Ireland in the United States. There are, I think, two or three film organisations here at the moment making films, to the order of those companies which they propose to use in connection with their business in selling travel facilities from the United States to this country. I see no reason why that business should not be encouraged as soon as we are in a position to handle it. We are not yet in a position to handle it and we, ourselves, are taking no active steps in that direction other than to promote and assist the development of the facilities here which will, ultimately, put us in a position to handle that business.

Senator Ó Buachalla referred to the possibility of the board assisting in the establishment of Gaelic colleges. Let me make it quite clear that this board is concerned with holiday facilities. It is considering and, in the future, will be very glad to consider, proposals for the development of holiday facilities in Gaeltacht areas where people can combine holidays with the study of the Irish language.

Liam Ó Buachalla

Including the erection of buildings?

Mr. Lemass

Including the erection of buildings, but from the point of view of the Tourist Board, the primary emphasis will be on holidays. The buildings would have to be in areas suitable for holidays—say, a seaside resort or some other area where people could enjoy ordinary recreational facilities. Ordinarily, the board would assist projects of that kind by giving advice or financial help to persons who themselves were prepared to undertake the management of the buildings or holiday camps or whatever form the enterprise might take. The assistance would be in the form of engineering advice and general advice in the management of such enterprise. The board would not, I think, be interested in proposals for the establishment of colleges where education in horticulture or agriculture would be given. I think that the Department of Agriculture have projects for the establishment of such colleges. The primary purpose of the Tourist Board is to develop holiday facilities and any project submitted to it would have to be definitely associated with the provision of holiday facilities.

I again emphasise that the purpose of this Bill is to enable the Government to give advances on an increased scale to the board for profit making schemes, mainly of a resort-developing character. All the money so advanced will, it is hoped, ultimately be repaid by the board from the profits earned by it on these schemes. The reason the Bill is introduced at present is that the board has already prepared schemes which will, ultimately, involve expenditure to a greater amount than was authorised by the 1939 Act. Many of these schemes cannot be proceeded with because of certain difficulties to which I have referred—scarcity of materials, the fact that property required in connection with them has not been voluntarily acquired, and may not be voluntarily acquired, involving the use of the board's compulsory powers, and the fact that local authorities are not in a position to give the co-operation required. In all cases, the schemes that can be begun this year will not be begun until after the present holiday season, so that it is not yet possible to produce, by way of illustration of the board's methods, a scheme planned and carried through to completion. No scheme has yet been completed and, for that reason, it is not as easy as it otherwise might be to illustrate the board's method of procedure. A number of schemes in the list which I read out will be begun towards the end of the present holiday season and will be pushed ahead as rapidly as possible. Their completion may involve the co-operation of other people or the availability of supplies which are not yet in sight.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take the Committee Stage now.