Deputy David Andrews is in possession and has six minutes to conclude.
Private Members' Business. - Travel Reserve Fund Bill, 1981: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".
I cannot imagine what politician could make a point in six minutes but I will do my best to complete my contribution. My main concern is for the injustice committed on the people who entrusted themselves to the tour operator we are now discussing and I made a suggestion that there may be some way in which we could compensate them from a fund to be set up by the Minister under his proposed legislation. I suggest that it should be called a travellers protection fund and that when sufficient funds were accumulated, assuming that another Bray Travel horror story did not happen in the meantime, the possibility of compensating the victims of the Bray Travel collapse might be considered. However, I wonder whether those who would subscribe towards such a fund would agree to its use in compensating these people. That is another difficulty. I am sure that the Minister will examine these matters and will take the necessary decisions.
The Minister met an ad hoc committee representing the Bray Travel victims and had a long and searching discussion with these very decent people. They are good citizens who are most unfortunate in having lost money through their dealings with Bray Travel. Having met the Minister and had a very strong dialogue with him I believe they understood his position and understood why he could not subscribe to the Bill before the House, in spite of his sympathy for them.
This Bill seeks to compensate the Bray Travel victims from Exchequer funds. This has happened once in our recent history in relation to the Irish Trust Bank. That was a matter which went to the very foundations of the financial institutions of the State and the banking system and reflected on the creditworthiness of this country. The decision taken on that issue was the correct one.
Whilst one might at times question Deputy Hegarty's sincerity, it is probably fair to say that he introduced this Bill with the good intention of trying to secure some form of compensation for these victims. I believe it is a fairly well-intentioned Bill which seeks to achieve something which cannot be achieved. Deputy Hegarty seeks retrospective compensation for those involved in this fiasco. Every member of this House, regardless of party, would like to achieve that aim. We have heard one hardship case after another during the course of this debate and we would all wish to see compensation being paid.
The Deputy should conclude.
The difficulty is that an Opposition party do not have much responsibility — or none at all — in relation to the introduction of legislation, but the Government party do have such a responsibility.
I wish to begin by referring to a point made by Deputy Andrews. While it is quite true that an Opposition do not have the responsibility with regard to managing finances that a Government have, it is a rather feeble and worn-out weapon to throw at an Opposition to say they want more money to be spent. When I was Government Whip in the last Dáil I remember watching the Opposition's performance in Private Members' Time and week in and week out in times of severe financial stringency they were drafting and debating motions which called for very substantial State expenditure. That was at a time when the State's finances were a great deal healthier than they are now and the national debt was about one-third of what it is today, less than four years later. These were appeals made from the Opposition side in the last Dáil and they would have brushed aside as a trivial argument the suggestion that an Opposition have no business calling for State expenditure. If they are not allowed to do so, they might as well pack up and go home because most improvements and reliefs require State expenditure.
In this instance, any element of State expenditure would be purely temporary. Deputy Hegarty's Bill, which he never claimed to be perfectly drafted, envisages that the fund would be launched in the first instance by a Government loan but would subsequently become self-perpetuating and would generate sufficient revenue to support its future operation.
I wish to comment on three of the matters with which the Minister for Transport dealt in his very unsuccessful attempt to rebut the points made by Deputy Hegarty in his speech. The weakest of the Minister's points, whether it was his own invention or given to him by some adviser, was his statement that this Bill refers only to air travel. He asked why it should be restricted to air travel and why surface travel should not also be included. I have nothing against including surface travel and I imagine Deputy Hegarty feels the same, but in legislation one deals as far as possible with the broad, typical case. One sees an evil or a gap in the conditions of life and tries to fill that gap. One cannot pretend that one has filled every gap or closed every loophole and left nobody with a sense of grievance. Very nearly all mass travel of the kind which is handled by tour operators is air travel.
Sea travel has got back to the point that there is no longer such a thing as a liner plying from western Europe to the United States. One cannot travel to New York by a regular line and see the famous skyline and the Statue of Liberty sinking in the sunset. That has not been possible for many years. The rhetoric in the Minister's speech was supposed to make us think that these surface operators were commonplace but that is not the case. Sea travel is the prerogative of cruise operators who cater for a very small and specialised market. I do not mean to belittle such a market. I have never been able to afford the money or time to go on a cruise; frankly, I confess I would be bored to death at being cooped up on a ship with the same people for weeks on end. However, I have never been on such a cruise and I cannot speak with personal authority, but I know it is a very restricted and small end of the travel market.
The mass market which is what is in Deputy Hegarty's mind and in the minds of this party in connection with the problems caused by the collapse of Bray Travel is the air market. It was a very feeble objection that the Minister should point to this supposed gap in Deputy Hegarty's Bill as, to some extent, invalidating it. If that is a serious objection by the Minister, what is to stop him from putting down an amendment to extend the benefits to sea travel or to surface travel by rail? No doubt the rail sector is bigger than the sea sector, although I do not know how in this country a person can start on a foreign tour by rail without in the first instance taking a boat. Perhaps the Minister has some idea of how that could be done? If he thinks that is a serious problem, let him amend our Bill in order to include this category.
A more serious objection to which he referred on two occasions, and which I thought seemed to lurk in the concluding remarks of Deputy David Andrews, related to the retrospective element in what was proposed by Deputy Hegarty. I should like to quote from the Minister's speech on this point. At column 693 of the Official Report dated 3 March he stated:
The Deputy knows that retrospective legislation is frowned upon, not alone by this Parliament but indeed by every other House of Parliament, except for very obvious, specific reasons.
That is wrong. The Minister is mixing up criminal legislation with legislation that has no criminal content. It is true that criminal retroactive penal legislation which would have the effect of subjecting somebody to a penalty for a deed that was not a crime when it was done is objectionable. That is a breach of natural justice and a flagrant unconstitutionality. It is absolutely illegal here. It is against the common conscience of mankind and it cannot be done in any country that knows the rule of law. It is also true that courts here and elsewhere tend to lean against legislation, even though it may not be criminal legislation, which is retroactive in its imposition of burdens. Courts take a poor view of this and jealously construe legislation which has the effect of imposing burdens retroactively. For instance, to subject somebody to a tax liability in respect of a period during which he had no reason to suppose any tax liability would attach to him is an objectionable form of legislation. It is not unconstitutional so long as it is not criminal but it is objectionable.
What has that to do with the measure before the House? We are not proposing the retroactive imposition of any penalties. Deputy Hegarty is not proposing to hang, draw and quarter Bray Travel, to confiscate their goods, to impeach them or to exile them. All he wants to do is to provide a fund that will start from a date before this disaster happened and which will leave the people concerned as though their travel arrangements had not been disrupted. That has nothing to do with the objectionable aspect of retroactivity which lawyers talk about and which the Minister has obviously misunderstood.
The most important aspect is the question of the State stepping in to bail out people. The Minister, Deputy David Andrews and another Fianna Fáil Deputy referred to this matter. Deputy Hegarty is as well aware of this as anybody else in this House. For the State always to be regarded as the wise, compassionate mother who soothes the crying child, even if the child has hurt himself by doing something he was not supposed to do, is an image which I admit evokes a concept of the State that will destroy it in the end because there is no end to the burdens the State will be expected to take on. That is the heart of the Government's Opposition to our measure, namely, that it expects the State to pick up the tab for things for which the State traditionally has not regarded itself as liable.
I hope I am not offending anybody on either side of the House when I say that I see a certain validity in that point of view. I have said myself that there is a limit — and in this poor country a very quickly reached limit — to the degree to which the State can accept the imposition of further burdens. Burdens are thrust upon it at election times as, for example, when a form of taxation to which nobody had raised any objection was removed in order to get votes. I refer to the removal of car tax in 1977. That is a burden on the State, every bit as much as though the State had taken upon itself the obligation of compensating every victim of any kind of misfortune for the next few years. In as much as a source of revenue was taken from the State, that was a burden placed upon it because it must find the same amount of money to do the job from some other source.
In a sense it does not lie in the mouths of Fianna Fáil Deputies to whinge about the State creaking under the burdens being laid on it by the Opposition or by interests outside the House who lobby the Government. It does not lie in their mouths to talk like that when they have laid an equivalent burden on the State by making cheap promises in return for votes, which took the form of relieving people from imposts such as motor tax. I know it is back with us under another name and with another doubling up it will be back with us in full severity. What Fianna Fáil did was a burden on the State every bit as much as the assumption by the State of a new sphere of liability.
I hope the House will not think me unreasonable in making that simple political point. It is a political point — that is what we are in business for. However, having said that, I think there is a certain substance in the argument that the State cannot be expected to pick up the pieces and stitch them together in the case of every private misfortune.
In regard to that admission I want to say three things and I will be brief about them. In a general sense it would be a good idea if some Minister for Finance, some Government, were to think, even if only experimentally, of including an item in the budget in every year to set up a fund. It does not matter about putting a figure on it — £2 million, £3 million, even a couple of hundred thousand. The administration of that fund would be at the discretionary decision of an independent commissioner to be used in respect of calamities, disasters, personal misfortunes of all kinds that would occur in a particular calendar year. Naturally not a penny could be paid out until the year was over because, should there be a disaster in January or February, the whole fund could be exhausted. Nobody would know whether or not disasters would arise in July, August and September which would make further calls on a fund which could by then be exhausted. Therefore the fund could not be called on until the end of the year. But it could then be discretionally allocated by an independent administrator, somebody in the same position of public confidence as a judge or an ombudsman, to people who were the victims of all kinds of misfortune. A businessman or a trader who finds that he must go out of business on account of other people's bankruptcies or somebody who is the victim of a misfortune for which the law does not at present provide any scheme of compensation is as fully entitled to the compassion of his fellow citizen as somebody who has been let down through the disappointment of a contract or a very large, disgracefully large, series of contracts, as was the case with the Bray Travel victims.
I am sorry to have wandered somewhat into the matter of principle from the strict terms of what this Bill is all about. But if one were to look at the question of public assistance, public relief or public compassion for individuals who have been injured, or who have suffered misfortune, if one were to look at that general field without pre-conceived notions, one would see a great number of inconsistencies and gaps. For example, I have got a car parked in the car park here this evening. If Deputy Flynn over there, in a fit of dissatisfaction with anything I might say, goes out and punctures its tyres, pushes in the windscreen and pours sugar into the petrol tank, that is a malicious injury for which I can be compensated by Dublin Corporation. But if that same car is injured through his negligence, in the absence of an insurance scheme — I know there is an insurance scheme applying to his driving of his own car — I get no compensation.
Supposing it is negligence in some other way, suppose Deputy Flynn walks out of the House carrying a heavy parcel on his shoulder and lets it fall in such a way that it damages my car, I get no compensation for that; it is just my bad luck. It may be that the Deputy will be decent enough to compensate me out of his pocket but, on the other hand, he may not. In other words, negligence, neglect, except for the very narrowly defined spheres of road negligence, leaves the victim exposed to the possibility of bringing a civil action. He must bring his own civil action and there will be no one to step in and pay his costs against the party who is injured. Or, suppose I am a businessman and I am injured — I have been driven out of business by the failure of somebody to pay his bills. I have got to have cash liquidity also, so I am gone. I may have to let a lot of workmen or employees go and so on. My business is ruined. My life is disrupted, not through any fault of mine. I am in a situation of personal disaster. There are many such situations in the country.
The employees of Bray Travel were adverted to by Deputy Hegarty and others on this side of the House and I suppose, in fairness, I should say on the other side of the House. They are not envisaged in any existing scheme. Therefore there could be a case for a Government — I freely admit the thing could get out of hand and become unworkable — but there would be a case for a Government including, even if only experimentally, in their social welfare programme for a year or two an item which would allow discretionary awards to be made at the expiry of a year or two years to any kind of person who had suffered any loss or injury of a kind which ought to excite the compassion of his neighbours but for which there is no existing statutory scheme.
That is a general thought. I do not know whether it will be scooped up by the Fianna Fáil election machine, which by now I have no doubt is desperate. If so, I will make them a present of it. Of course I will not neglect to claim it as mine if it ever surfaces. It may or may not have merit, but it would be worth trying at least experimentally. I want to say to the Government, represented now solely by Deputy Flynn over there, that until we have such a scheme we have no option but to work from hand to mouth and from case to case. It is exactly for that purpose that Deputy Hegarty's Bill was introduced. It does not propose to burden the State with the permanent liability of compensating the victims of travel firm collapses. It proposes, in the first instance, that the State should get such a fund off the ground by means of a loan, but that thereafter it should be self-supporting.
What can we do in the absence of a general fund? I perfectly recognise all the points made on the far side of the House about the State picking up the bill for people who never expected in the past the State to pick up their bill. That is why I say: "Very well, let us have a general social fund, a general disaster fund, or misfortune fund. I do not mind what it is called — and Taisee Mí-ádh, if Deputy Flynn wishes. Let us award it a certain amount in a discretionary way at the end of an appropriate accounting period — I suppose a year. But until we have such a fund how can Deputy Hegarty or any of us go to our constituents — and a lot of my constituents were hit by this collapse also — and say: "Look, you are not really in a different situation from people who are hit by bankruptcy, or by injuries of a kind for which nobody has thought of taking out insurance and for which no statutory scheme exists?" That is not an answer for them. All they can ask is that their elected representatives of this and the other House do their best in the given circumstances to provide compensation for them.
I think I have gone a very great distance in admitting the difficulties and weaknesses there are in compensating people in contexts in which the State has not previously provided compensation. I have made a concrete suggestion as to how we might — of course, we can never have perfect happiness in this world — go some distance towards remedying this in the future. But we are talking about the present and, for the present, Deputy Hegarty has done his best at short notice. This Party do not claim any perfection in drafting. We are perfectly willing to accept criticisms of what I might call a Committee Stage kind in regard to this Bill. I am sure Deputy Hegarty will not show the same arrogance as Ministers commonly show when Committee Stage amendments are put up from the Opposition side. Having made all of these admissions, I think Deputy Hegarty has done a very good and just day's work in regard to the hardship caused by the massive collapse. The arguments which have been brought into the field against him from the far side have nothing like sufficed to overturn the case he has made. I very much hope that the House will pass the Bill.
While one might be tempted to respond in a particular way to the sometimes emotive and extravagant language used by the Opposition during this debate and which was used mostly in playing to the gallery, which was evident from the number of times the gallery was viewed by the Opposition spokesmen, it is incumbent on me——
Minister, I told every Deputy that the gallery, or the people in the gallery, should not be mentioned in the House.
I agree, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I am not going to play to the gallery in my contribution here this evening. But it is incumbent on me to put the record straight on some of the rather lukewarm comments made here by the Fine Gael Party in support of this Bill, a Bill hastily put together which in no way deals in a proper manner with the problem in hand. I was glad to hear Deputy Kelly, the last speaker from the Opposition side, admit that the weaknesses of the Bill were enormous. Consequently, when our Bill comes before the House, I will be expecting him to give it a good and honest hearing.
The Minister for Transport, in his statement, gave a very clear and explicit indication of how the Government see the situation in the wake of the Bray Travel collapse. The travel business is a fairly large sector of economic activity. It is very complex by virtue of the number of parties and interests involved including not only major tour operators but also retail agents, carriers, and members of the public. The range of holidays and packages available, some based on charter services, some on scheduled promotional fares, sometimes in association with other facilities and ground arrangements, at other times in isolation, represent an added complexity. Most complex of all is the whole area of contract and the nature of the contractual arrangements between the many parties involved. It is quite clear that any attempt at regulation in this area requires a great deal of preparation and forethought and it is that very fact that is the primary reason why the preparation of an appropriate package of measures is taking what may seem like a long time. I am confident, however, that the end results will justify the amount of time and effort being put into the preparation of the required measures.
It is clear, as the Minister for Transport has shown, that the present measure does not address itself in any meaningful way to the root of the problem. We are being asked to treat an infection. Treatment, without an attempt to prevent in the first instance, involves misdirected effort. The Deputy's Bill has made no attempt to get at the root of the problem. It is a remedial rather than a preventative measure. In essence the Bill does no more than provide for the closure of the stable door after the horse has bolted. That is not enough. We must try to ensure that the horse cannot bolt in the first place.
And then the horse will be starved.
Deputy Collins, in the course of his contribution last week, disputed a statement made by the Minister to the effect that the Fine Gael move represented an abuse of Private Members' Time. What the Minister was referring to in that instance was not the right of Members to introduce a Private Members' Bill. What was at issue was the fact — clearly confirmed — that what Fine Gael were looking for to give real teeth to their measure was a commitment that the Exchequer would come to the rescue. Standing Orders do not allow for this type of measure in a Private Members' Bill and the attempt by the promoter to circumvent this rule is a blatant abuse of Private Members' Time and was aimed solely at currying political favour with the unfortunate victims of Bray Travel.
Far from dealing effectively with the problems involved, the Bill serves only to confuse the situation. The Bill has raised expectations which have no prospect of being fulfilled. Deputy Hegarty's Bill is an enabling measure only. Even if, for the sake of argument, it were passed, it would be necessary to make detailed regulations to set up the fund provided for in the Bill. Further effort would be necessary in devising detailed rules to govern payments from the fund and, of course, the establishment of the relevant agency to administer the whole scheme would consume further time. None of those points have been made clear and the Deputy has been anything but forthright on these points.
The Deputy mentioned the question of bonding and licensing in his introductory statement. The present measure does not incorporate any of those elements. The Bill before us simply means that travellers are being asked to pay for their own protection. The Deputy's measure leaves the trade free to continue accepting money over the counter from members of the public for holiday packages that might or might not materialise depending on the particular circumstances of the individual travel organiser concerned. The aim must be to deal with the specific characteristics of the business which can lead to financial collapse. Any meaningful attempt to improve the situation necessitates a number of things: firstly, a clear unambiguous understanding of the trade and its characteristics and an accurate diagnosis of problem areas; secondly, a clear well-thought out scheme to deal with the matter in an incisive way; thirdly, a recognition that improvements cannot be effected overnight; and fourthly the will to resist the temptation to seek short-term political gain by bringing in a half-hearted and inadequate response at this stage. It is obvious that the latter temptation proved too much for the Deputy and the proof of his haste is demonstrated by the deficiencies in his Bill and that is agreed by some Opposition speakers. The Deputy's measure puts no onus whatever on the trade to protect its customers. I want no one to be in any doubt about that point.
The Deputy has made great play of the undertaking by the then Minister. Deputy Faulkner in 1977 to introduce legislation and has sought to allege a complacent and lethargic approach in follow-up with appropriate measures. However, the Deputy has completely missed the point. The fact is that when the major Court Line collapse occurred in Britain in 1974, an event that should have signalled the need to provide for preventive measures here, the Coalition, then in power, failed utterly to act and it was left to Fianna Fáil on its re-election in 1977 to give a public commitment to introduce appropriate legislation.
Were any Dáil Questions put down by the Opposition following subsequent failures in the trade such as Sunjet and Star Holidays Ltd? The answer is no. The Opposition at the time, far from being in tune, were completely out of touch with the situation, had no sense of public responsibility and failed to appreciate the need to act at that time.
Deputy Desmond has suggested that if there are defects in the Bill, these could be remedied by way of appropriate amendment. That, I am afraid, is not a feasible proposition. The defects in the Bill, to which Minister Reynolds drew attention, are not the basic reasons that explain the Minister's inability to support the measure. The position taken up by the Minister is based on a more fundamental consideration, namely, the radical difference in philosophy underlying this Bill and that promised by the Minister which is based on the need for a broad approach that would deal with the totality of the situation. Amendments, at this point, would not bridge this gulf between the two approaches or bring about any meaningful improvement in the present measure. Amendments at this point would only improve the technicalities of the Bill but would in no way alter the philosophy behind it. The philosophy we will incorporate in our Bill will protect the public and put the onus on the trade to do something about it. I am anxious to emphasise that point because it constitutes the nub of the matter.
Deputy Deasy has accused the Minister of adopting a destructive rather than a constructive approach to the Bill. The Minister has gone to great pains to justify the position which he has taken. The Minister has made clear his conviction that the primary onus for protecting the traveller must be with the travel trade itself. The Bill leaves the trade untouched and not only that, it seeks to ask the traveller to pay what amounts to a tax for his own protection. The Opposition appreciate these points but are not prepared to acknowledge them.
I am sorry that the Deputy introduced the question of retrospection in his Bill because of the natural expectations which that created among those unfortunate enough to have lost their hard-earned money with Bray Travel. It must have been obvious to Deputy Hegarty that there was no question of making public moneys available as he has suggested. The Deputy's action was calculated to embarrass the Minister and the Government but in my view all it has served to do is to raise expectations unreasonably, only to have such expectations shattered. The Deputy's action, therefore, has been more a source of acute disappointment to clients of Bray Travel than an embarrassment for the Government.
Deputy Hegarty referred in his introduction to the potential effects of the Bray Travel collapse on foreign tourists contemplating holidays in Ireland. He raised the question whether such tourists could have any confidence making bookings for holidays here and argued that Irish tourism could suffer as a result. On all these points the Deputy is misinformed. The collapse of Bray Travel should have no effect on incoming tourism. Irish tour operators are involved mainly in outgoing tourism, that is to say, in arranging holiday packages abroad for Irish people.
Not exclusively.
The Minister should check that out.
Foreign tourists coming here do not, to any significant extent, make bookings or reservations with or through Irish tour operators so that the failure of an Irish travel organiser does not, in any serious way, affect foreign tourists coming here.
The Minister of State should check all the facts.
The Minister should say that to the Irish Goods Council and hear what they would have to say about it.
Tourists coming here from abroad do so in many cases on the basis of packages arranged by travel organisers in their home countries and they enjoy the benefit of such protection schemes as may exist in their respective countries. I hope that this will clear up any misconceptions about potential damage to Irish tourism which may have been created by Deputy Hegarty's claims.
I was not present in the House on the evening the Deputy introduced his Bill, but on reading the Official Report, column 687, of 3 March I was surprised, indeed taken aback, by the suggestion that the fund proposed in his Bill should also be applied to compensate staff of Bray Travel who lost money or wages following that company's collapse. Where does the Deputy envisage that the line should be drawn in compensating creditors of Bray Travel? If staff claims are conceded and met from the proceeds of the fund, what about other general creditors of Bray Travel such as airlines, foreign hoteliers, apartment owners and so on? The Deputy is unwittingly, or otherwise, seeking to create precedents that would end up in the creation of a bottomless pit. In other countries where such funds exist for the protection of holidaymakers, they are applied for that purpose only and I must say that I am not aware of one single instance where such funds are also applied for the benefit of creditors generally.
I am not concerned about foreign hoteliers.
What I am saying here is not to understate the dilemma which arose for staff of Bray Travel who lost their employment as a result of the collapse. I have, of course, the utmost sympathy for the people who lost their jobs. In the overall context, however, I would ask, are the employees of Bray Travel to be treated in a special way in contrast to employees of other companies who lost or who, in the future, might lose their jobs through liquidation of the company in which they were or are employed?
The action taken in the case of the Irish Trust Bank in 1977 has been cited as a precedent in support of retrospection for Bray Travel clients and the Deputies have laid particular emphasis on that aspect. The Minister for Transport has already dismissed that case as a precedent. The statement issued by the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance at the time emphasised the ex-gratia nature of the payments made. It was stressed that the Government had authorised those exceptional measures in order to reinforce the high standing of Irish financial institutions.
And to win a general election.
The Government were conscious also of the possible effects which protracted liquidation proceedings might have had on our efforts to attract overseas investment in Irish enterprises. I would like to remind the House that when the relevant Bill relating to the Irish Trust Bank was before the House, it was opposed by Fine Gael. The position adopted by the party in that case is at variance with the attitude of the Opposition in this instance and seems to confirm the view that the present measure is designed more with political gain in mind than with bringing about any improvement in the travel business. I challenge the Deputy to clarify the shift in his party's position between the case of the Irish Trust Bank Bill and the present measure.
It was only right that we should have opposed that other legislation.
The people involved then were well off. Some of them were millionaires.
It was suggested also at that time that there was a high political profile so far as some of the executives of the Irish Trust Bank were concerned. That was not clarified but perhaps Deputy Hegarty would tell us now what was meant by that accusation.
There were contributions to party political funds.
There seems to be a great deal of confusion in the Deputy's mind. In his introduction he stated that he looked upon this Bill as stage one in a two-stage operation — the first stage covering bonding and the second stage to be concerned with licensing. That is fine but his Bill incorporates no licensing or bonding provisions whatever. The Deputy seems to be equating the fund provided for in his Bill with bonding. That is incorrect. Bonding is generally an arrangement applicable to individuals or firms under which a sum of money becomes available to a third party or trustee to compensate creditors in the event of a business collapse. A reserve fund of the kind proposed by the Deputy is exactly what its name implies — a fund which is normally only called upon if, for example, the individual's bond proves inadequate in relation to the liabilities arising. If the Deputy is serious about bonding and licensing, could he explain why these aspects are not provided for in his Bill?
Critics have implied that if there had already been protective measures in operation, clients of Bray Travel would have suffered no losses. It is true, indeed, that if the Government were to regulate every aspect of our lives, we would never suffer any material loss. But does the country want an ever-increaseing level of Government regulation or not? The Government have been criticised in this case for the absence of regulation and in other instances have had to endure accusations from the other side of the House of excess State interference. It is a fact of modern life that the Government are blamed for everything nowadays.
There were no audits for five years.
This is a typical example of a measure being introduced for short-term political gain but not in any way dealing with the fundamental issues relating to this trade.
If the Government take credit for the sun, they should be prepared to take the blame for the rain.
If Deputy L'Estrange would remain quiet we might be able to proceed.
I am trying to do my work.
The Deputy might do his work outside the House.
I would refer to press reports over the weekend relating to an offer by a certain tour firm of 50 holidays to Miami for victims of the Bray Travel collapse. The reports in question suggested that the offer was being made as a straight trade in exchange for Government approval of a proposed holiday series by the company in question. I want to make it clear that applications for flight approval for air charter packages are considered on their merits and that the Minister will not entertain offers of any kind in exchange for traffic rights.
During the debate, reference was made to the claim that the Bray Travel companies had not submitted audited accounts for a number of years and the allegation was made that the authorities were remiss in not following the matter up. As the Minister for Transport indicated during replies to Dáil Questions on 10 February last, the claims relating to non-submission of accounts by the Bray Travel companies were brought to the notice of the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Tourism who is the responsible Minister under the Companies Acts.
I understand that Bray Travel Limited and their associated companies, are private companies and as such are not required to furnish annual accounts to the Companies Registration Office. That requirement applies only to public companies. In such cases annual accounts must be furnished to the Companies Office but that office have no function in scrutinising them with a view to any investigation. The accounts are filed merely for the information of the general public.
What about the Revenue Commissioners?
All companies are required under the Companies Act, 1963, to furnish annual returns to the Companies Registration Office containing information about directors, shareholdings and so on. These returns would not be of any relevance to the question of a company's financial position. Perhaps that is where Deputy Hegarty got his lines wrong.
The Opposition have inquired whether there is to be any investigation of the affairs of the Bray Travel Companies. The Minister for Transport has no function in this area. The Bray Travel case is a court liquidation and there are provisions in such cases for dealing with instances of apparent offences by officers of such a company, and of bringing such to the notice of the Director of Public Prosecutions for appropriate action. I suggest to the Deputies on the other side of the House that the measure would be best left with the courts who are dealing with the matter at this time and any appropriate action that they deem necessary can be undertaken by them and not as suggested by the Deputy who obviously is not familiar with what the Companies Act requires of private companies.
They are opposed to the Revenue Commissioners.
The debate on this measure has given rise to a great deal of publicity and interest and I believe that the public will be well able to assess the pros and cons of the situation and recognise the commonsense approach of the Government in this matter.
Most of the arguments of substance have been explored and exhaustively debated. The Minister for Transport has made crystal clear the distinction between the philosophy of the present measure and the broader approach which underlies the alternative measures at present being prepared in his Department. Our measures will be comprehensive and will deal in totality with the whole process of bonding, licensing and regulations right from the fundamentals of tour operators, and not try in a party political way to gain short-term advantage at the expense of the general public. Those alternative measures will deal with the totality of the situation and will not deal with it in a piecemeal fashion as this Bill is doing. The Minister's approach will provide a concrete foundation that will protect the public by improving the calibre and professionalism of the trade in the years ahead and put the travel trade on a basis from which it will be able to grow and at the same time be better able to meet the needs of the public whom it is there to serve.
Deputy Kelly in his submission admitted that there were severe shortcomings and weaknesses in his own party's Bill. I would have thought that a man of his considerable talent in legal matters would not have allowed Deputy Hegarty, in the first instance, to frame legislation that would be totally incomplete and unable to deal with the problem that has arisen. But for some unknown reason Deputy Kelly is now at variance with his own Deputy in promoting this Bill and is suggesting that we cannot close every loophole in one fell swoop. We all quite readily understand that it is not possible to close every loophole with one simple piece of legislation. Some Deputy on the far side of the House did on the last occasion we were here refer to it as a simple measure. I would not be unkind enough to suggest that surely it is a simple measure for simpletons. But unfortunately we are not dealing with simpletons in this country and we must provide a framework of legislation that will be able to go to the nub of the matter and provide the right kind of protection for the general public so that what has happened now will not in future be able to happen again in the same circumstance. That is the whole idea and I appreciate greatly that Deputy Hegarty would go to the trouble of seeking to bring in a Private Members' Bill. But he will have to recognise that Deputies on his own side of the House agree with the Government side that this is a short-term measure, that it is in no way a comprehensive Bill and consequently, in all seriousness, the Opposition parties could not expect the Government on this occasion to promote or support or to deal with this measure in any way than by voting it down.
Our measure will be coming in shortly and it will deal comprehensively with the whole business of tour operators here. Some of the extravagant language used here on the other occasions when this Bill was being discussed left a lot to be desired. Such suggestions as bringing in legislation by way of reaction is not a good fundamental basis for legislation in the general view of the public. I am suggesting that Deputy Hegarty's legislation in no way fulfils the need or the desire of the general public in dealing with this matter. I am not suggesting that the Deputies on the far side were totally playing to the gallery. It did form a major part of their effort but some good suggestions did come from both sides of the House and the Deputies on both sides can rest assured that when we are promoting our Bill through the House we will take due cognizance of the various aspects of the arguments put forward. But it would be inconceivable for the Government to suggest that they would allow themselves to deal with this Bill knowing full well that what they were putting forward was a short-term measure in no way dealing with the fundamental aspects of the problem. Even in the short title of the Bill the word "reserve" implies the existence of other measures. I was only sorry that in his introductory submission Deputy Hegarty could not tell us what these other measures were.
Licensing.
I presume that it was short sightedness and that he was unable to do it because had he had any clear idea of what was required to deal with this problem at this time he would have made a full and comprehensive statement dealing with all aspects of the trade and saying how the licensing and bonding might be introduced. Not only was the Deputy not familiar with what was necessary to protect the public in this instance, he completely forgot to deal in any significant way whatsoever with bonding or licensing arrangements and this must be a serious miscalculation on the part of the Opposition. If, for no other reason, since bonding and licensing have not even been adverted to in the Bill to any great extent, how could any Government be expected to support it?
I took particular note of some of the provisions in the Bill and the House can rest assured that if we were even to support this Bill in its totality we would have to deal with the Restrictive Practices Commission right away in that it deals only with certain people in certain associations and there is no talk whatsoever about the tour operators who are not members of the various organisations. I suppose the Deputy would be able to handle the Restrictive Practices Commission on that score when the time came. It must be remembered that in regard to the contributions to the fund, what in essence this Bill asks the general public and people who would be taking holidays to do is simply to pay a tax to protect themselves. I do not think that is fair.
Who pays for bonding?
I do not think it is fair or reasonable to suggest that those people who are going to take holidays with their hard-earned money this year or any year in the future would have to put up their own protection money. Our basic philosophy is — and this is the nub of the situation as far as we are concerned — that the onus of responsibility should rest fairly and squarely on the trade. We are asking them to come up front——
How do the trade get this money?
——and do the decent thing and if they do, then the House can rest assured that they will have the support of this Government in our Bill. We are putting the onus on the trade——
Where does the trade get its money?
Who will pay for that?
——to provide the kind of protection that holiday makers need and deserve. That is the kind of total operation that the Government have in mind. I am sorry that for the sake of short-term political gain Deputy Hegarty and his friends obviously formulated and framed this legislation without even consulting with their senior legal advisers. They should now come in here and beg forgiveness of the House. Deputy Hegarty would be better advised to withdraw the Bill at this stage and to wait to make a decent submission when our total Bill comes before the House.
We are not unmindful on this side of the House of the need for this legislation. We are not unmindful of the hardship that has been suffered by the people who paid their hard-earned money. But what we are being asked to do by Deputy Hegarty is to create a precedent of a bottomless pit that would have to be applied to all creditors of all companies in liquidation in the future. No responsible Government would do that. We will not take that stand but will bring in, in the very near future, legislation that will protect for the future all those who place their money in the hands of tour operators in this country.
The Minister of State was obviously sent in here today to do a job. If quantity and value can measure the depth of the job he has tried to do then he has got his point across. But I do not think he has impressed because he has put forward here some of the strangest arguments for not supporting the Opposition Bill to compensate the victims of the Bray Travel collapse. Indeed, we have listened to some of the strangest arguments — not too many, let me say — from the back benches of Fianna Fáil in these last two weeks when this measure was being discussed. It is fairly obvious that the Minister of State was sent in here to do this job this evening and I believe he has failed miserably.
There is a precedent for retrospective compensation and the precedent has been referred to by the Minister himself. It dates back to 1977 and the need for this measure dates back to 1977 and before that year. It is not that something has been foisted upon us suddenly or that these people have found themselves in the situation in which they now find themselves quite as suddenly as that, because we have had warnings before. The Minister has referred to it and other speakers have referred to other collapses and the utterences from the Irish Travel Agents Association. It is worth recalling that in Killarney in 1977 the predecessor of the Minister, Deputy Reynolds, undertook to bring in a measure to ensure that the suffering which had been inflicted on a small number of people to that date would not be inflicted on future travellers. I think he gave a firm commitment, I am sure, on behalf of the Government, that some steps would be taken or some measure put through this House to protect those who were booking holidays abroad.
Now we have the Junior Minister here this evening accusing the Opposition of rushing in a measure and not waiting for a Government measure — may I say the long-promised Government Bill? If we succeed here tonight in convincing the Minister of the need for this measure, then we will have achieved something and I do not care how rushed the measure is. I am not in agreement with the Minister of State — or the Minister when he spoke here a fortnight ago — that there are so many defects in this Bill now proposed by Deputy Hegarty, but if we succeed in convincing the Minister in the short time left to him in office — or is he hoping that he will not have to handle the measure and that the election will take place——
You can be sure it will.
—— sooner than he can bring forward his own Bill? Judging by the speed with which he has worked, seeing that his predecessor promised the measure as far back as that Killarney speech of 1977, I do not think we can expect the measure before the election.
I want to make a couple of points about this. I am not going to go over all the points made by the Minister of State, Deputy Flynn, in his contribution because those who read his contribution in the morning or listen to it on radio tonight and many of those who are affected who are listening to him here this evening, will not be convinced by Government opposition to this measure, a rather strange opposition because the Government would not have lost any more face than they have already lost in failing to bring forward the Bill since it was promised in 1977.
The Minister could easily have given in, all right, with amendments if he saw a defect or two. Let us face it, the Opposition are restricted in bringing in Bills, as we all know, because we cannot put a burden on the Exchequer and any Bills brought in by the Opposition would have to be defective, if one could call that defective, in some way because their Bills must be framed in a way that calls for no financing from the Exchequer. However, this Bill is merely asking that the Exchequer by a vote of this House would lend to the agency which would be set up under the Bill sufficient capital to compensate those who were injured by the collapse of Bray Travel. Great play has been made here in the hour-and-a-half debate last week and the previous week about retrospective compensation. It is worth recalling that on 10 August 1977, shortly after the Government came into office — maybe to fulfil a promise which they made more hurriedly than this Bill was drafted — as with many another promise they thought they might not have to honour, they fooled the electorate.
That is not accurate. There has been continued negotiation with IATA.
They drafted the manifesto of 1977 in such a way and in such a hurried fashion that they saw the ground slipping from under them and they thought that many of the promises in that manifesto would not have to be honoured. This may have been one of those promises. However, the precedent is there, and on 10 August 1977 the then Minister for Finance, now Minister for Energy, Deputy Colley, issued a statement authorising the Central Bank, without a vote of this House, to compensate to the amount of £4 million those who suffered due to the collapse of the Irish Trust Bank, and that was retrospective compensation.
The Deputy opposed it.
Yes, I opposed it. In many cases they were millionaires and that is why I opposed it. In most cases they were not even Irish Citizens. The Government on that side of the House are more concerned about the losses of American citizens than they are about the losses of Irish citizens.
The record does not say that that is the reason the Deputy opposed it at the time.
The Minister has had his say. The Deputy has five minutes to conclude.
The record says, and I quote from The Irish Times of 11 August 1977, that “the Government wish to mitigate depositors' inconvenience, uncertainty and hardship and reinforce the high standards of Irish financial institutions”. In particular the statement underlines “the hardship which a protracted liquidation would cause some elderly, retired people whose life savings were deposited with the bank”. Many of those elderly, retired people were what could be described as millionaires and were foreign citizens, and here were we compensating these people in retrospect and now we are refusing to compensate to the extent of no more than £400,000 — I do not know the exact figure but I would say that £350,000 would be nearer the figure — people who have booked a holiday in good faith. It is not unusual to book holidays now in the month of December.
There are many people in jobs or businesses which do not permit them to take holidays in mid-summer, when most of us can take our holidays. Many of these people, in booking that holiday, spent savings which had taken months — in some cases years — to accumulate. I am reliably informed that many people who booked those holidays did so, not because they wanted to go abroad, one person said he would prefer to go to the west or the south of Ireland as he had done for five or six years previously in December——
I recommend the west of Ireland, it is a most suitable place.
——but he was advised by his doctor to take a holiday where he would get a week or a fortnight's sunshine. There were many more sufferers of the Bray Travel collapse who had booked their holidays for health reasons. Would the Minister compare that with what was done in 1977 for people who suffered because of the collapse of the Irish Trust Bank? Many people who booked with Bray Travel did not get their weeks in the sunshine as advised by their doctors. They also had to suffer the loss of their cash, in many cases cash which they could ill afford to spend on holidays but which they had to for health reasons.
I appeal to the Government, represented by the Minister of State, if they cannot see their way to supporting this measure, to at least bring in their own Bill to ensure that compensation will be paid, although there has not been the slightest hint from the Government side that compensation will be paid under the new measure.
It is rather strange that these arguments have been put forward in the last few weeks. If the Minister of State reads the contributions of his own back benchers, he will see that Deputy Andrews is in favour of compensating people. There is nothing standing in the way of retrospective compensation. Nothing that the Minister of State or the Minister has said has convinced me that it cannot be done——
The Deputy should conclude now.
It is not a great necessity for one to take holidays at this time of year but if the reasons why many people have booked their holidays are gone into by the Government, they will clearly see that it was necessary for health reasons. On those grounds alone, I plead with the Government to bring in their Bill within a month, if they cannot support the present measure. We, on this side of the House, will be doing our utmost to ensure that compensation is paid to those who have suffered. Many other arguments could be put forward. I would like to deal with the point made by the Minister about incoming travellers, but the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will not permit me to——
The Deputy is well into his colleague's time.
I will not take time from my colleague.
The Minister of State has copied his Minister's petty attempt to decry and denigrate my effort to sort out a very serious problem which occurred last December — the collapse of Bray Travel. Many motives have been attributed to my reasons for doing this. I put it to my party. I did so as a result of attending a meeting to which the Minister's party was invited at the Tara Tower Hotel, where we heard from many hundreds of people piteous and lamentable happenings of their efforts to have a holiday. It was not to win an election, certainly not in north-east Cork because there were only two people in my constituency involved in the Bray Travel collapse.
An election never crossed Deputy Hegarty's mind.
It is a measure and the importance of the measure was, as the Minister pointed out, that it had a resemblance to UK legislation. Deputy Deasy dealt effectively with the Minister's sarcasm on that point.
I have the honour to be a Member of the Council of Europe. As such, I have access to a lot of parliaments without any cost to the State. I was amused to hear the Minister say this is a copy of UK legislation. Then he said people in his Department were running around Europe looking at what was happening in other countries. It probably cost more to do that than to compensate the victims of the Bray Travel collapse.
Our proposals would work. It does resemble UK and certain European legislation. To give the Minister an idea of how well it works, in the UK, in a short time, they have built up a fund of £20 million. There is no money being taken from anybody because the fund is now self-perpetuating. The Minister of State said we should not be looking to the travellers but that we should be looking to the travel organisers. That is a stupid statement. The Minister knows very well that it comes out of the pocket of the traveller anyway. The travel agencies have no fund of their own, except what they collect from travellers. The percentage idea is the right one. This Bill is simple, straightforward and would work. It is not a hypothetical situation. We have an exact example of it in at least three European countries where it has worked efficiently and well. A seven-member team, three from the travel agents' associations and four to be appointed by the Minister, including the chairman,——
What about the tour operators who are not in the travel associations?
The Minister has already spoken.
On that point, the Minister says that the three people should not be from the Irish Travel Agents' Association.
Which Minister said that?
The Minister for Transport and Power said it. The members of Bord Fáilte, I presume, should be engine drivers, not hoteliers. How stupid can they be in their criticism and their efforts to denigrate this side of the House in our efforts to help people who suffered hardship? I give another commitment on behalf of my party: when elected to power we will implement this legislation retrospectively and we will compensate those victims. We will also compensate the staff members who suffered so severely in this collapse.
We are dealing with a very unusual situation, dealing with people who are effectively bankers. They take people's money in January, shortly after Christmas and hold it for six months. There is no licensing, absolutely no control over them. They can go out of business. We have a situation under our law where Bray Travel with their five or six companies can transfer money from one company to another and fiddle around with people's money while we look on. Then I am told that I am wasting the time of the House. Surely that is my right on behalf of the people as a public representative. I should be failing in my job if I did not do that. I claim the right to do it. I am serious about it and I am completely disgusted by the type of approach we have here tonight, quibbling about bonding and reserving and so on.
The Bill is a Travel Reserve Fund Bill under which a fund would be built up out of which any future collapse would be covered. A loan would be made available. We are not seeking a grant from the taxpayers but a loan would be provided which would be repaid to the Exchequer. Nothing could be simpler. This is not a hypothetical situation; it is the situation that exists across the water. The Minister need not send his staff further than the UK where there is a system which works effectively and cures the problem. I believe that is what we are doing in this Bill.
I was very pleased to hear the two Deputies Andrews and other Deputies opposite clearly making the point that there was hardship and that these backbench Deputies were in favour of compensation, of helping the victims of Bray Travel. That was consoling. I now suggest to the Government side that they should have a free vote on this. There is no ideological problem involved. It is a pragmatic issue. Test your Members and see how they will vote. I am sure the Bill would be carried if there was an open vote and I see no reason why that should not be done in the interest of the victims of Bray Travel. I appeal to the Government party to do so.
The managers of the tour operators are in favour of this type of legislation and in favour of a loan. They know that, as Deputy McMahon pointed out, it is young people, not wealthy people, young married couples and people who are ill and trying to get a holiday abroad who were disgracefully treated by Bray Travel. As a result a powerful group have been set up who will demand retrospective legislation and they will be right in doing so.
They are taking action because of the collapse and because of the way they were blackguarded in this case where money was collected right up to the very minute of the collapse. You had people like Aer Lingus who knew that things were not right in Bray Travel. Many people knew it. Where were all the Ministers and Ministers of State while this was happening? We were told we would have legislation but it is crystal clear from what has been said that no effort will be made to compensate the victims of Bray Travel. There is no doubt about that. In Government we will go ahead with this Bill and we will compensate the people because in justice they deserve it.
I do not see Deputy Barry nodding his head to that.
Yes, we passed it at our party meeting.
Let the Minister watch the way my feet go in a minute and see if he will follow me. That is the test.
The Minister of State has already spoken. Deputy Hegarty is in possession and he has only four minutes left.
No argument has been put forward from the other side of the House to convince me or anybody else on this side that we are doing anything hasty or ill prepared. The legislation I have put before the House is the type operating in many other European countries, including the UK. All the Minister need do is see what is happening in the UK and how they took care of a similar problem. Let him then do as we are doing. He has no notion of doing it because we are in the run-up to an election. He will talk and talk about it. I appeal to the Government party to have a free vote because it was quite obvious that the people who spoke on the Opposite side were in favour of this Bill ——
That is not true.
—— that they were in favour of compensating the victims of Bray Travel.
It is an ill-conceived Bill, a political gimmick.
It is not a political gimmick.
The manifesto was a "quare" political gimmick.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Hegarty is in possession.
It is a Bill that will work — nobody can disprove that. It is similar to legislation right across the mainland of Europe and in the UK. It is similar to legislation that is working well ——
That is untrue.
It is quite true.
I allowed Deputy Andrews one interjection because he was named by Deputy Hegarty but it finishes there. Deputy Hegarty has one minute left.
I should get overtime because I have been deprived of some of my time. The Minister made the point that it compared with legislation in the UK. He was right; it is legislation that works effectively and does its job as any Bill is meant to do. This Bill does that and I commend it to the House.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 40; Níl, 60.
Tá
- Barry, Myra.
- Barry, Peter.
- Barry, Richard.
- Belton, Luke.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Burke, Joan.
- Burke, Liam.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlan, John F.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Cosgrave, Michael J.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- D'Arey, Michael J.
- Deasy, Martin A.
- Donnellan, John F.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan-Monaghan).
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- L'Estrange, Gerry.
- McMahon, Larry.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Toole, Paddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Quinn, Ruairi.
- Ryan, John J.
- Spring, Dan.
- Taylor, Frank.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Tully, James.
- White, James.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Kit.
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, David.
- Avlward, Liam.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, Seán.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callanan, John.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Cogan, Barry.
- Colley, George.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Coughlan, Clement.
- Hussex, Thomas.
- Kenneally, William.
- Killeen, Tim.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lemass, Eileen.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leonard, Tom.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McSharry, Ray.
- Meaney, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Farrell, Joe.
- Filgate, Eddie.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin South-Central).
- Fitzsimons, James N.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Fox, Christopher J.
- French, Seán.
- Gallagher, Dennis.
- Gallagher, James.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Gibbons, Jim.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Herbert, Michael.
- Moore, Seán.
- Morley, P.J.
- Murphy, Ciarán P.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Connor, Timothy C.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Leary, John.
- Power, Paddy.
- Smith, Michael.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies L'Estrange and M. Cosgrave; Níl, Deputies Moore and Briscoe.
Question declared lost.