Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 6 Feb 1963

Vol. 199 No. 8

Hotel Proprietors Bill, 1962— Recommittal and Final Stages.

Ordered: That the Bill be now re-committed to a Committee of the whole Dáil.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 2, before section 3, to insert a new section as follows:

" 3—(1) The proprietor of a hotel is under a duty to receive at the hotel as guests all persons who, whether or not under special contract, present themselves and require sleeping accommodation, food or drink and to provide them therewith, unless he has reasonable grounds of refusal.

(2) Subject to the terms of any special contract, the proprietor is under a duty to provide such accommodation, food or drink at the charges for the time being current at the hotel."

This amendment which, in fact, substitutes a new section for Section 3 has a couple of purposes. First of all, we want to make it clear in what manner Section 3 will apply in the case of a person coming to a hotel with a special contract. Under the section as it stands, the duty imposed on a hotel proprietor to receive all comers applies primarily to guests coming without a special contract. Where a person has a special contract —in other words, where he has booked in advance or made a reservation— the proprietor's duty to receive him arises, in the first instance, out of the contract itself. Of course, as I have already indicated, it is the intention that, if a hotel proprietor refuses to honour a contract, the guest can fall back on and rely upon the statutory duty to receive. As the section is drafted at the moment, I do not think it makes this intention quite clear. I am satisfied, and I think the House will be satisfied, that the statutory duty to receive all comers should be specially expressed to apply to all persons, whether or not they come under a special contract. I think it will be agreed that subsection (1) of the new section achieves this.

Where there is a special contract, that is, where a person has made some special arrangements in advance, the proprietor may be bound under the terms of that arrangement to provide the guest with accommodation, food or drink at special prices. It is necessary, therefore, to ensure that the statutory provision will not interfere with the contractual right of the guest to receive accommodation, food or drink at those special prices. Subsection (2) of the proposed new section seeks to achieve this, by beginning with the words: "Subject to the terms of any special contract...."

The second purpose of the amendment is to meet objections which have been raised by the hotel industry about the obligation to provide accommodation, food or drink at "reasonable prices". I mentioned on Committee Stage that this provision is a re-statement of existing common law. The object is to ensure that a hotel proprietor will not be able to evade his duty by offering to all comers, as he is supposed to do, accommodation, food or drink at excessive prices, and thereby in reality evading his obligations. The hotel industry have recommended to me that the obligation to supply at reasonable prices could be availed of by difficult, eccentric or unscrupulous persons to create unnecessary difficulty for hotel managements and to upset the normal running of their businesses. They maintain that the provision about reasonable prices is unnecessary nowadays because all such prices in registered hotels are published by Bord Fáilte, and if a hotel proprietor seeks to charge more than the published price, his registration can be terminated.

I am not convinced that the expression " reasonable prices " would, in fact, give rise to the difficulties that the hoteliers seem to envisage but, in deference to their objections, I have decided that we should possibly make the situation a little clearer. As the House will see, subsection (2) now stipulates that the duty is to provide accommodation, food or drink "at the charges for the time being current at the hotel". Possibly that wording is a little more satisfactory, and it is certainly more satisfactory from the point of view of the hotel proprietors. It is a change which, as I said, I have agreed to make in deference to them.

The Minister's amendment, so far as the phrase "reasonable prices" is concerned, is designed, as he acknowledges himself, to meet the point of view put up by the hotel proprietors. I think that the point they made to the Minister—and it was argued in this House—was a valid point in that it might be extremely difficult to interpret or express what "reasonable prices" meant. Different people would take a different view.

I am not entirely sure that the Minister has not gone a bit too far in the opposite direction in this amending section. He is undoubtedly removing the measure of protection which existed under the section as originally drafted for the customer, the ordinary member of the public going to the hotel. However, I am not raising any protest. I think the Minister has endeavoured to meet both points of view in the amendment. He has also made it clear and effective in the amendment that the hotelier has a duty, both under the statutory duty which is being imposed by this Bill and the duty under the special contract which exists as between the hotel and the customer or a group of customers, but I am wondering if the last phrase in subsection (1) of Section 3 might not enable a hotelier to contract out of a special contract.

He is given an overriding right under the section, as I read it even in the case of special contracts, to refuse to serve a customer if he has reasonable grounds for that refusal. Obviously, there is no case law yet as to what will constitute reasonable grounds and I simply want to be clear in my mind as to whether or not that phrase is intended deliberately to govern not only the case of the statutory duty being imposed by the section but also the case of the hotelier vis-à-vis a customer with whom he has a special contract.

The phrase is intended to qualify the statutory obligation. Naturally, the contractual right would still remain but, in my view, would not be affected by the insertion of the words "unless he has reasonable grounds for refusal".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 3 deleted.
Section 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, line 10, before "accommodation" to insert "suitable"

The purpose of this amendment is again to resolve some doubts raised here on Committee Stage, and possibly on Second Stage too, and also to allay some fears expressed by the hotel proprietors. Under sub-section (1) of Section 5 as at present drafted, a hotel proprietor might be obliged to receive all property of any description, no matter how bulky or cumbersome, subject only to his having space for it. That is the fear the hotel proprietors have about the section. It is the fear they expressed to me. It is not, in fact, the intention—certainly it is not my intention—that the proprietor should be required to receive property which is, for example, objectionable, excessively cumbersome, or which, for any other valid reason, it would be unreasonable to expect him to admit. The amendment seeks to clarify the position by providing that the proprietor need admit only property for which he has suitable accommodation. In other words, if a guest were to bring along his pet elephant, the proprietor would not be under any obligation to receive it. Unless he had accommodation available and resources suitable for looking after elephants.

I wonder would that apply in the case of a guest who brings along a hand grenade.

Yes, unless he has a suitable container for keeping explosives.

So long as the pin remains in the grenade, the grenade is quite safe and can be left safely lying on top of a locker, or anywhere else. I put this forward seriously because I do not think the Minister has really met the case put up here. The Minister has brought in an amendment to expand the section by providing that this will apply where there is suitable accommodation, whereas, under the section as it stands, the reference is simply to accommodation. It seems to me there is a case to be made, from the hotel proprietors' point of view, that it may be unreasonable to ask him to take in any property, even though he may have quite suitable accommodation for it.

On the last day we were discussing this, I mentioned that you might have the case of an object of particular value and a hotelier might not have the particular type of insurance which would enable him to feel entirely happy in his mind about keeping on his premises such an object.

It seems to me that the only test now is as to whether the accommodation is suitable. The Minister would be meeting the situation more fairly, I think, if there were some modification of the section to allow a hotel proprietor to give notice to a guest that he will not accept a particular article on specified grounds; he should be required to specify the grounds and, if those grounds are reasonable, the duty of acceptance should be removed from him. I am not keen on limiting the section. Speaking as an individual, I think it is a good idea that guests should feel they have, as they should have, as full a measure of protection for both themselves and their property as it is possible to give them. We must try, however, to hold the scales evenly between the guests, on the one hand, and the hotel proprietor, on the other.

Under this section, it is open to a guest to insist on the hotel proprietor accepting (1) an article which may be dangerous and (2) an article which for some reason, such as excessive value, the hotel proprietor may not want to take. There is another aspect in connection with an article which might be dangerous in a special sense. It might for example, be combustible. The hotel proprietor's insurance policy might be invalidated or the premiums might be increased by reason of his having to accept articles virtually of all sorts. It might be a tin of petrol, or something of that sort, for which suitable accommodation might be available, but the article might not be covered by the proprietor's insurance policy. If through mishap, a fire were to start or that account, it is quite conceivable that the insurance company could argue that the hotel was not covered because, under the terms of the policy no such article should have been brought on to the premises.

I do not think this is an easy section to enable the Minister to be entirely fair from both points of view It is one which requires a good dea of attention. As it stands, I do no think the Minister has dealt with the situation adequately, though this is an improvement on what was there before.

We have discussed this matter of dangerous substances specifically with the draftsman because this was one of the matters the hotel proprietors raised. The draftsman is quite satisfied that the amendment gives them all the protection they want. He assures me that the section as now drafted means that the discretion is given to the proprietors to refuse admission. I am not sure that any real difficulty would arise in any of the cases Deputy O'Higgins has instanced. In the case of the dangerous substance—the hand grenade, the explosive, or the tin of petrol—I am quite certain the court would regard the fact that the insurance company would not cover the article as a reason governing the unsuitability of the accommodation. If a hotel proprietor were to say to a guest that he could not accept a particular item because he had no suitable accommodation, he would go on to say: " I have nowhere in the hotel which an insurance company would regard as suitable." In my opinion, that would be a perfectly valid reason for his maintaining that he had no suitable accommodation.

Deputy O'Higgins is right in saying that this is a matter of trying to preserve the balance between the rights of the individual visitor coming to the establishment and the rights of the owner of the establishment and it is difficult to achieve something entirely satisfactory from both points of view. However, I think we have hit upon a reasonable compromise in the phraseology I now propose. In any case where the proprietor has suitable accommodation, and it must appear to be suited to the particular thing in question, then I think he should be under an obligation to receive, but, if his accommodation is not suitable, he should be entitled to refuse. I could give this undertaking to Deputy O'Higgins, that the Bill will be going to the Seanad and if anybody comes up with a better suggestion between now and then, I will consider it. Deputy O'Higgins and I are both anxious to achieve the same result.

I was going to ask the Minister to think of the position with regard to another Act which he has put through the House, the Official Secrets Act. There are sections in that Act which make it an offence to have documents which are declared by the Minister to be secret and confidential in one's possession or at one's house. If I have such a document and I engage a room in a hotel, I can say to the proprietor that this document is declared by the Minister to be secret and confidential, that I am telling him that and that he knows that if he takes it into his hotel, he is committing an offence. In such a case, I am availing of my rights under Section 5 of this Bill and I can demand of him to take it in. As far as I can see, he must do it.

I should also like to ask the Minister what is the position with regard to the visitor who does not engage a room and is only there for a meal? I take it the position still is that the hotel proprietor must take reasonable care that he will not injure the visitor's goods but that there is no special obligation on him to take them in charge.

That is right. The position in hotels is now being made the same as that in restaurants. At the present moment, there is an anomaly, as the Deputy knows.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 5, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 6.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 3, line 21, to delete "precincts" and substitute "premises."

The purpose of this amendment is to make it clear that a motor vehicle will be deemed to be received by the proprietor of a hotel only when it is parked in a place over which the proprietor exercises control to the extent of being able to exclude trespassers. It has been suggested that the word "precincts" could include a portion of the public highway outside the hotel. It is not the intention that the hotel proprietor should be liable in that case and the proposal in the amendment is to substitute the word "premises" for the word "precincts," I think it is a better word and should meet the views expressed by the proprietors in this regard.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 6. as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 7.

Amendment No. 4 to this section deals with the same subject matter as amendments Nos. 6 and 7 and I think they could be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 3, to delete line 45 and substitute "exceed £100,".

The purpose of this amendment is to remove the limit of £50 on the hotel proprietor's liability in regard to the loss of any one article. The effect will be to leave only the overall limit of £100 in respect of the property of any one guest. The rules laid down by the Council of Europe Convention regarding the Liability of Hotel Proprietors provides only for the overall limit, although each Contracting Party retains the right to make his own regulations regarding the loss of any one article.

The recommendation was £70.

I am satisfied that it would be better to adhere to the overall limit set out in the Convention rules. Apart from that, the removal of the £50 limit would be more realistic from the point of view of a guest who loses a valuable article such as a camera or a watch.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 8.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 4, line 26, to delete "does not extend" and substitute "extends" and, in line 27, to delete "unless" and substitute "only if".

Deputy O'Higgins was critical on Committee Stage of the wording of sub-section 2. This amendment is put down in an effort to meet his criticism. It does not involve any change in the sense of the subsection, but I hope it reads a little better now and does not offend the Deputy's sensitive literary ear.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 8, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 9 to 15 agreed to.
FIRST SCHEDULE.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 5, line 23, to delete "thar £50 i leith aon earra áirithe ná" and "san iomlán".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 6, line 1, to delete "£50 for any one article and a total of".

Amendment agreed to.
First schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Second schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill, as amended on Recommittal, reported.
Bill received for final consideration and passed.
Top
Share