I would like to wait for the Minister to arrive. I apologise to the House, but I am not going to speak until the Minister arrives.
Special Restaurant Licence (Standards) Regulations, 1988: Motion (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
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.
—(Mr. McEllistrim.)
I think the Minister wishes to comment.
Senators last night observed that the situation, where they lost an hour of business due to voting in the Dáil was untenable. The same thing is likely to happen this morning. In support of what the Senators said, I spoke to the Chief Whip this morning. He accepted that the matter will be referred to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, and this has my support. As a measure of the indication by the Chief Whip and by all of us that the situation as it exists is no longer acceptable, he has agreed to pair me for this debate this morning. That is the first indication of correcting a situation that is unacceptable to both Ministers and Senators.
I would like sincerely to thank the Minister for that very prompt response to the points which Senator Manning and I raised last night about that incident involving the loss of an hour. I am very grateful to the Minister for facilitating the House so quickly this morning.
Last night, having discussed these regulations at some length, I slept on them. Sometimes a good night's sleep clears the mind and produces more rational thought. I must say that having slept on them I can only conclude that they are no better than I thought they were last night — they are actually worse. Senator Brendan Ryan was quite right when on the Order of Business this morning he said that these regulations are an embarrassment to us.
I must confess that I, like many other Members of the House very nearly let these regulations through on the nod. I did not pay an enormous amount of attention to them because they are what some of us would regard as being mere regulations and they are not in the form of a Bill. These regulations are in some ways more important than a Bill. As we established last night, it is impossible to amend these regulations in any form. One of the great difficulties about these things — these absolutely absurd regulations — is that they have to go through all together or be rejected all together. I appeal to the Minister now, before we go any further, that maybe he could take on board some of the suggestions which have been made about these regulations — amend some of these regulations and delete some of the more absurd and deplorable parts of these regulations before it is too late.
I know the Minister is reluctant to go back to the Dáil with these regulations but I would remind him that it would be easier now than it will be next week. Just to underline the fact that they are an embarrassment, I would point out that this morning The Irish Times on its front page did a skit, or what is almost a skit, on these particular things. They wrote a rather frivolous article on these regulations because they seem to the journalist involved like a good but rather silly story. They are very silly regulations, in fact. I appeal to the Minister to consider amending them in some form because this House is incapable of amending them in some form.
As far as I can see, the result of regulations of this sort will be to write into legislation particular clauses which cannot be changed piecemeal. In fact they have a more permanent and more solid effect than legislation itself. I would appeal to the Minister on that point. I would also like to say that the more I read these regulations the more convinced I become that quite simply they are the result of a lobby from the vintners and the publicans.
That is completely untrue.
Thank you, Senator Bohan, how appropriate that you should be in the House at the moment. The Intoxicating Liquor Bill, which was the result of a lobby on the other side, has obviously been balanced by a very strong publicans' lobby which, by some means, has induced the Minister and the Government to produce regulations which will be impossible to enforce. They are unrealistic, silly and impossible to enforce. This is the general view of those in this House who are taking any sort of objective view of the regulations.
We established last night some of the more absurd requirements of these regulations. The first and most ridiculous one is that the legislation as a principle and as a fact regulates for people's tastes and design. It regulates the design in restaurants and bars. This is absurd. It regulates for the condition in which the grounds of a restaurant should be kept. This is also absurd. I cannot see what this has to do with special licences. It regulates about odours from the kitchen. It regulates about padded chairs. In one of the more absurd clauses, it regulates about highchairs for children in restaurants. What on earth are we doing? We will not give restaurants special intoxicating liquor licences if they do not have highchairs for children? Is it the idea that the children could get drunk on highchairs rather than on low chairs, or get high on highchairs? This is the absurdity of these regulations. I simply do not understand them. I do not understand what relevance these regulations have with the licences being given out. I am not trying to be funny. I am only being funny by accident, if I am being funny.
Senator Ross said he slept on these regulations last night. What he is doing now is repeating all he said last night, having slept in between.
I never mentioned children, high chairs, or padded chairs. I am making completely different points. The same principle may be emerging and I am very glad that the message is getting through, but I am actually drawing different points out of the syllabus all the time. I want to know why those of us who enjoy frying and poaching are being discriminated against in these regulations. It is quite all right to require boiling, roasting, grilling and steaming pans, but there is no requirement that there should be frying or poaching equipment. Why is that? Anybody who does not have a grilling pan will be allowed to serve this intoxicating liquor — it does not matter if they do not have a frying pan, they can serve this liquor. This is the sort of crazy situation we are going into.
I am not going to go back into the matter of lavatories — I went into that last night — but I would like to ask why the staff have to have different toilets? I do not understand that. As a customer in a restaurant, I do not mind the staff using the same toilet as myself. If the ratio in a restaurant is right, if it is 30 or fewer, whatever the rational requirement by the Minister is, it does not matter who uses the toilet and who does not. I do not understand why these are requirements to have special facilities for the staff in this case.
The eighth requirement, which I think is absurd, is that no restaurant will be allowed this licence if there is not a member of the staff specially required to usher people to the tables. Quite honestly, I do not know how else people are supposed to find their way to the tables. Of course, they are going to be shown the way to the tables but this is another pernickety, silly detail in the regulations which apparently is to be the basis for not allowing people to have a licence. The more I look at them, the more absurd I see they are.
The regulations in a most peculiar way — and this is one of the most extraordinary things in them — regulate for good manners. I have never come across legislation which legislates for people's good manners and politeness, but there is a requirement here that friendly and courteous service must be provided. In other words, if any of the waiters are judged by a member of Bord Fáilte to be rude to the customers the place will not get a licence for serving intoxicating liquor. This is becoming absolutely bizarre. I will be very interested to hear the Minister's reply to this in a specific and not a general way.
I will be more serious, anyway.
I cannot help being frivolous if you require by legislation that the staff be courteous and polite. I do not see how you can legislate for that but that is what you are attempting to do.
Senator Manning dealt with menus. It seems to me that the menus have a particular obsession with soup. Apparently — and I am talking from memory — the table d'hôte menu has to have four hors-d'oeuvres but this must include fresh soups — tinned soups, apparently, are out. I do not see what is wrong with tinned soups. It has to include fresh soups or else they do not get the licence to serve drink. It sounds silly and it is silly. It is absolutely crazy. This is what is written down in front of me. We have already come across the crazy discrimination against vegetarians where there is a requirement for meat — which, of course, discriminates against three of the best restaurants in Dublin. I think I can name them. The King Sitric, Restaurant na Mara and the Lord Edward all serve fish, and only fish. They do very well and satisfy their customers by serving fish because they are special restaurants. Apparently there is to be a requirement on them now to serve meat. This is absolutely crazy. I am trying to get through this as quickly as possible.
We come then to the a la carte menu. The a la carte menu, for some reason, is only required to serve three hors-d'oeuvres — there are four hors-d'oeuvres on the table d'hôte but I am sure there is a very good reason for that. Again, the a la carte menu has to serve a choice of soups. Soup keeps rearing its ugly head. I do not know why soup is so important to the national appetite or the national stomach, but apparently if we do not serve enough soup to people we simply will not give them a licence to serve drink. This is what is here. This is what Senator Lydon is supporting. I can quite understand why he is supporting it. He is told to support it and that is why he is supporting it.
What soup?
The Senator should take the soup.
I must comment on the level of debate. A Senator is responsible for creating this kind of atmosphere in the Chamber. I think in fairness the Senator could leave the soup alone and go on to the main course.
I have been presented with these absolutely absurd resolutions and I can only treat them, I am afraid, in the way they are presented to me. If it happens that this debate turns out to be frivolous and light hearted, fair enough, and I am sorry. But they are quite extraordinary regulations. It is impossible to treat them without being facetious to a certain extent because they are so absurd. If people find it funny, I am very sorry because I am not trying to be funny. I am sorry that Members on the Government side are laughing at me. I am going to draw my remarks to a close now because it would be only fair to let some of my colleagues in.
I have pointed out some of the most absurd parts of these regulations and there are very silly principles running through them. The really absurd principle is that the Government are making regulations which should be left completely and utterly to the owner or the manager of the restaurant. Nearly all the regulations are regulations which would be in the interests of a prudent and sensible owner and manager to keep because they are in the business simply and solely of making money. I do not see why the Government should tell them how to run their business, how many staff they should have, whether their staff should have good manners or qualities like that or what their standards should be in any area other than hygiene and the disabled. It seems to me that we have really got into a dangerous area and that the strength of the publicans lobby has actually induced the Government to impose regulations which will be impossible for any restaurant to keep. As a result, it will be possible for restaurants of very high quality, because they break one or two of these rules, to have a licence of this sort withheld from them.
It seems to me that these regulations need to be taken back and thought about again and that only two main principles should be applied. One is hygiene, which I think is already catered for by legislation anyway, and the second one, in regard to which I make a special plea to the Minister, is quite simply that all new restaurants should provide facilities for the disabled. I think that is important. That is the point I made yesterday. I think it is dishonestly put in this schedule because it says this should be done where feasible. This is lip service and it is the only case in this schedule where lip service is actually paid. The rest are silly regulations. The provisions for the disabled are thrown in as lip service with absolutely no teeth to enforce them. I shall be calling a vote on this because this is quite patently the most ridiculous set of regulations I have come across in the seven or eight years I have been here.
I welcome these special restaurant licence regulations. They regulate the standards required for the issue of special restaurant licences to restaurateurs. I would like to congratulate the Minister for having brought in these regulations before the summer recess, because it will afford an opportunity to restaurateurs in the country to apply for these licences. Possibly, many of them will qualify for the liquor licence before the summer is over.
These regulations will enable very good quality restaurants to qualify for a liquor licence. They will enable them to have a choice of liquor in their restaurants. It is very important that the regulations that govern the granting of a liquor licence should be handled very carefully; if not, every restaurant in the country could apply and possibly might qualify for one. We have enough pubs and places that sell liquor without adding many more. When the Liquor Bill was going through the Seanad, the Minister for Justice did say, when he mentioned the special restaurant licences, that he thought only about 100 restaurants would qualify for the liquor licence. Tourists who come to our country and, indeed, the Irish people, deserve to have good qualify restaurants which have liquor licences. This is something that we should all welcome. When we had a discussion in the Seanad on the Liquor Bill, which the Minister for Justice piloted through the House, nearly everyone who spoke on the special restaurant licences said that the regulations should be very stringent and that only good quality restaurants should qualify.
The Act clearly specifies that the standards prescribed in the regulations made by the Minister will have to be complied with before a restaurant will be considered for a special licence. We have had a lot of talk this morning about the special regulations that good class restaurants will have to have to comply with in order to get a liquor licence. Every good class hotel must observe the same regulations as those that apply to restaurants that qualify for a liquor licence.
Bord Fáilte have been selected as the authority that will do the inspection. I feel that Bord Fáilte are the proper body to do this inspection because they have plenty of experience. They have been grading hotels and guest-houses and in general they have been looking at tourist accommodation. They are a very competent body to make sure that the regulations will apply to each restaurant that makes an application for a liquor licence. I am quite sure that no restaurant will qualify unless it complies with all the regulations.
I am also delighted to find that those restaurants will be inspected once a year. Restaurants can deteriorate and may not qualify after 12 months, or after a number of years, and it is important that they should be inspected annually and that the licence can be withdrawn from them if they do not adhere to the regulations. In the past, our European visitors and, indeed, all our visitors, were very surprised that in some of the best restaurants liquor was not available to them when they were having a meal. I am quite sure that in future all our visitors and our own people, will be delighted with this move. There was a demand that good restaurants should have a liquor licence.
It is important that this legislation get through both Houses of the Oireachtas so as to enable restaurant owners to apply straight away. Any restaurant could comply with the regulations so that possibly in a month's time we could see licensed restaurants operating here. I come from County Kerry which is a great tourist county. I think I can claim that some of our restaurants are as good if not better than even the best restaurants in the rest of the country due to the tourist business we have.
Having had a good look at the regulations, despite all the criticism there is of them I know a few restaurants in my own county that will qualify for a liquor licence. I did think that being required to have five main courses on the menu was a little bit much and maybe the Minister would explain that when replying. Could the Minister also let us know if a restaurant owner applies for a special licence and is turned down, will he be informed by Bord Fáilte why he has been turned down? This is important because the reasons for being turned down could be rectified and maybe the owner could apply a second time.
There has been a great deal of criticism about the regulations this morning. I accept that the regulations are pretty tough, pretty stiff, but the majority of hotels have to comply with those regulations. If we did not make those regulations we would have too many licensed restaurants in the country. We have enough licensed premises — I think too many—without adding to them. At least when we have good quality licensed restaurants it will be a welcome development and will help our own people to go out and have a good meal and a drink in very good surroundings. Our tourist industry will benefit considerably also.
I thank the Minister for having brought these regulations before the House before the summer recess to enable restaurant owners to apply for this special restaurant licence and, hopefully, before 1 August we may see some of the better restaurants in our country having a liquor licence. I am very hopeful that some of the better restaurants in my own county will have liquor licences in a very short time.
I welcome the fact that the Minister has brought these regulations into the Houses of the Oireachtas. That was a promise given to us when we went through the legislation with a fine-tooth comb, arising from the concern of Members on both sides of the House about how specific we were going to be about these regulations. The Minister promised that the application of regulations would not be left to Bord Fáilte but would be set down by the Houses of the Oireachtas as a directive to Bord Fáilte as to how these licences would be allocated and operated throughout the country. We wanted to ensure that there would be a uniformity about the regulations, that it would not be left to the discretion of investigating officers to make a decision based on the application before them. For that reason I welcome the fact that we have set down here in detail what all of us feel are the standards that should be observed by the special restaurants that are now being licensed to sell intoxicating liquor at hours beyond the normal hours of restaurant licences to sell liquor.
It is appropriate that this House would discuss in detail the standards that we all call for every day and complain about if they are not there. We are also subjected to criticism by visitors from abroad if the standards are lower than what are set down here. I do not know what the fuss is over these regulations because basically they are in line with the thinking of the Members of this House. I was here for most, if not all, of the debate on the actual legislation when we were talking about how important it was that these special restaurants would serve what is, in fact, a proper meal. An amendment was put down by the Opposition to specify that there would have to be a certain number of courses in the meal; otherwise the law would be flouted in that people would be having chips and chicken and that would be considered to be a substantial meal. It was intended to overcome the existing flouting of the law regarding the provision of what was defined as a substantial meal because we all wanted to know what was a substantial meal. The Minister gave his interpretation and also indicated that this would be set down by way of regulation to be approved by the Houses of the Oireachtas and set before the board of Bord Fáilte as the standard required.
I do not have a problem about indicating that there should be so many courses because this was specified by people who are professionals in this area, like Senator Cregan and others who debated at length with the Minister for Justice the requirements that were indicated.
Any Member of the Houses of the Oireachtas who is also privileged to be a member of a local authority will realise that some people would probably drop dead if they saw some of the requirements that we write into planning permissions. We write in extraordinary conditions such as the colour of the slates on the roof because in an orderly society where you have a new project or development it is appropriate that environmentally it should match and blend in with an area; otherwise you would have chaos throughout the country. We can and do lay down extraordinary regulations. As regards the very first one here, which refers to the area to be involved, it is appropriate that if you are going to have a special restaurant licence for a restaurant catering particularly for continental visitors, you have the standard at least that they expect of us and expect to have in their own countries. Unless we are going to be subjected to widespread criticisms it is appropriate that we have specific areas laid down as waiting areas, as kitchen and service areas, as stairways, cloakroom facilities and toilet facilities. These are minimum requirements if we are going to meet the challenge of the future and be serious about the tourist industry that we all aspire to build up as a major revenue-generating activity.
I see nothing at all wrong with laying down conditions which will specify that such facilities must be provided in the one building. Perhaps the Minister, in replying will define "one building" because to comply with this regulation many people might have to build additional facilities within the grounds of their existing premises. Does it mean that all the buildings on the ground will have to be linked in some way by passage-ways or additional facilities, so that technically they will be one building? Or, is it possible to have two separate buildings in the one "grounds"? That might lend the place a character of its own. I have no problem whatsoever in providing that where you have restaurants like this, particularly in busy cities or in busy towns with traffic congestion, facilities should be available in the grounds for car-parking and other such requirements. Those are minimum requirements that we normally set down in planning. As a matter of fact, if a developer is himself unable to provide parking he has to contribute to the local authority which in turn must provide off-street car-parking facilities, otherwise all the streets in our towns and cities would be clogged up with parking at night while people are out enjoying themselves.
It is appropriate that we should make it clear that it is a requirement by Bord Fáilte — we are stating it for them — that applicants for a special restaurant licence must have the other ancillary facilities available, such as car-parking and nice grounds. What is wrong with setting down standards? If people do not achieve the standards, they should not be seeking this very special licence, which is special and is a change from everything we have been used to. In fairness to the Minister for Justice, he did say that in his opinion only about 100 or 120 of these licences are likely to be granted because he was setting very strict standards. We all concurred in that and we asked him to ensure that these very strict standards were laid down because of the very special area that we are dealing with.
I do not know if it is appropriate to lay down standards for the quality of seating and otherwise, but if so, is it not appropriate that if we have a proper restaurant there should be proper seating for the customers? We are now laying down regulations for ourselves and our guests and visitors. It is appropriate that restaurateurs should not have a slipshod way of doing things, that they should devote some of the capital expenditure involved to ensuring that there is comfort for the customer. If we provide that people may come in with children, what is wrong with ensuring that there are proper chairs for children? We cannot assume that people will not take their children out in the evening, particularly tourists. It is nice to go into a hotel that has a high chair for your child or has a cot or sleeping facilities. If we did not lay down those regulations, perhaps proprietors would not bother and then you would be inconvenienced if you were a customer. We are all potential customers in this area.
We might not need high chairs.
If there is a requirement that a certain number of high chairs be available, I see nothing wrong with that. They may never be used, but if they are wanted they should be there. If the regulations specify that some high chairs be provided, even if they are never used, the cost of such a chair is not going to break a restaurateur who is going to be serious about dealing with tourists and other customers. That would be my interpretation of that regulation.
Regulation 7.4 requests that all meals shall be ordered from and served at tables by waiting staff. I would like some clarification here because we have talked about a waiting area from which people would generally order their meals. Is it now required that in that restricted and defined waiting area there will also have to be tables at or near everybody who orders a meal? I presume that by having this waiting area for a drink before the meal, we are now stipulating that there should be a table in that waiting area? That is how I read that particular regulation.
I think it is appropriate that we set down standards also for cutlery, tables and napkins because this is the business. We are serious now about what we are trying to do. We are also serious about ensuring that staff, who are suitably qualified and suitably dressed, are themselves entitled to facilities and the regulations here provide that there shall be facilities for the staff, toilet facilities, a rest area and, indeed, a dining area for them. I think it is appropriate that staff who are involved in late night work should also have these facilities. It is appropriate that Bord Fáilte would require the restaurateur to ensure that his staff are also looked after properly and have a proper environment to work in. There was a claim made about section 8 (3) (d) that one particular process of cooking was excluded. As I read it, it says "cooking equipment for boiling, roasting, baking, grilling, steaming..." and although frying is not mentioned, in my opinion "any other means for preparation" covers anything you want it to cover. You can have it raw if you want to, under that regulation, fry it or do anything else. I do not know why we have to have frying mentioned. Just for the record, frying is supposed to be bad for you anyway. Here we have a situation where "other means of preparation" are available.
We also talked about the fact that these regulations excluded people from serving vegetarian dishes. I have read the regulations in every way possible and I see nothing to exclude a vegetarian from having meals, whether he wants to have soup or not to have soup. We would all love to know that the soup we were having is fresh soup. Perhaps the Minister might define what fresh soup is. Is it freshly cooked? Perhaps out of a tin it could be freshly cooked. We would want to know that the soup we are talking about was not old soup made a week ago for the All-Ireland and not used because we beat the Cork team and they went home without the soup and it was left over and reheated — I did not realise Senator Cregan had come in — and I am presuming that the words "fresh soup" mean soup cooked that day in whatever is the appropriate process.
I see regulations here about the number of toilet facilities and urinals that are required, based on the number of dining areas. Is that not appropriate? You will have chaos in a dining room if you do not have facilities. God knows, most of us look for them, demand them and complain when they are not there. Here we have an opportunity to lay down regulations about how these special restaurants should be organised.
I think it is appropriate also, that people serving in these areas would be suitably attired so that visitors would recognise a particular member of the staff where he or she is serving at tables, in the bar area or wherever. I saw nothing wrong with being able to identify staff. As a matter of fact, I am a great believer in staff members having little names on their uniform so that you can address them if you have a problem or, if some of them are discourteous to you, you can actually make a formal complaint and identify the staff member. I see nothing wrong with being expected to be brought to a table. Naturally enough, everyone would want to walk in the door and sit down wherever he or she liked. People who understand the situation normally wait to be asked where they wish to sit. That is normal. It is happening every day unless you walk into a take-away. In this area we are trying to ensure that take-aways will not get licences. We are setting down certain standards. It is appropriate that if there is wine it should be identified, where it comes from, so that people would know the price of it and could buy it in any quantity. I think it is recognised that there are regulations we should lay down. I am disappointed that people feel, although we requested these regulations, now that they are before us, they are too strict. I honestly do not think so and I hope that people who avail of these special restaurants licences will attain the standard that we all feel they should achieve. If they are limited well, so be it, because it is appropriate that these special facilities should not apply generally. If that was the case, people who are in the existing restaurant business, fully licensed, or publicans with restricted licences would feel that others could in a slipshod way be in an unfairly competitive situation, particularly regarding the serving of drinks. It is appropriate to have special regulations and I welcome them.
There was a long and enjoyable debate on the Bill when it was brought before us by the Minister for Justice two weeks ago. He said that both houses would be well informed of the regulations that would be laid down as regards special licences for restaurants. Looking at the regulations that are being brought before us here today, it is encouraging to see that they are so detailed. I admit that I myself argued in favour of making sure that people would not be allowed to sell drink, or be allowed to have a place to sell drink in areas without proper consent, no proper regulations or no proper supervision, to make sure that people who are not entitled to have drink would not get drink. The regulations are bringing about a situation where it will be very difficult for these restaurants to get licences.
I would have to admit, from a Senator's point of view that the regulations are too stringent. Are we bringing about a situation where only a certain few can get a restaurant licence? Are we bringing about a situation such that a person who would be able to say: "I would like, and I am able, to do this sort of thing but, unfortunately, because of the stringent regulations, and because of the strictness involved here I cannot do it." I am worried about that and I have to admit it.
The ideas we are talking about in theory are excellent and I mentioned this several times to the Minister, Deputy Collins, on the last occasion. I can understand what he is trying to do and I can well understand, in particular as regards the licence for drink, he is saying that these special restaurant licences are going to be restricted. He admitted that. He did say that there would be no more than probably 100 or 124 in the country. I can see in the regulations before us that is generally his opinion. But when you see how stringent the regulations are, perhaps we are bringing about a situation where we might be admitting to other people who have other interests: "We are going to make sure that you are protected".
From a restaurant point of view the facilities are well described, well pointed out, WC's and so on. We are going too far I think. Any person who wants to set up business knows that he has to have proper facilities and that if he does not have them, people may only come once and not again.
I will expand on that a little. The Minister, Deputy Collins, did say that there was a wrong. He said that there are restaurants which will not now have the required facilities. The owners will have put a lot of money into their businesses and into the purchase of their properties. They will not have the same facilities unless they go through the courts every so often to get them. These are publicans who have already set up restaurants.
I know the Minister is well informed and he knows that many people have purchased property for £150,000 or £200,000 and have spent another £100,000 to set up a restaurant. Now they will not have the required facilities. Throughout the country there are many publicans who have restaurants with A.1 facilities. Three weeks ago the Minister said that he was prepared to consider, within nine or 12 months the restaurant licences that these publicans have.
I always like to simplify things. I know the Minister is one who says that if a thing cannot be done in an illogical way there is no reason why it should not be done. Are we prepared to say that the regulations should be operated in such a way that each person doing the same thing should be seen as equals? Why is it that we have regulations which say that one person must do it one way and the other person must do it another way? When the Intoxicating Liquor Bill came before us the Minister said there was a need for a tightening up in particular areas and a loosening up of the laws in other areas. We now have a situation where one particular group say that they are already involved with Bord Fáilte. They say that they will open restaurants and fulfil these regulations.
The regulations are long and tedious but only cover the facilities that should be available in any restaurant which wants to do business in a proper manner. In the Blarney area many publicans have spent a great deal of money on their restaurants and yet they will not have the required facilities. The Department officials will point out that they are quite entitled to have one hour's drinking time after the official closing time, which will be 11 p.m. in winter time and 11.30 in summer time, and that after that the same regulations will apply to them as to restaurants but legislation provides that they must always apply through the courts and must make sure that certain facilities are provided. The new restaurants that will get these licences will not be in the same category.
Why can all the people who already have these restaurants and who are serving food and drink not be considered equally under these regulations? If a person who already has a restaurant does not comply with the regulations Bord Fáilte may tell him that he is not entitled to serve drink, to have a restaurant or to serve meals.
The standards of health authorities and of Bord Fáilte are very questionable. I make no apologies for saying that. I am very encouraged by the way people in the health authorities — the Southern Health Board in my area — make sure that food preparation areas are always up to required standards. In the regulations before us comparisons are made between the publican and the restaurateur. Are we bringing about a "them and us" situation? We must not bring about a situation where only certain groups may be entitled to have these types of restaurants.
We claim to have probably the best educated youth in Europe who go to other countries to give of their services. CERT train people in this business. Those people have the ability to set up businesses of their own but because of these regulations they will not be able to do so. There is no way they can do so if Board Fáilte insist that they must have certain facilities.
The regulations and the licensing laws relating to liquor are very serious matters. In the regulations before us there is not a very strong emphasis on the question of the licensing laws or on the sale of drink to underage people but rather on the high quality restaurant that must be involved. I am not for a moment saying that every person or restaurant should be entitled to this licence. I am a publican but I do not want to see the licence given to a certain few only and Bord Fáilte should not represent only a certain few. It would not be acceptable that people could be appointed by one political group or other and could decide who should or should not get a restaurant licence. That would be very serious.
I wonder if anybody in this House would be able to name five members of Bord Fáilte. I know I could not. It would be very serious if these people could decide who should or should not get a licence. That decision should be left to the courts who are best qualified to do so. The courts or the local superintendent may object if a recommendation comes before them from a particular group or person for one of these special restaurant licences — I emphasise the word "special". The group who make the decision can be replaced at any time with a change of Government. They could favour one group or person over another.
Nobody can object legally except the chief superintendent of the particular area or the judge who would hear the argument put to him. Could they make a decision if Bord Fáilte say that a person may have a licence? I would like that clarified. There should be a guarantee that there will not be discrimination between one person and another. It is quite obvious from the regulations that there will be discrimination. If a person who has been trained in the country gets married, has children, and after four or five years decides to set up in business, there is no way he can get involved in this area unless he goes to great expense. That is not acceptable.
Let us take the comparison with the person who owns a public house and who decides that he wants to provide meals, as indeed many people have done over the years. The same conditions would not apply to him. He could purchase a property in a particular area and build it up accordingly, as people have done. If the business in one area is not doing as well as it should be, he might decide that he would do better elsewhere. He would not be included under these regulations. The same regulations which apply to restaurants should also apply to publicans. I would have no objections to that. If we are going to simplify the matter let us simplify it for everyone. That is the main point I am trying to make. Why should there be discrimination between these people and the people who are already set up in business?
I hope times are getting better. We are very emotive at the moment about which way business is going to go. The people, and in particular publicans, who are already involved in this business and who have put thousands of pounds into their businesses throughout the country, particularly in tourist areas, should have an equal opportunity of operating under these regulations. We can simplify the matter. We should not lay down regulations in favour of a certain few. These regulations are very stringent and could operate against people who may not have a vast amount of money. They stipulate that a particular body that is set up here by Government may decide who is going to get these licences. These regulations are so stringent that they will not be on great value. As a result of them, the price of drinks in restaurants will be so high that the ordinary person will not be able to afford them. I would be very much afraid of that happening.
I would have to protect the interests of the people involved and I make no apologies for saying that. Indeed they have been well protected, thanks to the arguments that have been made in this House and the other House and the arguments that were made before the Bill was introduced. Strong arguments have been made by representatives from all sides — publicans, restaurants, hotels and so on. Each body has indeed been well protected. I do not want to give the impression that I would like to see legislation introduced that would suit a certain few. That would be irresponsible thinking and logic if I was to say that.
Bord Fáilte are not a body of great thinking or great logic. Indeed, we might question whether or not they have been very good in comparison with other bodies. We can do good work ourselves without these bodies. The board of Bord Fáilte can bring about a situation where certain groups of people will have all the power and that is not acceptable. I would like to know who can decide on these matters, other than a superintendent. We will have to be very stringent if he receives a recommendation from a particular body or person for a licence.
I understand the purpose of the regulations. They will indicate what kind of meals must be served and so on and I welcome them. The regulations in regard to drink in particular must be stringent. That is very important and the person who is more aware of that than anybody else is the publican, the person who holds the licence. You may get a bad egg but you certainly will not get four out of ten, two out of ten or even one out of ten but you might get two in 100, which is 2 per cent. It is not necessary to define in every detail whether or not tea or coffee should be served, or whether it should be part of a four course meal.
Many of the people in the business have been excellently trained by CERT. Better meals have been served in our restaurants over the last ten years and we cannot deny that. I have been in many countries in Europe but the finest restaurants are in Ireland and meals are very reasonably priced. Excellent restaurant facilities have been laid on by publicans. The town of Kinsale, for instance, is one of the finest in Europe from the point of view of eating out. The little village of Blarney provides great meals, mostly in public houses and in hotels.
They are all in Cork.
We set the standard.
Yes, we did. Dún Laoghaire is also excellent in this regard. Kinsale and Blarney set the standard. I would also include the town of Killarney.
What about Tipperary?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
No advertising, Senator.
We have to be realistic. I would be very much against Bord Fáilte deciding on these matters, no matter what type of board they are or who sets them up, because they could favour certain people and this concerns me. I would like to see everybody treated fairly. These regulations are frightening because they favour the well-off people. The person who is less well-off may have a better ability but because he does not have the money he cannot set up in business. This is why there should be legislation and regulations under which everybody is treated the same. The same regulations and legislation should apply to the publican as to the person who gets his licence through Bord Fáilte. If a person wants to take over a business he should be able to do so at a fair price and then perhaps improve on it.
I want to make sure that the 52 per cent of people who are under 25 will be motivated to set up their own businesses but these regulations will not enable them to do so. They are aimed at the people with the money and that is just a certain few — only 100 or 120. The ordinary person who might have better ability will not have the same opportunity. I would like to be able to give a person who has the ability the opportunity of setting up a business at a fair cost. How can we do that? By treating everybody equally under the regulations. I would appreciate a comment from the Minister on that.
Unfortunately, the regulations are stringent. They favour a certain few, the people who have the money in their back pocket. They can go into the business even though they may not have the ability. The busiest areas in our country at this time are our airports and our shipping ports because hundreds of people are leaving the country every week. We have an opportunity to say to some of them: "Stay, the opportunity is here, avail of it", but we are not doing that in these regulations.
I welcome these regulations. I appreciate the Minister's difficulty in proposing them. They have to be stringent but not too stringent. I do not fully share Senator Cregan's fears about Bord Fáilte. They do a very good job generally and they will probably do a good job in this case also. The regulations are necessary. For too long some of the standards in this country have been very slack and these regulations will help to improve them. If you travel abroad you will find that almost inevitably regulations like these apply in other countries. I have eaten in Blarney and Kinsale and also in the Cashel Palace and I know there are many places around the country were good meals are served and where the standards are good.
I would like to raise one or two points with the Minister. In regard to the waiting area, the regulations state that "the furnishings and fittings shall be in keeping, with the furnishing and fittings". I would like some clarification on that. I do not see why that should have to be so. They could be much different and still fulfil the purpose. The second point is about the dining area. The regulations state no odours shall emanate from the kitchen. In a Greek restaurant it is traditional to walk straight into the kitchen and look at your food. It is impossible to keep the door closed. This might prove unfair to those running a Greek restaurant. Also in the Japanese restaurant — I am thinking of the one in Newtownpark Avenue, Blackrock — where food is prepared in front of you, part of the whole ambience is the fact that this odour emanates from the cooking area. I doubt if this could be achieved in the Dáil restaurant, but that is another day's work.
Paragraph 7. (7) refers to seating and a padded cushion. I know of a very good restaurant where the chairs are made of wickerwork. They do not have padded cushions but that does not detract from the restaurant, the food or the general ambience. Paragraph 7. (9) states that appointments shall be of uniform design of and in keeping with the overall design of the dining area. I do not see the reason for the emphasis on uniformity. I think it is going a little too fair, but perhaps there is a reason for it.
Paragraph 9. (4) states that for up to 25 persons there should be a WC and a urinal in a male toilet. Again, I know of very good restaurants where fewer than 25 people are served and there is only a W.C. This seems to be sufficient. Bentleys' is one such restaurant. Paragraph 10. (6) states that the waiting staff shall be dressed uniformly and readily identifiable. I agree that they should be readily identifiable. I agree with the point raised by Senator Ferris that you may want to contact the waiting staff to make a complaint but I do not necessarily agree that they should be dressed "uniformly". I have been in restaurants where there have been more than 30 diners and where all the waitresses wore different uniforms. They are distinctive. I agree that they should be distinctive and identifiable but not necessarily uniformly.
As I said on the Order of Business these regulations are an embarrassment, not in their intent but in their practical application. Since the Minister is from the same part of the country — I should not claim Cork parentage because I might be corrected — as I am now happily living in, I suggest to him that most of the restaurants currently in County Cork which do not have licences will not have licences under these regulations. That is a matter for legislation, for public policy. The clear intent of these regulations is to restrict these special licences to about 100 to 150 restaurants. This reflects something of the peculiar Irish attitude to drink, where on the one hand most of us drink substantial quantities but at the same time we feel obliged to make long speeches about the evils of drink. The peculiar guilt within the Irish psyche about a number of the good things of life has probably generated some of the best literature the world has ever known, but it is not a good basis for a tourist industry.
I had the good fortune to be in Frankfurt, West Germany, recently — before the European football championship — and I was astonished at the range, quality and price of food that was available in that city which is about half the size of Dublin. I was particularly astonished at the price. It is also astonishing to an Irish person to find that everywhere you eat you can drink and everywhere you drink you can eat. This artificial separation by the Irish people of eating and drinking is such a defiance of nature and of the natural order of things as to defy description. It is human, natural and understandable that people wish to eat where they drink and drink where they eat and we should be facilitating them. We are actually facilitating a guarantee that most people in most restaurants will not be able to drink any alcoholic drink that is produced in this country. I find that quite astonishing.
I think the slogan the restaurant owners used when they started their campaign for licences, "No Irish served here", was very effective and very true. I know a number of the restaurant owners who started that campaign. The restaurants I know of would not possibly be able to meet some of the standards laid down here. If it was simply a matter of public policy not to allow drink to be served in restaurants I would not mind but I resent the sort of regulations, drawn up under an Act, which effectively undermine the intent of the Act. There is a constitutional question there and hopefully some restaurant owner will challenge it. On the question of the kitchen odour, the actual word put down is "ardour". I was not sure if the drafters were trying to avoid the smells or the ardour from the kitchen. I presume the word that has been misspelled, should be "odour" rather than "ardour".
Senator Lydon — it is not often that I agree with him — indicated some of the problems of trying to regulate the unregulatable. I said to one of my colleagues here, after I had the chance to read these regulations, that if Mikhail Gorbachev, speaking yesterday in Moscow, had wanted a classic example of how not to run central regulations he could have produced these regulations. There are many aspects in these regulations which are simply not regulatable. I will give a contrast. I happened to be involved in a debate on this matter. The Statutory Instrument SI/317/1985, deals with regulations regarding incapacitated persons. It deals with many matters. For instance, it states that in every home there shall be suitable and sufficient lighting, heating and ventilation. In regulations which deal with the care of elderly, incapacitated people we can use words like "suitable" and "sufficient". In this sort of regulations we have to put in specific details. In regulations dealing with hygiene we use words like "that the home is maintained in a proper state of repair and a clean and hygienic condition". We talk about reasonable standards of hygiene and comfort when we are dealing with homes for the elderly and the incapacitated. I tried to have these regulations rejected because of that, but I was told that it was impossible to regulate in detail for things like concern for the elderly, handicapped or incapacitated people, that it had to be done on a basis of what reasonable people thought to be reasonable under the circumstances. That is what runs through the regulations for that accommodation — reasonable standards and a reasonable degree of comfort.
For instance, they specify a particular temperature that must be maintained. These regulations maintain that the temperature must be produced by a suitable form of heating and specify the type of space heating. Why is it necessary to refer to space heating? The regulations are awash with this and, perhaps, the most ludicrous of the regulations has to do with the menus. I notice that under paragraphs 11. (4) and 11. (5) there is detail about the table d'hôte menu. I share, incidentally, all of Senator Ross's amusement at the emphasis on soups and, in particular, on fresh soups. Is it implied that there are many restaurants that currently serve unfresh soups, or is it just somebody with a predilection for soup or what? What amuses me is that in paragraph 11. (4) there is a choice of five main courses, a choice of vegetables for table d'hôte menus, but when the a la carte menu comes up we have main courses dishes including such items as fish, meat, a variety of vegetables and potatoes. So, apparently, if one is trying to get a licence and has an á la carte menu one must serve potatoes, but if one has a table d'hôte menu one need not serve potatoes. That is why I find these regulations embarrassing. They were drawn up in a hurry and the intent of them is to make sure that not many restaurants get licences.
Everything that anybody could think of was cobbled together, thrown into these regulations, with the result that it is very easy to make fun of them. I simply want to say, and I am not going to spend long on this, that many of them are obviously thought up to put as many hurdles as possible in the way of people who want to get restaurant licences. It seems to me to be an utter and total de facto capitulation to the vintners' lobby, the lobby by those who would tell us that there are too many licences in the country.
I have never seen anybody drunk in any of the few licensed restaurants I have been in that have a full licence. I have never in my life seen anybody seriously intoxicated in a restaurant where they were actually eating and drinking. I associate extreme intoxication with places where people can do nothing except drink. The idea that we are going to have thousands of people descending on newly licensed restaurants eating a plate of chips and consuming 15 pints is at variance with the facts. It is perfectly feasible to regulate for reasonable accommodation, reasonable quality meals, reasonable standards and ensure that the sort of excesses that some people seem to believe the rest of the world are capable of — not themselves — do not descend upon us. What these regulations will actually mean is that most of our tourists who are not that well off, do not stay in the top class four star hotels and who try to live on a reasonable budget will not be able to sit down in most Irish restaurants and have a reasonable meal and drink any alcoholic drink that is produced here. These regulations, as the Minister apparently said on Second Stage, are going to be restricted to about 150 restaurants.
In the part of the country I spend my holidays, in West Kerry, there are a number of restaurants that have something close to an international reputation. From what I know of them none of them would currently qualify for a licence for one reason or another. None of them would be eligible. In truth, the regulations about menus are easy to get around because one can create a menu. How are Bord Fáilte going to know what is actually available as distinct from what is theoretically available?
The regulations about the menus are not the nub of the issue, but what they are the nub of is the ridiculous nature of these regulations. It is easy to get around menus, but built into this is a succession of obstacles and hindrances. I do not object to reasonable standards of hygiene but what I find extraordinary is the possibility that up to now not every restaurant had to meet reasonable standards of hygiene. If these standards are already being met under the health regulations there should be no need to have them in these regulations If they are not being met then the restaurants that are not meeting them should have been closed down a long time ago.
Are we actually trying to impose artificially high standards in order to minimise the number of restaurants that can get these licences? Let us not be kidding ourselves that the reason for restricting licences for restaurants has anything to do with the fear that people will get drunk in the restaurants. It has to do with the fear that many people actually prefer the idea of sitting down and having something to eat and having a few drinks with the meal. Most Irish publicans refuse to facilitate those people and most Irish restaurants will not be permitted to facilitate them. What is at the nub of these regulations is that we will not let the ordinary customer eat an ordinary reasonably priced meal in an ordinary place and have the choice of drinks that he or she prefers to drink. They will not have that provided in most pubs and will not be able to have it provided in most restaurants. Apparently, a powerful vested interest — the publicans' lobby — is going to prevent that simple customer choice. What astonishes me is that somebody like me, who is accused of being against people being allowed to make their free choices in a free market, has to stand up and say this when most of those who would most passionately defend the right of the customer to choose the sort of goods and services that he wants, sit down and allow through this sort of ludicrous regulation that would do justice to Albania, not to mention the Stalinist Soviet Union. The idea of a central bureaucracy trying to tell people what should be on the menu of every restaurant in the country strikes me, if it was not a fact that it is going to become law here, as being something that a satirist could do a wonderful job on. There must be people writing in the Soviet Union who could write a magnificent satirical piece about this as an image of Stalinist bureaucracy, not in the sense of repression but in the sense of bureaucracy gone absolutely berserk.
There can be no rational justification for central regulations passed by the Oireachtas which tell people what should or should not be on a menu. I am not sure if my colleague, Senator Joe O'Toole, is right about the vegetarian menus; but I do think that the emphasis on meat seems to reflect a remarkably narrow perception of the joys of eating out on the part of the drafters of the regulations. There is a kind of escape clause. It is a bit like the Soviet Constitution and the way it tolerates religion, that one is let practice it. There is a kind of an escape clause in paragraph 11 (6) about speciality restaurants. The glorious thing about these regulations is that they lurch from extreme detail to extreme vagueness. God help the Bord Fáilte inspectors who will have to go around. There are enough physical details in them to ensure that most restaurants will not have licences much before, God bless the mark, 1992.
The idea that any restaurant will be able to meet all those regulations immediately seems to be entirely ludicrous. There are so many litle things in them that one could poke fun at. I do not want to poke fun unnecessarily at them because people have been landed in an invidious position. In particular, the last people I would blame for any of this are the officials of any Government Department. They were landed with an impossible political promise to give restaurants licences to serve Irish alcoholic drinks. Then they were told to make sure the regulations prevented most restaurants from doing so. That is not the sort of job people should be asked to do and that is what is being done in the regulations. Why, in God's name, should the reception area 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? One could keep the whole architectural profession going for 20 years arguing about whether a particular design of one part of a building is in keeping with another part of a building. That sort of controversy rages on forever in the design profession, in the architectural profession and in the whole profession of interior decorating. What is something that is in keeping with something else? One could go on forever about this. There are fashions when things are in keeping and there are fashions when the same things are not in keeping. The whole thing is ludicrous.
The regulations state that crockery shall be adequate to serve the maximum number capable of being seated in the dining area, be in good condition and good quality and of uniform design. Does that mean that if half the restaurant have Stephen Pearce's crockery and the other half has his father's crockery, both of whom are among the most qualified and brilliant potters in this country, they will be refused a licence? If a restaurant has the product of a deceased potter and decides to replace breakages by the products of a now living potter, has it to dump all the other crockery and replace it with new crockery? The whole thing is absolutely ludicrous. What should be written in is, reasonable quality, hygenic standards in areas like crockery and cutlery and so on.
The regulations state that "appointments shall be of uniform design (not mixed)". If one looks at the range of products available in the Kilkenny Design Shops or the Blarney Woollen Mills shops, one will see that the whole question of diversity of imagination in setting up a restaurant is challenged by this. If this was a debate about standards in restaurants I would not mind, but these are regulations that are purporting to become the law of the land. These are regulations which will tell people that if they want to have a licence they must throw out all their cutlery because it is not of a uniform design. They may be told to throw out half the pottery or half the ware because it is not of a uniform design.
Senator Lydon already referred to the need to have cushion seats. I remember a time when one superb craftsman in Tuam, who is now out of business, called Al O'Dea, was supplying furniture to half the restaurants in the country. He did not supply padded seats, but what he supplied was elegant furniture of a high quality and a high standard. Somebody decided that it was a good idea to put cushions under people's backsides and, therefore, make it a regulation.
The whole thing is quite ludicrous. These regulations ought to be withdrawn and simple regulations drawn up which specify the following: that restaurant licences should be granted to any restaurant where Bord Fáilte inspectors are satisfied that the business of the restaurant was to serve substantial meals to be consumed on the premises and where standards of hygiene and fire safety specified by the local authorities are met. It appears to me that we are going to have the usual Irish procedure, four different groups inspecting the same premises. We are going to have the fire regulation inspectors, the planning authorities, the health inspector for hygiene and then Bord Fáilte looking for another standard of hygiene. It would have been quite simple to do what is badly needed here, that is, to enable ordinary Irish people — not those who want to spend £25 or £30 on a meal, but those who want to spend the sort of prices that I was able to spend in high cost West Germany of £5, £6 or £10 on a meal and a few drinks — to do what most Irish people actually like doing, which is to eat and drink together. When they do that they eat the sort of food they like to eat and drink the sort of drinks they like to drink. That should be the intent of these regulations.
That ought also to be the intention of those in this House, and the other House, who are so intent on proclaiming the values of the free market and the right of the customer to choose but who, instead, have chosen in my view, to capitulate shamelessly to an effective and very virulent lobby which, when it is offered the opportunity, fails to produce anything for its customers except poor standards and high prices, that is the publicans' lobby. If the standards of accommodation, of seating and so on, that are specified for these restaurants were to be specified for Irish public houses, 95 per cent of them would be closed down in the morning because they would not dream of producing that sort of physical accommodation for their customers. I find the whole intent behind these regulations quite ludicrous. I find them amusing and embarrassing in turn, and I have to say that I think it will be doing the name of the Oireachtas a very great disservice if these regulations are passed.
I am of the belief that all our restaurants should uphold the highest hygiene standards. Unfortunately that is not the case. I fully support two aspects of the regulations, those which pertain to kitchens in restaurants and to toilets. They are the most important areas in any restaurant. Unfortunately, in Ireland we do not keep the highest standards in our kitchens or toilets. It used to be a practice in Dublin restaurants, and hotels, that customers could visit the kitchen to see their meals being prepared. That practice has long since been dispensed with. Indeed, it has been very embarrassing for some establishments to find themselves in breach of the ordinary hygiene regulations in recent years. We have high hygiene standards for our restaurants and hotels. However, the regulations in question go too far in relation to cutlery, as Senator Ryan said, furnishings and so on. They are far too particular and unnecessary in those areas. The regulations before the House will eliminate a number of very good restaurants who want to qualify for this special licence. They are very hygienic restaurants and this is a little unfair on them.
There are some very good restaurants here in the city of Dublin and I feel obliged to mention them because restaurants in other areas have been mentioned. Many restaurants have sprung up over the last ten years which seat 15, 20, 25 or 30 people. They are off-street restaurants in the city and suburbs and they would not have the car parking facilities the regulations require — outdoor areas, grounds, driveways and car parking areas. I do not know whether the regulations are saying that every restaurant that qualifies for the special licence has to have those facilities for their customers, because that would be most unfair to a number of very good restaurants which have sprung up in Dublin over the years.
I am a bit concerned about the definition of a waiting area. I listened to Senator Ferris, who made one of the best speeches this morning, saying it appeared that the waiting area was an area where drink would be served. I understand from the regulations that drink shall only be served in the restaurant with a meal.
There are one or two amusing items in relation to the menu. I see from the table d'hôte menu that fresh soup has to be served but the á la carte menu it is just soups. Why make the distinction? Why have fresh soups on one menu and soups on the other? We have that going right through the regulations. Senator Ross made the valid point this morning that there are restaurants which cater for vegetarians and it is only right to recognise them. Many people frequent those restaurants and enjoy the food served. The serving of meat in restaurants should be an option.
I would have to agree with most of my colleagues who have spoken today and pointed out some of the ludicrous elements involved in this set of regulations. A particular point to be made is that, where these are acceptable as some kind of optimal guidelines, when they become legally binding, as do regulations which become part of an Act, they only underline the ludicrous element that they contain. They are, as Senator Ryan has pointed out, on the one hand absurdly specific in their particularity and, on the other hand, also open to very wide interpretation. The conclusion that has been drawn by many Senators from this — and it is one that I am also forced to draw — is that this is an attempt to frustrate the intent of the Bill by the way they are drawn up at the behest of a lobby from the publicans' interests. This is most unfortunate and regrettable. I notice that the Minister in his speech introducing these regulations said that tourists will now be able to enjoy our internationally known national drinks along with their meals in the confines of good quality Irish restaurants. That is something that one, obviously, would welcome. However, as an aside I would like to say that I very much hope that we will continue to have our internationally known Irish drinks because if what is contemplated by the take-over of Irish Distillers goes ahead we are not going to have any, particularly in the field where we are justly internationally famous, the field of Irish malt whiskey. We are simply not going to have those drinks; they are going to be brand names owned and operated by international concerns from outside this country. Let us not fool ourselves on this particular aspect. I hope the Minister, and every person concerned in this area, will add to the lobby to make sure that this attempt to take-over an identifiable part of our industry will not be allowed to go ahead.
There is also a considerable vagueness with regard to much of the drafting. It is all intended to set a kind of headline and it varies between being very detailed and very vague. I am a little concerned that the Minister also appears to reflect this dichotomy in his own speech. For example, he says that he will assure the House that the regulations will be both rigidly and fairly enforced. I believe there is a contradiction there. I do not think it is possible to enforce those kind of regulations whose manifest absurdities have been brilliantly demonstrated by Senator Ross in a speech that would have done justice to Jonathan Swift.
I could not help thinking of the colossal warfare that Swift pictures between those who open their eggs at the big end and those who open their eggs at the little end. It is this kind of absurdity that is gone into the regulations. It is simply impossible to administer, and implement, these regulations both rigidly and fairly. I hope that if they are carried into law and are given the force of legislation we will not be treated to imbecility; that they will be operated fairly and flexibly. Flexibility is extremely important although the objectives, I must say, I agree with. There is a great deal of sanity in the objectives behind these but the minute particularity makes the whole thing absurd. If they are implemented inflexibly and rigidly they will not, and cannot, be implemented fairly.
I am also somewhat concerned that there may be what another Senator described as a "them and us" situation developing; a kind of elitism and snobbism. This may, however, be a paranoia on my part. I did travel downstairs and got the menus from the Oireachtas restaurant and I will not embarrass the House publicly by reading them out in any great detail but, certainly, the Members' restaurant would qualify. It is of the very highest standard, as the Minister knows, and there are no less than seven or eight appetisers. Senator Ross need not worry that we will be disqualified for having less than four. This led me to consider the restaurant which all staff and Members of the House have access to — not just limited to Members of the Oireachtas and our guests — and that is the self-service restaurant. I was a little concerned lest there should be some kind of class discrimination but I am glad to be able to tell the Minister that on the basis of its menu it too would qualify.
My suspicions of class discrimination within the House proved to be unjustified although I am sorry to think that there may well be some discrimination outside this House. I see absolutely no reason, if we are talking as the Minister does about national drinks and so on, for this kind of snobbery. I do not see why, for example, a fish and chip shop should not serve a bottle of stout with fish and chips. I do not see any reason whatever. Perhaps, there is one but it has never been drawn to my attention.
With regard to the fees, I think they are quite high. In addition to the price of the licence there are some concealed fees. For example, the cost of a survey, particularly if it is an appropriate and detailed survey, is very high indeed, as I am sure the Minister will know. If one commissions an architect or a surveyor to do a proper survey that is expensive. One then has a fee of £325 for an inspection. How long is an inspection going to take? Is it going to take an hour? I know from my own experience in these areas that inspections rarely take very much longer than an hour and £325 an hour is a very good rate for any job. If this is to be the rate I will certainly apply for the job as a private inspector at £325 an hour and I think I would be doing pretty well. Certification at £75 is another absurdly high fee. We are really talking about the printing of a piece of paper and the affixing of a stamp to it. I think this is a form of taxation. I do not think it reflects a kind of parallel between the services required and what the actual certificate at the end of the day is.
I would like to turn briefly to some of the regulations and make some comments on them. Again, once one gets into definitions the point made fairly strongly by Senator Ryan applies, that the minutiae of definitions make the whole thing rather absurd. The definition, for example, of a waiting area is an area that is set aside as a waiting area in a restaurant for the purposes only of accommodating persons waiting to enter the dining area of the restaurant for the purpose of consuming a meal, and whose floor area does not exceed 20 per cent of the floor area of the dining area of the restaurant. That is slightly absurd. Why 20 per cent? Why not 15 per cent or 25 per cent? I am not just making a facetious point because another form of discrimination can unwittingly creep in here. A number of restaurants might well apply, and might be appropriate to apply, as this kind of restaurant although they were not purpose built as restaurants. Some of the best restaurants in the country are converted churches, barns, old country houses, cottages and so on. One cannot make this kind of regulation and apply it rigidly and at the same time be fair to the standard of service and the quality of food that is being given. Again, I worry a little bit about that.
It is also slightly absurd to put down — there may be a good reason for it — in Part III, paragraph 5 (3) that the restaurant shall be of substantial and durable construction, structurally safe and in good repair throughout. We are dealing with reasonably intelligent citizens and one hopes that the intellectual, moral and spiritual effort involved in tourists arriving here, transcending all the difficulties of travel, means that they must be of certain intelligence. They are scarcely likely to enter voluntarily a restaurant that is of insubstantial, transitory construction, that is structurally unsafe and in bad repair. We are not dealing, one hopes, with a class of native or imported amadán although there may be, I suppose, some technical reason for this. I will be interested to hear from the Minister if it is intended to try to advance the situation where restaurant standards are improved. The particularity, the minuteness with which this is spelled out, is absurd.
Regulation No. 5 (5) is an example of the same thing. Perhaps I am wrong. It states that all public areas of the restaurant should have the means of space heating capable of maintaining a room temperature of at least 18.5 degrees centigrade. That is very particular. I know one likes to think that people would be comfortable and soon but, again, what about old country houses? How was this temperature arrived at? It is extremely specific. In particular, I would have to say that I do not know even about places like Bunratty Castle but certainly in some of the old houses with stone-construction it might be quite difficult to maintain that temperature. In our excellent column my predecessor, and successor, who is an authority on this area, Helen Lucy Burke, pointed out that in a place where she enjoyed an exceedingly good meal the temperature was particularly low which she felt was appropriate because the proprietors were Protestants and she said that it is well known that Irish Protestants are impervious to cold.
What has that got to do with the regulations?
It has to do with the fact that the regulations are absurdly specific in certain areas and then they allow wide latitude. When one takes that, together with the fact that in his introductory speech the Minister said that these regulations would be applied both "rigidly and fairly", I am trying to draw out the fact that the regulations are capable of an absurd interpretation and that it is actually impossible to be both rigid and fair. If you insist on 18.5ºC as a kind of controlled temperature you are just simply making a nonsense out of the situation.
I would like, however, to welcome paragraph 5 (6) which states that: "Where feasible, accessibility to all public areas of the restaurant shall be provided for disabled persons". This is absolutely to be welcomed. The Minister is to be congratulated for including this-regulation. I hope it will be implemented. I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that, despite the fact that during the Year of the Disabled we did absolutely nothing whatever for the disabled, we do have the names of Senator Ross, Senator Ryan and myself on an item on the Order Paper which covers this very area and which says:
That Seanad Éireann, in deploring the lack of awareness of successive Governments of the difficulties of disabled people, calls upon the Government to introduce legislation ensuring the availability of visible accessibility to all public buildings, facilities of public transport and the removal of obstructions in all public places for disabled people.
This motion of Senator Ross, Senator Ryan and myself appears to have been taken on board and that is very much indeed to be welcomed.
With regard to the dining area, paragraph (7 (1) reads: "Every dining area of the restaurant shall be so ventilated at all times that no odour from the kitchen is perceptible"— the word is spelled right in my copy, although it was not correct in Senator Ryan's. Again, this is so pettifogging. I would have to say to the Minister that in some of the best restaurants on the Continent it is part of the particular pleasure of the diner that you can smell the superb culinary process going on behind doors; what you do not want is a smell of boiled cabbage and stale cheese. But, you are in an excellent restaurant, it is part of the titillation of the appetite to have these odours passing in front of your nostrils. I am surprised, however, that if the Minister is into odours and this sort of business he did not include what would be far more logical: a regulation outlawing the penetration of odours from the lavatories, on which he spends several pages, which would be far more practical than preventing us from having the pleasure of smelling the food in preparation.
Paragraph 7. (7) details the seating accommodation: "Seating in the dining area shall normally be either an immovable and padded banquette or a strongly constructed chair with a padded cushion." Again, I will not go into this in too great detail, because again the nonsense has been pointed out. It is a question of style. It is extraordinarily arrogant to impose a style particularly in relation to good farmhouse restaurants. One of the things that we have in this country that we can be proud of is the fact that we have some excellent farmhouse restaurants. It looks just silly, an attempt at ridiculous over-sophistication, to put cushions on these sort of chairs. I think it is a mistake. I would be far more impressed, for example, if the real importance of this kind of seating had been underlined in these regulations, because it is not so much this fussy area of style; it is a question of safety, because these very banquettes that we are being encouraged to put in are among the most dangerous things if the materials used in their construction are not specified as complying with the fire safety regulations. Perhaps that is covered by another regulation, but it is this kind of thing that has caused disasters because of noxious fumes. That would be far more practical than specifying the availability of cushions and so on.
With regard to paragraph 7 (9), the detailing of cutlery, condiments and so on, that they should be of good quality and in good condition, that napkins, linen or good quality paper should be provided, appointments "shall be of uniform design (not mixed) and in keeping with the overall design of the dining area"— again you are into an area of taste. It is extemely difficult and dangerous, and also rather patronising, to dictate with regard to taste. I am all for the variousness of life. Part of the absurdity has already been pointed out. If, for example, a service was commissioned and some of this was lost or destroyed, why should it not be replaced by others? If you are into a really high class restaurant where they are using Irish silver of the 18th century you are simply not going to be able to achieve uniformity, and part of the joy of eating is in the variety of design. There should, we hope be excellence of craftsmanship; but to specify that everything has got to be uniform exposes the fallacy that lay behind Sir Thomas Moore's Utopia where he reduced his ideal to a condition of total inhumanity by laying down all these arbitrary and uniform regulations removing any delight in human individuality and personality.
Paragraph 7. (10) says: "Crockery shall be adequate to serve the maximum number of diners capable of being seated in dining area, be in good condition, of good quality and uniform design." Again, I am rather inclined to laugh at that. Is the Minister seriously supposing that we are going to have people all seated on these luxury banquettes with uniform tables, waiters all in these different uniforms which are specified, all behaving in the most well-bred courteous and welcoming fashion, but we have not got enough plates so that the people at table seven have to wait until the people at table five have finished and then go around and try to borrow plates from them? It really is absurd. The real world does not operate like that at all.
It is an imaginary world.
Yes, I agree. I am sorry to have to tell the Minister that my imagination does not reach the depths or the heights that these regulations reach.
You are running away from it.
It is all laid down here. I am being very detailed and very particular.
With regard to cloakroom facilities and toilets, I am very glad to see these kind of regulations coming in. It is most important that we have good standards here. It is possible, of course, to mock and guy these sort of things; but they are the kind of thing that gives a very bad impression to tourists if they are not properly serviced and properly looked after. I would, however, have to echo what some other Senators have said and that is that, if this material has come at the behest of the Licensed Vintners Association, they should really look to the beam in their own eye. I welcome it, as I welcome the intention of everything that is in this Bill, as an ambition, as something to be wished for. This is a counsel of perfection in some ways. It is a counsel of absurd uniformity and minute particularity, but the main thrust of it I would welcome.
Paragraph 10.(7) states: "Waiting staff shall provide friendly and courteous service and be fully conversant with all food and beverages on offer." That really is a truism. We all know that should be the case, but how can it be implemented? How can it be policed? Is a restaurant owner, for example, going to lose a licence, going to be penalised by the loss of his livelihood, simply because one of his employees has had a bad night and gives a piece of impertinence to an inspector? Although I agree with the Minister's thinking, or the civil servant's thinking, or Bord Fáilte's thinking on this matter, I am not sure how it could be policed. I would like to take this opportunity to pay compliment to the people who were engaged in this area of our tourist industry and say that I think in world terms we stand remarkably high. I have just come back from abroad where the service I received in some of the best restaurants was churlish, patronising, unpleasant and inefficient. I said to myself, "Thank God, I will be going back home to Ireland". I am glad to say that many people who visited me in the last year or so have said, regardless of the weather, that the kind of courtesy and efficiency you get in this country is simply marvellous. I would like to place on the record that I think we already have very good standards and they should be encouraged. I am not sure how they can be policed.
Is that not what the regulations are for?
My difficulty is this, a Chathaoirligh, I do not believe it is possible to legislate for good behaviour. It is possible to encourage, and I think Bord Fáilte are doing a very good job. If I may say, with regard to a lot of these things, I am on a committee called The Faces of Dublin Business Awards. I think we will have a very major impact on the appearance of this city because it is encouraging people over a period of years, modelled on the Tidy Towns competition. But there is no attempt to penalise shop owners for having plastic facias and all this kind of stuff, which is the same kind of thinking as is behind the regulations. People can be exhorted and encouraged; by penalising them I do not think it will work.
I will not try the patience of the House too much. The points I have made are reasonably serious. I certainly believe that there is some degree of importance behind them and I am glad that the courteasy of a full and adequate and proper debate was given to the House. I would like to ask the Minister to consider one other matter — and I mean this very, very seriously indeed — that is, to consider including in these regulations a requirement with regard to the billing method at the end of a meal, because this is a thing which causes great annoyance. I feel it should be a requirement that every diner, or the person paying the bill, should receive an itemised account, including the food and the drinks.
There is a variation of practice in the Irish restaurant trade at the moment. I must say some restaurants do give you — it is possible with modern computerised tills — an itemised account of practically everything you have had, down to a lump of sugar. Some restaurants, however, go completely to the other extreme and, having paid a bill of about £120, you just get a piece of paper which says "Thank you very much £124. Do come again". It is very important that we should get an itemised account, particularly when drink is involved, because after a bottle of wine with a meal or an aperitif and a liqueur at the end of the meal and so on, you night like to know exactly what you have spent your money on and exactly how the bill is calculated. It is of great help. So I would urge the Minister to try to ensure, if at all possible, that itemised and detailed bills are provided for the customer.
Ar an gcéad dul síos ní mór dom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis na Seanadoírí uile a bhí páirteach sa díospóireacht seo. I have listened with interest, and sometimes apologetically joined in the frivolity, frivolity I did not welcome. Nevertheless, I suppose some levity is welcome in long hours of debate. It is not appropriate when we are dealing with serious business, as we are in the Seanad or the Dáil; but I suppose it is unavoidable, and I can join in the fun and frolics just as good as anybody else. I have a feeling that some of the levity introduced by some of the Senators was for the very good reason of playing to the gallery. Reading some of the newspapers this morning we find the lighter side reflected more in the reporting rather than the serious business we are about in these regulations. Of course, we find that customary, because legislation of itself does not make for good reading; if we have something lighthearted, frivolous or offbeat, it makes for better reading in the media and it makes for better selling of papers. However, I suppose it helps lift the boredom of legislative procedures now and then.
Some of the comments have described these regulations as being fuzzy and too detailed; others have been described as too vague and too general. Like everything else in life, you cannot possibly please everybody, particularly in a matter such as this. However, the Minister and I are satisfied that these regulations are fair and well balanced. They provide the kind of detail which the restaurateurs and Bord Fáilte will welcome as they go about their task of implementation.
With regard to the request made by some Senators to amend these regulations, I can say now quite categorically that we do not intend to amend these regulations. A great deal of time and effort have been put into their preparation. Somebody mentioned somewhere — Senator Ryan, I think it was — that they were drawn up in a hurry. I can assure the Seanad, and Senator Ryan in particular, that they were not drawn up in a hurry; they were drawn up after many hours of consultation and debate, mainly in response to all the requests made here and elsewhere in regard to the type of regulations that Members and the trade felt were required. It is incorrect to say that they were drawn up in a hurry. In fact, much midnight oil has been burnt in the preparation of these regulations, and I compliment the people who put so much time and effort into them.
I accept that these regulations are stringent, and I make no apology for this. They are designed to ensure that only restaurants of good quality and high standards are eligible to apply for these licences. I do not agree with Senator Ross's statement, that no restaurant can meet with all the standards laid down in these regulations. I have good reason for saying that. In my view, any good quality restaurant should be capable of meeting the requirements. These requirements in draft form are not unknown to the people concerned. That is my main basis for saying that restaurants will not have the sort of difficulty outlined by Senator Ross. I would add that Bord Fáilte are not, of course, the arbiters of good taste; but we cannot afford to ignore the importance of such matters as the standard of design and general layout to the overall physical standard of a restaurant. We are treating this matter with the seriousness it deserves, despite the frivolity which I mentioned occurred earlier during the debate. I make allowances for a certain amount of it. Nevertheless, it is a very serious matter and I would hope that it would be treated like that in the broadest sense.
As this House is aware, Bord Fáilte for decades have been involved in the inspection and grading of tourist accommodation. Over this time they have developed an expertise in assessing the quality and standards of such areas as kitchens and dining rooms and the various sectors of the industry. I can assure the House that the board will use this experience to apply the restaurant regulations in a practical and reasonable manner.
It was mentioned that the provision of these regulations would impose a strain on personnel numbers in Bord Fáilte. I can say with all sincerity that in my experience since coming to this post in the Department is that the personnel of Bord Fáilte have proven in the past 15 months that they will accept any challenge given to them; and we in Government gave them some challenges for the industry and they came up trumps. I do not doubt their ability to achieve what is required under these regulations: to ensure that they are carried out without let or hindrance and that they are capable of doing it in the manner in which they are prepared and approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas. Requirements such as those relating to the menu content and the maximum capacity of air are to ensure that the primary business of licensed restaurants continues to be the provision of substantial meals to the public.
The provision of drink must be ancillary to this business. We do not wish to create a situation where, by virtue of the size and scale of the operations, people could be tempted into developing cabaret-style establishments. I was generalising in my reply when the question was asked about the number of 250 that we have set in the regulations. This would mean that they would run the risk of breaching the basic requirements of the Act, which is that the restaurant's main business is the supply of substantial meals.
I appreciate that some Senators are worried about imposing — they did not use the term but I will use it — a straitjacket on restaurant cuisine. However, it is for this reason that regulation No. 11 (6) has been included. It is evident that some Senators just read through the sections because, while some Senators found parts of the regulations repugnant and confining in regard to types of meals, we had other Senators who obviously read on a bit further, even quoting No. 11 (6), which broadens the scope for meals. It specifically allows speciality restaurants to substitute for main courses their own special dishes or, as the Senator brought up last night, to provide for vegetarians.
There is no explanation of the word "speciality".
Quite a number of Senators raised the question of toilets. I would like to remind the House that, as they known, this is an area where Ireland does not enjoy a particularly good reputation internationally. The requirements in the regulations are specific and are based on a number of factors, including the different needs of males and females, the need for personal hygiene, comfort for the diner and, finally, what Bord Fáilte feel are the kind of standards to which most of our international tourists are accustomed. I think it is very important also that there should be changing and toilet facilities for staff. The staff need this degree of privacy and should not be asked to change clothing and clean up in public facilities. The latter would also, of course, hardly be in keeping with normal expectations of high standard restaurant facilities.
Senator Joe Doyle and others mentioned the stringency of the standards. Of course, I should like to make it clear to the House that the standards we are insisting on are high and are stringent. However, they do not supersede the food hygiene regulations, which continue to apply to all food establishments, licensed or unlicensed. Non-compliance with these regulations before us will merely mean that a restaurant will not be able to sell liquor. It does constitute a reason for becoming a non-hygienic restaurant. I can assure the House that the health boards, who have the responsibilities in that area, will ensure that that element is looked after.
Another point raised was — I have already mentioned it briefly — Bord Fáilte's capacity to undertake the role provided for them in the Act. Coupled with that was the mention of fees. The fees under the regulations are set to ensure that they cover the full cost of maintaining a full and vigorous inspection system. Fees income will allow Bord Fáilte to retain the staffing levels, despite any reductions there may be in funding. I would particularly like to refer to a section of my opening address last night. Senator Norris might be interested in this, because he is of the opinion that he would do well to get a job with Bord Fáilte inspecting premises at £325 an hour. I would like to put him straight on that part of it now.
I quote again from the contribution I made last night: "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 that 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." That is a different thing altogether to what the Senator was indicating: that for inspecting for an hour he would get £325. I want to correct that. Fees at a lower level than those required by the regulations would effectively mean that the State would have to subsidise the restaurant Sector to ensure that they satisfy the statutory requirements for liquor licensing.
Perhaps I would be permitted to develop some other points raised that I have not covered in the general reply. At the outset I should acknowledge the contributions made by Seanadóirí as Gaeilge. For the record, I want to thank Senators Manning, Bohan, Ross, McEllistrim, Ferris, Cregan, Lydon, Ryan, Doyle and Norris for their wide-ranging contributions to this debate. I suppose I should take them in the order in which they spoke; I will do the best I can. Many of the items raised by Senators I have already generally covered.
Senator Tom McEllistrim talked about the regulations we have before us. This point came up on a few occasions. These regulations have come about from the debates that were held on the Bill going through both Houses of the Oireachtas, and they were drawn up and put together after much consultation. It was refreshing to hear someone like Senator Ferris. His obvious experience and positive approach was the sort of contribution that I personally welcome, the kind of contribution that, I am sure, this Seanad welcomes and that the nation as a whole welcomes. We have had sufficient negative thinking and bashing at ourselves. However, Senator Ferris, first of all, thanked us for honouring the commitment given by the Minister — and I would say we are getting very good in this Government at fulfilling promises — and the regulations are here for discussion.
At last.
Better late than ever. Más maith is mithid.
I appreciate the Senator's obvious understanding of what is required and what is being done. It is very welcome indeed and I am sure that positive note is being taken of it. The Senator raised the question of the ancillary buildings and so forth. The core of the restaurant is what we are talking about. Ancillary services like stores and staff requirements may be located separately. I say to Senator Cregan that these regulations are provided for only in the 1988 liquor licensing laws and relate only to the special restaurant licences. Senator Cregan developed the point and I agree with him, that serving food with drink is not the same as serving drink with food. He made that distinction. These regulations govern the latter part of his sentence, the special restaurant licences.
I want to assure the Senator and everybody else that Bord Fáilte will enforce these regulations as approved by the Houses of the Oireachtas. The standards are set; and if a restaurant complies with them it will get a certificate; if it does not comply it will not get a certificate. Nothing could be simpler than that. That is the point raised by Senator Cregan.
During the Second Stage debate we had doubts expressed about the type and number of licences and who would get them. The only thing I have to say is that some of us have very short memories if we now find that the regulations the Government have introduced are as some Members have said. Were we not requested to do all of these things? Were not all these doubts expressed in the debates in this House, in the Dáil, in the media and anywhere else one cares to mention? These doubts are covered by the various items that are now embodied in the regulations. We have, in my view, set high standards in these regulations and that is as it should be. Why should we have anything less than the best? We are availing of this opportunity to set high standards for an industry which we hope in the future and in the short term will provide wealth and jobs. Why not set ourselves high standards?
The regulations are no more detailed than the current regulations for hotels, guesthouses and other forms of accommodation. Restaurants will welcome the detail and will know quite clearly in advance what is required of them if they wish to be licensed. It is important for the House to remember that these regulations are for restaurants and therefore could only be expected to appear technical and detailed to lay people like us. Senators referred to the provision in the regulations of facilities for the disabled. I can assure the House that these regulations mean what they say. Where possible, Bord Fáilte will be insisting on providing facilities for the disabled. At the moment there are good restaurants who will meet all other requirements, but because they are located at basement or second floor level they could not——
May I interrupt the Minister? He just referred to "where possible". In paragraph 5. (6) it is "where feasible". It is a most important point.
That is not a point of order. The Minister to be allowed to continue.
The Minister has made a mistake and he would appreciate a point of clarification. The regulation says "where feasible", not "where possible".
Senator Ross, the Minister is speaking.
Of course, these regulations say "where feasible", but I am saying where physically possible. Now who stands corrected? Thank you for the interjection.
The point is: where physically possible. I am trying to explain to the Senator that there are restaurants at various levels, such as basement and second floor, and there is no way we could insist in that case that provision would be made to accommodate disabled people. That is why we say "feasible" in the regulations. What I am saying now, as an extension of that point and an explanation of it, is "where physically possible". It should not be construed, as was said by some people, as a sop or some similar reference. It is disgraceful to have Senators referring in that manner to our efforts to ensure that facilities would be provided where feasible for disabled people.
I acknowledge Senator Lydon's worldwide experience of restaurants. I cannot say that I have the same experience. It is rather limited to a little of North America and the Continent. I suggest, in all honesty and perhaps with some touch of frivolity, that we are legislating for Ireland and not Japan, Greece or any of those exotic places the Senator mentioned.
Senator Doyle spoke about the regulations requiring the provision of car parks. That is not quite so. We are saying that where car parks exist we require that they be kept tidy and clean and meet the high standard we are aiming at. We are not suggesting that car parks must be provided.
I will reply to Senator Norris's question about the billing. I think he will find that is satisfactorily covered in paragraph 11(2) of the regulations.
I meant to say this to Senator Lydon when I was speaking about his experience of restaurants. The regulation that the reception and waiting areas are in keeping with the dining area relates to good condition and good quality, a precondition of paragraph 7 (2) of that the dining area should be in keeping with the overall design of the restaurant. The regulations do not insist on any particular style or design; nor, I am sure, will Bord Fáilte.
I notice that Senator Ryan and Senator Ross, and perhaps others, have temperature problems.
You are kind of hot yourself.
I have broadened this beyond yourself and Senator Ross to say "perhaps others." If it includes myself, so be it.
May I make a point to the Minister, because he has addressed a point of mine? The Minister said the question I raised about the billing has been met. It has not. That section deals with the menu.
This is totally irregular. Will Senator Norris sit down please?
Paragraph 5. (5) simply requires that public areas of the restaurant be maintained at normal room temperature and it does not specify the type of space heating that is to be provided. We do not specify the type of heating to be provided, but that normal room temperature be the norm. I think I have answered as many of the queries as I possibly could and I would now recommend the approval of the House for the regulations.
Question put: "That the motion be agreed to."
The Seanad divided: Tá, 28; Níl, 17.
Tá
- Bohan, Edward Joseph.
- Byrne, Sean.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Cullimore, Seamus.
- Doherty, Michael.
- Fallon, Sean.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Fitzsimons, Jack.
- Harte, John.
- Haughey, Seán F.
- O'Callaghan, Vivian.
- O'Toole, Martin J.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Mick.
- Lydon, Donal.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- McGowan, Patrick.
- McKenna, Tony.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- Mulroy, Jimmy.
- Ryan, William.
- Wallace, Mary.
Níl
- Bradford, Paul.
- Bulbulia, Katharine.
- Connor, John.
- Cregan, Denis.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Kelleher, Peter.
- Kennedy, Patrick.
- Loughrey, Joachim.
- McCormack, Padraic.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Norris, David.
- O'Toole, Joe.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Ross, Shane P.N.
- Ryan, Brendan.
Tellers: Tá, Senators W. Ryan and S. Haughey; Níl, Senators Cregan and Doyle.
Question declared carried.