I move:
That Seanad Éireann approves the following Regulations in draft:
Special Restaurant Licence (Standards) Regulations, 1988
a copy of which Regulations in draft was laid before the House on the 23rd day of June, 1988."
Special Restaurant Licence (Standards) Regulations: Motion.
The Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1988, sets out, for the first time in the history of the State, a procedure for the full licensing of restaurants. Effectively, such restaurants will, as a result, be able to offer diners a choice from a full range of intoxicating liquor for consumption with their meal. Tourists will now be able to enjoy our internationally known national drinks along with their meals in the confines of good quality Irish restaurants. I lay stress on the words "good quality" with good reason. The Minister Deputy Wilson, and I accept the importance of the principle underlying this Act, that extension of licensing to the restaurant sector should be handled carefully and in a responsible manner. The Act clearly specifies that standards prescribed in regulations made by the Minister for Tourism and Transport under section 12 of the Act will have to be complied with before a restaurant will be considered for the grant of a special licence. Accordingly I now place before this House for approval, in accordance with section 24 of the Act, a draft of these regulations.
But before going on to the requirements set out in the draft regulations I would like to point to a number of important provisions already written into the enabling legislation strictly controlling the sale of supply of liquor in restaurants. Under the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1988, a restaurant in receipt of a special restaurant licence cannot, for example, contain a bar. Furthermore, drinks can only be ordered at the same time as a substantial meal is being ordered. If a restaurant should have a waiting area, such area cannot exceed 20 per cent of the size of the floor area of the dining area. The Act also gives Bord Fáilte clear powers in section 13 to revoke a restaurant's certificate if standards are not being complied with. The draft restaurant regulations now before the House are designed to ensure that only genuine, good quality restaurants can even be considered for a licence in the first instance.
The House will see that the regulations are very comprehensive and detail standards covering all aspects of a restaurant's operation. They are set out very clearly and are largely self-explanatory. In summary, they include requirements covering such aspects of a restaurant and its operation as: the physical structure and layout of the restaurant; furnishings and fittings in relation to waiting, dining, kitchen and service areas, cloakrooms and toilets; menus; catering; hygiene; management and staffing.
The whole objective of the regulations is to ensure that the special restaurant licence will be available only to restaurants of good standard whose primary business is the serving of full meals to the public. The supply of intoxicating liquor will be merely ancillary to their catering business. This point has already been made forcefully during the course of the Dáil and Seanad debates on the provisions of the Bill.
The regulations will be implemented by Bord Fáilte who will be the inspecting authority. Bord Fáilte are the body statutorily charged with the registration and grading of hotels, guesthouses and other forms of tourist accommodation. Monitoring of standards and inspection of these establishments has, of necessity, involved the board for many years in restaurant and catering standards. The board have also introduced a voluntary inspection of restaurants for the purposes of inclusion in their annual Dining in Ireland publication. The resultant level of expertise which the board have developed means that they possess the necessary credentials and competence to undertake their role under this legislation. I can assure the House today that the regulations will be both rigidly and fairly enforced by the board. Under no circumstances will a restaurant be certified unless it complies fully with the provisions of the Act and these regulations.
The draft regulations provide for the inspection of restaurants at least once a year by the board. Where warranted, the board will not hesitate to exercise their powers under section 13 of the Act which enables them to revoke a restaurant's certificate at any time if the restaurant does not continue to comply with the standards laid down.
Inspection and application procedures for a Bord Fáilte certificate are set out in Part II of the regulations. Applications must be accompanied by an application and inspection fee of £325 stipulated in the Second Schedule. This fee and the £75 certification fee are pitched at these levels to cover the cost to Bord Fáilte of processing applications, verifying entries, carrying out inspections, preparing reports, issuing certificates, maintaining a register and enforcing the regulations throughout the year. Fees at lower levels would effectively mean that the State would have to subsidise the restaurant sector to ensure that they satisfy the statutory requirements for licensing laws.
For some time now our overseas visitors, particularly European and US visitors, have been expressing surprise at the fact that they could not enjoy our national beverages with their meal. This new restaurant facility undoubtedly gives a boost to Irish tourism and indeed to the sale of a whole range of Irish alcoholic beverages hitherto not available in restaurants. Once the regulations are approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas, it is my intention that a commencement order be introduced immediately. This will allow restaurants to apply straight away to Bord Fáilte for a certificate of approval and give them the opportunity of securing the special restaurant licence at the earliest opportunity.
I would now like to commend these draft regulations to the House for approval.
We welcome the very speedy publication of the draft regulations which follow on the passing in both Houses last week of the new legislation. At the outset, may I say that it is rather a pity that the impending arrival of the new legislation should be the prospective occasion of industrial action and the cause of such bad feeling in the licensed trade. All of us who occasionally visit licensed premises hope that no bad feeling will be generated and that the problems can be resolved in a speedy way.
The Minister has brought forward these regulations at great speed and that is to be commended. There are just one or two general points I wish to make before looking at the detail of the regulations. The Minister made a number of references to the role of Bord Fáilte in ensuring that the regulations are complied with. This is a point which was mentioned by a number of speakers during the Second Stage debate on the major legislation here some weeks back. We expressed concern about Bord Fáilte's capacity — not their technical capacity, or competence, — but their capacity in numerical terms to cope with the very large volume of extra work with which they will now be faced. We have seen in recent times a very significant and I think deserved slimming down in the staffing of Bord Fáilte. We have seen a very strong declaration of emphasis by the new Director General of Bord Fáilte that the main role of the board should be promotional and they should not be involved in the policing of tourist activity. I just wonder whether Bord Fáilte will not need extra staff to ensure that they can cope with the presumably expected large number of applications to ensure that the work can be processed with reasonable speed? I would like an assurance from the Minister this evening that if the relevant section of Bord Fáilte find that there is a backlog of work, and that they are not able to deal speedily and adequately with the applications, an extra commitment will be given to the board — to see that they get the requisite staff, even if this is to be funded out of some sort of levy on those who are making the applications.
I am unhappy with a number of aspects of the regulations and I suspect one or two other Members may be as well. I have a technical question. This evening if the Seanad should decide not to accept the regulations entirely, is it possible at this stage to modify some aspects of the regulations? Perhaps I could have guidance on that before I continue.
Acting Chairman
The regulations in total are before the House, Senator.
We will probably be taking them. In his speech the Minister said that the essential purpose that the regulations are designed to ensure is that only genuine good quality restaurants can even be considered for a licence in the first instance. The purpose of the regulations is to decide what a good quality restaurant is. By and large, the regulations succeed in coming to that particular definition.
However, there is a certain element of fussiness and over elaboration in the regulations and one or two of them strike me as being plain daft. If I could just briefly refer to them: paragraph No. 5(6) says "Where feasible, accessibility to all public areas of the restaurant shall be provided for disabled persons." This is merely an exhortation. I wonder just what the guidelines will be there. I believe it should, if at all possible be mandatory that access for disabled persons be one of the conditions before which a licence can be granted. I can understand in, say, a castle which has been converted or an old building, it may not always be possible, but I would urge the Minister, in passing on the views of both Houses to Bord Fáilte that as far as possible, the strictest possible interpretation be placed on this particular feature of the regulations and that as far as possible access for disabled people should be mandatory.
We have been through the year of the disabled. We have focused attention in recent years on the discrimination which has been such a part of the daily life of people who are in some way disabled. I believe starting out new on this that the strongest and most stringent possible view should be taken of that.
In paragraph 5 (9), on the second line it states "of good quality and in good condition and be of a design which is in keeping with that of the remainder of the restaurant." This, to me, opens up all sorts of possibilities for an inspector who does not want to grant a licence, and where maybe everything else is adequate, to be difficult. For example, a new avantgarde restaurant may be built here and part of its charm may be that there is discordancy between the different parts. They are all of good quality but, from our point of view there is not consistency of design. We can see in certain aspects of design in male and female clothing where the purpose is to shock to a certain extent, to provide discord in a certain way. I think that this particular provision where the design must be in keeping with the remainder of the restaurant is an open invitation to an inspector, where he may not like the taste of the person involved, where the taste could be something new and experimental, not to give the approval.
Again the same thing applies in the waiting area. I certainly hope that while we would like to see good quality fittings and all of that, that taste should largely be something left to the person who owns the restaurant and left to the customer to decide whether they like it, not left to the whim of some inspector, however well qualified some inspector from Bord Fáilte may be. There is reference also to the dining area. It says, "the restaurant shall be so ventilated at all times that no odour from the kitchen is perceptible". Under those conditions, Leinster House would fail miserably because one of the prevailing features of this House are the odours from the kitchen which permeate not just the dining room but permeate the Chamber of the Dáil and other public parts of the House at different times. I welcome the inclusion of this particular section in the Bill and I hope that the Minister will despatch one of his inspectors to Leinster House at some early opportunity.
Again, paragraph 7.(2) is a totally untenable exhortation, that the "furnishings...are in keeping with the furnishings and fittings". I do not see the point of that. Paragraph 7.(3) states "it shall not exceed 250 diners". I would like to know the reason for that figure of 250? I know restaurants in England, America, France and Germany where diners in excess of 250 can be taken in. I do not particularly want to spend too much time in such a restaurant but I am curious as to why this particular restriction is put there. Is there a reason for it or is it simply that someone thought of an upper limit number and put it in there?
Paragraph 7.(4) strikes me as being possibly discriminatory: "All meals shall be ordered from, and served at tables by, waiting staff". All of us know that in recent times there has been a growth in — what are called — carveries where there is a self service element in the meal. A good restaurant to me is one that serves good food and produces good wine in congenial and proper surroundings. If it is possible to do all of this in good surroundings — good food, but self service — in a way which cuts down the cost to the diner, because a restaurant should not be gauged on the cost, there is no particular reason that £20 for a meal in a restaurant makes it a better restaurant than a good small restaurant which can charge £7, £8, £9 or £10 or maybe even less. So this particular regulation is actually discriminating against the emergence of carveries or self-service restaurants which could give a very good service and remain within the spirit of what we were debating here over the past couple of weeks. I find this totally unacceptable and I think it will be discriminatory in practice.
I said earlier that there was one element of daftness in the whole thing and that is in paragraph 7.(7): "Seating in the dining area shall normally be either an immovable and padded banquette or a strongly constructed chair with a padded cushion." What in the name of God are we talking about padded cushions for? Where did that come from? "Higher chairs or suitably adapted chairs shall be available for children". That is fair enough. They should not be too high in case they fall off. Surely to heavens to ask a restaurateur to confine his seating to padded cushions should have no place in a regulation? We are anticipating all sorts of designs. There may well be designs in the type of chairs coming into restaurants in future years. There may be light chairs, heavy chairs, garden type chairs, bamboo chairs or chairs made of cane. One could go right down the line. But the idea of insisting that the chair be padded to my mind is the height of daftness. Are we going to have inspectors running around the place prodding the chairs to see if they are padded? Is there a requisite thickness for the size of padding used in chairs. I would appeal to the Minister to take this daft item out of the Bill.
On the question of dining tables in section 7.(8), the Oireachtas restaurant would have some difficulties in qualifying.
Acting Chairman
I ask the Acting Leader of the House to move the suspension of the House for 15 minutes.
I move the suspension of the House for 15 minutes.
Acting Chairman
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Sitting suspended at 8.20 p.m. and resumed at 9.15 p.m.
At the outset, I wish to say that what has just happened in this House is unacceptable. It is not the fault of the Minister who was called away. It is a dreadful waste of public money and a dreadful reflection on the Seanad that some sort of pairing operation is not in place. We have lost one hour of debating time here this evening and it means that other important business will not be reached. I hope the message can be got across to the Whips in the other House that this sort of treatment is unacceptable to all parties in this House. I hope that they can come to some sort of an arrangement whereby we do not have a repeat of what has just happened here. Before the interruption I was talking about——
I accept what you have just said but it relates to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. I appreciate your strong views on it and I am sure your colleagues agree with you.
I had been talking about the regulations. While I very much appreciate the thinking behind the regulations and the need to ensure that only good restaurants qualify for the licence, the degree of detail and fussiness in the regulations has strayed over into areas that are either unacceptable or unenforceable. I will not dwell any further on the padded cushions which now appear to be an essential prerequisite that the chairs must have. I am sure other speakers may have words to say about that later. There are a few other small points which caught my attention. The regulations state that the waiting staff shall be dressed uniformly and readily identifiable. It is reasonable to expect that the waiting staff are readily identifiable but to impose on a restaurateur the obligation that all members of the staff must wear some form of uniform is going a bit too far. It may very well be that in a restaurant some form of clean, neat casual dress is what is preferred or the people may be asked to wear some sort of badge. All that is needed is that the waiting staff are readily identifiable.
The regulations refer to a menu for every meal served. I agree with the price and the service charges. In recent years, I am happy to say, the hidden charges which did not appear on the menu have more or less become a thing of the past. There are a few restaurants which still persist with hidden charges, especially in the serving of vegetables but by and large they are a thing of the past. Why do we need paragraph (c) which states that the menus should give the time during which the restaurant will be open? Surely that information should be displayed outside where people can see it before they come in. Once they are inside they are hardly likely to query the opening hours. There is a slightly absurd clause in the regulations. They attempt to lay down what shall appear on the menu and state that there should be a choice of five main courses, one of which shall be meat. Does that mean thah a high-class vegetarian restaurant is obliged to have a meat dish——
Hear, hear.
——and that it will not qualify if it does not have a meat dish? Why do they stipulate that there must be meat? Is Restaurant na Mara, which specialises in seafood, obliged to have meat on its menu? Why should there be five courses? There could be a very high-class restaurant which simply specialises in roast beef with varieties of vegetables and so forth. One can think of the old Rotisserie in the Hibernian Hotel or the Saddle Room in the Shelbourne Hotel which were very good restaurants where the menu was extremely limited. They probably could not have risen to five main courses. Why do we insist on them having five main courses? Why do we insist that high-class vegetarian restaurants must serve meat or that a fish restaurant must also have meat?
Surely, in all of these cases the setting of the menu will be market-led. If there is a demand then it will appear. Why should there be at least three desserts? There are restaurants which specialise in the best apple tarts ever made and people go there because of the apple tart. Are such restaurants now obliged to put three desserts on the menu? I am sure that most restaurants would have more than three desserts but I do not see the point of this provision.
There is another provision which I find odd and it refers to decaffeinated coffee. What business is it of the Oireachtas to lay down that decaffeinated coffee must be available? We might as well say that the menu should include Indian tea, Earl Grey tea, Chinese tea and lemon tea, that all different varieties of tea must be served. In some cases where people do not like decaffeinated coffee, are we obliging the restaurant owner to keep it constantly in the pot and serve it? The regulations refer to dishes which shall not be less than four in number. Again, there could be a restaurant which specialises in only one dish. Frequently on the Continent there are restaurants which specialise in only one dish and they are very good restaurants. We would not allow such a restaurant to open. We would oblige it to have more than one dish.
I understand why there is a need for these regulations and I approve of them. I approve of the decision to have an annual inspection. I am worried about the capacity of Bord Fáilte to have the manpower to enforce the regulations. These regulations would be greatly improved if they were simplified. At present they create fussiness and extra work and I do not think they aid the purpose for which they are intended.
First, I endorse what Senator Manning has said in regard to the problems that have arisen with regard to the barmen's union and the people who are employed in the trade. I hope that, with common sense, there will be agreement between the parties and that nobody will be expected to work without being properly compensated for it. It would be sad if we had a strike or a major problem on our hands due to the new legislation.
I warmly welcome these draft regulations as proposed by the Minister for Tourism and Transport. In connection with granting special restaurant licences, the regulations are thoughtful and detailed. They suggest that the proposed licences are designed, among other things, to help our tourist industry. The Government are not going to allow any Mickey Mouse operators to set up in a casual and unsupervised way and I am very happy about this. The application procedures are detailed, calling for the usual inspection by health, hygiene and fire officers. However, the added input from the officers of Bord Fáilte is greatly welcomed. Not only will it ensure that these licences are awarded to bona fide applicants but it represents yet another aspect of the Government's tourism strategy, to ensure that all the services and facilities which we offer to tourists are of the highest possible standard.
Another class of patron is also specifically mentioned, that is the disabled. I agree with Senator Manning that every effort should be made to facilitate those people. Unfortunately, in many cases this is not possible, but wherever possible the Minister should ensure that they are facilitated. I am glad to note that the regulations provide that every reasonable effort be made to ensure easy and comfortable access to these people.
When the original Bill was introduced in Seanad Éireann I had some reservations about the approach to the question of the waiting area. These reservations were clarified during the subsequent debates and by way of amendment. I am glad to note that these regulations also outline details in regard to same. The proposal is that the waiting area should not exceed 20 per cent of the entire floor space. Although this could amount to a rather large area in some cases, these cases will be the exception rather than the rule. I am satisfied that, as set out in the regulations, the waiting area will not be the primary focus of business, with the restaurant, so to speak, tagged on. The ratio of the floor space seeks to ensure that the focus will be on the restaurant which is of course, where it should be. That is the whole purpose of the special licence.
Secondly, I am glad that the regulations stress a point originally raised in the Bill, that is, that the waiting area remains just that — a waiting area for those who intend to use the restaurant While it may be difficult to police this in every detail and in every way, the procedures whereby these licences have to be renewed and inspected every year will ensure that any defaulter can be called to account. There was some confusion in the House last week about this inspection and I am glad that it is embodied in the regulations. The focus of the restaurant is also stressed in the part of the regulations governing the menu and list of drinks. The detail in this section is its own comment. The Minister has made a commitment to ensure that this focus stays and I welcome his initiatives in this regard.
Finally, these regulations are part of a long overdue examination of the licensing laws and the regulations governing the sale of drink and food. Many of these regulations needed to be reviewed and I welcome them. In regard to Senator Manning's point about the decaffeinated coffee, I imagine the Minister had in mind our American visitors. People in the United States go overboard about decaffeinated coffee and if it is not available in a restaurant they tend to get very upset. I welcome the regulations. They are a further attempt to improve the whole situation.
I will just comment on what Senator Manning said about the delay we have had tonight. No one is blaming the Minister for going off to vote. This is obviously something he has to do. However, it should be noted that we have lost a lot of time and it reflects badly on this House that we actually have to adjourn for every vote that comes up in the Dáil. Maybe the Minister, as well as the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, might consider this problem when he goes back to his party or to the Cabinet. Perhaps some system could be devised whereby Ministers who are present in the Seanad are paired with another Member so that we do not have to adjourn. That would seem to be quite logical. We are adjourning this evening at 10 o'clock and, as a result, we are not going to finish the Forestry Bill this evening, not that there is any urgency in finishing it but it just disrupts everybody to delay the Seanad for an hour. It puts everybody's calculations out of order.
Having said that, I find these regulations extremely offensive, quite ridiculous and deplorable. I do not think I have ever seen — I must be honest and say I have only read them in the last hour and a half — such an absurd set of regulations in my life, regulations which are actually going to be embodied in legislation. I can only explain it — I may be wrong and Senator Bohan will be able to correct me if I am — by saying that I think the original Bill, the Intoxicating Liquor Bill was offensive to publicans and vintners and that these regulations may be not deliberate but certainly, in effect, are some sort of sop to that pressure group who were offended. What the Government give with one hand, they take with the other.
First of all, while finding these regulations absurd they are also completely and utterly unenforceable. I have read them all in detail and I would have to say to the House — I have dined out quite a lot in my life — that I cannot think of a single restaurant which would qualify for the special licence under these regualtions, from the most expensive to the cheapest. Every single restaurant I can think of certainly contravenes at least one, if not double figure numbers, of rules in the regulations. They will be impossible to enforce without the most dramatic changes being made which are totally unnecessary in certain cases.
What I do not understand is why it is necessary to put these regulations this way round. I would have thought it would have been much more sensible to have regulations which, basically, not exclusively, apply to hygiene and to forbid those to have licences whose restaurants are not hygienic, but the qualifications which are put in the regulations are, as I say, quite impossible. If these regulations only apply, as I understand them to, to those who are just applying for special restaurant licences, why do they not apply also to other restaurants? Do these regulations mean that different standards of hygiene, catering, management and staffing, furnishings and fittings and physical structure will attach to those applying for the special restaurant licence and to others? If they do — that is my understanding of it — it means by implication that any restaurant that does not apply for special restaurant licences can be as unhygienic as it likes and can get away with it. It seems to me that the only way of enforcing this type of an atmosphere on a restaurant is to take away its licence if it is unhygienic, but it seems to me that now we are setting up a two-tier set of restaurants in this country: one, which if it gets the special licence will have to keep impossible terms and conditions imposed by the Government, and the other, which will not be subject to these and the implication being that no real hygiene is necessary and that no restrictions of any sort are necessary.
I am basically not really in favour of this type of regulation at all, first because I think it is impossible to keep; secondly, because I think it infringes on people's privacy and thirdly — this is much more important — because I think it simply does not make sense to impose these sort of restrictions on restaurants. Restaurants are commercially run and run for profit and it is quite obvious to me, and to everybody else, that people do not go back to restaurants if the standards are not adequate. Those restaurants which are unhygienic, inefficient, clumsy, do not cook properly, are crowded and do not provide good lavatory facilities and so on will not just get any customers. To impose these regulations is unrealistic; it defies the laws of commerce to put them in. I can only state that I think the Government were put under a lot of pressure from one particular group and yielded to it. They once again yielded to the temptation of making regulations in this particular area which cannot be, and will not be, enforced. We have had enough of regulations and laws, particularly in the area of intoxicating liquor, which are not enforced and will not be enforced, where the nod and the wink allows places to stay open late and to break the law. That is unrealistic and what should be in the regulations is a realistic assessment of what is possible. It was one of my immediate and obvious thoughts that the Bill does not recognise the realities in this case.
I would like to pick out one or two very obvious and absurd features of the regulations. It is only fair to go through them, not in enormous detail because I do not want to delay the House any more, but because this sort of regulation should not be allowed to go through on the nod, which is what it would have done otherwise. The regulations, because they have legislative effect, should be debated as fully as any ordinary legislation which goes through the House. The standards for restaurants is set out in Part III, paragraph 5 (2) which states that the restaurant, which expression shall include the exterior and interior, outdoor areas, grounds, driveways and car parking areas, shall be kept clean and well maintained throughout and in good decorative order, that is far too broad and too wide. Some restaurants are sitting on acres of land with lodges, and all sorts of places, within their grounds which are in a decadent condition. Does this rule mean that all the land which goes with the restaurant has to be kept in good condition? Does it mean that the restaurant will be refused a licence simply because there is a wild acre miles away from the restaurant? That the grounds must be clean and well maintained has got nothing to do with food, service, catering, hygiene or management and staffing or the physical structure and lay out of the restaurant or about furnishings, This seems to have been thrown in willy nilly as a restrictive clause for absolutely no reason whatsoever. As a result of the grounds of a particular restaurant miles from it not being in particularly good order the restaurant can be refused a special licence. This is madness and crazy and I would be interested to hear what the Minister says on why that has been included in the regulations.
The Regulations continue:
All public areas of the restaurant shall have a means of space heating capable of maintaining a room temperature of at least 18.5 degrees centigrade.
That is another absurd decision which surely the owner or manager of a restaurant can make. The heat of the restaurant is something which would be determined by the owner of the restaurant. If it is not warm enough, customers will not come back. It is not something one can legislate for, one cannot tell people how hot they can keep their restaurant. One might get Eskimoes coming to the restaurant who want the temperature really low down or might get Arabs coming who want it very hot. What is the owner to do about that? I do not know. It seems absurd that this should be a matter of legislation, it is ridiculous.
A far more serious point, which Senator Manning raised, occurs in regulation 5 (6) which states, that, where feasible, accessibility to all public areas of the restaurant shall be provided for disabled persons. I intend to oppose this regulation for that reason alone because this is typical of paying token tribute to a particular group of people without actually granting them anything at all. If the two words "where feasible" were left out, it would read, "accessibility to all public areas of the restaurant shall be provided for disabled persons". That would be acceptable, but the two words "where feasible" are put in for one reason alone, because the Government are not prepared to do anything about it. This is the one area where it should be compulsory on all restaurants to provide facilities for disabled people. Putting in "where feasible" means that that particular section is meaningless, it is just paying some sort of token tribute to the disabled. In fact, all a restaurant has to say is, "sorry, it is not feasible". Why put this in? We are constantly seeing in regulations, and legislation, phrases, paragraphs, clauses and sections being put in which actually mean nothing. For some reason, they salve the conscience of the Minister, and the Government who are proposing the legislation, because they mention those people who are actually discriminated against. This regulation does nothing for the disabled and it would be better if it was not included.
I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that there is a motion on the disabled on the Order Paper in the names of Senators Brendan Ryan, David Norris and myself. It really is time — I do not wish to be irrelevant and I will be as relevant as I can to this — that we either did something about them or that we were honest to them. In these regulations they are being treated, undoubtedly, as second class citizens. They are treated to a large extent in many areas, especially in the public areas, as second class citizens. What we should include is the following wording, "where feasible accessibility to all public areas of the restaurant should be provided for human beings" because it would make sense. That is the gist of what the regulation is, a simple clause put in so that the Government can say at some future stage, "we made a provision for disabled people in the regulations" when, in fact, they are not making a provision for disabled people. That is what is so absurd about these regulations. They have got extraordinarily strict requirements in certain areas and yet in important areas, where there is a case for some real humanity and sympathy and doing something practical, they actually do nothing at all.
Paragraph 5 (7) states that entrances and exits shall be of sufficient size to cater adequately for the maximum number of persons capable of using the restaurant at any one time. I really do not know what that means. I do not know how a calculation will be made and I do not know how they are going to work out the average size of the person in the restaurant because that would matter enormously. What happens if there are 27 dwarfs in one restaurant and 26 giants in another? I am quite serious about this, there is no formula for working this out. It is just a sort of bland, arbitrary, subjective figure which means very little but would be subject in the future to some sort of abuse. I am not saying that Bord Fáilte, who will be making these inspections, will be abusing this but it is going to be very difficult for them to decide what is a sufficient size to cater adequately for the number of persons capable of using the restaurant at any one time. They are going to have to come up with some formula and that formula should be specified in the regulations. It is just not good enough to have it in the regulations in a bland way. I can only, again, say that it is really as a result of some sort of pressure that some of these rectrictions are being included.
Paragraph 5 (9) states that the reception area shall contain furnishings, fittings and equipment of good quality and in good condition and be of a design which is in keeping with that of the remainder of the restaurant. That is ludicrous. What is happening here is that we are legislating for people's taste if we insist on the design being in keeping with that of the remainder of the restaurant. What the regulation is saying is that it is a design not a standard, we are talking about. The word "design" is there and that is the important word. If it is a standard the Minister will, presumably, amend the regulation and substitute the word "standard" for the word "design". What we are saying here is that the restaurant can be inspected and whoever inspects the restaurant can, say, "that clashes with that; sorry you are not getting a licence". That is crazy. There is no way that that can be contradicted because it is purely a matter of taste. That is what is going to happen and at a future date somebody is going to go into a restaurant and say, "sorry, that design does not go with that; as the reception area has got gold fittings in it and the lavatories have got silver fittings in them, sorry they do not go together and there will be no special licence". That is the sort of absurd condition that is put in the regulations which leaves it totally arbitrary and open to the most appalling abuse. I do not think the Minister will get me wrong, as one Minister did last week. I am not saying that that is what is going to happen immediately or that that is the purpose behind the regulations. I am not attributing any sort of sinister purpose to it.
These regulations will probably last for a very long time but at some stage in the future, somebody who is not as honest or straightforward as those in power now will be in a position to abuse this. Somebody will be susceptible to pressure from a group that does not want restaurants open, that does not want a particular restaurant open and they will yield to that pressure for one reason or another. They will, as a result, refuse to grant the special licence. That particular clause is a glaring example of it.
The same applies to the regulation in regard to the waiting area. Again, it is legislating for taste. Regulation No. 6 states, "...adequate lighting and ventilation shall be provided in such area and the furnishings and fittings shall be in keeping with the furnishings and fittings of the reception and dining areas". The words, "in keeping", because they follow on from the previous paragraph, are again talking about design rather than standards. If it meant standards, it would say standards.
In regard to the dining area regulation 7 (1) states "every dining area of the restaurant shall be so ventilated at all times that no odour from the kitchen is perceptible". That to me is funny. Presumably, it means that we are legislating for the wind blowing in one particular direction. It is a crazy regulation. It means that every restaurant that I can think of — all the best restaurants — would be excluded as a result of this. It is very difficult to go into a restaurant without getting a smell of food from the kitchens unless the kitchen is a long way away but there is a regulation which actually forbids that. Will all the doors have to be closed? Are people going to have to walk through the doors? It seems to be almost impossible to comply with that. If that is true, we should be told how that can be enforced. Will the doors have to be insulated or something like that?
Regulation 7 (3) states that the overall capacity of the total dining area of the restaurant shall not exceed 250 diners. I have no quarrel with that but I would love to know where the figure came from and the reason for it. I do not know enough about the business to know why 250 is the maximum, why it is not 100, or 500 or 300. I have been in restaurants which can accommodate more than 250 people and I would have thought that the important thing was not the number of people in the restaurant but the number of exits, and emergency exits, and the fact that it was run properly. One could quite conceivably have a very large area, a restaurant containing 1,000 people, and there would not be anything wrong provided all the other regulations which the Minister feels are so important are complied with. Numbers are not important, it is facilities to cater for that number which are important. I would like to know where the figure of 250 came from. I do not understand either the provision that not less than 0.9 square metres of floor space shall be provided for each diner. I do not know where that came from but I would be interested to hear the Minister's views on it.
Paragraph 7 (6) states that tables and seating shall be of adequate size to enable the diners to dine in comfort. Again, that is a very subjective thing. I will not say any more about the size of the customers, but it really depends on how big the customers who are dining there are.
Paragraph 7 (9) requires napkins which, is a very good idea but I would not have thought that they should be compulsory in any way.
Paragraph 7 (10) states that crockery shall be adequate to serve the maximum number of diners capable of being seated in the dining area, be in good condition, of good quality and of uniform design. This seems to me to be absurd. It is something which should be left up to the owner or manager of the restaurant to decide. If they do not have enough crockery, enough cutlery, enough food, or enough of anything else it is a commercial decision for them. What happens if they have a lot of space which they do not want to use? Do they have to provide crockery for the space which they do not want to use? It is an unnecessarily restrictive clause, as I see it.
Paragraph 8 (3) (d) insists on cooking equipment for boiling, roasting, baking, grilling, steaming, and other means for preparation of food as requested by the board. Apparently, all those facilities have to be provided. That is quite absurd. I can only again conclude that there has been some sort of pressure put on to include ridiculous facilities in the regulations. Why should a restaurant provide any of those things? Why should they have to boil potatoes, roast beef, bake or grill something if they do not want to? It should be completely up to the restaurant to decide whether it wants to grill, boil, roast or whatever. What is happening here is that the Minister is dictating to the restaurant how they should run their business and what sort of choice they should give to the customers. He is dictating to the restaurant that they must spend a lot of money on giving choice to the customers.
What is so crazy about this is that it is quite obvious that the restaurant has to have on the premises particular cooking equipment which it may never use. What is the point, and why is it compulsory for restaurants to have boiling, roasting, baking, grilling or steaming equipment if it never intends to use any of them? Surely it is up to a restaurant to decide whether it intends to use them? What the Minister is saying is, whether it wants to use that equipment or not it actually has got to have all this boiling and roasting equipment. That is dictatorial; it is unnecessary. The restaurant will decide of its own accord what sort of a restaurant it wants to be and the consumers will decide whether the restaurant stays open or does not stay open.
One of the decisions which a restaurant will make is what sort of cooking it does, and, therefore, what sort of equipment it will buy. It seems to be absolutely wasteful and absurd to force it to purchase equipment which it will not need.
On a point of order, what do the words, "bain maries" mean? I have never heard of them.
A bain marie is an object of keeping food hot. There are a few matters I should like to explain to the Senator later.
I am delighted that Senator Cassidy can help up on this. Regulation 8. (e) states: "hot plates, hot cupboards, bain maries and other containers for storing and maintaining cooked food...". There are a large number of restaurants who would like to ask the same question that Senator Manning asked, who will read those regulations and will not know what those items are. I do not know where that came from but I suspect it is just another unnecessary piece of bureaucratic legislation.
I am not sure why the kitchen should be located adjacent to or easily accessible from the dining area. I presume it is so that the food should be hot. There is a contradiction here. If it has to be next to the dining area, it is a very difficult for the dining area not to get any smell of food in it. If it is to keep the food hot, it is again back to a commercial decision. If a restaurateur serves cold food which is meant to be hot he is not going to do very well. I cannot understand why this is being put in as a regulation. It is a commercial decision.
Regulation No. 8. (7) states that proper facilities, including dining, changing and toilet, shall be provided for the staff employed in the restaurant and shall be located within, adjacent to, or in close proximity to, the restaurant. I do not understand why the toilets, so called, provided for the customers should not be used by the staff by regulation. I can understant why, in fact, the restaurant would not want to provide it themselves but I cannot again see that this is a matter for a regulation by the Minister. I would have thought that the restaurateur would not have wanted this but provided the ratios in the regulations later are kept it is absurd to say there has to be separate toilet facilities for the staff and the customers by regulation.
I now move to the delicate part which Senator Manning, being a man of greater sensitivity than myself, decided to leave out, and I can understand why. The toilet facilities required seem to be quite absurd. For some reason there are different regulations for women and men. It seems that there should be particular ratios but there are glaring anomalies in the number of WCs for women and the number of WCs for men. Where a restaurant can accommodate between 25 and 60 people, in the male area provision has to be made for one WC, two urinals, one wash-hand basin and in the female area two WCs and one wash-hand basin. This seems to provide in the ratio of three-to-two. Will the Minister explain to me why it needs to be provided in the ratio of three-to-two? Perhaps it is a scientific fact that men have weaker bladders than women. I would be very interested to hear that but I do not think it is true. It seems to me that biologically men and women have equal strength in their bladders although I was brought up to believe that women's bladders were weaker. This needs to be explained. I would be interested to hear whether the Minister thinks that females actually use these facilities more often than males.
Not urinals.
But there is still a ratio of three-to-two; two WCs for the female and one wash-hand basin and one WC and two urinals for men. That is unnecessarily restrictive. It should be three-to-three, two-to-two or whatever. It seems they are shoving an extra one on the male side which is appalling discrimination against males.
The regulations state that the toilets in a restaurant shall be equipped with mirrors. I can think of nothing I want to see less than myself after having gone into a toilet in a restaurant. I can think of little reason why the Minister would want to see himself, or why anybody in this House would want to see themselves. It is probably true that most people are vain enough to want to brush their hair, wash their hands and have a good look at themselves afterwards but, again, it is a decision for the individual restaurateur. I do not think that the Minister should legislate that people should be allowed to look at themselves after they have been to the loo. We are getting into an absurd, inadequate and silly area.
I do not want to repeat myself and I am trying to get through the regulations as quickly as possible.
On a point of order, and to be helpful to the speaker, all the regulations, from my experience in the trade, are basic Bord Fáilte standards for any grade A or three star hotel. We are wasting time.
Senator Cassidy will get his chance to participate.
I thank Senator Cassidy for his help.
The Senator does not need Senator Cassidy's help.
He is always trying to be helpful, especially when I am speaking. Late at night he has interesting contributions to make. The regulations state that the waiting staff of a restaurant should be neat and clean in their appearance. This ridiculous. Does that mean that the cooks and porters do not have to be neat and clean in their appearance? Why are the waiting staff picked on? I would have thought it was quite obvious that if the waiting staff are not neat and clean in their appearance once again people will not go back to the restaurant. Does this apply to them because they are just literally in front of the customers and does not apply to the cooks, and other people, because they are hidden? I do not understand this regulation. In certain areas the Minister is making life a bit more difficult for restaurants without any particular reason. I can only believe that it is those who want to obstruct restaurateurs, those who are offended by some other areas of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, who have persuaded the Minister to put in these draconian and unenforceable measures.
Will the Leader of the House indicate to me what is happening? It is now 10 o'clock and this morning we decided to adjourn at 10 o'clock to take the Adjournment motion.
That is right. I propose that we now adjourn until 10.30 tomorrow morning.
Debate adjourned.