I think I have said already most of what I wanted to say on this particular amendment. Some of us have a particular suspicion of any proposal to acquire land. Possibly the Minister will assure us that, in this particular instance, there may be no fears about the acquisition of land. Probably not. In previous legislation in this House in regard to land, we had definite implicit assurances in certain directions that there was no intention to interfere with land. The assurances were disregarded—as we argued in the first instance they probably would. It led to most of us being particularly afraid when there is inserted in any Bill any provision such as there is here giving a board powers such as are given in this Bill. The Minister proposes, I think, to a certain extent to put a limit to these powers in a further amendment. I hope the amendment will be sufficiently strong to allay any fears which we have in that regard.
Treason Bill, 1939—From the Seanad. - Tourist Traffic Bill, 1938—Committee (Resumed).
I do not know if this amendment is being pressed. We have discussed already the question of compulsory powers of the board in respect to the acquisition of land. I think if the board finds it necessary to acquire land compulsorily, we cannot limit them in the way suggested in this amendment. The purposes for which the board might require land are many and varied, but a very large number of them would require much more than this amendment would allow. If there was a proposal to start a holiday camp, or to provide the usual sporting and other holiday amenities of some resort, land in excess of one rood would be needed. I could not agree to this amendment.
Would the Minister give some assurance that he will bring in an amendment that, as far as compulsory powers are concerned, he would have some discretion?
I said it was proposed to amend the section to provide that the board could not exercise their compulsory powers without the consent of the Minister.
I move amendment No. 18:—
Before sub-section (4) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(4) Whenever the board proposes to make an order under this section for the purpose of acquiring any land, and shall have so informed the Irish Land Commission in accordance with the immediately preceding sub-section of this section, it shall be lawful for the board to serve a notice on the owner or occupier or other person having control and management of the land proposed to be acquired informing him of the board's intentions in respect of such land, and thereupon it shall not be lawful for such owner or occupier or other person having control and management of such land to alter the character of such land in any way calculated to lessen its value or suitability for the purposes for which the board proposes to acquire such land without the consent of the board, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld, provided that the restriction hereby imposed on such owner, occupier or other person shall not remain in force longer than six months from the date on which the board shall have informed the Irish Land Commission in accordance with the immediately preceding sub-section of this section.
With the general principle of this section I do not find myself at all in agreement. It is a departure, I think, from legislative practice to give to a board such as this such wide powers as are proposed here. Even to allow this to be done with the consent of the Minister does not quite satisfy the objections that can be raised to it. There ought to be in connection with a matter of this kind some association between the Minister and other Ministers connected with lands—either the Minister for Lands or the Minister for Agriculture. However, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that property which is going to be acquired will not be materially altered previous to its acquisition. It is well known that landmarks and other things of that sort are traditionally sacred, but there might be other amenities in the district, such as trees, etc. It would be rather a pity if, once it were known that the land was to be acquired, these trees were cut down. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the place will remain as it is on the date on which it is proposed to acquire it until the proceedings for its acquisition are at an end.
There are various beauty spots and places in the country which are adorned by shrubberies or other things. It would be rather a pity if, either out of pique, or in order to show that the land was being used for some purpose, such as farming, or something of that sort, there should be a complete change. For example, in quite a good number of estates throughout the country there are ornamental shrubberies, or belts of trees, which might be an expense rather than an asset. I do not care what price is paid for the place, but it would be rather a pity, if land were acquired for such purposes as are outlined in other portions of the Bill, that the property which is going to be acquired should undergo a change of character, and it is to preserve that that the amendment is being proposed.
I can sympathise with the Deputy's intention, but I am not clear that the amendment is, in fact, necessary. The form of the amendment is rather unusual. I do not think the power which the amendment proposes to confer has, in fact, been taken in any other statute that I know of. The logical argument is that any alteration in the character of the land will affect the price of it, and therefore, would not be in the interests of the seller. Whether that will be so in every case I could not say. But, as regards the preservation of trees, I should imagine that the powers of the Minister for Agriculture in that regard should be sufficient to prevent the trees being cut.
Not to prevent it, but to impose penalties when they have been cut, which is quite a different thing.
The law, in fact, prohibits anyone cutting a tree without a permit from the Minister for Agriculture. People do cut trees and incur penalties on that account. Can we do any more in this Bill than was done under that law? After all, one would be as effective and as enforceable as the other. If you put in an amendment saying that people must not cut trees on land about to be sold, they may cut trees and you will get no greater penalties. I do not see that you will gain much by this. I am in sympathy with the motive which the Deputy has in mind.
If the Tourist Board were to step in to purchase some property which was of great scenic value, or had some historic association, which might be destroyed because of certain plans in relation to it, denuded of timber, or otherwise made unsightly, I think we should at least try to ensure that we would get the property in the form that we wanted it. I do not know that we are, in fact, helping to that end by the amendment. I think that the biggest inducement to the seller of that land to preserve it, to keep these amenities on it, and to prevent any damage being done, is the fact that it is going to affect the price of it. If in the end he knows that the land can be acquired compulsorily, that the purchase price will be fixed by an arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of the section, and that arbitrator can take into account loss of timber which had been cut on the land, or any other damage done to it, I think it would not happen. If the Deputy wants to press the amendment I am prepared to consider it, but I do not think we really gain any substantial value. The only case I can think of is that mentioned by the Deputy, namely, the possibility of land being stripped of timber. In that case I think that we do not achieve anything by putting in a further prohibition in this Bill when we have the thing prohibited under the existing law, although it may be difficult to enforce.
Is the Minister overlooking the fact that the word "land" here includes fishing and sporting rights? Assuming a valuable fishery or shoot was involved in the lands taken over could not the vendor, if he wished, destroy that without anybody being aware of it?
Why should he? He is destroying his own property.
I am not responsible for human nature. The Minister is contending that no harm could be done. I say that very serious harm could be done.
I am not saying that. The question I put to the Deputy is: why should anybody destroy his own property, at least before the purchase price has been fixed?
Even after it is fixed, before the board takes possession, it could be done in one night. The whole place could be destroyed. I am only suggesting that to the Minister. I only want to be helpful. But he must remember that the word "land" includes fishing and sporting rights, and they can be destroyed without any arbitrator or anybody else knowing about it.
When a person is prepared to cut off his nose to spite his face he will not be deterred by the fact that he will incur some extra penalty under the Bill. If the amendment were inserted we would have to provide for penalties of some kind. A mere prohibition without penalties would not be effective. We would have to provide for some punishment to fall on the person concerned.
It might be possible to do it in a different way. I do not agree with the section as drawn at all, but let us assume that we are in agreement with it. The best penalty to impose is, I think, a reduction of a certain percentage in the amount that would be paid. I do not think that the scheme is a fair or just one. But assuming it was, the Minister could frame an amendment by which any alteration of an important or fundamental kind would entail a reduction in the price by a certain percentage, according to the alteration which has taken place. You can simply say that if it is altered the price to be paid will diminish accordingly. The Minister may not be aware of the fact that shrubberies and trees generally are not an acquisition, ordinarily speaking, to farmers. They interfere with ploughing, and underneath them there is nearly always drier land and less growth. When people are criticising farmers sometimes for not paying more attention to trees, they fail to take these things into account. The board may wish to acquire property that may be wooded or laid out in a manner which would mean expense for the owner rather than being an asset. I hope the Minister will not come to the conclusion, from what I am saying, that I am trying to depreciate the value of the land.
My remarks are not to be taken as an indication that he should get less, but he ought to get at least what he paid for it. It would be a pity in certain cases where there are beautiful amenities or such other dispositions of the land that the owner could come along and quarrel with them. That interference may in certain cases go so far as to prevent them from acquiring it. Consequently, the Minister should bear that in mind when he is framing another amendment to deal with it. If it is thought necessary to have this power then every possible precaution should be taken that what is to be acquired was that which it was the original intention of the board to acquire.
I might say that in nine out of ten cases, or perhaps 99 out of 100 cases, the board when acquiring land or other property will acquire it by agreement. It is only in the odd case that the power of compulsory acquisition will be availed of. Even in that case, when the board avails of its powers, the price has still to be fixed and, according to the section, that will be fixed by agreement between the board and the owner of the property. Where no agreement is found possible an arbitrator is appointed to determine what is a fair price for the property.
In fact, the penalty of a reduction in price would follow automatically from any damage done to the property. From that point of view I do not think it necessary to reply to the points raised. In the great majority of cases you will have an agreed sale and an agreed price, and in the very small minority of cases a compulsory sale and the arbitrator's price. The arbitrator can in that case take into account any depreciation. The board should know that the owners will take great care to point out any deterioration of the property.
What arbitrators have you—is it the Land Act ones?
Sub-section (6) provides that compensation shall be fixed in accordance with the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919.
I am afraid they would find it difficult to take into account the amenities.
I do not know whether it would be necessary to put in a section which would require the arbitrators to take into account the deterioration of the property. It is only when the arbitrator goes into the matter that that can be seen to and dealt with.
This is a case of the acquisition of land for housing?
Yes.
There are no bargains there.
In the majority of cases the price is agreed.
I do not know whether the Minister ever read "Phra, The Phoenician"?
I did not.
Phra was a man who was a trifle hard at bargains although he claimed he was an honest man. There is a picture in the book showing an interview Phra had with a son of Abraham. In this interview, from every application of Phra's thumbs on the throat of Abraham's son he got a reduction of £5 in the claim against him. With each pressure of the thumbs on the throat of the son of Abraham he said, "I was always very honest but a trifle hard at bargains."
Are other Government Departments familiar with the provisions of this Bill? Do they know that this Bill is under consideration by the House? It is a curious coincidence that at Glendalough at the moment a number of people are vigorously agitated in regard to the decision of the Forestry Department to plant over a right-of-way which has been used by every visitor to Glendalough for years. I refer to a pathway which everybody who knows Glendalough avails of with a view to seeing the beauties of that locality. I understand this matter is in a fair way for settlement but it is rather curious that only to-day I had a letter on this subject. It seems to be an extraordinary decision on the part of the Forestry Department to plant over what I might call a public right-of-way. It is certainly a pathway which has been used for generations by visitors who frequent the place.
I know that every Government Department is aware of this Bill. In the ordinary course the Bill is sent to every Government Department, but I heard or saw nothing about Glendalough in any way. I presume that these matters will have to be settled more by consultation than otherwise between the interests concerned.
I think this is in a fair way of being settled.
The Minister spoke of the Forestry Department.
The Forestry section of it.
I am quite aware that consent must be got for the felling of trees. Does the Minister know on what conditions consent of that kind is given? It is really a point analogous to that raised by Deputy Moore. The Forestry inspector might find it impossible to prevent the destruction of a wood. The consideration that we might have might be altogether different from the considerations of a Government Department. What we are dealing with at present is with reference to the tourist interests.
I will have that point considered.
I move amendment No. 19:—
At the end of the section to add a new sub-section as follows:—The board may accept devises of land or other property.
This amendment empowers the board to accept devises of land. The Minister might say the amendment is not necessary. My purpose is that it should be known that the board is able, and presumably anxious, to accept devises of land. I do not know if we have any public-spirited people who would make these devises. Is it the intention to transfer the Bourn-Vincent Memorial Park to this board?
I cannot say that any definite consideration has been given to the future of the Bourn-Vincent Memorial Park. It is not intended that the board should take over the care of public memorials or national monuments in the same way as the corresponding board in Great Britain does. This board is mainly for the development of the tourist industry and to help the business. Quite possibly the functions of the board may be extended to it later, so that the board may discharge the same set of functions as is discharged by a corresponding body in Great Britain in looking after national monuments and acquiring them. These, however, are matters for the future. As regards this amendment, it is not necessary. There is nothing in the Bill which prevents the board from acquiring land, and it is not necessary in the section to give them the power to do so.
With regard to the Bourn-Vincent Memorial Park, I am not suggesting they should take it over in the form of a national trust, but I think it should be taken over by them and developed for holiday purposes. At any rate, some useful purpose could be made of it.
Is there power to accept devises of property?
The board has power to do it, but when Deputy Benson's amendment was put in the Parliamentary draftsman assured me there was no question.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Brian.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Crowley, Fred Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Flynn, Hugo V.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Fogarty, Patrick J.
- Friel, John.
- Fuller, Stephen.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hogan, Daniel.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Kelly, James P.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- McDevitt, Henry A.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Meaney, Cornelius.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moran, Michael.
- Morrissey, Michael.
- Munnelly, John.
- Murphy, Timothy J.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Loghlen, Peter J.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Rice, Brigid M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Tubridy, Seán.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Laurence J.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Conn.
Níl
- Bennett, George C.
- Benson, Ernest E.
- Broderick, William J.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Costello, John A.
- Dillon, James M.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Hughes, James.
- Keating, John.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- O'Donovan, Timothy J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Neill, Eamonn.
- O'Sullivan, John M.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
- Reidy, James.
- Reynolds, Mary.
I move amend-No. 20:—
At the end of the section, line 15, to add the words:—"provided always that the said regulations shall have no force or application until same have been approved by the Minister."
The board can make rules and regulations but, having done so, there is no check on them, whether they are good or reactionary.
The Deputy's amendment is not necessary. The intention is that the Minister would have to consent. In fact, no regulations can be made until he has given consent.
Is it the intention that the annual report will be available to Deputies?
It is provided in the section that it shall be presented to each House of the Oireachtas.
Will the board submit audited accounts?
The accounts of the board will be audited by an auditor appointed by the Minister.
Surely the House will not have the report before it, unless this is going to set a headline for the rapidity with which reports are presented. The House will be called upon to vote every year a sum not exceeding £45,000. What information will the House have before it when it is asked to pass that sum? The report will hardly be ready.
Section 10 (3) states:—
Immediately after every audit under this section of the accounts of the board, the board shall send to the Minister a copy of the balance sheet and profit and loss account as passed by the auditors together with a copy of the auditors' report, and the Minister shall lay copies of the said documents before each House of the Oireachtas and shall also publish and put on sale the said documents.
The Minister's Estimate will be discussed between March and June.
And we will have no report before the House.
It is a question of arrangement. I agree that Deputies are entitled to get whatever information is available or that the Estimate be postponed.
Our point is that the information will not be available.
What arrangement does the Deputy suggest? What is provided is that the accounts are audited, and that the auditor's report, together with the annual report of the board, will be published and that the documents will be before Deputies and made available to the public.
I suggest that the accounts should end on 31st December of each year, and that the auditor be required to submit a report by the 31st March. It should be possible to do it in that time.
It should. I think we publish the report of the Electricity Supply Board in January or February every year, and it is a bigger concern.
For the previous year.
Yes.
If you do the same here it will help.
Is it intended that these registers will be published? Will there be a list of hotels?
A register will be prepared and published.
In the case of any person who registers the name must go on the published list whether he likes it or not.
There is an amendment dealing with that.
Will the Minister accept it?
I am prepared to consider it. There may be some cases where we will have to leave discretion to the board. The amendment proposes that if the proprietor of premises request that the name be not published, it will not be published. What I think I would be prepared to do is to decide that the board may not publish if requested. There may be some cases where certain discretion is left with the board.
We can discuss that when we come to it.
I move amendment No. 21:—
In sub-section (1) to insert before paragraph (d) a new paragraph as follows:—
(d) a register to be called and known and in this Act referred to as the register of youth hostels;
Representations were made by organisations interested in the establishment of youth hostels, that there should be a separate register, in other words, that the conditions required for registration in the case of youth hostels might be less onerous or different from those required for holiday camps and holiday hostels. I think that is a reasonable proposition, and I put in this amendment, which provides for a separate register for youth hostels and separate conditions to which they must conform.
If the amendment was not put in they would be on another register.
They would.
Has the Minister any idea of what control there will be over the youth hostels?
The intention is that no place will be allowed to describe itself as a hostel or camp unless it complies with certain conditions. If it conforms to the conditions it will be on the register. If not, it cannot use that name and will not be registered. The reason the amendment is necessary is that if it was not inserted, these hostels would be included in another register, the conditions in respect of which prescribe higher standards than those common in hostels. These youth hostels have adopted Spartan-like standards and it is reasonable that these standards should be less high than those of holiday camps and other hostels. We propose to establish a separate register, and separate regulations to which they must conform to be registered.
Is it intended to publish these registers?
Yes.
The section only says:
The board shall establish, maintain and keep.
It does not say publish. Are they to be published at the expense of the board? It is not stated in the Bill.
I will have that point examined.
Would this be practically a list of hotels?
Section 44 requires the board to publish the register.
Would this hotel register state the number of rooms, the number of bathrooms, whether there was hot and cold water, and whether there was a garage, together with the minimum and maximum prices? Would all that be contained in the register so that tourists picking it up would know the minimum and maximum prices for a room and for a double room?
It will contain such information as the board thinks proper in relation to the standard of such hotels, the charges made therein, and any other matter of interest to tourists.
I was wondering what the Minister had in mind.
That is what is intended—the grade, the general holiday amenities available in the vicinity, the charges, and any other information of that kind which any person would require to know in order to understand the class of hotel in which he was booking accommodation.
The Minister is no doubt aware that a list of hotels is published in France, and a still more elaborate one in Italy. In Italy there are five or six classes, but in France it is not so elaborate. It is largely a question there of prices. It gives all that information and I can say that, so far as France is concerned, that information in respect of the charges is absolutely reliable.
That is what it is intended should be published.
I move amendment No. 22:
To insert before paragraph (d) a new paragraph as follows:—
(d) the general character, the type of accommodation and service provided, and the other qualifications which shall be requisite in respect of any premises in order that such premises may be eligible for registration in the register of youth hostels;
This is consequential on the previous amendment.
I move amendment No. 23:—
In sub-section (1) (b), line 57, after the word "application" to add the words "or may transfer such application to another register."
The point of this amendment is that it is possible for a premises to apply for registration on the hotel register, the standard of which may not come up to that required by the board for that register, but which may be suitable for registration as a guest house, which is the next lowest category. At present, the board has only the right either to register, or to refuse to register. My amendment suggests that they should also have power to transfer an application to another register more suitable to it.
It is open to an applicant to make a fresh application for the other register. My objection to the amendment is that an applicant, in certain cases, might resent his application for registration on the hotel register being treated as an application for registration on some other register, say the guest house register, and might find himself registered there, whereas he would prefer to reconsider his position and perhaps make such alterations as would qualify him for registration on the hotel register, or, if he preferred it, to make an application for registration on the other register. I do not think it makes much practical difference, except that there might be some objection to giving the board power to transfer an application from one register to another. I think it is better to leave the matter to the applicant. If his application for one register is rejected he can make an application for registration on the other register.
Does he have to pay a fee of £2 each time?
The fee will be purely nominal in that case.
Would he have time to do it?
That is the only difficulty I see, but I think it would be possible to arrange that there will be a certain time within which these things can be done. The intention is that the register will be published about 1st January, and, as the Bill stands, applications for registration for the ensuing year must be in before the end of October. We may amend that to give the board power to accept applications a little later, but there will be a period between the date on which the board must have given its decision and the day when the register will actually go to print in which these matters could be dealt with. If there were any difficulty about that, we could provide for an applicant, whose application for one register had been rejected, being allowed to apply later than the prescribed date for inclusion in the other register.
He might find himself without any registration at all.
That might happen to anybody for one year. A person starting in the hotel business, with a hotel which will commence operations about June or July, would not be in the register for that year, unless he was able to get his application for registration accepted beforehand.
The Minister must know that there are many hotels. Some of them improve and some of them deteriorate. Registration may be rejected——
There will be no question about a person's right to carry on the business, but the particulars would not be in the printed register. It must be printed on a particular day.
He could not call it a hotel either?
No.
What would he call it? How could he advertise?
He could advertise, certainly.
"Rooms to let?"
Yes. Whatever date you fix, the register must go to be printed on that day, and only those premises on the register on that day can be included in the printed list.
Is it understood that, when the board reject an application for registration, they will indicate their reasons for the rejection?
Not necessarily.
The Minister says that if a person applies for a hotel registration and his application is refused, he can then apply for guest house registration, but unless there is some indication given as to the reason for the rejection of the application for hotel registration, it may not be clear that he can do so. My amendment would overcome that because it gives the board power to transfer an application. It would get over the other difficulty the Minister mentioned, that the board probably would not begin considering applications until after the closing date, and, if an application for registration is rejected, there is no time to apply for registration on the lower registration. It seems to me to be reasonable that they should be transferred in this manner.
I will consider the point of ensuring that there will be no difficulty in a person, whose application for inclusion on the hotel register is rejected, applying in time for inclusion on the other register. It is not intended that the board should be under a statutory obligation to give reasons for a refusal to register. In the ordinary course, the board's officers will be able to convey to an applicant the reasons, but to put on the board a statutory obligation might cause difficulty because there may be cases in which it would not be desirable that the board would have to state the reasons for refusal.
The Minister suggested that in the case of a person who applied for registration and was refused, there were two ways of mending his hand. One of these was to mend the hotel, but he will not know how to do it unless he is told what is wrong. In some cases, it might not be possible because the applicant will not know what is in the mind of the board.
It might have something to do with the way the hotel was run.
Yes, and the applicant should be told that. There is another difficulty in my mind. When is the examination of a hotel as to whether it is fit or not to take place?
That will be proceeding continuously.
Previous to the date of application?
The board's officers will have the obligation of ensuring not merely that the hotels conform to the standard required for registration, when they apply, but that they maintain that standard throughout the year, and maintain the charges and other conditions which will be set out on their behalf in the published register. A hotel might get a bad reputation for various reasons which would justify its non-inclusion in the register. It might not be an easy matter to state precisely the grounds on which that conclusion was come to, while, at the same time, it would be quite easy for the management, without any expense or delay, to remedy the situation, or to take such steps in relation to staff or other matters which would be required to remedy the situation to the satisfaction of the board.
At the same time, I hope the Minister is aware of the difficulty that may be experienced, a difficulty which is parallel with the experience of Land Commission officials, for instance. It could easily be said by a proprietor of a hotel whose application for registration was rejected: "Of course, he stayed in McCarthy's, they gave him a great night and they poisoned his mind against me." That is the case with Land Commission officials and most other officials as we all know. I hope the Minister will, if possible, not put inspectors of this board in the same shocking position as that in which the inspectors of other public Departments are when they have to report unfavourably on any particular person.
The Minister says that there is a difficulty about the register. What is the difficulty?
There is no difficulty about the register.
I understood that there was a difficulty about entertaining an application once the register is published. Surely there could be a loose leaf and an addition put in anytime.
Quite.
And the names of those who had registered could be compiled so that copies of the additions could be sent to them.
That could be done. The Deputy will understand, however, that copies of the register of the hotels will be sent abroad and once it has gone out it could not very well be amended.
It will be in course of revision all the time. I am just wondering how long it would take the first register to come into being. The Minister spoke of a couple of months.
Will the Minister consider the question of transferring an application from one register to another before the next stage?
I shall consider that point.
Amendments Nos. 24 and 28 go together.
I move amendment No. 24:
In sub-section (1) (c), page 11, line 5, to delete the words "of the appropriate prescribed fee" and substitute therefor the words "the sum of ten shillings."
I want to get something concrete with regard to the fees to be charged. There is a fee of £2 for the initial registration. I think that for succeeding years a nominal sum of 10/- would be quite sufficient, considering that a sum of £2 has to be paid on the occasion of the first registration.
It is intended that the fee should be only nominal. My objection to fixing this fee in the Bill is that it will vary according to the nature of the premises registered. Some part of the board's revenue will come from these fees. We must not lose sight of the fact that it will be one of the sources of revenue, though it will not be very large. The fees should vary in accordance with the standard of the premises registered. I could not agree to specify the fee in the Bill.
I think the Minister should withdraw his objection to the amendment, otherwise the fixing of varying fees will give rise to a feeling of inequality in the administration of the Bill. I think whatever fee we fix should be at a standard rate. How is this fee going to be fixed under the present proposal? The inspector would want to go into the accounts of the hotel to see what business it was doing.
Hotels will be graded, in any event, and the fee for hotels will be different from that for guest houses.
How will they be graded?
They will be graded according to standard. Would the Deputy suggest that in order to observe equality we should get the same fee from a large hotel as from the youth hostel in the lighthouse at Wicklow? If equality of treatment does not demand that, we should be able to vary the fees. The large hotel should pay a larger fee for registration than a youth hostel in some remote part of the country.
You are going to charge £2 for the registration of the highest class of hotel. Could you not have the fees ranging from that figure down to 10/-?
We shall have to decide that question when determining the grades.
How are you going to decide? Who is going to decide it?
The board. The board will have to grade every hotel in the country.
They are going to do that on the report of an inspector. I think that is an unsatisfactory way of dealing with the matter. I think it would be better to fix some flat rate, no matter what it is, than to have varying fees, up and down. It will be impossible not to create ill-feeling and jealousy in that way. If a flat rate is prescribed, everybody would know at once what they have to pay. The question whether one was doing a larger trade than the other is another matter. I think you should fix a flat rate.
It is not proposed to have a purely arbitrary decision and to say, for instance, that the Shelbourne Hotel should pay one fee, the Gresham Hotel another fee and the Hibernian Hotel a third fee. There will be varying fees for different classes of premises. The premises on the hotel register will be divided into grades. Below them will be guest houses and below the guest houses will be hostels. It is not proposed to have a flat rate for all but a fee varying according to size, standard and grade of the premises. For premises within the same class, the same fee will be paid.
What does the grade of the hotel mean? Not the size of the hotel or the amount of business?
No, it means the standard established by the hotel.
I am in a difficulty, because I gathered from the Minister that he would take the big hotels and assume that the big hotels would pay bigger fees. Then he went on to speak of grades which is an entirely different thing. You might have a small hotel and yet it might be in grade A.
That is quite true.
Is the small hotel of grade A to pay more than the big hotel of, say, grade G?
Not necessarily.
Then the grading will not help you to fix the fees. I am speaking of what is in the Bill.
What is in the Bill is that we can prescribe the fees to be paid.
Not according to grades.
The Deputy must not assume that the fee for the grade he regards as the top grade, will be bigger than for some other grade below that.
It was the Minister brought in the question of fixing the fees according to grades, not I.
We can vary the fees when the grades have been fixed. It does not mean that the fee will vary substantially or that a large hotel will have to pay a higher fee than a first class hotel of a smaller type.
Does the Minister not think that the maximum fee should be put in?
I do not think so.
At the present moment it is left entirely to the board. They can blackmail a hotel to any extent they like.
The fee must be prescribed. Deputies should not forget that this is one of the board's sources of revenue. It is a registration fee which all hotels practically are paying for a similar service at present to other organisations.
Let us take as an illustration the case of the Aran Islands. There may be a hotel there of small dimension, perhaps having only ten or 12 rooms, but it may be one of the best hotels in the country. Perhaps it would have to go into the first grade. Then it would have to pay the same registration fee as a hotel with, say, 200 rooms, which was catering for 100 or 120 visitors.
I have not said that.
Does the Minister think that these two hotels should be put on the same basis with regard to the payment of fees?
I did not say they would. They would be classified, and, within each class provision would be made. In any case, however, I think that a hotel, described as a first-grade hotel, should be expected to pay the difference of a shilling or two.
Well, I think that this presents many difficulties that will arise in practice. Let us suppose that the question of the grading of a hotel depends on the number of rooms, plus the condition in which the hotel was kept. There will be a difficulty there. Take, again, in that connection, the number of small and excellent hotels that we have in this country. They are first-class hotels, and of a quality that could not be excelled in any country, but it seems to me that because they have not the requisite number of rooms an injustice may be done to such places as I have in mind. I am sure the Minister himself knows some of the hotels I have in mind. We all know that there are a number of small, or smallish, hotels that give excellent service. Would there not be a grave injustice done in this case just because they did not have a certain number of rooms?
The question of the grading of a hotel will not depend on its size.
It will not?
Not necessarily.
It will not depend on its size?
No, not necessarily.
I think the Minister should consider the matter of a maximum fee in this connection. I think that a maximum figure should be fixed. If, for any reason, you get a board which squanders its money, it is obvious that it is up to the board to recoup its losses by increasing the fee, and it is also obvious that the people concerned must pay the fee if they are to come within the provisions of this Bill.
It is not at the discretion of the board. In an earlier section, it is pointed out that the word "prescribed" means a thing to which the Minister has consented.
Would the Minister not consider making a maximum of £2, and a minimum of 10/-?
I would not accept it.
The Minister would not accept it?
I would not agree to grading on that basis.
I am not asking the Minister to grade on that basis; but you are charging £2 on registration, and I say you cannot do that because, if you exceed that you must, automatically, go beyond that every year after the first registration. I am now making a firm offer of £2 for a maximum and 10/- for a minimum.
I said that the fee would be purely nominal, and I think that the matter of the fee should be left to the board to vary it or not, having regard to the circumstances of the particular case concerned.
The £2 is a nominal sum?
Yes
The next amendment—amendment No. 25— covers amendment No. 34.
I move amendment No. 25:
In sub-section (1) to insert before paragraph (d) two new paragraphs as follows:—
(d) if the board refuses an application for the registration of premises in a register, the proprietor or any person authorised by him in writing, may attend personally before the board and submit evidence in support of his application, and the board may confirm or reverse its original decision, and in case such decision is confirmed, the reason for refusal to register shall be notified to the applicant in writing;
(e) there shall be an appeal from any decision of the board made under paragraph (d) hereof to the District Court for the area in which the premises are situate.
This section presents a difficulty to me and suggests to me the possibility of grave injustice being done to owners of property. There is nobody in this world that is not capable of making a bona fide mistake, and, under the Bill, the board will act on the report of the inspector who will have to visit the premises and make an examination. Now, in my opinion, some of these officers may be only part-time members of the board, and they cannot be perambulating around the country, and therefore they will have to go on the reports of the inspectors and, as a result of the report of an inspector, a property may be destroyed. That inspector may, quite bona fide, come to a wrong conclusion, and I submit that there should be an appeal from a decision of the board, in the case of a refusal of registration, to the District Court for the area concerned. I do not wish to tie the matter down to the form of appeal, but I think that there should be some machinery of appeal. Take the case of a district justice or a referee. I think there is an amendment down, in Deputy O'Sullivan's name, with regard to the matter of a referee; but all these amendments are aiming at the same thing, and that is that there should be some appeal court whereby a matter of this kind could be thrashed out before valuable property would be destroyed. I think, in equity, the Minister should give consideration to this matter.
I knew that this thing would give rise to discussion here, and, at first sight, there appears to be a case for an appeal from the decision of the board. However, I think that that case disappears when the matter is more closely examined. May I say that I could not agree to an appeal from the decision of the board to the District Court or to any similar body, because that would mean that there would be no possibility of having uniformity throughout the country. In such a case, each matter of appeal would depend on the character or the viewpoint of the District Court, or whichever body might be concerned, and if, as I say, we are to get some uniformity of standard, or some common standard, to govern the hotel business throughout this country, I think we must eliminate any appeal to any District Court or any similar local officers of any status. Another of the suggestion that was made was that there should be an appeal from the decisions of the board to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. That, I believe, must also be rejected, because it would mean that the Minister would have to duplicate the machinery of the board. Certainly, he would require some sort of organisation, of a duplicating kind, if he were to fulfil properly the functions of an appeals officer. A suggestion has also been made for the appointment of an umpire. That, again, would mean submitting the matter to the opinion of an individual who might not be any wiser than the members of the board. However, apart from these practical difficulties, I think you would achieve very little, in any case, from an appeal body of that kind. There are other matters to be considered. For instance, many of the matters which will determine the fate of the ratification or otherwise of premises will be of a nature that would be very difficult to set out in writing for the purpose of a hearing on appeal.
I am not asking for that. This is a question of fact.
Well, at any rate, if there is to be an appeal, there must be some marshalling of the evidence submitted to the board, on the second occasion, to whomever constitutes the appeals tribunal. That may be a matter of form, and there may be the question of cleanliness, general managerial capacity, scale of charges, and so on, to be taken into consideration in connection with what would justify registration. All these things may be of a character which cannot be easily set down, precisely and clearly, so that the board could go to the appeals officer and say: "On this ground, that ground and the other ground we reject this appeal. You must decide whether we have the facts right or not." I do not think that that can be very well done. In practice, there will be an appeal. In practice, there will be an inspectorial staff who will marshal the facts. They will be responsible for visiting the hotels and investigating complaints about overcharging or complaints of a similar character. But what we are proposing to provide by amendment of the Bill is that the decision upon the application must be made by the board and not by an officer of the board, so that the board will be, in fact, deciding, in the light of the reports submitted to it by this inspectorial staff and having regard to any representations which the applicant may care to submit. I think that there are reasonable safeguards against abuse and that nothing we can devise, having regard to the general purpose we have in mind can magnify those safeguards. Of the various alternative forms of appeal which have been suggested, the only practical one is the setting up of an umpire—a single individual—to decide on the grounds set before him and, that being the case, there is likely to be as much dissatisfaction with the decision of that umpire as there would be in the case of a decision by the board as a whole.
The Minister has not convinced me at all. The Minister will see the principle involved. If the section remains in its final form, one of the two parties will be the final arbiter. In a conflict between two parties, one of the parties is to have the absolute power of decision.
We are setting up the body for that purpose. We are giving them the power of decision. That is their job.
If there is a conflict between them and the other person, they have the absolute power of decision. Where is the justice of that? The Bill should not leave the House in its present form. Some machinery should be provided for the giving of an appeal. The provision of machinery presents a difficulty. I considered all this in the light of experience. As between the district justice and the Circuit judge, the court of the district justice would, in my opinion, be the more suitable venue for appeals of this kind, because the district justice deals with all licensing applications in his administrative area. All the district justices in the State have that task and they do it on a common basis.
They deal, also, with applications for dance hall licences and I do not think that anybody would say they do it on a common basis.
This is far too serious for joking.
That remark was quite serious. District justices deal with applications for licences for dance halls and it could not be suggested that they deal with them on a common basis. There is infinite variety in the method by which the law is administered between the area of one district justice and that of another.
District Justices are dealing annually with licensed property. That is an important matter, because there is a vested interest in the licence. The Minister argues as if there were only one means of presenting the facts to the appeal tribunal in these cases. That is not tenable at all. I ask that the board put in writing the reason why it refused the application. I do not want to treat that as a matter of evidence at all. The appeal will take place on the question of fact. The inspector who made the report on which the application for registration was refused will go into the witness box and the applicant can do likewise, so that the District Justice will have all the facts before him. Assuming that he is not satisfied with the evidence given on any side, I take it that, the hotel being situate in his administrative area, all he would have to do would be to take out his motor car and examine it. The District Justice would have as much common sense as an inspector of the Tourist Board and he would be able to say whether the bedrooms, laundry, bathrooms, kitchen and so forth were up to such a standard that the hotel should be registered as class 1, 2 or 3. Surely we could not ask for a more qualified person to deal with these appeals than a District Justice who has to deal with the suitability of dance halls and public houses. He is an independent man, he is irremovable and he has all the qualifications for the impartial performance of the work. This matter may require further consideration, but the Bill should not leave the House until some provision of this kind is included in it. Otherwise, valuable property may be destroyed by the stroke of an inspector's pen. If the licence be refused, the money which people have invested in the property will be lost and their livelihood will go with it. That is a serious matter, and I ask the Minister to look into it. It should not be beyond our capacity to provide machinery so that we may obviate even one injustice. I should rather the Bill would never pass than that an injustice should occur even in a single case.
Mar chathaoirleach de Chumann na gCuairteóirí tá fhios agam go bhfuil na mílte punt caithte ar thíthe ósta sa tír seo agus níor mhór athrú a dhéanamh ar an alt seo i riocht is go bhféadfaí appeal a dhéanamh ó bhreitheamhnas aon chléirigh a rachas síos faoi'n tír agus a bhainfeas hotel den liosta mar gheall ar athrú ar bith a bheas déanta air nach dtaithneocha leis féin. Bhí cruinniú ag dream na hotelanna agus seo an t-alt is mó a sgannruigh iad go mbeadh cead ag cléireach ar bith d'aon stríoc amháin de pheann an méid airgid a chaith siad féin agus a muintir, an méid a bhí acu féin agus an méid a raibh siad i ndon a lámh a leagan air go mbeadh sé faoi chumas an chléirigh seo an méid sin uilig a chur de leathtaobh. Tá somplaí cheana againn dá leithide seo faoi Chumannacha atá faoi láthair ag breathnú i ndiaidh na hotelanna. An dream seo mara mbeidh tú i ndon iad a leathmhealladh i mbealaigh nár mhaith liom a rá sa Teach seo ní gheobhfa tú a gcomhartha. Hotelanna nach bhfuil cothrom tá a gcomhartha acu agus na hotelanna atá go maith ní thiubhradh siad a gcomhartha dóibh chor ar bith agus má thugann siad a gcomhartha do na hotelanna maithe seo isé an comhartha is measc atá acu é.
Níl mise sásta gur ceart don Aire an chumhacht chéanna fhágáil ag cléireach ar bith. Mar sin ba ceart dó an leasú seo á thógáil nó leasú eicínt eile d'fheilfeadh. Níl focal le rá agamsa faoi'n mbord nó cé bheas air ach ba cheart a leithide bheith ann le appeal a chur chuige. Isé an míádh é mara bhfuil inntleacht an Tighe seo, inntleacht na nAirí agus na dTeachtaí agus na gcléireach i ndon leasú cheapadh d'fheilfeadh. Mara bhfuil muid indon a dhéanamh tá sé in am againn glanadh amach. Dhéanfadh glac pháistí sgoile thiocfadh le chéile é. Níl muid ag iarraidh ar an Aire mórán athrú a dhéanamh ach amháin appeal a bheith go dtí duine eicínt, breitheamh nó eile. Spáineann sé nach raibh lucht na hotelanna mórán in aghaidh an Bhille nuair nar thugadar tuille leasuíthe isteach. Ceapann an tAire go dteastóchadh an maide mór uaidh le coinneál bagruíthe ar na hotelanna go ndéanaidh sé féin hotelanna. Ní fhéadfa sé bheith aige an dá bhealach. Tá an leasú seo ag teastáil ó lucht na hotelanna le maide a choinneál bagruíthe ar an mBord mara ndéana siad a ngnotha ceart. Iarraim ar an Aire glacadh leis an leasú seo nó leasú eicínt dhéanamh a thiubhradh muinighin do lucht na hotelanna.
I have my name to this amendment and I should like to say a word on the subject. Under Section 34 of the Bill, it becomes an offence for any hotel-keeper who is not registered to hold himself out as the keeper of a hotel. Therefore, the question of registration is a very important one. So far as I can see, if the owner of an existing hotel or a hotel to be built in the future does not obtain registration, or loses registration, he forfeits his property so far as it is of any value. Apart altogether from the question of the rights the board have as a court of appeal, that is a very drastic thing to happen to any business or concern and I think it is the only case in our series of legislative measures where such drastic action is imposed upon a defaulter without any automatic right to some relief before a court. I would instance the Housing Acts under which, in a case where a demolition order, a clearance order, is made, there is a right of appeal to the Circuit Court. There are other cases, such as the registration of betting premises and the licensing of public houses. In any event, I suggest to the Minister that where there is a drastic provision of this kind in a Bill it is desirable that there should be an appeal to some judicial tribunal who can try the matter in the calm atmosphere of a court and hear the evidence both for and against. The Minister's answer to that is, I gather, that this Bill contemplates a right of appeal to a tribunal, but a non-judicial tribunal, namely, the board itself. There may be something to be said in favour of that, except that the board itself is an institution which proposes to go into the hotel business. Consequently, it would be a party to one or other side of the issue which would be involved in such an appeal. Therefore, first of all, on general grounds, and, secondly because it is contemplated that the board is to have a function which, I submit, should be exercised by the court, I think the Minister should consider the proposition that has been put up in this amendment.
In order to make the position quite clear, it is necessary, I think, to go back to Section 26. In Section 26 it is proposed that the proprietor of any premises may apply to the board for the registration of those premises. He is not applying to the inspector. That is the difference. Undoubtedly, the board cannot go all over the country and visit every premises. The inspector is only sent down merely as an officer, an expert witness, or agent of the board, and it is to the board that the application for registration is made. It is the board, and the board alone, who can refuse registration because the Bill does not say that he is to apply to the inspector. "The proprietor of any premises may apply to the board for registration." That is Section 26.
Section 27 shows the mode in which the inspection is to be carried out: "The board shall cause such premises to be inspected by an officer of the board." The officer of the board has no right whatsoever to determine whether or not the premises shall be registered. All the inspector can do is to come back and say, "I have inspected these premises. They are in such a condition." But the inspector cannot take any decision. There is only one decision taken in a case of that kind and that is by the board itself, acting on the evidence of its inspector. There is absolutely no appeal in that case from what has been decided in the first instance. I strongly press on the Minister to consider the question of an appeal. It is right, I think, that the hotel-keepers of this country should have that right. In the constituency which I represent there is a very large number of hotels and a very large number of hotels which will be affected by this particular Bill when it is passed. It does not seem right that they should be deprived of any part of their right to appeal against what will amount to confiscation of their property.
We brought forward this amendment having very seriously considered the position and with the knowledge that the people who own these hotels have in the matter. I would ask the Minister to consider the proposition. It is not brought forward in any sense to interfere with the operation of the Bill or anything like that. It is purely in order to facilitate it in this respect.
I would make an earnest appeal to the Minister to give the amendment serious consideration. I take it that the value of many hotel premises throughout Éire would amount to a considerable sum and a faulty inspection or a slight mistake in the inspection might possibly reduce valuable premises to practically nil. I agree with Deputy McMenamin that we are probably dealing with one of the most serious clauses of the Tourist Bill. For that reason, I would ask the Minister to consider the question of appointing a court of appeal whether the appeal would be to a District Justice or to a body nominated by the Minister or otherwise. Certainly, I think provision should be made for appeal from a decision of the board on the question of inspection.
I can see the Minister's difficulty, but I think there is a serious problem involved here. First, I would ask the Minister to let us know how the thing is going to work, as it is in the Bill. A hotel proprietor applies for registration. An inspector is sent down. He reports: "Food served in sloppy fashion. The napery is not clean. The whole place is dilapidated, ill-kept," and so on. That is the report on which a decision will be taken by the board, is it not? But, in fact, though the inspector does not refuse the licence technically—it is only the board refuses the licence—it is really the inspector that refuses the licence because the nature of his report may be such that there is no other option open to the board except to refuse the licence. I do not see, as the Bill stands at present, how it is going to be remedied. The board are bound to take the inspector's report. It is the only evidence they will have before them. There is an application by an hotel proprietor describing his hotel. There is a report on that, which is quite unfavourable. That settles the fate of the hotel. Assuming that there is no influence brought to bear on the board, they must act on that. As far as I can see, there is no machinery provided in the Bill, even for the board itself to inspect. In reality, as I said, it will be the inspector who will decide. It cannot be otherwise in the Bill as it stands. There is no opportunity for representation to be made to the board. Is not that so? I see no opportunity in this Bill for the proprietor to make representations to the board against the findings of the inspector. The first thing he knows is the licence is disallowed. He may not even be given the grounds of the disallowance.
I see the difficulties. For instance, on the question of the district justice, I see the difficulties, but for reasons somewhat different from those raised by the Minister. The district justice may not be an expert in hotels. I take it for granted that what we really want to do is to see that you have a proper approved list of hotels on the one hand, and on the other that no injustice is done. How to procure that is the difficulty. I think this question of the district justice is put forward merely to get the views of the House and of the Minister on the matter. Any kind of an appeal board that would allow somebody to check the actual finding of facts by the inspector is really what is wanted. My real objection, if it can be called such, to the district justice would be that he is not a tourist expert. The Minister says that the five men who are making this decision are experts, and that that is the reason why they are being put on the board. Our contention is that it is not they who really make the decision but the inspector, and, with all respect to the Minister, his decisions can vary as much from district to district, as can the decisions of a district justice.
I wonder is it uniformity that the Minister is seeking. If you do want uniformity between different districts I can well imagine that while you may not allow a hotel licence in a certain district, you may allow the same class of establishment to get one in a remote and primitive district. Hotel requirements in different countries in Europe are very different. For instance, the requirements of a hotel in certain parts of Paris are very different indeed from the requirements of a hotel in the French Alps, 9,000 feet high. I do not know that we should seek uniformity. I would press on the Minister the desirability of having some kind of appeal from a man who, after all, is merely an official of the board. That is the position you have at the moment. While I see the Minister's difficulties, I think that there is a case to be met. The difficulties are on both sides. There is the desire on the one hand to get a proper register of hotels, and on the other the desire that there should be no justification for the feeling that a man has not been heard. The Minister objects and asks how there can be an appeal to a district justice since there is nothing down in writing. Surely, there will be something in writing before the board. They will decide on something that is before them either from the owner of the hotel or on a report from the inspector. I presume that he will submit a written report. Therefore, there will be that document to go before the court of appeal. Personally I would prefer a court of appeal to the district justice because I do not think that district justices, with all their excellent qualities, are—many of them—hotel experts necessarily. I do not know whether Deputy McMenamin thinks that it will be the business of the district justice to go around from "pub" to "pub" testing the quality of the stuff sold. If it were I should say that we would have many vacancies possibly in that very desirable position.
As regards grading, while it might be possible that you would have very few injustices done in the case of registration, it is a much more delicate thing when you come to deal with the question of grading. In practice, to allow that to depend, as we are doing, on the report of an official sent down from the board is rather drastic. Again I say that there ought to be some method—I do not say of upsetting—but of subjecting to review the decision of the inspector. It is a good thing that he should know that his judgment will be subject to review by another body. That, I suggest, will help to make him more careful. You have, for instance, appeals from the lower courts to the higher courts. It is not that you get a better decision from the higher court but it is a good thing that the lower court should know that its decision is subject to review by another court. I think we should act on that principle here. I should certainly be the last to suggest anything that would prevent the Minister getting a good register of hotels and proper grading, but I think he ought to take care in seeking to achieve his object.
There are a few considerations that Deputies ought to keep in mind. In the first place, it is not correct to say that there is no precedent for the proposals in the Bill as they stand. On the contrary, I would say that most of the Acts which have been passed here providing for the registration of premises of one kind or another do not contain appeal provisions. Probably the reasons which resulted in those Acts being framed without provision for an appeal from the authority which decided on the application for registration were much the same as those which influenced the framers of this particular Bill.
We are setting up a board for the purpose of achieving certain changes in relation to the conduct of hotels and similar premises here. That is the primary function of the board. It is not being set up for the purpose of irritating hotel-keepers or of depriving them of their livelihood or doing anything of that kind. Its function is to ensure, in relation to hotels, that the word "hotel" is used only in connection with premises that conform to certain standards laid down by the board. I should imagine that the great majority of cases in which applications will be rejected will be in relation to houses which at present apply to themselves the term hotel but which are in no sense hotels— houses, the proprietors of which would get a fright if they were to be asked to provide accommodation for the night or anything more than to supply a drink or two. The term "hotel" is used very frequently in relation to premises of that kind which are not hotels at all, and which should not be classed as hotels: houses which, if they receive guests at all, are only of the guest house standard and, in many cases, are not even up to that standard. In the beginning, I should say that it is only in such cases applications will be rejected.
The function of the board in relation to hotels is to ensure an improvement in their standards. The board, in carrying out its functions, will not be looking for an excuse to refuse an application, but rather to ensure, through its officers, such an improvement in the standards and circumstances of individual premises that they will be able to give registration on application. That will be their function. They will not be merely sitting there waiting for an inspector to make a report on the basis of which they could say that the application must be refused. On the contrary, on the basis of those inspectors' reports they will be endeavouring to secure such an improvement in the standard of accommodation that registration will be possible. The board will be set up for that purpose. It will consist of persons who will be chosen because of their suitability to discharge that function. They will, we hope, be the five most suitable persons in the country for the purposes of that job. They will, in the process of time, acquire experience and knowledge that other persons could not possibly have. We must assume that they will be acting with all fairness, and with due consideration of the interests of all parties likely to be affected by their decision. In my opinion, the only circumstances under which a case can be made for an appeal from the board is where there is reason to believe or suspect that the board was influenced by considerations other than those which should have been before it; that some undue influence was brought to bear upon it which prompted it to give a decision which was not fair on the facts, a decision which a board seeking to carry out its functions well and truly would not have given. The possibility that an idea may get abroad that some of its decisions are so influenced is in my opinion the only case for an appeal at all.
Let us consider what is the case for an appeal and what has been said about it here. We had Deputy Fred Crowley suggesting the possibility of the board making a decision upon a faulty report from an inspector. The inspector was misled by surface appearances. He got the only bad egg in the house, or was bitten by the only flea in the country, or something of that kind, and was so prejudiced against the hotel that he put in an adverse report. What is the appeal tribunal to do? Is it to send down another inspector to inspect that hotel? Is there going to be a complete duplication of the machinery of the board? Otherwise, what can your appeals officer do? He will, after all, only get what the board will have, namely whatever information the inspector was able to get, or any other officer of the board dealing with that matter, and whatever representations the applicant desires to submit. The board will have all that. Unless you are prepared to advocate duplication of the whole machine, so that the whole process of inspection, examination and decision will be repeated, then there can be no really effective appeal. What you would be doing is you would be putting over the decision of those five persons, whom you regard as the most effective to deal with the matter, the decisions of other persons who are less competent, a smaller number of persons, perhaps only an individual. We could perhaps get a person to act on an appeal tribunal in whose judgments we could place confidence, but I think we would have to have one person, and would have to ensure that that one person would himself undertake an inspection of the premises, unless it were generally agreed that an inspection was not necessary.
We have got to rule out district justices. We have got to rule out people of that kind. I think we cannot consider them, because they are not suitable for this work. They neither have the specialised knowledge nor information concerning the policy of the board or the standards of accommodation towards which the board is aiming, and trying to acquire generally throughout the country. They would be influenced perhaps by other considerations that would not enter into the board's calculations at all. I have found from experience that, in those matters which are outside the ordinary normal functions of the district courts, district justices do not function well at all; however excellent they may be at the particular jobs to which they are appointed, give them jobs outside that and they do not function well. In matters of this kind particularly it is only fair to say they would be much too lenient. They would never refuse an application for registration. The house would have to be falling down; there should be no roof on it or no bed in it, or some obvious reason of that kind before the district justice would refuse an application. Every Deputy knows that. If, however, we are to set up some sort of permanent appeal tribunal, an individual chosen because of his suitability, because of some specialised knowledge or special qualifications he may have, we have got to put that individual in a position in which he can exercise his functions. How can he exercise them? I do not see how you can make him really effective, a real safeguard to anybody, unless you provide him with a completely independent organisation of his own. If he does not get that, he is not a safeguard; he is an illusion. The hotel proprietor who makes an application will be deceived if he thinks there will in fact be any fundamental difference between the decision of the board and the decision of the appeal tribunal. If the scheme functions rightly the same information should be available to both the board and the tribunal. The same considerations should influence their decisions, and the same decision would in fact be given. It would be a waste of time.
I think also that Deputies have jumped too readily to the conclusion that the board will make its decisions upon a single inspection carried out by one officer. I should say that would be extremely improper, and if the board were working in that way I should say they were not doing their duty properly. If they get from an inspector in relation to one hotel a report that they consider justifies the refusal of an application for registration, then I certainly think they should arrange for an independent inspection by another officer, so that they would have a double check on the facts, or perhaps even members of the board themselves would undertake some investigation before arriving at a decision. I am quite certain that any board which functions properly in this matter will arrange for some system of double check, which will give them some reasonable certainty that their information is right before they make a decision, and I certainly see no reason why they could not entertain any representations that the applicant himself would choose to make. But if you give them that, if they have their system of check and double check on the facts, and if they consider representations from the applicant, their decision is really the best decision. The only circumstances under which their decision might have to be revised would be if there was any suspicion that they were being influenced by considerations that should not influence them. If that suspicion were there, then, in order to remove it, it might be worth while to have some appeal tribunal, but in due course the same suspicion would attach to the appeal tribunal, and the safeguard would be gone. The only way to get rid of the suspicion is to get rid of the board which allowed that suspicion to grow up around it. I do not think that will ever happen. If we have a board which functions properly, a board which is anxious to secure a general improvement of the standard of hotel accommodation, and not to penalise anyone, their decision is likely to be the best decision, and it is an illusion I think that the system will be improved or that any different result will be obtained by setting up an appeal tribunal.
The Minister has not met the point. What I want is an actual appeal of some kind, or a check, if he likes, of the officer's report. The Minister has not met the point that the fate of the hotel depends on the report of the inspector. That is all the board has before it. There is no suggestion in the Bill as it stands that the board themselves will inspect the premises, or that they will send out a senior inspector, if I may so put it. What I want to ensure is that the proper facts come before the board from the inspector. The Minister assumes that there will be a double check. That is the first we have heard of it. It is not provided for. I prefer something like this if it could be managed: An inspector is sent down, and he sends in his report. There is a certain number of cases which are marked out for refusal. Then the board sends a senior inspector around to those particular places. I think that might meet a certain amount of the objection. My objection is not at all on the question as to whether the board is or is not influenced. It is to the fact that in reality the fate of the premises does not depend on the board at all. It depends on the inspector. Anything that would strengthen the board in getting the full facts is desirable, such as, for instance, in the case of those due for execution that there would be a further inspection before the final decision is taken. Possibly the Minister might wish to give an assurance in this matter, but I do not know whether that would satisfy those who have moved this amendment or not.
There is really no opportunity for the proprietor to put his case before the board: he cannot meet the charges, because he does not know what the charges are. It should be possible to arrange to have two reports regarding the premises—even though it might be inconvenient from certain points of view—say a report from a junior inspector which would be sent in to the board. The proprietor would then have a week or a fortnight, during which time he would not know what action would be taken: his fate would still be in the balance. Then a senior inspector could be sent round, and if there is a real agreement between the two reports there would be a much stronger case on which the board could take action. I think it is rather hard to leave it to a decision of an ordinary inspector as to whether a man will be allowed to continue his business or, on the other hand, be wiped out of existence.
Would it be a safeguard if we were to provide for some provisional decision of the board, to be intimated to the applicant; and a further inspection of the premises before the provisional decision would be confirmed? That would be giving the applicant time, and I think we could proceed along those lines.
The second inspection ought to be made either by a member of the board or at least by an officer senior to the one who made the first inspection.
I think we could consider something like that.
I would like to draw the Minister's attention to another aspect of this question. It is presumed that the board will be endeavouring to carry out its functions in the best possible way. We can take it that the Minister will select the best possible men, and that they will not be expected to achieve standards of uniformity right away. Probably in the beginning the inspectors will be expected to try to achieve some kind of minimum standard which would be sufficient justification for registration. Even that will take time. I take it that the inspectors will be friendly enough to help the proprietors to achieve the requisite standard. But, even when the time is reached when uniformity has been established, it will then be the duty of the inspector to see that the standard is maintained and report back to the board. I still suggest that it is a very serious position to have any hotel-keeper placed in. He will have done something to bring his hotel up to a reasonable standard, but he is still open to an adverse report which might be made in the following two years. In that period there may have been some slight deterioration and—as the section stands now—he has no appeal. In this way, registration is, I think, no less than a misfortune.
There should be some right of appeal to a court of law. Notwithstanding what the Minister said about district justices, I think that they would surely have a very good idea of the standards of uniformity which should be attained. In any case, the hotel-keepers themselves will have to try to maintain a decent standard, because the competition will be keen. Yet, if an inspector comes along and happens to be in a bad mood he may make an adverse report against some individual hotel-keeper and there is no provision for a senior inspector to follow him. If the board makes adverse decisions, I think the citizen ought to be given a chance to present his case before the local district justice. Let the inspector come into court and say that certain minimum standards have been established for hotel premises and that this particular man cannot be allowed to continue. There would then be an opportunity for the proprietor to submit his side of the case and the possibility of an impartial judgment being reached.
As has been pointed out, in all the legislation passed in this House the right of appeal has been given to the ordinary citizens where powers have been taken for the demolition of slums and acquiring of ground. They had the right to go into court and that gave them at least the opportunity to defend themselves; but in this case there is no defence whatever possible. I would suggest further, that a board, no matter how democratic it may be starting off, is later on going to become autocratic and reach the time when they will feel that they are the custodians of the hotel business in this country and they are going to start enforcing their views. There must be some kind of a brake to that. Ministers could alleviate a lot of hardship by allowing to the hotel-keeper an appeal on the question of the withdrawal of his registration to the local District Court, where he could present his case and have the satisfaction of knowing that he was not going to conduct his business at the risk of losing it through the action of any individual inspector or of the board. That would be a protection to the members of the board also, and they would welcome the fact that they could not do autocratic things such as withdrawing a man's registration without justification.
The Minister has stated that a district justice or some other tribunal would have no special qualifications to deal with questions of this kind. That remark would apply to practically any issue that comes before a court. There is an appeal under the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act against a demolition order. That appeal is taken direct to the Circuit Court. The Minister might say that the Circuit Court would have no particular qualifications for dealing with a case of that kind. Also, in the case of the registration of a club, application has to be submitted to the court, in the first instance, in order to show that the rules are such as to qualify for a licence; and the question of whether a club is fit or not fit to be registered and have a licence is one that the district justice may be called upon to decide.
As regards the functions of the suggested appellant tribunal, the function would be quite different to the functions of the board. The first time that the hotel-keeper would have an opportunity of knowing that he has not complied in some respect with some of the regulations which will be formulated under Section 25 of the Bill is when he is told that his premises are not going to be registered. Until that has happened there is absolutely no issue to be tried. All that has happened is that, in the opinion of the board of experts—and I presume they are going to act on the proper basis— and according to the evidence that has been produced to them by their inspector, in the absence of the hotel-keeper, and acting as assessors of fact, this hotel is not capable of registration. That is the first time the hotel-keeper finds that his property, which was probably worth £2,000 or £3,000 before this action is taken, finds now that its value has gone down to £200 or £300 or whatever the bricks and mortar are worth. He has got to sit down under that and has no right whatever to appeal against the findings of the board.
If the Minister accepts our proposal, or a similar proposal, what happens is, that the rules or regulations will be interpreted before a court which is used to trying issues of fact of every character every day. A court which feels that it is not competent to go into certain technicalities of a particular set of facts must rely on the evidence of expert witnesses. The issue in this case would be between the decision of the board on the one hand and the plea of the hotel-keeper on the other. Each side can produce their expert evidence and the simple issue that the court would have to decide would be similar to issues which are being decided every day. The simple issue would come before the court as to whether or not, on the expert evidence given on both sides, the regulations under Section 25 have been complied with.
Would the Minister consider having a member of the board as an inspector in the second instance, before the final decision has been announced? My suggestion is that we could provide for an intimation being given to the applicant that his application was not likely to succeed, giving him an opportunity to make whatever representations he thinks he can make, and providing that before the final decision is made by the board there will be a further inspection. Would the Minister say by a member of the board?
I would say the board should arrange for the inspection. They would probably have senior inspectors for the purpose.
Especially if you have the best experts on the board.
Not necessarily so. They may be the best for making a decision, but not for finding out the facts.
They ought to know whether a hotel is worthy of being registered or not.
That is where you come up against a difficulty. It is not always a question of fact. That is where Deputy Esmonde's trouble is. He sees a certain set of regulations which can be easily interpreted and a question of fact as to whether the hotel fulfils the regulations or not. It will not be always as simple as that. The board will be working with a definite policy in view, a policy of raising the standard of hotel accommodation here, and of determining whether certain hotels conform to their standard or not. The district justice, so far as the law is concerned, will not merely have to decide whether the particular hotel conforms to the standard which the the board are trying to achieve, but he will have to decide whether he approves of the board's standard at all. You cannot set up a standard in a Bill. The board cannot put that in a legal formula.
He will only have to decide whether the regulations are being complied with. The regulations will set out the board's standard.
There is something more than that. The district justice will say to the applicant: "You are not doing too well, but we know that you will do better by this time next year and we will give you another chance." He will always say that, and everybody knows it. If we are going to have this machinery in the board I think we can eliminate the one real danger which has been adverted to and really that is that the board may make a decision on inadequate or incorrect evidence or evidence which is unfair to the applicant. We can prevent that I think even by an amendment of the Bill which will ensure, first of all, that there must be a dual consideration of the position by the board, notification to the applicant, and dual inspection. I ask Deputies to keep in mind that the big problem will arise only once, and that is when all these hotels come to apply for registration the first time. After that there will be new applications only from new hotels which will not be very frequent. It will be a question of re-registration and that will depend, not on a single inspection, but on a whole year's experience, and may be influenced by quite a number of factors apart from the report of the inspector. In the case of the first applications for registration and the preparation of the first register, it is reasonable to suppose that the standard required for registration will be somewhat lower than will ultimately be aimed at by the board, because their inclination will clearly be to get a register prepared, to get on the register hotels which have undertaken to conform to the regulations, and then to proceed from that basis onwards. If Deputies think the suggestion will meet their main objections in the matter, I will see what I can produce by way of amendment to the Bill.
I should like the Minister to consider having the inspection carried out by a member of the board.
I am not prepared to put on the board the obligation of inspection.
I know, but I do not see why a member of the board could not do it.
That might mean a different type of board from the board I have in mind. I do not contemplate a board all the members of which will be whole-time. That would really mean a board of inspectors.
No, but that you will have a man who will know what standard the board wants and who will be above the rank of inspector and who will inspire confidence.
I know that if I were on the board I would have inspectors and have a sort of appeal inspector, or more than one perhaps, whose particular function would be to deal with the question of appeals and to check up on the inspectors' information, on the representations made by the hotel proprietors, and to see that all the relevant facts are available to the board when a decision is being made. I think that inevitably that is the type of organisation will be there and that you will get that double inspection and double check. I am prepared to put all that in the Bill and make it a statutory obligation on the board.
I move amendment No. 26:
In sub-section (1), line 28, to delete the words "or with the consent of the board in the month of November," and substitute therefor the words "or at any time, if it can be proved to the satisfaction of the board that death, illness, or other unforeseen circumstances, prevented the application being made within the prescribed time."
I put down this amendment because circumstances are likely to arise, such as a death or sickness in a family, in which, through an oversight, application for renewal of registration might not be made in time. In view of the value of some of the property involved in these cases, it would be a grave injustice if, owing to an oversight, the registration was not renewed.
You must stop sometime. On some particular date the officer of this board must prepare his list and send it to the printers.
I do not question that. I am only dealing with exceptional circumstances.
What is here is that the application for re-registration must be made in the month of October or, with the consent of the board, in the month of November. I think that the end of November is the latest period that we could contemplate. Even that is probably too late, as the register should be available early in the new year for publication and despatch aboard.
I do not want to change the date at all. I only want an exception made in case of abnormal circumstances arising, and of course that will be at the discretion of the board.
That is what is here. The Bill prescribes that the application must be made in October, but that, with the consent of the board, it may be made in November. That is the furthest you can go. At the end of November you must stop anyhow. It only means that the proprietor of a hotel who has failed to apply for re-registration will have to apply on the basis of a new application after that date. He cannot be in the published register, because the register must be prepared at some stage, and it must be about that period. There will be no substantial difference in the fee. It is not enough to impose a hardship.
Apart from the collection of fees, what is the full purpose of this section? What else of great importance does it accomplish?
There is the question of observing the standards. The hotel proprietor submits his application for registration and gives the proposed list of charges.
Could it not be taken for granted, apart from the question of fees, that the original charges continue?
There may be on the part of the board an intention to raise the question of charges when the application arises.
That should be given with the power to degrade. I am really thinking of the case where the ordinary man in the country gets a letter and forgets to reply to it in time. There is a very common habit when one gets a letter to say: "I will attend to this to-morrow." Deputies themselves and others may get a shock a month afterwards when they find that that letter has not been attended to.
We give them a month in which to reply, and, with the consent of the board, there is another month given.
Will the Minister accept amendment No. 27—the following amendment?
It would be better to dispose of amendment No. 26 first.
Why not accept amendment No. 26 so as to safeguard hotel proprietors in such cases as I have pointed out?
I have not slightest doubt that the board will do that, but to put a statutory obligation on them is a different matter. What is going to happen if they do not do it? If you have an obligation of that kind you must build on the consequences and see what will follow from the failure to do it. If the board does not do it, what happens? Consider the difficulty that arises.
The income-tax people do it and they never forget it.
That is a different problem. The Deputy does not want to get that letter.
But I always get it.
The application for re-registration is received in the Autumn. There would be a certain publicity. There will be the activity of the inspectors, not to mention the hotel proprietors. If the application is in time it will be in the published register. The actual register that goes abroad must be prepared at a certain date. I have not the slightest doubt that this will be considered by the board and done by them, but I do not think it right to put the obligation on them.
The Minister could make regulations to that effect.
I am prepared to accept that amendment in principle. If the Deputies will leave it stand over I will have it re-drafted by the Parliamentary draftsman.
These two amendments will be taken together.
This section looks quite innocent but to render it safe the amendments are necessary.
What the section provides for is this: that in the case of an application for re-registration the board may refuse that application if it is clear that the hotel proprietor has failed to adhere to the list of charges which he undertook to make. What the Deputy wants is to insert the words "knowingly and persistently" before the word "failed." What the Deputy suggests is that we should be satisfied that the hotel proprietor "persistently and knowingly" failed; that he never charged what he undertook to charge. I should say that he "persistently" failed if he habitually charged a higher price than the prices he submitted. I think the Deputy may take it that the board will not refuse an application because of one isolated instance, one customer charged too much at one time, but if there is evidence that the proprietor has been fleecing the tourists that is another matter. The board would not refuse the application unless that has been the regular practice on the part of the hotel proprietor.
Would the Minister accept the word "willingly"?
"Knowingly" is the same as "willingly."
"Frequency"?
The degree of frequency is the matter upon which the individual judgment will differ. I see the point that the Deputy has in mind and I saw it earlier than the Deputy— that in theory the board would refuse an application for re-registration from the Shelbourne Hotel because somebody was charged 8d., instead of 6d., for a cup of tea. It is inconceivable that that will happen. But if there is evidence that in a number of cases the charges which the proprietor undertook to observe and which he set out, are departed from and that a soft looking tourist was fleeced, then for that or for some other reason the board should have this power to refuse re-registration.
Amendment No. 34 is covered by amendment No. 25.
I move to report progress.