Deputy Tully has ten 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."
When I moved the adjournment last week. I had been pointing out to the Government that if — and I believe it is so — they have no Bill ready to put before this House, then they have no option but to accept the Bill which is before the House. If they think that it is not perfect, they have the right to offer amendments, but they have no right whatever to say that they are preparing. or thinking of preparing, a Bill.
I suggested last week, and repeat now, that what they are saying, in fact, is that they will produce a Bill a few days before they dissolve the Dáil for the general election and then give the impression that, but for the general election, they would have been able to do something about this unholy muddle. The plain facts are that a company which, according to the publicity given during the last few weeks, and particularly during the last week, knew they were in serious trouble, and that they could not meet their commitments, continued to collect money — not alone collect money but solicit money from people who were gullible enough to give it to them — up until the last minute. The fellow changing the cheques was only out the door before the receiver came in.
If this had never happened before, if no company had ever gone to the wall before, then it would have been understandable that something like that could happen. However, it did happen across the water in Britain and steps were taken to ensure that, not alone would it not happen again, but that some provision should be made to try to reimburse those who lost money as a result. I repeat also that many people, in an effort to try to justify what happened, suggested that the people who had bought holidays had plenty of money and that only those with plenty of money go abroad. That is a lot of nonsense, and those who say it must know that. The plain facts are that the time of year which was being booked for was a time when many would like to go because the holidays at that time were not as expensive as at other times. In fact, a number of people had for over 12 months been saving up their money to take themselves, and in many cases their families as well, on holiday. They suddenly found that people who can only be described as entirely dishonest took their money and left them flat. Not alone that, but they seemed to think it was some kind of a joke, that when it happened it was not their fault.
The evidence appears to be that they knew that something like this would happen. As early as April of that year they were saying how bad things were and how it was likely that they would have to cut down on their proposals. I speak here because I have some experience of this firm, having travelled on a holiday arranged by them and having found that even when they were supposed to be "flying", as they say, doing awfully well, it took me all my time — and I am no fool — to try to prevent them from making a fool out of me when I was at my destination. They had my money and had had it for a considerable time but almost left my family and myself without a holiday which we had paid for. If they did that in the good times, it is not surprising that they succeeded in doing worse in the bad times.
The onus is on the Government to arrange to have this Bill accepted in the House. They can either vote it out or in. They must make arrangements to reimburse those who were robbed. There is no point in this, above any Government, saying that there is no precedent for it. Of course there is. The only difference is that the people who are now caught are people who may not have had a great deal of money. People who were paid money before were people who could well afford the loss. Otherwise, they would not have been involved in a speculative business such as the one I am referring to. Several millions of pounds were paid out by the Government to reimburse what the late Seán Dunne referred to as "friends of the cause". I can see no reason why the Government cannot accept the responsibility and arrange to reimburse, in one way or the other, the people who lost their money for the loss which they have suffered. This will not be recompense for them, because many were so shocked that it had an effect on their health. No civilised country should allow people to get away with that kind of thing. If it was something which suddenly happened and which nobody could foresee. I could understand, but the spectacle of a firm which was about to go broke celebrating a few days before is just not good enough. This cannot be accepted as the right thing to do.
We have a tendency here to put things on the long finger — méar fada — leave it for a while and it will go away, forget about it until it happens again. Then everybody gets excited and says something must be done about it and then the same thing happens again. The time to deal with it is not in six months' time, or not by way of a simple Bill thrown in here before the House a week before the election or before the Dáil is dissolved. The Government must either accept this Bill, which to me appears to be a good one but then I am no expert, or accept it but propose amendments which will deal with the Bill and the problem. The problem is far more important than the Bill. What we are doing in this House is trying to ensure that those who lost their money will be recompensed and that no company, no matter who they are or who their friends are, will ever again be allowed to get away with something like this.
We had an example of something like this before with the Equitable Insurance Company. Funnily enough, there were two similarities to the present case. One was that the Fianna Fáil Government were in power when it happened and, secondly, the system used was exactly the same. For four years before the company went broke no audit had been carried out. The year we left office, 1976, was the last year in which an audit was carried out on Bray Travel. Nothing was done since then until it went broke. This is a lesson for all of us. That law is there for everybody and must be obeyed by everybody.
I shall speak briefly. That this Bill has been introduced by Fine Gael with an eye to the general election is abundantly clear to all at this time and the Labour Party——
The Deputy is joking, of course.
——comply entirely with this. One had only to listen to the comments which Deputy Tully made just now.
If they were having an eye to the general election, they would be flooding this House with Bills.
Also, in the Official Report, at volume 327, No. 5 column 911, of 4 March 1981, Deputy Hegarty made a comment on the election; in the same volume, column 912, Deputy L'Estrange commented on the election; in volume 327 of 3 March, No. 4, Deputy Desmond at column 706 made various predictions about elections. Certainly, one questions the sincerity with which this Bill has been introduced.
The Deputy must be joking.
Deputies, please. The Deputy is entitled to make his own speech.
In volume 327, column 912 of the Official Report, Deputy Tully mentioned this. It is very clear from the comments made that Fine Gael, supported by the Labour Party, introduced this Bill with an eye to an election.
And we are committed to implementing it.
The introduction of this Bill was a reaction to an unfortunate loss of prospective holidaymakers' money.
One thousand four hundred of them.
The Irish Trust Bank was quoted by many Opposition speakers as a precedent for the Government to take certain steps. The record clearly shows that, both in Government and in Opposition, the Fine Gael and Labour Parties opposed measures taken by this Government to ensure that refunds were made to depositors who lost their money in the Irish Trust Bank. It was said that all who lost money in that bank were speculators. On 12 October 1977, in volume 300, column 149, of the Official Report, the then Minister for Finance, Deputy Colley, in answer to a parliamentary question said:
The names and addresses of depositors are not available to my Department. I am informed that 1,045 depositors received payments not exceeding £10,000 and 48 were paid sums in excess of £10,000.
Approximately 58 per cent of the total was due to depositors with addresses outside the State.
This fact has been carefully overlooked by the people who introduced this Bill. They have gone to great trouble to make out that every person who invested in that bank was a speculator. The figure shows that the vast majority of depositors received payments not exceeding £10,000. I know that when Deputy Hegarty replies to this debate he will deal with this point in full.
The Deputy is going into great detail——
——about another Bill.
——on a Bill that passed through this House a long time ago and that has nothing to do with this Bill. This matter was mentioned by other speakers and that is why I allowed Deputy Murphy to refer to it. Let us get back to the Bill.
The facts are beginning to hurt the Deputies opposite——
We are not hurt, but you are.
Let them research the situation and they will see the facts. To classify the people who invested their savings in that bank as massive speculators does not line up with the facts. It must be remembered that they invested their savings in that bank for investment and development in Ireland. No matter how we look at this, holiday money, which is what we are talking about in this Bill, cannot be classified as savings for investment. I hope other Deputies will develop this point further.
This Bill was introduced because a major travel agency went into liquidation by order of the court. I sincerely regret the collapse of that firm and the loss of jobs of a large number of innocent people who worked diligently. I am particularly sorry for many individuals and families who lost a great deal of their holiday savings. This collapse occurred at one of the peak periods in the travel business. As I said, I am very sorry for those holidaymakers, many of whom I know personally. They deprived themselves of many luxuries over a relatively long period in order to save the listed price for their holiday. I have no doubt they were enticed by the glossy holiday brochures, but I am sure these brochures do not look very attractive to them now. These brochures are part of a major advertising campaign to encourage more people to holiday abroad.
Customer satisfaction is an important ingredient of the trade and the people in the trade must realise this. The trade is particularly buoyant at present. This might lead operators to feel that all is well, but one of the reasons for this buoyancy is the position of the púnt and sterling. This difference is very attractive to people living in the sterling area and encourages them to avail of holiday offers in the Twenty-six Counties. If operators examine their books over recent months to see what proportion of tourists come from this sterling area and what proportion come from the Twenty-six Counties, an interesting statistic might be forthcoming——
"An interesting statistic", that is a great help to the people who lost their money.
——and the tour operators might not feel everything was all right in the travel business. Deputy Collins will have his chance to speak in a few minutes. I can appreciate that the holidaymakers who lost their money are disenchanted with the agencies.
Well said.
It is essential that the goodwill which has been lost be restored. Customer satisfaction is vital.
In their advertising campaigns the travel industry make frequent reference to membership of the Irish Travel Agents' Association and it would appear that such membership is a kind of imprimatur or guarantee to potential holidaymakers. I am aware that many travel agents have acknowledged the dilemma of those who have been affected by the recent collapse and some have offered refunds or alternative holidays. I am also aware that this trade has an excellent record and that it has been hurt by recent events. However, in view of the fact that firms advertise their membership of the ITAA it is not sufficient to say that they are only a mutual interest group. They should come forward with proposals to compensate those who have suffered loss. I know that many excellent tour operators are worried by this situation and would like to help. I hope that other people who are satisfied by the buoyancy of their trade will put forward a deal to help these people.
It is essential that customer satisfaction be restored in the tourist industry. It is vital that the "fáilte" be put back into Irish holidays and I hope sufficient pressure will be brought to bear on those who are reluctant to join in a scheme to help people.
I note that this Bill has as its inception date I December 1980. It would apply in the case of contracts executed or undertaken on or after that date. I wonder whether the sponsors of the Bill have fully examined the situation and ascertained that none of the clients of Bray Travel who have suffered losses entered contracts prior to that date. I look forward to a reply on this point. Is it felt that this date covers all the people affected? Dealing with the time of booking, section 2(4) states:
"time of booking" means the time when a payment was first made by the customer to the travel organiser under or in contemplation of the overseas air travel contract or the overseas surface travel contract in question.
What about people who entered contracts prior to 1 December? Are they in a special category? Is there a certain amount of selectivity? What length of time is envisaged by the proposers until the contributions of future holidaymakers have accrued sufficiently to meet compensation for those affected by the recent failure? Have the proposers any idea of the time factor? I would point out the inadequacy of section 5 which states:
The Minister may at any time, after consultation with the Agency, and persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of persons engaged in the provision of travel facilities to members of the public, by order provide for the dissolution of the Agency, the winding up of the Fund and the disposal of any assets then standing to the credit of the Fund.
It is reasonable to assume that prospective holidaymakers would require the use of their contributions towards protecting their own stake in a proposed holiday. That being so, the time factor appears to be extremely long. I hope that Deputy Hegarty will address himself to these points when replying.
This Bill has been rushed in with an eye to a possible election. I have already referred to a comment by Deputy L'Estrange which showed his thinking on the matter. The introduction of a Bill should have a higher motive. In this case it is very basic and banal and designed to capture a couple of votes.
The motive behind this Bill is very simple.
What about the comments to which I have referred? It is unfortunate that an effort has been made by the Opposition Parties to curry favour.
The Deputy has the neck of Old Nick.
I am sorry Deputies, but the Deputy is entitled to make his own speech.
(Interruptions.)
I have not called Deputies Creed or L'Estrange yet. When I call them they will be entitled to talk.
The quotas are there from Deputies Hegarty, L'Estrange, Desmond and Tully. It is unfortunate because it brings the House into a certain amount of disrepute. It will be difficult for the proposers——
It would be hard to bring Fianna Fáil into disrepute with all their promises.
It will be extremely difficult for the proposers and sponsors of this Bill to prove me wrong when the record clearly shows this fact. It is most unfortunate that they are trying to grapple on to a situation.
We are going to implement it, Deputy——
Anything that is there will be latched onto——
Is the cause not worthy?
——as if to try to hold the situation and all the time their preoccupation is in trying to win power at the expense of people who have suffered quite a lot. Deputies opposite know only too well——
(Interruptions.)
The Deputies should read the Donegal papers this weekend as there are some very interesting items in them.
(Interruptions.)
What about the £70 they were to get from ewes? They are getting 70p now in subsidy.
Deputy Murphy is in possession. This Bill has nothing to do with sheep.
The Deputy is a bit sheepish if he thinks we believe him.
You are no lamb yourself.
(Interruptions.)
No doubt Deputy L'Estrange is still trying to camouflage the situation because what I have quoted——
We will leave it to the Taoiseach to pull the wool over people's eyes.
——clearly indicates the banal, basic approach in the introduction of this Bill and the people who lost money because of the collapse of this firm are not codded by it. On 18 December 1980, as Deputies are aware, the Minister for Transport stated that it is clearly desirable that action be taken quickly and said that it was his intention to seek Government approval early in the new year for a package of legislative measures to protect the travelling public in such a situation in future. If the Opposition parties were sincere they would encourage the Minister to bring in this package of measures instead of producing this facade.
The onus lies mainly on the trade. I acknowledge their record over the years and I know that some excellent people are involved in the tourist industry. Some of the promoters are quite upset and worried but others should be pressured in order that they will come up with a package which will offer alternatives to people who have lost their holiday.
The Deputy has three minutes in which to finish.
This is vital. I know that the Minister will do whatever he can to encourage the ITAA to embark on this course. I am confident that the Minister will introduce his proposals shortly. I am concerned that the Opposition party have introduced this Bill in an electioneering spirit trying to gather a certain amount of support. They ought to show their sincerity now by withdrawing the Bill. That might somehow obviate the record I have shown.
I have sympathy with the people who have lost money but the onus should be on the trade to come up with remedial measures to compensate them. The attention of the House could be directed there to bring sufficient pressure on people who feel that they have no obligation to take a more positive stance so that people will be compensated.
I was not the slightest bit amused at the superficial and hypocritical contribution of the last Fianna Fáil speaker. This Bill was introduced by Deputy Hegarty on behalf of the Fine Gael Party in a genuine attempt to protect 1,400 innocent people from the failure of Bray Travel. Our cause is a just and worthwhile cause and I hold that those people are entitled to the protection of their trust in a travel company. It is not so long ago since this House took steps to protect the depositors of a bank, mostly rich depositors. It now transpires that the owners of the Irish Trust Bank had a high political profile in favour of the present Government party. That is extremely interesting and it indicates the approach the present Government take in matters of this kind. The Minister for Transport in his contribution referred to the Irish Trust Fund in column 697 of the Official Report where he stated that:
In the case of the collapse of the Irish Trust Bank the question of credibility in Irish banking institutions was a major consideration in the Government's decision to refund creditors.
There was no major suspicion about the standing of the commercial banks here at that time, before that time or since. The apparent commitment to shore up that bank was nothing only a move to protect people who were friendly towards the Government and had nothing to do what general confidence in banking. However it was done and a precedent was set.
When people go into a shop they pay for goods or services when they receive them. That is not the case in the travel industry. There one pays a deposit six or nine months before taking a holiday. It is a substantial deposit and the company have use of it. A few months before one goes on the holiday one has to pay the total amount to the company. They are, therefore, very much akin to a bank. They are holders in trust of the public's money. There should have been legislation and regulations governing their activities. The Ceann Comhairle, who was Minister for Transport in 1977, stated publicly in Killarney that regulations would be brought in to govern this industry. There is no doubt that they should have been brought in. There must have been evidence in the Department that things were wrong in the travel industry. I am also sure that there must have been evidence in the Department that Bray Travel were on a sticky wicket. Yet the Department refused to take any action.
I was taken aback by the contemptuous manner in which the Minister for Transport dared to come into the House and castigate Fine Gael for bringing in this Bill. At column 692 of the Official Report of 3 March the Minister said:
Is the Exchequer to be the bailer out of every commercial business.....
This is not the same as an ordinary commercial business. It is one that holds money in trust for the public. At column 693 he said: "It is a purely commercial situation". He then has the audacity to suggest "It is purely a political exercise and, I would suggest, an abuse of Private Members' Time". He accuses Fine Gael of bringing in a Private Members' Bill to protect the public from abuse from travel agents and dares to call it an abuse of Private Members' Time. That is a reflection on the importance the Government put on this matter. It would be all right if there was a by-election in Mayo East or West. The Government would do what they did in Donegal — go and spend £40 million. It is all right once they keep the image and win by-elections. Here there are 1,400 people whose finances were put in trust into a travel company and whom the Government now appear to disdain. I say that openly because of what the Minister said and what that little fellow up there said tonight——
You must refer to another Member of the House by his name and call him Deputy. The Deputy should withdraw that remark.
Politics is not about bitterness. It should be about liberality and tolerance.
It should be and not about hypocrisy.
It is intolerable to refer to a Deputy like that.
The Deputy should call other Deputies by their name.
Regardless of their party.
The Chair will look after the position.
The Deputy who last made a contribution to this debate showed nothing but cynicism and hypocrisy towards the plight of the people who lost their holiday and has done a grave disservice to his party. I shall quote from the Minister's speech because he is worth quoting——
Hear, hear.
At column 694 he said:
I believe the Bill to follow very closely the lines of the UK Air Travel Reserve Fund Act of 1975. I do not accept that the slavish application of British legislation here is necessarily the right course of action,.....
Rarely does a Bill go through the House without amendment. One section in the Bill was to enable the Exchequer to lend money to the reserve fund but that had to be deleted because it would be an imposition on the Exchequer and would have been ruled out of order and would have caused the Bill to be ruled out of order. However, it would have been open to the Minister, if he had the courage, to make an amendment and support the Bill. After saying he did not want to follow the slavish application of British legislation the Minister went on to say at column 695:
The establishment of such a fund would provide some measure of protection to customers of the travel trade and the Bill under preparation in my Department will incorporate a provision along somewhat similar lines.
Having dismissed the slavish application of British legislation he goes on in the next column to say that that is exactly what he will do.
It is extraordinary that the Minister should be so contemptuous of the efforts of the Opposition to rectify something and then say he will do something similar himself. The action which the Minister intends to take will not be retrospective and therefore will not help the victims of Bray Travel. At column 693 he stated: "The Deputy knows that retrospective legislation is frowned upon". The Government did not frown on the depositors of the Irish Trust Bank when they made that retrospective. So much for the Minister's and the Government's commitment to the victims of Bray Travel.
Deputy Hegarty stated in introducing the Bill that this is the first of a two-pronged attack on the present structure of the tourist industry. It is laying down a bonding system whereby all travel agents will be supervised and compulsorily put in a position where all customers will be insured against the firm going broke or at least as far as their holiday is concerned. That is very important.
The second prong which is equally important relates to the question of licensing. Of course, travel agents should work under a licensing system. The terms of that licensing system should be extremely arduous because those firms are trustees of large sums of money. Part of the licensing system must include the production of accounts on a very regular basis, probably on a half-yearly basis. That would be part and parcel of any logical licensing system evolving from the Department of Transport. Both of those are now necessary. Is it not a pity that we should have to wait in parliament for people to suffer before we put things in order? Nearly 50 people had to die in the Artane fire disaster before the Government set up a commission of inquiry into safety precautions.
That is disgraceful.
That has nothing to do with this Bill.
That is a dreadful insinuation.
The Deputy should not make charges of that kind.
Fire precaution regulations have not been enforced and the Deputy knows that.
Deputy Collins will not continue on those lines. A tribunal has been set up to deal with that matter and it should not be raised in the House.
This was one of our greatest national tragedies.
I always respect the rulings of the Chair. I was merely making an offhand reference in passing to an unfortunate situation——
The Deputy cannot make offhand references to something that is now before a sworn inquiry outside this House.
Is it not unfortunate that we had to wait for 1,400 innocent people to lose large sums of money, somewhere in excess of £300,000, before we moved in this House to try to introduce regulations to ensure that there will not be a recurrence of this and that those who suffered will be compensated? The Government are still not prepared to recognise that our cause is just.
There are some worrying aspects of the Bray Travel company structure which are worthy of note. Where a firm act as trustees, the formation of subsidiaries, or holding companies, or shell companies, or whatever kind of companies, and the shifting of funds around by the main company, in this case Bray Travel Limited, is highly suspicious, and should not be allowed. Where a travel company hold funds in trust for the public, they must not be allowed to shift those funds out of the main company. Under the limited liabilities companies law, you can move money out of a company in such a way that the money moved around cannot be recovered.
Apparently what Bray Travel company did was to form small limited companies for each of their branches. That is extremely dubious, because the moneys can be moved out, and money held in trust could disappear just like that and the people who deposited their money could lose out immediately by a book entry. This is one of the first things the Government must look into. According to Magill magazine of March 1981:
Bray Travel (CB) Ltd. — the Cathal Brugha Street office — bought £10,000 worth of Holdings preference shares. So did the Dun Laoghaire and Cork companies. Bray Travel Ltd. invested £100,000 — all for a return of only 10 per cent p.a.
Bray Travel Limited, that is the main travel company, invested £100,00 in preference shares of Bray Travel (Holdings) Limited at a specified limited return, not fluctuating, of 10 per cent per annum. which was approximately two-thirds of the going commercial rate of interest in 1979. Bray Travel (Holdings) Limited moved into a situation where it was a holding company, where it bought property, and it was completely and solely owned by Mr. Adrian Hopkins or his family. That cannot be allowed. It smacks of something which needs to be investigated. I would not be in the least taken aback if the fraud squad of the Garda Síochána were brought in on this case. They should be.
An Leas Cheann Comhairle
The Chair is becoming very upset at the course this discussion is now taking. The matters being raised by the Deputy are matters for people outside this House, the receiver and others, to deal with. They should not be raised in the House. Criminal charges are now being made which should not be made. They are matters for investigation by people outside this House.
I have every respect for your office and your rulings. I am trying to defend 1,400 people who lost their money.
The Chair is trying to defend the rulings given down through the years that charges should not be made within this House. These are matters for investigation outside the House. There is a judicial system outside the House to deal with those things.
Surely as a Member of parliament I am entitled to suggest that every step should be taken to examine the matter.
The Deputy is entitled to do that, but not to go further than that.
I am deeply suspicious of the structure of the Bray Travel group of companies. The company with the largest deposits from the public were put into liquidation. The holding company, wherein rested all the wealth of the group, were not involved in the liquidation. That is a very serious matter for the Minister for Transport. He has the responsibility to ensure that our travel trade is run properly. The Minister said that the regulations involving operators in and out of the country are such that people would be brought back in airlines at the proper time. That is good. That is constructive. What is lacking in the whole scheme of things is a limitation on the movement of funds out of the main traffic. Under no circumstances should a travel agency or company be allowed to move funds out of the country to a shell company, a subsidiary company, or a holding company. That should be one of the central regulations published by the Department of Transport. It is most unfortunate that this regulation was not in force at the time.
Is that included in Deputy Hegarty's Bill?
No. Obviously the Minister has not read the Bill. It would be rather difficult for me to enlighten him if he has the audacity to sit down on the Government Front Bench without knowing what is in the Bill. That is a new departure.
I know more of what is in the Bill than the Deputy does.
The Minister of State should not interrupt, and Deputy Collins should not continue on his present course. He has been told by the Chair that these are matters for investigation by people outside the House.
I have been talking about regulations which I want the Department of Transport to introduce. I have said that the centrepiece of such regulations must be aimed at the protection of funds.
So long as the Deputy keeps on general lines he is in order. However, the Deputy has been dealing with one set up all the time. That is a matter for people outside the House.
I have been speaking specifically about regulations that should be brought out by the Department of Transport requiring that funds subscribed by the public will not be allowed to be floated around in shell companies, holding companies or subsidiaries of travel companies. The Bill deals with bonding arrangements. The matter of regulations would be dealt with in an enabling Bill which we in Government will publish. It will set down severe licensing restrictions for travel firms. If regulations do not appear soon we will republish this Bill and not make any apologies for so doing. Then the Minister of State will have another opportunity to read the Bill before he comes into the House.
My final point has to deal with the Companies Act in so far as it allows companies to trade though they are not in a position to trade — their liabilities might exceed their assets. That is a matter of concern, obviously. In the case we are dealing with the situation may have been contrived in the last few weeks. Under the proposed licensing regulations, comprehensive accounts would have to be produced to the Department every six months. When a company come to the point of failing, the obvious thing to do is to get in as much money as they can to keep alive for a few weeks. In doing that, many innocent people have suffered and can suffer in the future as far as the Companies Act is concerned.
The Bray Travel case is a cause of deep concern to me. Members of the public who have given their money in trust to a company are entitled to the protection of this Parliament. They are entitled to say to the Government that regulations should have been there and, if necessary, that legislation should have been passed to protect their money. The date of this Bill, referred to by Deputy Murphy, would ensure that not nly would the customers of Bray Travel be protected but so would the employees. People who give money on trust are entitled to protection. Seeing the diffidence of the Minister for Transport in the House the other evening, and his sarcasm, I doubt if the Minister has the sort of commitment that is needed.
I do not know what the Department have been doing in relation to other companies. How can they seek accounts from other companies when they have not got regulations or the power to enforce regulations? The Minister is neither accepting this Bill nor seeking to amend it. He may be putting more holidays at risk. The principle is that when people put their money in trust into travel companies Parliament should protect such people against this kind of abuse. That is one of the things Parliament is for.
This is not something that came out of the blue. Four years ago, the Ceann Comhairle, then Minister for Transport, said that regulations would be brought in. They were not. This kind of thing has been around and about and it is a pity that so many people have had to suffer before even the Opposition brought in a Bill. We can only be ashamed of a Government who, having failed to do anything themselves, treat the Opposition Bill with such disdain.
I was hoping to be able to approach this matter, as a Government backbencher, on a non-political basis, but having been here for the introduction of the Bill and for subsequent Opposition speeches, it is very difficult not to respond to the charges made against the Minister, but particularly against a man who could not defend himself in the sense that he is now Ceann Comhairle, who was Minister for Transport——
Under the rules of the House — this should have been said earlier — the Chair should not be referred to in any debate.
I did not refer to the Ceann Comhairle in any derogatory manner.
The Chair should not have been referred to in any manner. The rules of the House state simply that the Chair should not be brought into a debate one way or the other, for or against, good, bad or indifferent.
I have a high regard for the Ceann Comhairle and I did not wish to make any derogatory remarks——
There were not any derogatory remarks against him, but the rule of the House is that the occupant of the Chair should not be referred to at any time.
The then Minister for Transport was mentioned by the Opposition on a number of occasions. He is no longer Minister for Transport. It was alleged that he promised in Killarney in 1977 that there would be legislation in this connection. What was the Coalition Minister for Transport doing for the six months of 1977 in which he was Minister, or in the whole of 1976, 1975, 1974 and most of 1973? Perhaps Deputy Hegarty will reply to these questions. The Coalition were in power for more than four-and-a-half years and it is very difficult to accept the charges made against a man who can no longer defend himself in the political arena.
With regard to the collapse of the Irish Trust Bank, mentioned by Deputy Collins in his dirty little speech, the credibility of Irish banking institutions and of Ireland as an overseas investment area were major considerations in the decision of the then Government to refund creditors. The measures in question were exceptional. It was made clear at the time that the Government's action did not alter the legal position which is that the Central Bank is not liable because of the insolvency of a licensed bank and the Minister, in reply to Deputy Hegarty, made that point very clearly.
The second point referred to was the Court Line disaster which occurred on the island of our erstwhile masters, the United Kingdom. In that case the UK Government floated an Exchequer loan of £15 million to compensate people who lost money in that operation. That decision was taken in the light of the statement made in Parliament by a UK Minister prior to the collapse of the Court Line operations. The public were told not to have any qualms about booking with the tour operators in question. As I understand it, the loan has since been repaid fully to the UK Government.
It is generally agreed that there was an injustice perpetrated on the people who entrusted themselves to the tender mercies of Bray Travel. Not only were the clients victimised but the employees were put out of work. We know the domino effect when people are thrown out of work. The whole family unit becomes affected. I have had the opportunity of meeting with the victims of the Bray Travel collapse on a number of occasions and I have had an ongoing correspondence with them. Listening to some of the contributors in this debate one would imagine those people were not our fellow citizens. Of course they are and there has been an injustice done to them. The solution to their problem is compensation.
The next question is, how do we compensate them and when do we compensate them? I will deal with that matter before I conclude my speech. The people affected by the collapse are decent, hard-working people who have lost a considerable amount of money. There was one instance where a man genuinely sought to rehabilitate his wife and child to good health and saved for a considerable time. His intention was to take his wife and family, including the sick child, on holiday. He lost between £1,500 and £1,700. Another harrowing case was that of a young couple who had just had a baby. The husband borrowed a sum of money from the bank to go on holiday and they lost not only the money but also the prospect of a holiday. Some 1,400 people were hurt in the collapse of Bray Travel but time prevents my going into detail on many of the cases.
There was also the situation where some of the people who lost money were telephoned a few days before the tour operators knew they were insolvent or were about to become insolvent and the clients were almost intimidated into sending their money. They were told if they did not do so they would not be able to go on holiday. These are genuine stories from the people who suffered. They were conned by people whom I can only describe as cowboys in a capitalist, free enterprise society. It is one of the weaknesses of our society that cowboys like the operator we are discussing now can ride roughshod over the rights of individuals. It is our job to help the people who have been hurt in this instance and to ensure that others will not be dealt with in the same way by operators of this kind. I know the Chair is becoming uneasy and I will not dwell on this point. I think the ruling that was made with regard to Deputy Collins was correct. The Deputy accepted that ruling, as I do.
One of the most worrying features of this whole matter is that the individual concerned may be setting up in business again as a tour operator. I will not develop that point further because it may appear to be unfair. No doubt the legal processes will grind slowly and at the end of the day the victims will not be compensated but perhaps something will be done in relation to the individual concerned.
The Minister for Transport met an ad hoc group of people who were the victims of the Bray Travel collapse. They made their case to the Minister in a courteous but firm fashion and the Minister respected their point of view. These people knew what they were talking about. It is unfortunate that something like this should have happened and that after the event legislation is contemplated. Apparently people must suffer to ensure that others are protected. However, it has happened and it is our job to see it does not recur.
One important point, which was not dealt with in this debate, although it was touched on in a peripheral way, is to ensure that this tour operation, which lacked integrity at the top, does not affect the other tour operators in the country. I understand there are 200 tour operators and about 20 of them are major tour operators. The Bray Travel group fell into the category of major tour operators. Whilst we impugn the integrity of the Bray Travel operation we should not let that affect tour operators in general. We would be doing a very bad day's work if we attempted in any way to undermine tour operators in general. We do not want the message to go out from this debate that all of them are bad. Most of them are good, responsible, steady firms which I believe are a credit to the country. I know in a number of instances where holidays have gone wrong the holidays have been made good by those tour operators of integrity without resorting to the courts or anything else. Those people want to protect their reputation.
With regard to solutions I suggest the Minister might consider the main features of the legislative package which he says he may introduce in the near future. I suggest that the package might contain (1) a licence to control entry to the particular tourist trade, (2) bonding to protect travellers and (3) a travellers' protection fund to build up the individual organiser's fund. In relation to the third point the Minister might consider every traveller leaving the country putting a punt into this fund and that it be met by a punt from the tour operator. I understand there is a fund in the UK, a travellers' protection fund, which contains about £20 million at present, which is a substantial sum of money and is growing daily. Deputy Hegarty's Bill proposes retrospective compensation but I propose that when this fund is built up those people be compensated——
That will not help the Bray Travel people.
It will. We are all in the business to propose solutions. My solution, however unworthy it is, and made in all humility, will help. I see this travellers' protection fund built up in the future and the tour operator regulating that particular fund might then consider compensating the victims of the Bray Travel group.
Does the Deputy accept that the Bray Travel victims should be compensated?
Deputy Collins has already spoken and should not interrupt.
I am asking a question.
The Deputy should not ask a question and Deputy Andrews should not reply to him.
I accept those people have suffered a serious injustice. I have, from the backbenches of the Government party proposed a realistic solution to their particular problem. When this fund is set up by the Minister and is in operation for some months or years I suggest that the people in charge of it will be able to compensate the victims of the Bray Travel group. The Minister, in reply to a parliamentary question and in this debate, has indicated his views and I do not believe there is any point in pretending that the situation is any different from what the Minister has said. The Travel Reserve Fund Bill is the product of the type of political activity which I deprecate. The Opposition in this case are hawking solutions to problems knowing them to be phoney.
That is not true.
The Fine Gael Party have high quality legal advice available to them.
The best.
They have certainly some of the best legal advice available to them. If they showed this Bill to their legal advisers they would have been told that it was certainly bad in law and it would be a matter for them to decide if it was good in politics. It may have short-term gains for the Opposition but I believe that in the long term those examining the Bill will see it for what it is. It is a gimmicky and unsubstantial Bill and does not realistically cure the problem which any Government worth their salt should seek to secure.
At least it is a Bill. It is a simple Bill.
It is a very simple Bill.
It is a Bill which got up to £20 million in the UK.
The Chair must have some sort of order in the debate whether or not it is a Bill.
Deputy Hegarty said it was a simple Bill. It certainly is. The reality of the matter is that it is too simple. My view is that the Government of the day were elected to introduce legislation and I believe they should discharge their obligations in respect of that. I believe that what the Minister has proposed, the introduction of a package which will give effect to the solutions he seeks, might be the correct approach.
Debate adjourned.
The Dáil adjourned at 8.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 11 March 1981.