This is a very important section in this Bill defining in very wide terms the liability of a hotel proprietor and I should like to have it clarified for me as to what precisely the obligation of a hotel-keeper is to receive all persons. It is readily understandable that if you are dealing with a large hotel in a city it is not unreasonable to expect them to be in a position to receive guests at any hour of the night or day, if they wish to hold themselves out as hotels as distinct from guest houses or something of a different status from hotels. But in rural Ireland is it intended to place a statutory obligation on a hotel-keeper in a small town to receive and accommodate guests arriving at, say, 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning?
Hotel Proprietors Bill, 1962— Committee Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."
There could be reasonable grounds for refusal.
That is the very thing I want to ask—is it a reasonable ground for refusal?
It depends on the circumstances.
Suppose the guest says he is not arriving improvidently at that time, that his car broke down and that he planned to arrive at 11 o'clock but was, in fact, fortuitously delayed and he comes at three or four in the morning. I would be prepared to say that I would regard it as deplorable on the part of a hotel-keeper in rural Ireland, given that kind of explanation, not to come to the person's assistance in that embarrassing situation out of his own good will but regretting lack of public spirit and goodwill is a very different thing from placing a statutory obligation on them that renders them liable to penalties, if they do not conform to it.
I should be glad if the Minister would say if he is satisfied that lateness of the hour constitutes reasonable ground for refusal and, if so, what is the latest hour that would constitute reasonable ground for refusal of admission? It is quite manifest that the latest hour appropriate to Dublin would be different from the latest hour appropriate to Naas and that the latest hour appropriate to Naas might not in fact be at all appropriate to a town, like Ballybay.
First, I want to say that I think the actual time or hour has very little to do with it. It would be a question of fact in each case. The arrival of a person at an hotel at an early hour of the morning and the duty of the hotel proprietor to receive him or not would be determined by all the facts of the situation. I could imagine if the hotel proprietor says "I have no accommodation for you. All my accommodation is booked" or alternatively, if there were no staff available to provide food, the hotel proprietor could reasonably claim "It is unreasonable to expect me to provide a meal at this hour of the night." That would be reasonable grounds for refusing to provide food or drink, but it would depend in each case on the particular circumstances of the situation. The section goes no further than to say he must do it unless he has reasonable grounds for refusing. The existing law is that the hotel proprietor must receive a person at any hour of the day or night he may approach the hotel.
If he is a traveller.
Yes, but, as I have already explained, the term "traveller" has now become almost synonymous with the general public.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That Section 5 stand part of the Bill."
Subsection (1) of this section provides:
Where sleeping accommodation is engaged for a person as a guest at a hotel, whether or not under special contract, the proprietor is under a duty to receive any property brought to the hotel by or on behalf of that person for which the proprietor has accommodation.
I would be glad if the Minister would deal with this situation a bit more fully. I understand the position to be from reading that section that again we are placing an absolute obligation on hotel proprietors to receive any property no matter what size, type, or character it may be, the only qualification being that it is necessary that the person for whom the property is being received should have engaged sleeping accommodation.
The Minister no doubt is aware that the Council of Europe recommended uniform rules with regard to the liability of innkeepers and hotel keepers and that they gave a recommendation in relation to the character of property that hotel keepers would be obliged to keep for guests. As far as I know, they recommended that anything that was dangerous, for example, should be outside of the categories which a hotel proprietor would have to keep. In other words, if a hotel proprietor is satisfied that a particular article a guest wants to bring on to his premises is, in fact, a dangerous article, he can refuse to do it.
As somebody put it you cannot bring an elephant into your hotel.
There is no qualification here. In the other section we were discussing, Section 3, it was subject to the qualification that a hotel proprietor might have reasonable grounds for refusing. That does not happen in Section 5. The rules recommended by the Council of Europe would exclude articles which might be dangerous. They also suggested the exclusion of articles or property which might have an excessive value and which might not be covered by the insurance on the premises or which might for some other reason be cumbersome.
The Minister should look into this section again. While I think there will be general approval so far as the public is concerned that they should have the maximum amount of protection possible when they bring themselves or their property on to hotel premises, nevertheless, it is the Minister's duty to try to hold the scales evenly between the public, who are the guests, and the proprietors of the establishment. It seems to me to be going a bit far to put this absolute obligation on them without any exception or limit. I should be glad if the Minister would reconsider the section.
In fact, I have been having a look at the section in the light of representations which have been made to me by the hotel industry. I feel the wording of the section as it stands is all right—that hotel proprietors need only receive property for which they have accommodation. If they had not got suitable or appropriate accommodation for the particular items mentioned by Deputy O'Higgins, they would not be under an obligation to receive them. However, it has been suggested to me that is not quite clear from the section as it stands and I intend, between now and Report Stage, to consider amending the section in order to meet the criticism which has been made of it.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Question proposed: "That Section 6 stand part of the Bill."
Again, I have had representations from the hotel proprietors about this question. It has been suggested that the word "precincts" might lead to difficulty. Deputies will realise that in the case of a person owning a hotel in a city street the property is deemed to extend into the centre of the road, and it might be possible to argue that a motor car parked at the kerbside outside the hotel was actually within the precincts of the hotel. Again, I am not satisfied there is any validity in that objection; but I propose to have regard to it and again it may be desirable to introduce an amendment to make it clear that it is only a motor car brought within the grounds of the hotel proper that would be included.
May I suggest this for the expedition of this Bill? It appears that the Minister very properly has discussed this Bill, as presented to the House on Second Stage, with interested parties, has listened to their representations and is trying to meet them. Would he consider our giving him the Committee Stage of the Bill to-day on the understanding he would recommit on Report Stage with his amendments?
Recommit any particular section?
The whole Bill. There will be no trouble about it.
Except I felt Deputy O'Higgins or some other members opposite might have some other suggestions to make.
It is not a controversial measure. It is perfectly safe to recommit it. We will put in any amendments we want to after we have seen the Minister's amendments.
I shall arrange to circulate my amendments almost immediately.
Very well. We will give you the Committee Stage to-day. We can recommit the Bill and we will put in any amendments we think necessary after we have seen the Minister's amendments. Recommit the whole Bill on Committee Stage and let it go through with the amendments known. If that recommends itself to the Minister, I suggest we give him the Committee Stage now.
It sounds eminently suitable to me.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That Section 7 stand part of the Bill."
The increase is from £50 to £100?
I am proposing to remove the £50 limit on any one individual item. It brings it more into line with the Council of Europe Convention.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Question proposed: "That Section 8 stand part of the Bill."
Would the Minister consider the wording of subsection (2) which states:
The lien does not extend to property which does not belong to the guest unless the proprietor was unaware of that fact when he received the property at the hotel.
Double negative.
That negative is meant to be there.
There is a series of "nots".
It would be rather difficult if a guest arrived in a mink coat and if when the hotel proprietor went to seize the coat, she said it belonged to her sister-in-law.
If I may say so, it is a "knotty" subsection.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Question proposed: "That Section 10 stand part of the Bill."
Is the Minister here making provision for any alteration in the scale of costs in the district courts and the circuit courts to meet the increased jurisdiction being granted under this section?
The thought had not entered my mind.
It is there now.
It has been implanted now. It is a matter for the Rules Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 11 to 15, inclusive, agreed to.
First and Second Schedules agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, 5th February, 1963.
The Dáil adjourned at 3.35 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 29th January, 1963.