With regard to registration, I was asking the Minister would the register be graded? Would it be designed to show the type of grading attached to each of the registered premises? Where would this be publicised?
Tourist Traffic Bill, 1983 [Seanad]: Committee Stage (Resumed) and Final Stages.
Question again proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill.
There is grading in respect of hotel accommodation. It is not proposed to have grading in the case of the holiday home self-catering type of establishment. Possibly that is something to keep in mind as things develop. At the moment grading is confined to hotels and guesthouses.
I have no objection, but I was hoping grading might apply to other types of establishments. It can be a little off-putting for tourists to find standards not in accordance with what they were led to expect. Perhaps the Minister would have a look at that to see if it is possible to grade holiday homes, caravan parks and so on.
I assure the Deputy the matter will be kept under consideration.
I am grateful to the Minister for his very prompt attention. I doubt if any of his colleague Ministers have acted as speedly as he has. I raised a matter on the last occasion the Bill was before the House and he responded by writing me a letter. I thank him for that. He did bring out the fact that the £2 registration fee to which I referred, and which has been there for some 40 years, was now being increased on average from £150 to £200. That is a very hefty increase, £2 to £200. I suppose inflation may be catching up on the registration fee situation. Would the Minister tell us how many fresh registrations per year would be received in the Department which will now be subject to this £200?
My information is that at the moment the number of new registrations will be exceptionally few.
That is all right. According to the table on page 7 of the Bill the board will publish or cause to be published at least once in every year the various registers that are affected. Would the Minister indicate where this publication takes place and if it is available to the general public?
This is the annual promotion register of Bord Fáilte which indicates every registered premises, regardless of category. It is available to the public in all the board's promotion offices here and overseas.
I see. It would be very useful if Bord Fáilte could have these registers published nationally once a year so that people would realise the number of registered types of accommodation and their location. If the Minister's funds can stretch that far, perhaps he would consider publishing this register so that the general public and our touring visitors would have ready access to all information on the entire registration system.
I have a final question on section 7 which concerns part of that table also, a question which I put on the last occasion, concerning the right of people to display a sign outside their premises. It is now being made unlawful under this section for an operator in the tourist business to show a sign outside his premises unless he is part of that published register. There might be an individual who is not interested in being on the register of Bord Fáilte for reasons best known to himself and not interested in displaying the shamrock sign, which is the readily acknowledged sign to the tourist that this is registered accommodation. Why he should fail to come outside the scope of this legislation I can understand, but he might very well be summoned under this Act for not participating unwillingly.
The Deputy is referring to the provision regarding the display of a sign. The words "Hotel" and "guesthouse" have been illegal since 1939 unless the premises to which they refer were registered under the Bord Fáilte regulations. The question of the shamrock display sign does not arise because unless the person is registered with Bord Fáilte the shamrock sign will not be issued. What is illegal is not the offering of accommodation to tourists, but the use of the words "hotel" or "guesthouse" or, under this new legislation, "caravan park", "camping centre" and so forth. That is the official registered sign of Bord Fáilte.
I trust I understand the position now. Any individual can put up a sign "hotel" or "guesthouse" or whatever outside his premises and attract custom and will not be in contravention of this Bill, is that correct?
No. What will be in breach of the law would be to promote the hotel and publish it as a hotel or guesthouse unless it is registered. He is not prevented from carrying on accommodation business if he removes the word "hotel" and puts up "accommodation" or some other suitable word but he cannot display the word "hotel" or "guesthouse" or any of the categories registered in relation to the tourist business, once they are registerable under the Bord Fáilte regulations. His premises would have to conform to the standards applicable to that type of business.
That is very strange. It might well have had effect since the 1939 Act, but it appears to be an undue intrusion on the rights of the individual that he cannot display a sign outside his premises, whether it be hotel, guesthouse or other category, to attract business — that the very fact of having the word "hotel" displayed outside his premises, unless he is on the register published by Bord Fáilte, may mean that he is committing an offence. I find it hard to understand how the Minister could promote such an attitude, as the Minister has under his control a semi-State body which compiles a register on a year to year basis which is readily available to the public. Everyone would be quite well aware that the particular premises was not on that register, but that should not deprive the individual of the right to carry on an hotel business in the strict interpretation of the word "hotel"— a place where one may stay — without being so registered. I would have to object to this infringement of civil rights.
I remind the Deputy that this goes back to the 1939 Act, the first legislation concerning hotels and guesthouses. That legislation is proposed to be extended to the other developments which have been in operation since then. What is proposed is merely an extension of that existing legislation to the new developments which are so important to tourism today and for which standards are laid down.
There will be thousands here in breach of these regulations, once they are implemented. There are thousands carrying on a bed and breakfast business who are not registered or listed in any Bord Fáilte publication. However, they are attracting to their premises custom in the accommodation sphere. If the Minister says that they are not entitled to attract people to such an establishment if they are not on the register, where no such register exists, that is discriminatory against those who have been carrying on a business which has been attracting a large number of tourists over the years. I fail to see the relevance of this.
As the Leas-Cheann Comhairle knows well himself, in tourist areas every second house has a B & B sign outside it. Now the Minister is saying that it is illegal to carry on such a business unless they are on the register. I cannot see how the Minister can hope to apply this section to the tourist scene as we know it now and as it has been developing over the past number of years, with the large increase in ordinary houses providing such accommodation in our tourist areas. I ask the Minister to consider, if that is the case, amending the 1939 Act so as to provide that people who wish to carry on business but do not wish to be a part of the official Bord Fáilte registers can do so without fear of being brought to court.
I am glad that the Deputy raised that question. No legislation is being proposed to outlaw them when such people are not operating in conflict with the legislation. Unless a person running a bed and breakfast business puts up a sign as a registered guesthouse or hotel, there is no prohibition. That is the only difference. There is no prohibition on any person offering any level of accommodation, provided that he does not use the official designation of hotel and guesthouse without having the standards applicable and being registered. There is nothing in any of this legislation prohibiting people from carrying on a bed and breakfast business.
If I understand the Minister correctly now, there is no conflict at all, but I have been asking him today and on the last occasion if the very fact of putting up the sign "hotel" is acting contrary to the section. He now tells me that it is only so if such sign is put up and it portrays that the premises is registered under some scheme.
If one advertises a premises carrying on accommodation business as a hotel or guest house, that is and has been contrary to the legislation since 1939. There is no prohibition on people putting up a sign for bed and breakfast or anything of that nature if they do not use the official designated title for such premises.
If there is a way that a person can put up a sign to attract business to their premises without calling it "Bed and Breakfast", "Hotel" or "Apartments" I would like to know what it is. This blanket section will deal in a global way with all accommodation and it does not give an individual the right to attract business to his premises unless he complies with the terms of the section.
I should like to refer the Deputy to section 4 where all those involved in this legislation — some of them have been involved since 1939 — are included. There is no question of bed and breakfast houses being included.
I am prepared to agree to the section, but I wish to put the Minister on notice that I will pay close attention to how its terms are applied. If necessary I will ask the Minister to amend provisions which had relevance in 1939 but do not have any relevance to the present practice by guest house owners.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill".
This section asks those who are on the registers to display certain signs in their premises. What type of information will we incorporate on these signs to be displayed inside the premises? Will there be a standard sign? Where will the signs be on display?
The purpose of the section is to ensure that guests staying in registered accommodation have easy access to consumer information relating to the premises in which they are staying. It is the intention that a sign or notice would be displayed in bedrooms and the reception area of registered premises indicating such things as the grade of the premises, information of the safety of property and the rights and obligations of guests. Appropriate signs to be completed by the registered proprietor where necessary will be supplied by the board to the premises concerned.
Is it not strange that hotels and such places of accommodation are being singled out for special consumer legislation? Is there an obligation on hotels at present to have any other signs displayed in their premises? What obligation is on proprietors under the Acts dealing with hotel proprietors and the fire services? Do those Acts require signs to be displayed also?
In relation to the indication of information for the consumer, I am sure the Deputy will agree that, as such facilities are available generally on the continent, it is only right that we should display such information. Section 43 of the Tourist Traffic Act, 1939 already allows Bord Fáilte to insist on the display of charges in respect of rooms, meals or other services provided. Section 8 of the Bill extends Bord Fáilte's powers in this area to ensuring a more comprehensive range of information is made available to guests staying in registered accommodation.
Under the Act dealing with hotel proprietors hotels and such places are already bound by law to display signs, particularly about providing services to all comers and the hotel's liability. They are important signs and hotels must also comply with the Fire Services Act, 1981. Will we now have a big range of duplicate signs for hotels to display? In my view these matters are covered in earlier Acts and it is superfluous to ask hotels to have these additional displays. If the Minister insists having these signs displayed in hotel bedrooms and foyers, I take it they will be supplied by Bord Fáilte? It is one thing to ask hotels to hang such signs but it is another thing to incorporate in the section that if such signs are not displayed the proprietor will be liable for a fine of £100. The Minister would have been better advised to have consulted with the Irish Hotels Federation, Bord Fáilte and other interested bodies and tried to reach agreement on a voluntary system. The hotels, instead of covering their foyers with signs that may not be read by any visitors, should have one sign dealing with all matters under the various Acts. Even at this late stage the Minister should consider having consultations to see if it will be possible to introduce a voluntary arrangement. Will the Minister approach Bord Fáilte and the Irish Hotels Federation to see if it will be possible to incorporate all statutory obligations on hotels on one sign to be hung in the foyer of hotels?
I am acting on the advice and support of Bord Fáilte in introducing this section. They are keen on this provision as a further upgrading of information for tourists.
There is not much I can say in reply to that statement. A hotelier who carries out his duty in accordance with this section and hangs his signs may find that a naughty guest, or the son or daughter of a guest, defaces the sign or takes it away. If an inspector in visiting the hotel finds that the sign is not displayed will the proprietor be liable for the fine of £100? I do not think that would be in the interest of developing good relations between the tourist organisations and the Minister's office. Apart from providing the standard sign, will the Minister instruct his inspectors to deal leniently with offenders? I see a nod from one section of the House but I would like that nod to be repeated by the Minister. If the Minister gives that indication I will agree to the section.
I can assure the Deputy that Bord Fáilte or the inspectors, in the application of this legislation will be reasonable and sympathetic if they find problems such as those outlined by the Deputy.
I hope the supervisors under the Minister's control will be as generous as the Minister has said.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Question proposed: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill."
This provides for the granting of death gratuities and other allowances. Will the Minister indicate what formula will be used with regard to such payments? Will they be linked to existing Civil Service rates? I think that has been a popular way of phasing such increases in recent times. I wish to know if the Civil Service rates will be applied?
This is regularising the situation to bring it into line with the public service in relation to superannuation, widows allowances and children's allowances.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Question proposed: "That section 10 stand part of the Bill."
This section is concerned with changes in the composition of the board. It is a reasonably important amendment to the original Act. I draw the attention of the Minister to subsection (2) where it is stated that where a member of the board is adjudged a bankrupt he cannot hold office. That is a well-known provision so far as State boards are concerned. However, I wonder if the remainder of the subsection could have been omitted without dealing a fatal blow to the meaning of the section. The subsection states: ... or makes a composition or arrangement with his creditors. Arrangements are made with creditors every day of the week but that does not mean that the people concerned are adjudged bankrupts. It appears unnecessary to me to have a further extension debarring someone from membership of a State board if he suffers imprisonment. There are many people who have gone to jail because they would not pay their licence fee to RTE or pay a fee for a dog licence because the original notification was not in the Irish language. If a person has a certain point of view and has a sentence passed on him because of his actions to uphold that point of view, it seems rather strange that should debar him automatically from being on a State board. What the Minister requires could have been stated simply, as happens in other legislation, that if a person is adjudged a bankrupt he can no longer sit on a board. Could the Minister not have done that in this case without asking for this further extension?
The section is as it has been since 1939 other than we now propose to delete the words "or ceases to be ordinarily resident in Ireland". This is proposed in order to allow a person to be appointed who is not resident in Ireland, should that occasion arise. That restriction was not contained in legislation regarding the ESB and other public bodies. Having regard to the importance of tourism and the possibility that there could be some person not resident in Ireland who could make a tremendous contribution to the industry, we propose to remove the restriction that has obtained up to now. The remainder of the section is the same as other legislation governing appointments to boards.
I have no difficulty whatever in congratulating the Minister in considering the appointment of non-nationals to the board of Bord Fáilte. Unfortunately the Minister has suggested now that it is only a vague possibility, even though I thought that would be part and parcel of the new structure. I would like it to be such because I believe there are many well-positioned people in Great Britain, Europe and America who could do invaluable work in attracting more tourists here if they were given a proper standing on a State board such as Bord Fáilte. I had hoped the Minister would develop the board to include some subsidiary in America or in Great Britain that would act as a promotional agency to generate greater tourism development. The full potential of tourism has never been realised. It has been treated as a Cinderella so far as export promotion is concerned. We have paid lip service to the industry here for years but have done very little. As I pointed out, £ for £ tourism has brought in more foreign revenue than any other export programme, but still we treat it in a niggardly way by giving it a pittance to help promotional work.
I had hoped the Minister would break out of the straitjacket by incorporating such a provision to encourage highly thought of senior people in industry and marketing in the US and in Great Britain to become involved with our tourist industry. I regret the Minister has implied this is only a vague possibility and I ask him to consider actively supporting my point of view. We appear to be enslaved in the terminology that I often think is framed deliberately to mislead rather than to elucidate so far as legal terms are concerned. We appear to be enslaved in the terminology of the 1939 Act but now we are in 1983. I maintain that some parts of section 10 no longer apply at this time. The next time this comes up the Minister will be facing an amendment from me and there will be a vote on it.
I am glad the Deputy has agreed with the possibility of getting people from outside the country should the need arise. I said we want this amendment to provide for the opportunity, should a suitable person come into view, of appointing him to the board. The restriction that existed up to now prohibited the appointment of such people. I hope the section will be utilised to the full.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 11 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
I move: "That the Bill do now pass."
I should like to thank the Deputies who have contributed in this debate. I am glad it has passed all Stages because certain developments were held up pending implementation of the financial side. I am glad the matter has been completed and that the additional moneys can be made available for the projects being considered.
Question put and agreed to.