Vol. 40 No. 23
I formally move amendment No. 1, which stands in the name of Senator O'Higgins:—
In sub-section (2), page 4, paragraph (d), line 12, to delete "in connection with tourist traffic" and substitute "which has as its principal or sole function the development of tourist traffic".
I think the amendment is based on some misunderstanding. Sub-section (1) of the section provides:—
"It shall be the duty of the board to encourage and promote the development of tourist traffic in and to the State."
Sub-section (2) is, in a sense, put in by way of illustration of the functions which the board will carry out under that general direction.
The purpose of this particular paragraph in sub-section (2) is to empower An Bord Fáilte to assist in establishing local companies for resort development, to which I referred on another stage. In taking into account any assistance given to these local companies, the board would have regard to the extent to which their work would benefit tourist traffic. If it is not likely to benefit the tourist traffic, the board would not be interested in it.
I think that what was in mind was that the board would not help such a body unless its principal or sole function was the development of tourist traffic.
The Senator will understand that these local development companies may have other functions. In fact, they would regard themselves as having other functions, that is, the development and improvement of the resort of which they would be in charge, but the board in giving it assistance would have regard to the extent to which its general work was also conducive to the development of tourist traffic.
Could the board set up a tourist agency?
No.
That has caused uneasiness and I think an assurance would be useful. I have in mind such concerns as Messrs. Hewett and Messrs. Cooks.
The board has not power to establish travel agencies.
There is a reference to tourist agencies, but I felt sure that there was no such intention. I am not quite sure that technically it might not have that intention.
There is certainly no such intention. The paragraph is put in, as I explained, for the purpose of enabling the board to assist local tourist resort companies. The amendment proposes that the board should not assist such body or organisation if it did not have as its sole or principal object the development of tourist traffic.
It might be that you would have in some small place throughout the country an organisation or a body which might be helping tourist traffic in a small and unimportant way. The point of the amendment is to see that such a body would not really qualify for payments from the board, unless it had as its sole object the promotion of the tourist traffic.
That might be restrictive. Take the Sligo Tourist Development Company or the Bundoran Tourist Development Organisation. These bodies take measures to improve the general appearance of the resorts they are in charge of and organise various carnivals, and so forth. While, no doubt, they might bring trade to the town they would not admit that was their sole purpose. We should not confine the board to give assistance to organisations whose sole purpose was to develop the tourist traffic. What I have in mind would include other purposes.
Would the Minister not think "any form of agency" is a terribly wide term in connection with the trade?
I do not think the board is precluded from giving assistance, in accordance with its own specific functions, to any organisation that might by its activities improve tourist traffic here. The section starts off by stating in sub-section (1):—
"It shall be the duty of the board to encourage and promote the development of tourist traffic in and to the State."
It is only by way of illustration of what it can do in the fufilment of that purpose that sub-section (2) is in. I frequently receive suggestions from organisations arranging international conferences in this country or organisations responsible for the development of particular forms of recreation, such as hiking, that the Tourist Board should assist them on specific activities which they might undertake and which would indirectly assist the tourist traffic. I do not think we should exclude the board from doing that. While the board would have to make sure that any help it gave was directed towards the achievement of its main purpose, it might incidentally benefit the organisation concerned in a general way.
I must apologise for being absent when this amendment was moved. This is a matter in which I am interested. I think that the section, as worded, is far too wide. What the Minister said just now is undoubtedly true, that by having this section in the board can assist worth-while projects by bodies that are not primarily interested in the development of the tourist traffic. My view is that the board should be without those powers rather than that you should have in an Act of Parliament a section which is as wide as this and which, with the best will in the world, enables the board to abuse the intentions behind the Act, and at the same time to act in a perfectly legitimate way and to dispose of the money at their disposal in a perfectly legitimate way.
As members of the Oireachtas, we would be discharging our duty in a better manner if we sought, in such cases, to impose the limitation even though by so doing there might be one or two cases over a period of years where the board would find, because such a limitation as is suggested in the amendment had been imposed by the Oireachtas, they were not able to assist in some project.
The wording of paragraph (d) is far too wide—"any form of agency in connection with tourist traffic". If there was some limit, I would be more satisfied, but I think it is much too wide at the moment.
I have difficulty in seeing what other form of wording could be used that would not be restrictive. The Tourist Traffic Act, 1939, also contained a section which gave the board power to, among other things, "establish or assist in establishing of any form of agency in connection with tourist traffic". I do not know if that power has ever been used by the Tourist Board. I doubt if it has because its resources were limited. I think Senator O'Higgins's suggestion would be far too restrictive. It might be interpreted as meaning that the board could not give assistance to the type of organisations I have in mind, associations primarily formed to do civic work generally in their localities and by their specific activity help tourist trade in that area.
If you added "as one of its primary functions the development of the tourist traffic".
I will accept that being inserted now. If the draftsman considers that some variation of the wording is necessary, I will come back.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In sub-section (2), page 4, paragraph (f), lines 18 and 19, to delete "other places of particular interest to the public" and substitute "places of scenic, historic, scientific or other interest".
This amendment was put down by me at the express request of the chairman of An Taisce, the National Trust for Ireland. That body, according to a letter I received from him, is of the opinion that the words suggested in the amendment would be an improvement and in particular they consider that the words "scenic" and "scientific" should be included. Personally, I am not very keen about any particular form of words but I think that the words in the Bill were intended to be as wide as possible. To meet this point of view, my amendment includes the words "other interest". I am not satisfied myself that the words "to the public" without any definition of "public", might not turn out unintentionally to be restrictive.
It may be that matters of scientific interest should be of interest to the general public. I do not know that it would be truthful to say that they are. I do not see the need for the words "to the general public". The National Trust seemed to think that this might have to be interpreted by a court though, personally, I do not think so. I do not think the question of the meaning of the words "general public" is to be termed impossible.
In order to make clear the reasons why the National Trust feel that these words should be inserted, it might be useful if I read a letter which I received from Professor Hackett, the chairman of An Taisce. The professor says: "As an example of a place of scientific interest with which An Bord Fáilte might well concern themselves is the Burren district." The Tourist Board guide refers to the Burren district as: "This area of base limestone hills, covering about 50 square miles, extends north and south-west from Lisdoonvarna. The thin soil of its hollows and crevices supports the most remarkable assemblages of diverse types of flora to be found in Ireland." Praeger describes the sight of the acres of Doyas Octapetala in full flower as "one of the loveliest sights that Ireland has to offer to the botanist".
This area is, therefore, a unique region scientifically and may well be exploited as a tourist attraction leading to the despoliation of its rarer plants. The Killarney fern, once plentiful around the Killarney hills, has suffered from the greed of collectors, both commercial and botanical, and is now extremely rare. These regions want protection if as likely, they become of interest to An Bord Fáilte.
As regards scenic places, An Taisce considers that Bray Head deserves to be made more available to pedestrians by the Cliff Walk, which should be ex tended to Greystones. The passage along the old railway line is becoming difficult and at times questions of right of way or trespass may arise. The farmers who have taken over land from the railway company have pushed their fences right up to the boulder clay cliff. It may not be wise to be too explicit on this point. I mention it merely to indicate that An Taisce have been concerned about the Bray-Greystones route from the scenic point of view.
Professor Hackett goes on to say:
"As regards the third adjective, ‘historic,' we have nothing specially in mind, unless our recent interest in Glendalough as a national sanctuary, opposing the Wicklow County Council in its petition to extend the graveyard, may be so counted. The clause in its initial section may have been only intended to improve the means of access to recognised national monuments. In this respect the proposed amendment is a ‘stretch' which might be useful in the future."
I feel when a body of that kind asked specifically that this amendment should be inserted their wishes should be complied with. I do not feel very strongly on this matter, and I merely raised it at the request of the National Trust.
The powers which it is proposed to give the board in relation to national monuments were discussed with the National Monuments Association. I think that they agreed with the Bill as it stood.
I am referring to a different body—the National Trust.
I am sorry, I misunderstood the Senator's remarks. When we were drafting this Bill departmentally we used precisely the words which the Senator is suggesting we should insert. However, they were discarded in favour of the words now in the Bill on the advice of the Parliamentary Draftsman in order to give the board the maximum freedom of action. The advice we got was that, in order to get that result, it was better to leave the definition as broad as possible and that any attempt to break it up could only have a restrictive effect, as the Senator suggests. There is no doubt about the fact that, in the wording of the section as it is, places of scenic interest as well as places of historic or scientific interest can be developed by the board provided they have some tourist interest and provided that the opening up of these places, the making of access to them and the setting up of signposts at them would be likely to benefit the general objects of the board. I would prefer to have the wider section. Every Minister framing a Bill is always anxious to give the organisation he is setting up the greatest scope provided that, in exercising the powers given them, they are subject to an overriding consideration which, in this case, is set out in Section 1 of the Bill, namely, that it would be related to their job of developing tourist trade.
In spite of what the Minister has said, and in spite of Senator Douglas's amendment, I feel that the section as it stands might be taken as restrictive. I think that the board might be inclined to rule out districts like the Burren on the grounds that they are primarily of interest scientifically and not of interest to the public at large. It might be of interest to mention the value which a dreary region in the South of France called Oamargue has proved. This region, which is situated near Marseilles, is used as a nesting-place for flamingos. It attracts tourists from all over the world and has proved of extraordinary publicity value to that part of France. I feel there is reason to believe that the board may be narrow in their outlook and say that places are of a scientific interest and do not concern the public in general.
The National Trust is doing a splendid job of work in this country, and I know the Minister would like to help them in every way. Perhaps the Minister will give us an assurance that he will do all in his power to make the board take the proper view of the word "scientific", which some people are afraid to do. It would be very helpful to the National Trust if they would get such encouragement from the Minister.
I will agree to the amendment if Senator Douglas will agree to keep the words "to the public" in.
I feel that that would be quite satisfactory. As a matter of fact, I was of opinion that leaving out the words "to the public" in the original Bill might have had a similar effect.
This amendment was put to me by a colleague of mine who is in An Taisce. I felt that the Minister's defence would be that, in drafting the Bill, he was told by the Parliamentary Draftsman that the more general the phrases used, the more power would be given to the board. The Minister knows that the more specifically it is put, the more restrictive it is. I do think that the words "of interest to the public" are restrictive. The public would not be interested in something which might have considerable historic or scientific interest for some people. For example, archaeology has an extraordinary interest for professors of archæology. A place having an attraction archaeologically might be of great interest to the public while, initially, it might not have had interest for them at all. The same thing applies to a place of scientific interest. I really feel that if the Minister, instead of keeping the words "to the public" in, left them out he would be giving the board greater powers.
I do not want to extend the duties of the Tourist Board beyond tourist development.
Would the Minister give us the precise definition now?
I suggest that the amendment should be: "Places of scenic, historic, scientific or other interest to the public."
I have been in communication with the chairman of An Taisce on this matter and I should like to put on record some of the things he said with reference to this amendment:—
"The Council of An Taisce have had the Bill under consideration and they are of opinion that they could more effectively persuade An Board Fáilte to take action in promoting these objects for which An Taisce was formed to support if the phrase in Clause 5 (2) (f) was altered. viz., ‘and other places of particular interest to the public' to ‘and places of scenic, historic, scientific or other interest' (to the public). It is argued that a general phraseology is better in such a Bill. To some extent this is so but ‘particular interest to the public' is too indefinite. I can imagine any learned judge analysing it into nothingness. The form put forward by An Taisce preserves the generality but gently leads An Board Fáilte to consider cases of scenic, scientific (nature reserves, and such like) and historic interest as of preeminent interest."
That body thinks it desirable to leave out "to the public".
On the general question I hope that the new board will be able to subsidise the owners of historic buildings who find it difficult to maintain them. As the law stands apparently you are liable for rates on a building you own so long as the roof is on, and in order to escape paying rates many people owning historic buildings have been tempted, bribed or encouraged by the value of them to take the roofs off and sell the contents. That is, I think, disastrous from the point of view of the country, because these buildings are amongst our principal national assets and should be amongst our principal attractions for tourists. If the new board has the power to subsidise people for keeping the roofs on their houses instead of taking them off——
That particular matter does not arise on this amendment.
I need not develop the point any further. The Minister probably appreciates it adequately. I suggest that an amendment in a form like that referred to by An Taisce should be favourably considered.
The Minister is to be very warmly complimented on his attitude to this amendment. On the Second Reading I raised the matter, particularly with reference to the means of access to places of interest. I felt then, and I feel now, that the section as it stands might, as Senator Johnston has said, in a court prove to be defective. I think it is of vital importance that the board should have the means of providing the public with access to places of scenic interest. I gave one example in the course of my speech on that occasion—the Lough Dan valley, which is at the moment shut off and barred to the public.
The Minister has accepted the amendment.
I am stressing another aspect of it so that it will be on record apart altogether——
There is no other amendment before the House but this amendment.
I am emphasising——
The Senator can speak on the section.
I should like to know whether, under (g), the powers with regard to signs are limited, or whether it would be possible for the board to do something which I think is extremely important from the tourist point of view, that is, to mark minor roads and major roads. That has not been done by the Tourist Board and I have had complaints as to bad marking of roads from the point of view of motorists who are a very important part of our tourist traffic. In Jersey, which spends a lot of money on tourists, I noticed that they had a white line in every case, at which motorists had to stop. They enforce it by the use of policemen who have not got uniforms, but that would not be a function of the tourist board. If they could have, as I think would be desirable, white lines in all cases and, in the more important cases, a notice drawing attention to the fact that there is a major road ahead, it would be a considerable improvement, something which tourists would appreciate because, whereas the local inhabitant ought to, but does not always, know the more important roads, it is quite difficult for a tourist, having left a major road, to know when he is coming back on to the major road. I think the Bill would give these powers, but, if not, I think it should give them so long as they are for the purpose of assisting tourists.
The Senator is thinking of assisting motorists rather than tourists, by the provision of certain safety devices for the benefit of motorists generally and while there may be a case for a number of these devices, the responsibility for providing them would hardly be on the Tourist Board. The intention is that the Tourist Board will undertake the financial cost of providing road signs. It is intended that the Department of Local Government will remain responsible for the sign-posting policy, responsible for approval of the type of sign used, and that the erection will be done by the local authority but that the cost will be met by the Tourist Board. The aim is to ensure the better sign-posting of roads. It may be that there will be different policy with regard to roads and that we will adopt the route system as they have it in other countries, but whatever the policy is will be decided by the Department of Local Government. The Tourist Board will come in to ensure that there are funds available to set up a proper sign-posting system.
At present, signposts are erected by the contributions of a voluntary organisation and while that organisation has done very good work, the resources at its disposal were entirely insufficient to enable a thorough job to be done. I hope that, with the additional contributions which the Tourist Board will be able to make, a more thorough job will be done.
I should like to support Senator Douglas's point of view. It would be desirable if the Minister could do something about it, either directly or indirectly, because tourists who come to this country expect that we will have here a system of rules based somewhat on their own rules. Up to not many years ago, however, the volume of traffic here was so small that it was not necessary to make such stringent rules, but now I suggest that the Minister should bring the existing rules more into conformity with the general rules in Britain and France at the moment. I have motored quite a lot on the Continent and in Britain during the past few years and I find that when you come back to this country you can do much as you please. Such a state of affairs could give rise to serious accidents and to inconvenience to tourists.
Who will be responsible for the maintenance of these signposts, because that is the difficulty? They are put up but very often they are allowed to get into a disgraceful and useless state. Could we do something to insist on their being kept in good condition?
Maintenance will be a matter for the local authority, but it is recognised that a continuing expenditure will be necessary and the board can undertake a continuing expenditure. With regard to these safety devices and other road markings mainly designed for safety purposes, while I agree that there is need for considerable improvement in that regard, I am afraid I do not quite know where the responsibility rests. I think the Department of Local Government is responsible for safety signs and I assume that the cost of these signs is borne on the Road Fund, but I am not quite certain that that is so, I am sure however, that the Department would be as interested as any of us in ensuring that provision of that kind is made by the local authority.
There are signs saying "To Dublin", "To Dundrum" and various other places. It is permissible for these to be paid for, though I imagine the control will be in the hands of the local authorities. The board, however, can pay for it. If a local authority wants to be up to date and to put up a notice "Slow—Major Road Ahead" or "Stop—Major Road Ahead", could the board pay for it? I am not suggesting that they should take the responsibility of saying where these should be—that must be the local authority's—but some of the local authorities have been doing it, although not to the extent to which they should and I should like to know if such signs could be paid for.
I should say that road signs could be provided out of the funds, but whether a white line is a road sign or a safety device is another matter.
White lines are part of the marking, which is certainly a sign. I should like to establish whether, where a local authority was willing to do it, the board could pay for it, if it were thought suitable.
Our main interest is to tell the people whether they are going where they want to go and the best way to do it.
The automobile association supply the signs to the local authority and the local authority collects them.
Senator Fitzsimons reminds me that if you go along the Navan Road to visit the Hill of Tara you have to look for the direction to it.
That is right.
After all, Tara is one of our most important sites, if not the most important historic site in the country. You know that it is somewhere off the Navan Road but you have to go along slowly to see the direction. The approach to it and the fact that if you met another car it is doubtful whether you could pass are other questions. Signs indicating sites of historic interest like Tara should be sufficiently large and legible for people to be able to read them easily.
I agree. These notices will not merely tell you how to get there but they will tell you what the place is. They will be informative.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In sub-section (1), page 4, line 57, to add: "Provided that no such entry shall be made without the consent of the owner of such land unless the board shall previously have made an order under Section 19 of the Act of 1939."
In Section 5 we dealt with certain things the board can do and in Section 8 it is suggested that a person duly authorised in writing by the board may enter on land for the purpose of enabling the board to carry out its functions under paragraph (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 5. That is the sub-section dealing with historic buildings, sites, and so on, which we have been discussing. I am suggesting to the Minister that Section 8 should provide that power of entry should not be given to the board unless they have already made an acquisition order under Section 19 of the 1939 Act. In Section 7 of the Bill we give the same powers to the board as exist under Section 19 of the 1939 Act. If the board want to make a right of way through private property to give access to some of the buildings, sites, shrines, etc., set out in the earlier section, and if the owner does not agree, I am taking it that the Minister's intention is that the board should then make an order under Section 19 of the 1939 Act which empowers them to acquire the property and get the right of access in that manner.
I am assuming that that is the intention. If that is so I suggest to the Minister that Section 8 should also contain a safeguard for the owners of the property, a safeguard in the terms of this amendment. The wording of Section 8 certainly seems to be in conflict with what is obviously the intention of Section 7. Under Section 7 we say that if the owner refuses to allow the board to do the proposed work the board may acquire under Section 19 of the 1939 Act. We then say in Section 8 that a person authorised by the board may enter on land for the purpose of doing particular work. That is not, obviously at any rate, related to Section 7, and I think that the intention is that it should be. The acceptance of this amendment would cover the point I have in mind and would, I think, eliminate the inconsistency which exists between Section 7 and Section 8.
I think that the Senator's amendment and amendment No. 4 are based on a misunderstanding. The position the board is in by sub-section (1) of Section 7 is that if the owner of any land refuses to facilitate them in doing any work which they think should be done they have either to abandon the project or acquire the land compulsorily. The intention is that before coming to the decision to abandon the project or to use compulsory acquisition powers they should have the right to inspect and survey the land to see what work is necessary. It would be unreasonable to accept the Senator's amendment which is designed to limit them so that they could not enter on land until they had compulsorily acquired it.
I think that the Minister is misreading Section 8, sub-section (1), which gives power of entry not merely for the purpose of inspection and surveying but for the purpose of enabling the board to carry out its functions under paragraph (f), sub-section (2) of Section 5.
That is the paragraph which enables the board to protect and maintain historic buildings, sites and shrines. In other words the entry may be for that purpose, not merely for the purpose of inspecting.
The amendment is based on a misunderstanding. The position the board is in is that if they think work should be done at a place or monument of historic or general interest they will in the normal course try to make an arrangement with the owner to enable that work to be done. If the owner refuses to facilitate them they will have to decide whether they will use their powers of compulsory acquisition or abandon the idea. This section is designed to give their officers power to inspect the land before the board come to that decision. If they decide to proceed and use their powers of compulsory acquisition the land will of course in due course become theirs and the second of the Senator's amendments is unnecessary because at that stage the land becomes the property of the board and nobody else has the right to go on it unless he gets permission.
I do not like to argue the toss with the Minister over the same points, but I think he may be under a misunderstanding, not myself. It seems to me to be quite clear that Section 8, sub-section (1), provides that a duly authorised person may enter on land. Why may he enter on that land? It does not say for the purpose of inspecting.
If it is the board who own the land there is no question of giving them power.
That is where the inconsistency to which I have referred comes in. The board may enter on land for the purpose of carrying out their functions under paragraph (f), which reads:—
"To protect and maintain and to aid in protecting and maintaining historic buildings, sites and shrines and other places of particular interest to the public and to facilitate visitors thereto by the provision of notices and the provision and improvement of means of access."
We have here a paragraph which, to give a concrete example, empowers the board to create roadways or rights of way over private property. I do not think that there can be any argument about that. Section 8, sub-section (1), says that for the purpose of doing that among other things an authorised person may enter on land. It would be all right if the Minister's view were adopted and the entry were only for the purpose of enabling the board to come to a decision as to whether they would acquire the land or drop the project.
That is the only purpose for which it could be used.
Under Section 8 they could go in on land for the purpose of carrying out their functions under paragraph (f). That is what the section says.
They cannot enter on another man's land without his consent.
If I may give an impartial view—not having studied this completely before I came in—I think Senator O'Higgins's viewpoint gives the more natural reading of the section. I read it that way. It seems to me that as it stands this person could go in and put up notices.
No.
That is the only way I can read it. If you put in "to inspect" it would be quite safe, but having considered both sides I could not read it in any other way.
Senator O'Higgins's amendment would make the situation impossible. Here is some monument or historic site of scenic interest which should be made accessible to the public. The first thing to see is whether it is accessible to the public or not and to inspect it to see what it might be necessary to do in order to make it accessible. Nine times out of ten that will be a matter of discussion and arrangement with the owner. In the case of a refusal by the owner to facilitate the board, since the board's officer cannot enter on the land without consent, we say here that, if authorised by the board, he may do so. The next stage is compulsory acquisition. Once they have acquired the property the officers can enter without any permission. Senator O'Higgins proposes that they cannot enter on the land at all until they have acquired it. He gives the board power to acquire and then gives the officers power to enter, which would be unnecessary if they had acquired it.
Would the Minister put in the words "to inspect" or "to inspect sites of land with a view to carrying out its functions"?
Supposing we transpose Sections 7 and 8?
That would knock the Minister's argument on the head completely.
Would Senator O'Higgins look at sub-section (1) of Section 7, which says:
"Where the board proposes to erect a notice or fence at, or to provide or improve means of access to ..."
That is what Senator Stanford is talking about—
"... and the owner refuses to permit the board to carry out the proposed work, the board shall have power to acquire..."
The next section is certainly inconsistent with that. Supposing Section 8 were left out altogether?
Section 8 deals with paragraph (f) and is a different function from that one which the Minister has just read out.
Sub-section (7) relates to the board's power to acquire under paragraph (f). The board could do nothing at all without the consent of the owner, unless they made an acquisition order.
There is obviously something wrong with Section 8.
May I say it was taken holus-bolus from the National Monuments Act of 1930?
I am not pressing the point, but I would ask the Minister to consider it.
I will do so, but it certainly never struck me that it could be interpreted in that way.
It seems to be the only possible interpretation of it.
The Minister is going to look into it?
Yes.
I would just like to say that the introduction of this clause is appreciated, I know, by many people who are responsible for the preservation of buildings covered by this section. It is widely appreciated and I would simply like to put that on record.
I move amendment No. 5:—
In sub-section (1), paragraph (b) (i), line 36, after "holiday" to insert "or hotel".
This amendment is to make clear what is intended. Otherwise a banker may raise a point that a hotel patronised mainly by commercial travellers would not be "holiday accommodation".
That is precisely what is intended—that this should apply only to hotels which are catering for holiday makers.
Are we quite clear about this, that we are definitely going to exclude an hotel which would cater mainly for commercial travellers? I am rather shocked to hear that and I should think that that will cause very great surprise to hotel keepers throughout the country. I would have thought that everybody with an hotel would expect to get the benefit of these guarantees. If it were necessary for him to get them and if the section is left as it is at the moment, the guarantees would appear to be limited to cases where it was proved that, in the main, the hotels were for holiday accommodation.
I suggest that holiday accommodation is available in this country only when the demand is there—from May to the end of September. There are certain hotels—all hotels, I suppose—which during that period might be described as "holiday accommodation"; but because there are no holidays taken outside that period, these hotels would not be "holiday accommodation". The Minister might consider whether it would not be a good idea to include all hotels and guest-houses whether or not they would be restricting themselves to commercial travellers. It is very unlikely that any hotel keeper would fail to provide what is popularly called hotel accommodation. I put down the amendment because of the difficulty which might arise when title was being investigated. The bankers might be advised that that particular hotel did not come within the provision of the Act in regard to a guarantee and that the Minister could not guarantee such an application for a loan in respect of such a premises.
I do not think that probability could arise at all. The decision whether or not to recommend the guaranteeing of a loan rests solely with the Tourist Board. The term "holiday accommodation" was very deliberately chosen. It is wider than "hotels". It covers guest-houses, hostels and other accommodation of that kind. More particularly, the term "holiday accommodation" was chosen to make it clear that the board was intended to use its powers under this Bill to facilitate those who were providing accommodation for holiday-makers and who regarded that as their business rather than people engaged in some other type of hotel or accommodation business.
I shall not press the amendment.
I take it that Senator McHugh did not expect this Bill to be taken to-day and that he meant to indicate his opposition to the setting up of Fógra Fáilte in addition to An Bord Fáilte. That applies to Sections 33, 35, 36 and 37. The matter has been discussed at great length. I do not think there is any possibility of changing the Minister's mind on the matter at this particular moment. I take it that that is what Senator McHugh meant.
Question agreed to.
I move amendment No. 7:—
In sub-section (2), paragraph (a), lines 36 and 37, to delete "before the making of the intended application" and substitute "and not more than 30 days before the date on which he intends to make the application".
I seek to amend Section 41 because I think it will facilitate applicants for new licences. At the moment the applications for new intoxicating liquor licences are controlled by the Circuit Court rules. They deal only with applications which could have been envisaged at the time of the making of those rules.
But they have power to amend the rules.
Yes, but the amending of Circuit Court rules or any rules is not a matter that is very quickly carried out. For that reason I suggest that this amendment will facilitate the applicants and enable them to see where they stand in the making of the applications.
Immediately this Bill becomes law we may expect that a number of people will make applications for new licences. Under the rules of court they will be in a difficulty as to what notice of application they should serve. I am aware that provision is made in regard to the service of certificate notice but there is no provision in regard to the particular time of entry of the notice of application. I have provided here that the notice of application must be published not more than 30 days before the date on which the applicant intends to make the application. That is to ensure that a person would not serve notice of the application for his licence to-day and make his application this day next year, when the Garda Síochána and everybody interested in the application would have forgotten about it. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 standing in my name are purely for the assistance of people making the application and those interested in opposing the application.
I am told that it is generally agreed that it is not desirable to put in a Statute what can be dealt with by rules of court. Normally the fixing of these periods would be dealt with by rules of court. Presumably, the rule-making committee would make the appropriate rules. I am told that it is the general practice and I think it is agreed by all the legal authorities as being most desirable to leave to the committee things that can be dealt with by it and not to put them in a Statute.
As far as it can be done, I quite agree that that is the desirable course. However, the Circuit Court Rules Committee is composed of judges, members of the Bar and solicitors, with the County Registrar of Dublin as its secretary. It is not easy to get such a committee together. Of course, only within the past few years we have completed our new Circuit Court Rules. A lot of work was done in that connection. I agree that perhaps it might be possible to amend them slightly and also that we should not provide for rules of court in a Statute. One of these is that the Garda Síochána must be given a certain length of notice. If the amendments are accepted in respect of these I shall not be doing very much wrong.
We only put in what we think is desirable to have there in the public interest. The fixation of these periods can, I think, be more appropriately dealt with by rules of court. The committee would regard it, I think, as a more suitable arrangement to leave the fixation of these rules to itself rather than that we should do it for them.
I am not very concerned in pressing the matter, but I would be very disappointed if later on a Circuit Court judge told us that he had no rules of court under which to deal with applications for new licences. He might say there was no means whereby rules could be made and applications would have to be held up.
That would be an undesirable situation. I think that, as a general principle, it is better to leave it to the rule-making authority than to do it ourselves.
I quite agree, Sir, but they will not meet for a long time. However, I am not particularly interested.
I move amendment No. 9:—
Before sub-section (3), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(3) A certificate purporting to be under the hand of the chairman of the board or some other member thereof, authorised by the board to act in that behalf, that the premises are on the register of hotels kept by the board shall be evidence that the premises are so registered, without further proof.
I may tell Senator O'Reilly that his amendment is not necessary. This provision is in the 1939 Act.
I was aware of the section in the 1939 Act, but I think my amendment is slightly more clear and would be more coercive with the Circuit Court. The amendment is designed to see that there will be no necessity for bringing, throughout the country, on the hearing of these applications, a highly placed officer from the Irish Tourist Board.
That is not necessary under the 1939 Act. A certificate signed by an officer would be accepted by the court, without proof of signature.
If the Minister tells me he is quite satisfied that officials of the board or registrars will not have to be brought around the country, I am perfectly happy, but I can hear one or two Circuit Court judges saying that the section is not sufficient for them and that they must have the registrar.
The 1939 Act states that it is not necessary to prove either the signature of the officer or that he was, in fact, an officer when he signed the authorisation.
I move amendment No. 10:—
In line 41 to delete "either" and "or off".
This part of the Act deals with the licensing of holiday camps. I have no objection to the principle of licensing holiday camps. Some people, perhaps, think it is very desirable. I object to the granting of any licence that would enable holiday camps to sell intoxicating liquor for consumption outside the boundary of the camp. When we consider the reason why we are legislating for the granting of licences to holiday camps, my amendment will be accepted without hesitation. The idea of licensing holiday camps is to enable the visitors to the camps to enjoy a drink if they so wish, but the idea of licensing them is not to enable people to go in and buy drink to be consumed off the premises. Some proprietors are complaining—and very properly so—that the lack of authority to sell intoxicating liquor had inconvenienced their residents. I think that has been the only complaint that has been made in regard to the difficulty of getting licences for holiday camps.
There was no point made so far as I know, so far as I have heard, either by visitors or by persons interested in a camp, that it was a pity they could not get drink in the camps so that they might drink it outside the camps. I cannot see why, where the original idea was to provide a licence to enable drink to be sold to visitors in holiday camps, that licence should be extended to enable parties who go to the camps to get drink and take it away for consumption elsewhere. I would suggest that we should license holiday camps only to enable them to sell intoxicating liquor to any person, either a visitor or a person rightly on the premises during non-prohibited hours, for consumption in the camps.
Again, I cannot see why the holiday camp should have any right whatever or that there should be any demand to sell intoxicating liquor for consumption off the premises.
The definition is the same as that in the whole liquor licensing code and it would be objectionable to have another definition. It is also the definition that was in a Private Member's Bill introduced in 1949. I think the Senator may be under a misapprehension as to what may follow on the enactment of this part of the Bill. Take the case of the best known holiday camp in Ireland. The intention there was to license certain premises within the limits of the camp. The effect of the amendment which the Senator proposes would be to make it impossible for them to sell drink for consumption within the camp but outside the limits of the particular premises that would be licensed. I do not think that would be either desirable or necessary. The camp proprietors have to avoid possible abuses. They have to ensure that the premises are properly conducted in order to obtain a renewal of the licence. Local residents can make any objection if there is any abuse. I think it would be desirable to permit visitors to the holiday camps to consume intoxicating liquor within the limits of the camp and not confine them to one part of the camp in respect of which the licence is granted.
I saw there might be some difficulty about that. For a moment I thought there might be a difficulty but there cannot be. "On licence" has a special meaning in the 1910 and other Acts and cannot affect the position here. We can easily deal with it. I have no objection and the licence application can be suitably dealt with and, if necessary, suitable provisions can be inserted that intoxicating liquor may be consumed by any person entitled to consume it in any part of the camp.
My objection is not to the consumption in any part of the camp but to the holiday camp proprietor, who is dealing with people and concerned in the main for them, selling intoxicating liquor for consumption off the premises.
The Senator's amendment would confine it to the one building in the camp which was licensed.
If my amendment is accepted I could later on provide another amendment which would enable liquor to be sold anywhere within the precincts of the premises.
There would be objection to that.
Of course there would. There would be other difficulties arising if the whole premises were licensed. There can be no difficulty in suitably amending the section so that drink may be sold only in one part of the camp but consumed in all portions of the camp.
Suppose somebody wants to go on a picnic and wanted to take with him a bottle of Cairnes Ale?
My objection is that he should drink it outside the premises. I have no objection to its being consumed on the premises. In these holiday camps we are concerned with providing for residents and visitors to the camp. We are not concerned with enabling these people to take drink outside the camps for consumption. We are concerned with enabling them to enjoy drink in the camp premises.
The intention is to give them really the same facilities as an hotel which would have an on-licence.
I suggest that they should not have the same licence as an hotel. A holiday camp is completely different from an hotel. An hotel offers an entirely different sort of holiday accommodation and does not deal with nearly as large a number of people as can be accommodated in a holiday camp. A holiday camp will have no difficulty whatever in having its drinks consumed on the premises, anywhere on the premises, although they might be consumed off the part of the premises in which they are sold. I agree that the holiday camp proprietors would be concerned with paying duty on the valuation. The bigger the premises, the higher the valuation and, accordingly, the higher the amount of duty. There will be no objection to my suggestion that the licence may be given for, say, an area of 50 square feet.
The Senator does appreciate that his amendment would make it necessary to introduce consequential provisions and a new licensing code in which I do not want to get mixed up.
The definition given of a holiday camp premises in line 35 run as follows:
"‘holiday camp premises' means all the buildings for the time being situate in a holiday camp irrespective of the purpose for which they are used."
The Senator will notice that the next section reads:—
"Where a person ... duly gives notice of his intention to apply for an on-licence in respect of specified premises..."
If we adopt this amendment it will mean that the holiday camp proprietors will be forced to seek a licence for the whole camp.
The holiday camp authorities will find themselves in a difficulty on Sundays because they will not be able to sell drink for consumption off the premises except to those people who are resident in the holiday camp. They will have some difficulty in separating the sheep from the goats.
I feel it would be safer to leave the section as it is. I dislike messing around with the licensing code.
