Quite a lot of ground has already been covered in the debate on this measure. There are just a few matters, mainly affecting the area which I represent and the tourist centres there, which I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister. The main complaint of hoteliers in the West of Ireland and the people who go there on holidays concerns the dreadful journey that one has to endure in trying to get there. That is one of the principal matters with which this new body should deal. I cannot for the life of me understand why it takes such a dreadfully long time for either a train or a bus to get to the West. I see no reason why Córas Iompair Éireann should not be prepared to run, say, one train express to Athlone and another train, after a short interval, express from Athlone to Westport or Ballina. Similarly, I cannot see why a special through bus cannot be run from Dublin to Athlone, making, perhaps, just one stop in a centre in the Midlands. I think that could be done very easily. It requires only the goodwill of Córas Iompair Éireann and some other organisation to deal with the matter satisfactorily.
So far as complaints about Córas Iompair Éireann restaurants are concerned, I agree with some of them. I think that in addition to a monopoly of transport in this country, Córas Iompair Éireann has also a monopoly of surly waiters and of weak tea. This new board might do something about that matter, if they tackled it in a really effective way. The really effective remedy in my opinion is, not to leave travellers to the tender mercies of Córas Iompair Éireann restaurants, but to provide them with express trains and express buses which would bring them speedily to their destination. Unless something is done along these lines I am afraid very much that hoteliers in the West will be waiting a long time to make any profit out of the expected tourist influx to this country.
There has been some disagreement about the name of the new board, Fógra Fáilte. I do not think it matters quite a lot; probably a better name for it would be "Fáilte gan Fógra" because under this Bill we expect to cater for people whom we never expected to come to this country normally and who are being driven in here by outside circumstances. Once they do come here, the job of this board should be to create a desire amongst them to return in future years. In my district the name applied to a certain class of sea-side visitors is "Formeries"; perhaps this board might be called "Formeries Teoranta." However, I think we can safely leave that matter to the body itself. One thing we should ensure is that the board will not be a haven of rest for defunct county managers with political ambitions. This board should be composed of people who know something about the business, who are prepared to deal with the difficulties of transport and to take the steps necessary to get hoteliers to deal with the expected tourist influx and to boost Irish holiday resorts abroad.
I am not so concerned with the question of advertising inside the country because I think everybody in this country can make up his own mind where he will go. I think the new board, however, from the point of view of publicity, might have a tie-up with some of the travel agencies like Cooks or Wagon-Lits, who cater for people on the Continent. Like everybody else, I suppose these people are more interested in what they can make out of it than they are in selling any particular resort. If this new board can put Ireland well on the map from a tourist point of view they will have achieved something very worth while and justify their existence.
I do not know whether any discrimination will be exercised under this Bill as between Irish citizens and non-nationals. In recent years there has been an influx of non-nationals to this country and some of these people have gone into the hotel and catering business. I do not know whether these people qualify under this Bill though it seems to me that they do. Perhaps it is a matter of policy—I do not know—but at all events it is a matter which should be considered by the Minister.
I disagree with the provisions in this Bill which relate to tourist camps, not on the grounds which have been given here by different speakers in this debate but because I feel that the only type of tourist camp envisaged under this Bill is some huge concern like Butlins'. I think you have a provision for a holiday camp with a valuation of something like £250. No group of Irishmen in the business would be in a position to finance a holiday camp of such a size. I think the Minister should make provision, before the Bill passes through the House, to help people who might be in a position to establish suitable holiday camps, of, say, £50 valuation and which would cater for approximately 100 to 150 guests. A building with a valuation of £250—even with the present outlook of the Commissioners of Valuation in this country —is some building and, in my opinion, nobody in the business in this country would be in a position, financially, to erect such a holiday camp to cater either for the home trade or for visitors. I suggest that as far as holiday camps are concerned the limits laid down here should be lowered.
I entirely agree with the Deputies who spoke of the importance of the brown trout and salmon fisheries of this country. I do not know whether legislation would be necessary or not —possibly it would not, or possibly it could be arranged—but I think that this new board should start off by devoting some particular attention to these fisheries. It should be possible for a fisherman who visits this country to get a licence here in Dublin to fish in any part of this State. The system of going from one board of conservators to another in order to get a licence to fish in different districts is most inefficient apart from the fact that it is often very difficult to find out where one should go for a licence to fish in a particular district. That system can be described as the height of inefficiency.
It frequently happens in different parts of the country that a visitor has great difficulty in discovering to whom he should apply for a licence to fish because even the local people have not that information. There is good fishing and an abundance of it in this country and try to imagine the feelings of a tourist who comes here with the intention of fishing and who cannot find out where he should apply for a licence to fish. Any fisherman coming here is prepared to pay a reasonable fee for a licence that will allow him to fish and I think that even if the fee be fairly substantial it is far cheaper to fish in this country than it is to fish in Scotland, as anybody who has any experience in that connection must know. We have an abundance of good fishing in this country and that is a tourist attraction which, possibly, many other countries have not got and it is one that attracts the type of tourist who spends the most money here. Any tourist, therefore, who comes here to fish should be given a comprehensive licence which will permit him to fish in those districts which he contemplates visiting and thus save him the time and the trouble involved in applying to different officials and different boards of conservators for separate licences.
Another important matter, although it may not be a function of the Tourist Board, is the restocking of our fisheries. It is a great pity that it is not the specific duty of some body to restock our fisheries, as is the case in America and elsewhere. If the Tourist Board would undertake this work I believe that it would yield them very good dividends. The trouble about it is that this matter seems to be everybody's business and nobody's business though the fact remains that our inland fisheries, from the point of view of tourists and local anglers, have been sadly neglected. This country could quite definitely cash-in on those fisheries and compete more than favourably with other countries for tourists who are interested in fishing.
My remarks on fishing apply, to a lesser extent, to rough shooting. Our experience is that the man who holds a licence for rough shooting has eliminated most of the grouse shooting in this country. I have mentioned the necessity for a body whose specific job it would be to look after the restocking of our inland fisheries and such a body could also usefully attend to some of these huge tracts of shooting lands, a large number of which are, I understand, controlled by the Irish Land Commission. There are large tracts of mountain in which tenants have common rights. If these mountains were stocked and rough shooting permitted there, you would make a gamekeeper out of the tenant very quickly if he were getting something out of it and he would be the first to assist the board if they undertook this work.
I have some considerable doubts about some of the sections in the Bill in connection with the cancellation of registration of hotels. I consider that we are taking a different step in legislation under this Bill. I shall deal with the licensing sections in a moment. As I understand the law at present, if, for any reason, an hotel is registered under the Tourist Board and that registration is cancelled, the board are not legally empowered to re-register that hotel without sending down an inspector to inspect the hotel and without the payment by the hotel of a new registration fee and other expenses—even though that hotel had previously been registered with the Tourist Board and had been inspected prior to that initial registration. The Minister should avail of this opportunity to clear up the anomalous position which arises if, for some reason or other outside those set out in Section 29 of this Bill, or through some slip, the registration of a premises is cancelled. For premises which were previously registered and inspected prior to that registration, and operated for some time prior to cancellation of the registration, I think some method should be devised for the re-registration of these premises without putting the owners to all the additional expense of bringing an inspector down to visit the premises again and the payment of registration fees, apart altogether from the long delay which all that work can involve. I am not satisfied, under Section 29 of this Bill, to leave it to what might happen with the backroom boys. Certain provisions are laid down in Section 29 in connection with the cancellation of registration but we all know what can happen. Certainly, I shall suggest to the Minister on the Committee Stage that there should be some further provision by way of extra protection for hoteliers to enable them to appeal to the courts if they should so desire. I should not leave it entirely in the hands of this body to be set up under this Bill to wipe out the existence of an hotel because, in effect, that is what it will mean. If some officials set up under this board do not like a particular hotel owner and pay him a couple of visits and decide for one reason or another to cancel his licence, so far as I can see under this Bill that hotel owner has no redress.
I should like the Minister to take this opportunity of clearing up a couple of matters in connection with hotel licences in general. I cannot think of anything more annoying to tourists than for a bunch of the local Gardaí to descend upon the local hotel in an endeavour to check up on the hotelier and on whether there is or is not a technical breach of the licensing laws. There may not seem to be much in that from the outside view, but anybody who has had experience of living in a county where there is a highly efficient chief superintendent and three or four Guards who have done the sergeant's examination will realise what I mean.
Nobody in this country appears to know what constitutes an hotel bar. There seem to have been conflicting decisions about the matter. Hoteliers are dragged into court on allegations by the Guards that it is illegal to have any opening at all where there is a dispense bar; that if there is any opening at all from the dispense bar it becomes a public bar. This Bill gives the Minister an opportunity, when he is interfering with the licensing laws at all, of defining what is meant, what the authorities mean by an hotel bar and in that way removing one reason why you have very technical members of the Garda Síochána bringing prosecutions against hoteliers and disturbing their guests in connection with matters of this kind.
Then there is another matter. If the front door of an hotel, let it be a 200 bedroom one, is open and a member of the public goes in, say, for a meal and at the same time the door of the dispense bar is open, or if the hotel has an ordinary public-house licence and the door of the bar is open while the front door is open, or even if the barman is coming out of the bar door with a drink for one of the guests who is entitled to get it, there is a breach of the licensing laws. It sounds paradoxical and strange, but we have had prosecutions of that nature even in tourist areas. When that kind of thing is happening and highly efficient Gardaí are taking advantage of every letter of the law and giving a considerable amount of unjustifiable attention on technical matters of this kind to hoteliers, I think opportunity should now be taken to clear up these bones of contention under Part IV of the Bill.
I am not quite clear as to what is the position of new country hotels under this Bill. The minimum requirement for city hotels is 20 bedrooms etc. This Bill will be interpreted by the courts when it is passed. If a hotelier in the country applies for a licence under the law, the suggestion will be that, by implication, the old standards are all gone and it must be an hotel of the nature envisaged here. It seems that under Sections 38 and 39 there will be two different applications in respect of a licence. Section 38 is a good one in so far as it gives power to apply to the court for a declaration that the premises proposed to be erected or improved would be suitable for a licence. But you have to go back again after that with another application under Section 39.
I do not know what the necessity is for this second application. If there is a necessity for it, I do not know why it should have to come before the Circuit Court. I do not see why hoteliers should be put to the expense, which is not inconsiderable, of costs in the Circuit Court. Particularly, I do not see why that should be so when, in fact, the judge will be only acting as a rubber stamp under the Bill, because it depends on whether the Tourist Board registers the hotel or not. The premises, of course, must be registered with the board. If for any reason, the board do not register the premises, evidently the owner cannot get a licence. Still more strange, when an owner applies for the annual renewal of his licence in September he cannot get a renewal if, for any reason, the hotel is not registered with the Tourist Board or if, in the meantime, its name has been taken off the register. The Minister should provide some further safeguard in that connection.
Then I am not prepared to agree that the Tourist Board should have the final say in this matter. Possibly it might not even be the Tourist Board, but some official of the board who would wipe out the hotel on which the owner may have spent a very considerable sum of money making the hotel suitable. If, owing to some conflict with the board, his registration is cancelled, he automatically loses his licence. If he has to go before the court in the first instance to get a licence, he should be entitled to go to the court in the last instance before the board can deprive him of his licence.
This Bill is very long overdue and, when it is passed, I hope that whatever board is dealing with it will take full advantage of the powers given them as soon as possible, because a lot of time has been lost in dealing with this most valuable industry. A lot will depend on getting an energetic board, and I hope that this problem will be tackled in a way in which it has not been tackled before. I have listened to and read the speeches of various Deputies pointing out the things we have to offer here. We have a number of things to offer in this country, but there is certainly one thing we have not to offer and that is weather. We can do nothing about that in this House. But the board could do something to provide for the tourist during wet weather.
The law as it stands in this country militates against that. In places on Clew Bay and on Achill Island, where quite a number of tourists go during wet weather, when boats cannot go out there is nothing for the tourist to do. When an enterprising gentleman there tried to run some little side shows he found himself hauled into court. I do not want to suggest that we should turn any part of the country into another Blackpool. I suggest, however, that if we are to go in for tourism in a reasonable way we must make provision for the wet days that, unfortunately, we get in this country. Unless there are picture houses or some other form of amusement in these local tourist resorts, there is absolutely nothing for the people to do except roam about their hotels.
I was very sorry when the Board of Works in their wisdom saw fit to remove the monument to good Queen Victoria from outside this House, that Deputies did not get interested in removing the Gaming Act of 1854 from the Statute Book. We gamble millions of money in this country on the sweepstakes and on horses. We can put £100 on a horse which never ran before. But, if you go into a country carnival and put 1d. on the roulette, all the rigours of the law are applied to you. If a carnival is run to raise funds for a charitable object and the game of pongo is played at it, there are hundreds of charges promptly issued by the local Guards.
This Gaming Act is a complete anachronism on our Statute Book and its repeal should be considered. The fact that it is there means that there is a check by the Guards in the case of those small shows when they visit isolated tourist places and attempt to provide some amusement with innocent games. Some of our people might consider that it would be bad business if we were to cater for the gambling type of tourist. We know that there is quite an amount of gambling done by a lot of our people. If they do want to do that, I do not see any reason why they should not be allowed to do it. Possibly the board might consider that it would be money well spent if someone were to come along and cater for gambling in a big way and were to set up a casino such as they have in places like Monaco. One of the things against that would be the weather. But if people were prepared to come here and spend their money, I do not see see why it should not be taken from them.
Apart from the question of local carnivals, I think that the board should be enabled to make use of these innocent games at seaside places like Enniscrone and Bundoran. They would provide amusement for people on a wet day. If anything of the kind is attempted at present, the parties concerned are brought before the court. I think the Minister would be well advised to insert a provision in the Bill to stop that kind of thing. These games do not do any harm. They provide amusement for the people during wet weather at seaside resorts. I have learned from the hoteliers in my part of the country that the board will get every co-operation from them. They are expecting a big rush of visitors this year. The main thing they complain about is that the assistance which this Bill is intended to give them was not provided earlier. I imagine their feeling is "better late than never." If the board faces its task with vision and energy, I believe that the Minister's forecast will be achieved, namely, that the tourist income of this country can well be doubled.