asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he is aware that the removal of hotel signs from buildings in the structure of which the word "hotel" is incorporated involves the householder in considerable expense; and if, in such cases, he will take steps to ensure that the Irish Tourist Board will afford such householders reasonable compensation for the structural alterations necessitated by their regulations.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Removal of Hotel Signs.
I am not aware that the removal of hotel signs from buildings in the structure of which the word "hotel" is incorporated involves the occupier in considerable expense.
There is no provision in the Tourist Traffic Act, 1939, for the payment of compensation to proprietors or others who find themselves obliged to comply with the statutory requirements of the Irish Tourist Board in connection with the establishment of the registers prescribed by Section 24 of the Act. I am consequently unable to intervene in the matter which forms the subject of the Deputy's questions.
Is the Minister aware that a constituent of mine plastered her house with cement, and that in the process of plastering it, she incorporated in the cement plastering the words "St. Farney's Hotel", or some such words? Her hotel is in a rural area and is more readily classified as a boarding house. It is a country residential hotel and it does not suit her to conform to the requirements of the Irish Tourist Board for hotels. She elects to be known as a residential hotel or boarding house, where upon the Irish Tourist Board inform her that she must remove the word "hotel". If she does, she must re-plaster the whole front of the house, because to hack the word out of the existing plaster would hopelessly disfigure the frontage. She is quite prepared to let the Irish Tourist Board do it, if they wish to, or she will have it done and send the Irish Tourist Board the certified bill of the contractor who carries out the necessary repairs. In these circumstances, would the Minister not consider requesting the Irish Tourist Board, where they are satisfied that structural alterations are necessary, at least to share the cost?
The Irish Tourist Board have no power to do so.
Will the Minister give them power?
No.
Why?
It is obviously undesirable—and it is the principle on which the Act was framed—that any premises should be described as a hotel where hotel accommodation is not provided, or where the standard is not up to the Tourist Board's requirements.
She has no desire to hold up her premises as a hotel, and, in fact, does not do so at present.
She even held it up in cement as a hotel.
I am speaking of ordinary country people. Her house is not known as a hotel and nobody would call it a hotel, but we all know old premises in country villages which bear the word "hotel" and which, you will be told, have not been hotels for years. Nobody, however, wants to tear the word down.
Is the Deputy asking a supplementary question?
The Minister says it is undesirable that places which do not conform to hotel requirements should hold themselves out as hotels. This lady does not want to—she wants to be allowed to live in peace. Would the Minister not consider helping her to do this work?
I did not decide that question. The Dáil decided it and it is the law.
The Dáil never thought of that situation.
The Dáil was fully conscious of what it was doing. Perhaps the Deputy was not, but the other members were.