Deputy O'Donoghue is in possession and he has 20 minutes left.
Private Members' Business. - Travel Reserve Fund Bill, 1981: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Last evening I was dealing with the question of the remedial action proposed and pointing out that, while insurance is a valuable part of an arrangement to prevent any hardship occurring to people as a result of failure by a travel company, of itself it was unlikely to provide a fully satisfactory set of arrangements. In particular I said it would also be necessary to look at the ways in which one could prevent, or if not prevent entirely at least minimise, the risk of any recurrence in the future of this type of situation. It is that aspect of the matter that I should like to take up now.
We know from the Minister that legislation is being prepared and from his remarks yesterday it appears that it will set out to deal with this aspect of prevention as well as cure. I am not sure what measures will be proposed under that heading. There has been reference to a bonding arrangement for firms in the travel trade and certainly that would be one very desirable feature. I take it that for reputable companies an insurance bond should be available at a not-too-prohibitive premium so that any additional cost to the customers would be very small by the time the premium was spread over the total number of clients of a travel agency. While the bonding element is a necessary and valuable ingredient, I think we should look for more than that. If we have limited companies who, as I said last night, enjoy very real and substantial benefits from the privilege of being allowed to incorporate in limited companies, I think we should ensure that they honour their obligations under the various Companies Acts and regulations.
It is also desirable that prospective clients of travel agencies should be able to get information without too much difficulty. At present if a prospective holidaymaker is choosing to make some arrangement I doubt if the choice is significantly influenced by the particular travel agency concerned, because there is virtually no way in which an ordinary member of the public is in a position to decide whether company A or company B is in the stronger financial position or has better facilities or opportunities available. I suspect that in the majority of cases the choice of holiday, and therefore the choice of travel company, is very much influenced by the information in the various brochures handed out. While promotional literature is all very well — promotional material, advertising and so on is to be expected as part of the normal day-to-day stock of business — I think we should have more information as well as more publicity. I know there could be debate as to exactly how much information should be available but it would not be unreasonable to have available, whether within each company's brochure or perhaps in some form of composite brochure from the Travel Agents' Association, some information on the financial standing of the various travel agency firms — perhaps some information on their turnover or their profits or even a statement that they have complied with the requirements of the Companies Act under each of these headings. Any interested members of the public could then satisfy themselves that they were dealing with a firm which was complying with its legal obligations and which appeared to be behaving reasonably.
While that would go some way towards sorting out the more reputable and more substantial firms from, shall we say, the more fly-by-night operators, I recognise that historical information on past performance would not, of itself, fully deal with the problem. A firm might have traded quite successfully in earlier years and then find itself, for whatever reason, running into a bad patch. Perhaps there has been a change of management, or somebody has made some wrong decisions about the likely scale of the business for the coming year or so on. This is the type of developing problem which is more likely to give rise to a sudden dramatic collapse of the kind which we are discussing and which underlies the Bill before the House. This will obviously be a more difficult and more controversial area in which to get satisfactory information. It deals with the situation as it occurs, and we all know that in the day-to-day changing business situation one may hear different versions. There could be rumours and counter-rumours and various statements made. A number of firms may see one member in trouble and may perhaps press their own claims to have business transferred to them.
In that environment it is unrealistic to expect the travel companies themselves to be in a position to provide adequate or fully satisfactory information to the general public. This is where we should look to the consumer bodies to develop their services in this area. Happily, there has been substantial progress in recent years under the general heading of consumer protection and consumer information. However, there is a lot more which could be done in this area. This whole area of holiday travel is an obvious candidate for better involvement by the consumers themselves. The very nature of the business, as we know, lends itself to a kind of organisation where, in effect, most travel firms are middlemen. They do not themselves have any tangible product. They simply act as a go-between, organising, on the one hand, travel facilities — airplane flights, hotels, other recreational activities — and, on the other hand, offering these holiday attractions to the prospective customers. If the firm has little in the way of tangible assets to back its activities, there is always the potential for a collapse and for disappointed clients. This is very much a type of activity where the clients, the customers, should be given every facility.
One possibility worth exploring would be to see whether this part of the general consumer information and protection services could not support a private enterprise grouping, a voluntary association or the like. They could then be in a position to process up-to-date information on all relevant aspects of the travel trade and make it freely available to members of the public. This will not guarantee perfection, but I do not see how we can arrive at perfection in this world. Certainly, we should aim to improve the situation of the client. To my mind one possible way in which we could bring about substantial improvements would be by encouraging the customers to form their own travellers' protection association and to support it in whatever way possible, either by making some services available from the relevant Government Departments or agencies or, if necessary, with some very modest financial support to help the collection and dissemination of up-to-date information on activities in the travel area. This is where we should explore possibilities for improvement, in addition to the basic proposals that have already been discussed as to adequate bonding or insurance arrangements, so that funds will be available in the event of any future collapse of a travel firm.
One other question which has arisen is whether or not there should be compensation paid to the victims of the collapse of Bray Travel. Obviously, this is a very touchy subject and, understandably, the people who have been disappointed and who have been placed at substantial financial loss by this collapse will feel a legitimate grievance, particularly if there is any substance in some of the suggestions made as to the way in which trading took place right up to the date of the collapse. Certainly, those aspects should be investigated fully so that the House and the public at large can be satisfied as to the way in which the eventual failure came about and, in particular, whether members of the public were placed at unnecessary risk through the manner of the trading. Until those aspects are fully investigated, I take it that there is unlikely to be any final resolution of this question of financial compensation.
I can see difficulty in the State itself coming forward with any proposals for financial support because, while there is loss involved here, there are many other areas where financial hardship to innocent victims arises and where for one reason or another there may not be adequate financial safeguards. I am thinking of cases which I myself have come across, where people have decrees made in their favour in court against the guilty party and when an attempt was made to collect the compensation the bird had flown, so to speak. A perfectly innocent person who has suffered hardship or loss then finds himself or herself with no way of obtaining the financial redress to which the courts have said they were entitled. There are also other areas in which hardship can arise, so I can see the difficulty in any suggestion of compensation in this particular instance. Every effort should be made to ensure that, if there were any funds available through the activities of the firm in the period leading up to the closure, they will be made available and used to at least partly reimburse the sufferers.
On the question of whether a fund should be created now, to which presumably all future travellers would subscribe and which could be used to reimburse retrospectively the victims of the Bray Travel collapse, I recognise that there is always a problem about any form of retrospective legislation and I have no doubt the lawyers on both sides of the House want to explore the implications of that aspect. If it were possible to launch any form of fund, in conjunction with bonding arrangements and so on, so that the overall financial burden in any one year could be kept to a reasonable level, I would like to see the possibility explored.
Coming back to the basic point, which is whether this Bill is sufficient to deal adequately with the situation, I hope I have made clear from my remarks that I do not feel it is adequate because it deals only with the setting up of a fund and arrangements for compensation in the event of failure. It is even more important to deal with the question of effective arrangements for avoiding the risk of further collapse in the future. Whether the suggestions made come from me or from other speakers I would like to feel that between us this House can bring forward a more comprehensive set of measures which would avoid any recurrence of the unfortunate loss which was suffered by so many innocent people in recent weeks.
I would like to welcome back the Minister of State, Deputy Flynn, after his accident. I know he is not as nimble on his feet as he used to be but I have no doubt he is as lucid as ever. I hope I do not have to endure the whip of his tongue in this debate.
Hopefully not this evening.
This is not his field.
The Deputy is very kind and I appreciate his remarks.
I am sure all Members will join with Deputy Deasy's remarks.
I fully support this Bill. Deputy Hegarty is to be congratulated for showing such initiative and concern for the people affected by the collapse of Bray Travel. I want to record my gratitude for his concern for future holidaymakers who may suffer the same fate. I congratulate him on his endeavours to ensure that they will not suffer a loss.
This Bill should be made retrospective to 1 December 1980 in order that compensation may be paid to the people who suffered heavy financial losses. Having read the speech of the Minister for Transport I am appalled at his indifference and the pettiness of his arguments. He has shown little sympathy for these people. Rather than proposing amendments to improve the Bill he has merely run it down and he has done a great disservice by his attitude.
Despite what the Minister said about opening the floodgates for claims from any commercial company which collapses, there is a precedent. This is a specific case. It has nothing to do with regular bankruptcy cases which come before the courts. There has been a major human element in this case and people who can ill afford to lose money have been affected. There is the blatant precedent of the Irish Trust Bank. In that case there was a far greater amount of money involved, probably ten times as much. Speculators were involved there, many of whom came from abroad. This Government saw fit to compensate those people 100 per cent. For the life of me I cannot see how a Minister can now say there is no comparison. There is a very distinct comparison. The people who suffered in this case are far more deserving than the people involved in the collapse of the Irish Trust Bank. As I said, many of those people were very wealthy non-nationals. At that time the National Coalition were blamed for not compensating them. We promised to compensate the small holders — the genuine Irish investors and some small foreign investors. We did not think it proper to compensate financiers from other countries.
Is the Deputy acting as judge and jury?
It was very obvious. We did not have to act as judge and jury.
Deputy Deasy, without interruption.
Deputy Andrews said——
I am addressing myself to all sides of the House. There is no question of partiality here. We will deal only with the Bill before the House.
I cannot see how you could compensate speculators, particularly from abroad, when you cannot compensate 1,300 to 1,600 Irish nationals, many of whom are not in good financial circumstances. Many Members have expressed concern about this matter, including Deputy Andrew's brother. I hope the two brothers have the same views on this matter. Your brother showed compassion——
Through the Chair, not across the floor. Deputy N. Andrews is not in the Chair. Deputy Deasy on the Bill, please.
Deputy N. Andrews is sinking a little in his seat now. On 10 February last in this House Deputy Browne, Deputy Harte, Deputy Keating, Deputy David Andrews and I asked the Minister for Transport if he would compensate the people who lost their money because of the collapse of Bray Travel. Now Deputy Niall Andrews expresses a contrary view. Deputy David Andrews asked the Minister for Transport "the action, if any, being taken to compensate persons who booked their holidays with a company (details supplied) which lost many thousands of pounds" and if he would make a statement on the matter.
Will the Deputy read the reply?
I will call the other Deputies later.
The Minister for Transport told us in his reply that he would not compensate the people who had suffered loss. In the final paragraph of his reply the Minister stated:
The Bray Travel collapse has highlighted the need for effective protection of the travelling public and I am satisfied that this requires the establishment of a scheme on the basis of law. For some time past my Department have been looking at what can be done by way of legislation and, as I indicated to the House on 18 December last, it is my intention to seek Government approval as soon as possible for a package of legislative measures to deal with the matter. I hope to introduce this legislation in the current session.
This reply is from volume 326 of the Official Report at column 1271. The same promise was made by a former Minister for Transport in this Government on 19 November 1977 at a dinner of the Irish Travel Agents' Association in Killarney. Of course, 1977 will be remembered as the year of false promises. Without making any pun, I would point out to the Minister present that 1981 is the Year of the Disabled.
Every Government is entitled to have one Minister disabled.
We have two such Ministers. There is another Minister of State who cannot hear or see gunmen firing guns within a range of a few yards.
We are dealing with the Bill before the House, not with guns or Ministers.
That is the reply the Minister gave to these questions and it is not satisfactory. How can the payment of £3 million, mainly to foreigners, be justified while money cannot be paid to Irish people? It is completely dishonest. We know why the Irish Trust Bank money was paid back; it was a pre-election promise in 1977.
It was supported by the people at the ballot box. Surely if the people——
Deputy Murphy should not interrupt. Deputy Deasy should deal with the Bill before the House. It is in order to mention that matter in passing.
In asking that this payment be made we are merely asking for what has been done in other countries. I refer to the collapse of the Courtline company in Britain some years ago when the British Government raised a loan of £15 million to compensate those who suffered. We are asking for a sum in the region of £300,000 or £400,000, a mere pittance in comparison. There are precedents not only in this country but in other countries.
The Minister should have done something constructive and suggested amendments rather than pick holes in the arguments made by Deputy Hegarty in introducing the Bill. The Minister said it was merely a copy of British legislation, but I would point out that a large proportion of our legislation is identical with British legislation. We took it over in 1922 and the vast bulk of it has never been changed.
We have special relations with Maggie now.
Deputy L'Estrange should not be interrupting.
I could not miss that one.
We, as an Opposition party, do not have the facilities to hire parliamentary draftsmen to draw up a super Bill. We have made an attempt and I am not saying it is perfect. We have tried, which is more than the Government have done despite the promise of 1977. It ill behoves the Minister to criticise us for doing our best and making a constructive suggestion in formulating this Bill. We are pressuring the Government by bringing in this Bill.
There have been numerous promises of legislation but nothing has materialised. We have been promised a Bill dealing with independent broadcasting and another on citizen band radio. We are dubious as to whether this promised legislation will appear before the forthcoming general election. We wish to pressure the Minister into doing something and it is a sad state of affairs when the Opposition have to bring in Bills during Private Members' Time in order to get action from the Government. The Minister told us last night that the introduction of this Bill was an abuse of Private Members' Time. In fact we are doing what he himself should have done. He also said it was dishonest. In my opinion a much greater degree of dishonesty is involved in giving back £3 million to people. many of whom did not need it.
Bray Travel collapsed on 18 December last and a very significant point has been made concerning the accounts of this company. Apparently they had not been publicly audited for five years and this was admitted by the Minister in reply to a Dáil question. If an annual audit had taken place it is most likely that this collapse could have been diverted and there was great dereliction of duty by the Minister for Industry. Commerce and Tourism and his Department. The irregularities in the accounts did not come to light and they had probably been in deficit for several years. On 10 February Deputy Barry Desmond asked the following supplementary question:
Why has there not been any recommendation from the Minister's Department to the Minister for Industry. Commerce and Tourism that proceedings be initiated against this company for alleged failure to lodge registered company accounts over a period. which resulted in a deficiency of £1 million? Surely there is a departmental and ministerial responsibility in this matter?
The Minister for Transport replied:
When we saw the notice in the newspaper the Deputy has referred to we immediately brought it to the attention of the Department of Industry, Commerce and Tourism. I am quite certain they will take the necessary action as a result of it.
That was a bit late in the day. That should have been done over the past five years but it was not; it was neglected.
Since November 1977, when the then Minister for Transport was aware, if one is to judge by his speech in Killarney, that there was a problem in this area, that there was a danger of companies collapsing and people losing their money, two more companies went to the wall, Sun Jet and Star Travel. That should have been sufficient warning to the Minister that he was facing a calamity such as we witnessed with the collapse of Bray Travel. We had more than three years of inertia, of neglect in this area. Our Bill attempts to redress that situation and compensate those who lost money. It is not much good for the Minister to say that he has sympathy for those who lost money. Those people want their money back. It should be remembered that some travel agents acted responsibly in this regard and compensated those who lost money in the collapse of Bray Travel. It is unfortunate they all did not do this, because had they done so we would not be at loggerheads in this debate. However, it is possible that some of them are operating on a shoe-string and do not have great financial means.
The Irish Travel Agents Association should have attempted some fire brigade action to compensate those who did not get their money back. Great credit is due to the travel agents who compensated some people even though they were under tremendous pressure from clients who lost money. It made me smile to think of the Minister mentioning last night that we were copying British legislation. In the House on 5 February, as reported at column 1219 of the official Report, the Minister was asked by Deputy Horgan when the position of nautical surveyor and examiner in his Department would be filled, to which the Minister replied:
Arrangements have been made with the appropriate British authorities——
Jolly good stuff.
——to provide and mark examination papers for certificates of competency for deck and engineer officer examinations as from 1 February 1981. This system will enable us to maintain the issue of Irish certificates of competency while maintaining reciprocity with British certificates.
Last night the Minister complained that we had copied British legislation.
The Deputy, in his profession, must know about external examiners.
Deputy Ciaran Murphy should not interrupt. Deputy Deasy is getting away from the Bill.
Last night the Minister was crying and blaming us for introducing a Bill which resembled one introduced in the United Kingdom in the early seventies, although he advocated British legislation here. On 5 February I asked the Minister if it was the intention to adopt the same standards as in the UK and the Minister replied:
Yes, because there is an interplay between the certificates issued here and the UK.
The Deputy is dealing with a matter that does not have anything to do with the Bill before the House.
I am pointing out the hypocrisy of the Minister's statement last night.
An Leas-Ceann Comhairle
The Deputy should confine his remarks to the Bill.
On a point of order, Deputy Deasy's remarks are relevent because the Minister last night tried to ridicule our Bill on those grounds.
The Minister dealt with the Bill and other Deputies should do the same.
In the next breath he told us that he had people in France and Germany studying their legislation but yet he tried to ridicule me because I had copied British legislation. That point must be made.
The point has been made.
What is worrying the Chair is that we are spending minutes making points of this type which do not have anything to do with the Bill. The Deputy is entitled to refer in passing to a matter of this type but not to debate it.
A major factor in the collapse of the company concerned was the lack of an audit since 1975. That alone should be grounds for a thorough investigation into Bray Travel and its associated companies.
They have good friends in the right places.
We are anxious that an agency be set up consisting of seven people, three of whom should be nominees of the Irish Travel Agents Association and four appointees of the Minister. The person appointed chairman would not have any association with the travel business or anybody engaged in the provision of travel facilities. If the fund we suggest had been set up three years ago, as promised, we would not be faced with this difficulty now. The House should agree to the Bill. There should be a full display in all offices of tour operators and travel agents and in advertising literature of the details, financial and otherwise, of their bonding schemes. Included in that information should be a photostat of the certificate from the insurance company bonding them. The present schemes are grossly inadequate. Tour operators should also be licensed separately.
A bonding system is highly desirable because it will give people a sense of security. The travel business is one of the most likely to collapse. The number of such collapses over the years has been abnormal. Collapses have occurred in Britain and on the Continent. There must be some protection for consumers and in the Bill we are providing that and also the means for compensation for those who suffered loss. The Government should support this legislation and not make a frivolous and childish attack on it. If the Government do not agree with certain provisions they should suggest amendments, be constructive and not destructive. Deputy O'Donoghue made valid points in his contribution and agreed that compensation should be paid. I should like to see that magnanimity around the House. We should not be bickering about this but should agree that all those who suffered be fully compensated.
I will be brief in my contribution. The tabling of this Bill by Fine Gael is political opportunism of the first order.
The Deputy would not know the meaning of the phrase.
I listened to Deputy Deasy, a fine Member, make an extraordinary speech about Fianna Fail's commitment to the trust bank. I should like to remind him that his party opposed our move and refused to listen to us when we were in Opposition. They opposed the payment of any compensation.
Not any compensation. The Deputy should read the debates. Let him produce the evidence.
We did not oppose any compensation.
Deputy Andrews is entitled to be heard, just as any other Deputy is.
Fine Gael came up with a spurious argument that they would weed out the genuine people who invested in the bank.
No speculators. We will give the Deputy a list of the speculators if he wishes. It will not take me long to tell the Deputy who was genuine.
Nobody has yet been able to explain how it is possible to decide who is genuine and who is not. Does the Deputy suggest that we do the same thing in relation to this matter?
Deputy Hegarty should not interrupt. Deputy Andrews should direct his remarks through the Chair. The debate will have to be run on proper lines without interruption.
We are talking about the travel fund Bill, not the Irish Trust Bank.
I tried to prevent other people getting on to that matter but did not succeed.
Would the Opposition accept that there are some genuine cases among the Bray Travel victims?
They are all genuine.
There is the contradiction.
They are all there.
I told the Deputy last night there was to be no reference to the gallery.
I hoped to be able to deal with this matter quickly and without interruption. Today I received a letter from the Bray Travel victims action group. I found it a rather sad and pathetic letter and, to me, discourteous and unacceptable. It displayed plain insensitivity to the functions of public representatives who are public representatives and not public servants. There is a very fine distinction there and I should remind Members of the House what we are. We should not accept the type of letter we received today. I raise it in the House because it is important. The letter reads:
Dear T.D.
We represent the victims of the Bray Travel action group.
We are extremely concerned that this Bill becomes law in order that every traveller travelling this season will be protected because at this moment not all tour operators travel agents are bonded....
Please confirm by return that you propose supporting the Bill in order that we may advise those members of our group who may be in your constituency and who may wish to attend the debate. We will deem a failure to reply to this letter as a refusal on your part to support the Bill and, consequently, the victims we represent.
I find that insulting. When the crash of Bray Travel occurred a number of people in my constituency came to me. I contacted the agents on their behalf and they appeared to have been satisfied that the agents were prepared to compensate them for their losses. When I get this kind of letter in the middle of a debate in this House I find it unacceptable.
Having said that I extend my sympathy to the victims of Bray Travel. They were caught in a very unfortunate situation. Deputy Deasy said that for the past five years there was no audit of the company's accounts. Of those five years the Coalition were in power for two, so if Fianna Fáil are indicated on this score so are the Opposition. I do not wish to further aggravate the situation.
The Minister dealt comprehensively and fully with his intentions and proposals yesterday. I understand the frustrations and losses which people involved feel but I suggest to them that they do not threaten me by any precipitate sanctions or by publication of support or non-support for any Bill that comes before the House. I want to explain to them my function as a Member of the House. It is as public representative and not public servant. I know that is repetition but it needs to be said.
As has been said on all sides of the House, some of the cases involved are very tragic. For example, there is the case of the individual who borrowed money from the bank, paid it to Bray Travel and now has huge repayments to make. There is another case where illness fell upon a household and on the advice of a doctor the family decided that a holiday in the sun would be a good remedy. Money was paid which they could ill afford and that money was lost. If there are special cases to be made I suggest to the Minister that perhaps he might look at them and when he is introducing his Bill he should see if there is any way in which provision could be made to compensate for the horrific hardship which has befallen some families.
Deputy Hegarty mentioned that he would be selective about the Irish Trust Bank and seek out the genuine cases. He says they are all genuine in Bray Travel's case. I accept that but there are some which are more tragic and unfortunate than others. The Minister should consider compensating the victims to some extent, perhaps in conjunction with the travel agents' association. Perhaps they could receive 25 per cent, 50 per cent or 75 per cent compensation, but something should be done to help.
The Minister dealt with retrospection fully and sensibly and indicated that retrospective application for benefit provided for in legislation can lead to serious complications, and the most obvious problem is where to draw the line. He went on to indicate the different ways in which people find themselves in trouble where this happens.
I accuse Bray Travel of irresponsible operation in that they were known to frequently overbook and by doing so clients who arrived at departure lounges of airports had to be put up for a day or two in hotels. I know this to be a fact and it was at the cost of Bray Travel. Not only did they not make a profit on those clients but they made a considerable loss. It is time now, even after the horse has bolted, to introduce this legislation. A grave injustice has been done and I suggest to the Minister that when he is drawing up the necessary legislation he should deal with future possible occurrences of this kind. He should introduce a licensing system. I know he referred to this in his speech but it is important that we should emphasise it from the backbenches. He should make it compulsory and binding on every travel agent. He should insist that each traveller pays £1 into a contingency fund under statutory control to be backed by a similar amount from the trading agent. This fund would soon prove to be sufficient to deal with any future emergencies which, hopefully, may never arise. It would prevent this type of thing happening in the future and this type of debate, acrimonious at times, occurring in this House.
I further suggest that when the Minister gets the approval of this House for his Bill regulating travel agencies, the agents themselves might consider setting up their own regulatory body, on the same lines as lawyers and doctors, to regulate the licensing and operations, and to monitor the activities of their members. This should be done on a voluntary basis among themselves. There is no point in enacting it as part of a law which might be difficult to enforce.
If the Minister cannot agree to reverse his and the Government's decision to some extent. I will support him. I understand his reasons. I am just suggesting that he might consider going some small way to provide compensation. If not, perhaps as a gesture of good will, and in an effort to renew the confidence which the public rightly have in the vast majority of our 200-odd travel agencies, the travel agencies association might consider contributing, through a levy a certain amount by way of compensation for the victims of the Bray Travel collapse.
There are 200 travel agencies involved in selling holidays abroad. The amount of money which each agent would be asked to contribute towards providing compensation for the Bray Travel victims would not be any great loss to them, and would not cause them any hardship. It would renew the confidence we have in the vast majority of the legitimate travel agencies. They have done an enormously good job over the years in serving thousands of holidaymakers going abroad. Certain circumstances developed because they over-extended themselves and rushed into building up a bigger business which they could not sustain. Because of that we now have this terribly unfortunate business.
I am most anxious not to undermine the bulk of those operators. I admire them for their efficiency, their courtesy and their reliability. They have proved themselves over the years. Everybody has said as much as can be said. I suppose we will have repetition about the Irish Trust Bank and all the other angles which the Coalition can raise.
What about the Fianna Fáil Coalition?
Whatever about Bray Travel going out of business, when the Coalition were in Government the country nearly went out of business.
It has gone now.
Read what Senator Whitaker had to say at the weekend.
Can we not discuss this matter in a normal, formal way?
What has that got to do with it?
It has nothing in the world to do with it.
On a point of order, surely the Deputy is out of order in referring to the Coalition Government on this Bill?
It is the job of the Chair to try to keep order. I have found that very difficult last night and tonight from both sides of the House.
Fair play.
Yes, fair play. I will deal with the Deputy who is speaking if I am allowed to do so.
He did not tell us about the Fianna Fáil Coalition. They are split in two down the middle.
You need not worry about Fianna Fáil.
Deputy Andrews should speak through the Chair, and Deputy L'Estrange will please stop interrupting.
He should tell us which Coalition he means. Does he mean the split in the Fianna Fáil Party.
Is there any use in talking to the Deputy? Deputy Andrews on the Bill. Forget about Coalitions.
The Fine Gael Party have co-responsibility if they want to accuse us of irresponsibility because, as they freely admitted, five years have elapsed between auditing. Therefore, I am entitled to say that your incompetence in Government was reflected throughout your four years. You have got your reply and as a result, we have been picking up the bits for the past three years.
They were audited in 1976.
There are some bits to be picked up now.
Deputy Andrews on the Bill, without interruption.
There are only bits of the country left.
If we are to continue this debate, Deputies must cease interrupting. Deputy L'Estrange should obey the Chair once in a while. I know he finds it very difficult. Deputy Andrews on the Bill.
When I hear that type of disorder——
I very much regret that the Fine Gael Party had the brass neck to bring in a Bill of this kind to politicise——
Is the Deputy objecting to the Bill?
I am objecting completely and absolutely to the Bill because you know——
The public will be pleased about that.
——as well as I do that the Fianna Fáil Government have a Bill on the stocks.
Since 1977.
As the Minister said yesterday, it will be introduced in this session.
Another Minister said that in 1977.
Deputy Hegarty was not interrupted and he spoke for 40 minutes.
I heard you on the radio today and you made my hair stand on end.
That is the way we will have you for the next couple of months.
Deputy Andrews should speak through the Chair.
Do you expect the people to put you in a position in which you will be responsible for travel and tourism? I am not questioning your motives.
I have said on numerous occasions that every word should be addressed through the Chair and that there should be no interruptions. This Bill should be dealt with in the same way as any other Bill. There is no reason for this type of carry-on.
I will conclude by saying that I regret very much that the Opposition, such as it is——
Will you go to the country?
I have no great faith in this Bill. Anybody who heard Deputy Deasy and Deputy Hegarty addressing themselves to this Bill could not have great faith in the future for the Bray Travel people. We will take the correct approach when we introduce our Bill and you will be more than satisfied with it. Based on what the Minister said, I have great confidence——
The customers of Bray Travel will not. The people who are suffering in Bray Travel will not.
Deputy Collins, please.
I have made my appeal to the House and to the Minister. I know the Minister will have to deal with problems of compensation, and so on, but it is in his capable hands for consideration.
I sympathise with the Leas-Cheann Comhairle who has had such a difficult time, with Fianna Fáil backbenchers standing up to discuss a Bill which is not before the House. Deputy Andrews proceeded to discuss a Fianna Fáil Bill which I do not think will ever see the light of day, not under Fianna Fáil anyway, because they will not be there long enough. Even if they were, I doubt if they would introduce a Bill which would be capable of doing what is needed. This situation has been brought about because Bray Travel went broke. The first question is did they go broke, how did they go broke, are they indeed insolvent?
There is a certain school of thought that only rich people go abroad on holidays. In fact a large number of working people, their wives and families, do so, and they do so at off peak periods, if they can, in order to get cheap fares. The people who were caught by this are in the main people who could ill afford to lose the money they had paid to Bray Travel. The extraordinary thing about it is that under the law as it stands, Bray Travel, up to the day before the crash came — I should have said, up to the day before they were caught out — collected hard earned money to be used for purposes other than providing holidays for the people who had paid for them.
I have a personal interest in this because a few years ago I took members of my family abroad through Bray Travel. I made it clear to Bray Travel afterwards that I would never do it again because even then they were not playing the game. I agree with Deputy Andrews that most of the travel agents here are doing an excellent job in trying to give value for money, but there are a few dark horses out to get the quick buck and they do not care whom they hurt in the process.
I should like to see this Bill being accepted, passed even with Government amendments. At least it is before the House, but the Bill Deputy Andrews spoke about is not likely to come before the House this year, certainly not before the peak travel period. Therefore, though a number of travel agents have agreed voluntarily to give certain guarantees, there must be early legislation to tie them down. If this had happened only now for the first time, if it had been unknown for travel agents to go broke, we could understand the delay from the time the present Ceann Comhairle attempted to right matters in 1972 to the present time when a company were allowed to go broke, a company who were allowed to go without an audit of their accounts since the last Government left office in 1977: the last time their audit was carried out was 1976.
We have had the experience of the Equitable Insurance Company doing something similar under a Fianna Fáil Government and being allowed to get away with it. Why would people like Bray Travel not try to get away with this too? I know people who had paid money to them for holidays and whose health has suffered; some of them had nervous breakdowns, having scrimped and saved the whole year to get the money to pay for their holidays.
Another matter I should like to draw attention to is that Bray Travel insisted on getting the money long before the holidays. In my case I had to pay the money six weeks before, having paid a deposit earlier. They charged an amount which I considered to be exorbitant but they did not give the services the people had paid for even when Bray Travel were at the height of their career as travel agents. If many people had not had receipts from sub-agents here they would have been left without hotels or even meals when they were abroad.
The Bill before the House, or any amending legislation, will have to include regulations to tie down organisations who make contracts so that when the holiday period is over they cannot get away with it by saying: "This happened in France or Spain or Italy and it is not our responsibility". There are efforts to give what are called cheap holidays which is only codding people out of their money. I am sure the Ceann Comhairle knows that some of those companies have arrangements whereby the parents pay the full fare and certain children are allowed to travel at reduced fares. Bray Travel refused to do that. What one might call the after sales service, the courier service, was non-existent.
They are the people now looking for sympathy, having robbed a considerable number of people of their savings. One of their spokesmen had the audacity to say they had no responsibility. All right, form a limited company and you do not have responsibility. That is a nice way to get out of things. The big point is that if something like this Bill proposes is not done now we will have a continuation of this sort of thing.
I should like to know how deeply has this been investigated, how far will the investigation into the affairs of Bray Travel go? Will it be possible to find out who got money and is holding it, money which did not go either to Bray Travel or to the people who had paid it for their holidays? How much of this money is still being used? What about the people in control of Bray Travel who up to the day before the crash were accepting cheques which they made sure they cashed very quickly — they did not take any chance that the cheques would be cancelled. Is it not outrageous that a company such as Bray Travel should be able to collect hard earned money and say it is not their responsibility. There is one way to deal with it. One amendment I should like to see to this Bill is provision for a prison sentence for a person who takes money in that way and who disclaims accountability for it.
This kind of thing had not happened before in this country in a big way, but we have had instances of many such companies going broke in Britain, and legislation such as this Bill had to be introduced. Here, following the action of the present Ceann Comhairle in 1972, why did Fianna Fáil not follow up the lead they had been given, why has it been left to the Opposition today? Why should we wait until people are robbed of their savings before we do something about the matter? If a gipsy breaks into a house and steals money, even a small amount, he is taken before the court and is likely to be sent to jail. Some time ago an itinerant woman who had a family was given six months' imprisonment for taking a pound of rashers from a shop. Yet the élite, the so-called respectable people, the wealthy people, were able to get large amounts of money right up to the last minute and then sit back and say it was not their responsibility.
The previous speaker said we should not talk about the Irish Trust Bank. While I disagreed with the idea that the State should have been responsible in that instance, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The people who got money in the case of the Irish Trust Bank were, in the main, people who could afford to spend large amounts of money and they might not have missed the money if it had not been paid back to them. In this case we are talking about ordinary, working-class people, small businessmen and farmers. They have not very much of this world's goods. They could not afford to lose the money that was taken out of their pockets and used for purposes other than what was intended.
It is outrageous that we should have to listen to sneering opposition from people on the Government side. There has been carping criticism about the way the Bill is drafted, about what is in it and what should be in it. I give credit to Fine Gael for producing the Bill. If they were able in a relatively short time to put before this House a Bill, imperfect though it may be, surely it is not too much to ask the Government to produce the necessary Bill? They have all the necessary resources, civil servants who are experts at their job and, in addition, they have a report that was started in 1972. Instead of that they have told us this Bill is no good and have said they will produce legislation. I am satisfied they will not do that. I am satisfied that the best we may expect from them is that a week before the general election they will put something out that is supposed to be an effort to right a wrong. It might be good politics to do it that way but that is not the correct approach. The Government are making a serious error.
Holidays are big business. I have heard people, including Ministers, in the past few weeks advising everybody to holiday at home. That is fair enough but I would be far more inclined to listen to them if I found them in the holiday resorts of this country. I do not think many of them will holiday at home. The person who has one foot on a plane to Spain or some other place and who says to people at home that it is better for Ireland that they should holiday in this country——
The Deputy went abroad himself as Minister.
Yes, I went abroad as Minister and as Deputy and hopefully I will go abroad again. I paid my way anywhere I went.
The Deputy did not take his wife and family abroad at the State's expense.
The Deputy said——
The Chair will call Deputy Murphy when it is his turn to speak. In the meantime, Deputy Tully should be allowed to speak without interruption.
I do not drink or smoke and neither does my wife. Therefore, we can afford to go places where people who drink too much cannot afford to go. I have no apology to make to anybody about where I travel. I am talking about the man who wants everybody to holiday in Ireland and often this person is giving this advice when he has one foot on the plane, travelling to far-off places. Irish holidays are very good. I have spent as many holidays in this country as any other person here and I have enjoyed them, but I do not object to people who want to go abroad. Neither will I object to Ministers going abroad if they wish but I do object to their telling others to stay at home. There is also the aspect that we are looking for visitors to come to Ireland and if the concept of visiting other countries did not exist we would not have any visitors. However, in order to make it work properly there must be reputable travel agents and here we come back to the kernel of the trouble.
When Bray Travel collapsed there was an immediate hullabaloo: people in this House were shouting about the whole business and saying that of course the Government were going to do something about it. The trouble with this Government is that they are always going to do something but they are finding it extremely difficult to do anything. They will play around with ideas but will not take action. In this case there was no reason why the necessary legislation was not introduced almost immediately. That is the only way we can deal with the people concerned in this case. Not alone should legislation be prepared to ensure that people who pay for their holidays can get those holidays, but we should take steps to deal with the travel companies who make arrangements to hive off part of their operations from the central body and who switch money to prevent it coming back to the centre. People who make arrangements like this cannot claim to be honest.
If the Government consider that this Bill before the House is not adequate it is a simple matter for them to bring in amendments or to produce their own Bill. We are told they are considering bringing in a Bill this session. The child in the street knows that this is the last session of the present Dáil. The Government might as well say that it is their intention just to publish a Bill before the dissolution of the Dáil and pretend they are dealing with the matter in the correct way. Unless the Government are prepared to put forward a better Bill than the one we are dealing with now, they have no option but to accept the present Bill. There is no use in people parading around this House 40 or 50 members of the Bray Travel Protection Association or the people who invested money and got no holidays unless they are prepared to vote in favour of what those people want and are entitled to.
Debate adjourned.