Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 24 Jan 1963

Vol. 199 No. 3

Committee on Finance. - Hotel Proprietors Bill, 1962— Committee Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."

I wish to refer to the discussions we had on this section when last the Bill was before the House. I have been reconsidering the section in the light of the comments made about it on that occasion. As it is at present, the section is designed to cover the case of a person who goes to a hotel without special contract. A hotel proprietor is bound to receive such a person. If the person has a special contract, the duty to receive arises out of the contract itself. However, if the hotel proprietor refuses to receive under the contract, the prospective guest could fall back on the statutory duty to receive. As I understand it, that is the existing law.

I agree, however, that the section as drafted does not make that intention quite clear. Furthermore, I am now satisfied that the statutory duty to receive should apply to all persons, whether or not they come under special contract. In the case of a special contract, the proprietor may, of course, be bound under the contract to provide accommodation, food or drink and provision will have to be made separately in the section for such a case. I hope to bring in an amendment on Report Stage which will clarify this section in these two respects.

Representations have been made to me by the hotel industry about the use of the term "reasonable prices" in the section. I think some reference may have been made to this matter when last we were discussing the section. The provision about prices as at present drafted is a restatement of the existing common law, the object being to ensure that a hotel proprietor will not be able to evade his duty by offering facilities at a prohibitive rate. However, the hotel industry claims that the obligation to supply accommodation, food and drink at reasonable prices could be invoked by troublesome or unscrupulous persons to create difficulties for them and could be used by such people to upset the normal running of the hotel.

Furthermore, they say this provision is unnecessary nowadays because these matters are regulated by Bord Fáilte and the maximum charges of all hotels registered with Bord Fáilte are published in accordance with the requirements of the Tourist Traffic Acts and a hotelier who exceeds the published charges incurs the risk of having his registration terminated by Bord Fáilte. I am considering the representations which the hotel proprietors have made in this matter and I shall be introducing an amendment on Report Stage to cover the point. It is not that I do not think that the term "reasonable prices" as it is used in the section is suitable and adequate but that I wish to allay the fears and the worries of the hotel proprietors more than anything else.

I think the Minister will agree that this is a section which brings about a fairly radical departure from the existing law in that, when this Bill goes through, the duty imposed on hotel proprietors will be to receive allcomers, irrespective of whether they are travellers or not. I am glad the Minister has indicated he will look again at the section in view of the representations made to him.

There was one point I mentioned on the last occasion; I see in the Official Report it is credited to Deputy Sweetman but, nevertheless, I would ask the Minister to deal with it. It does seem to me that the present wording of this section imposes an absolute obligation on hotel proprietors to make their services, both in regard to food and drink, available to allcomers at all hours. The point I wanted the Minister to look into was the effect of this in relation to the hours under the intoxicating liquor legislation. As the Minister is no doubt aware, there are concessions to hoteliers so far as closing hours are concerned under the Intoxicating Liquor Act but only limited concessions. It does not entitle them to remain open all night and to serve drink at any time anyone calls. If you take the wording of Section 3 it does seem we are imposing an obligation on hotel proprietors to serve food or drink or provide sleeping accommodation to anyone who calls at any hour, day or night.

In regard to the extension of the obligation on hotel proprietors, that extension is more apparent than real because the concept of a traveller in the common law had become so widely extended that it was almost synonymous with allcomers. There is an English case where it was decided that a man who drops around to the "local" for a drink in the evening is a traveller. However, I think we could profitably leave the discussion on that over until the Deputies see the form of the new section.

There is no problem about the intoxicating liquor point. Deputy O'Higgins will see that the section even as it is drafted says: "Unless he has reasonable grounds for refusal." It would be a reasonable ground for refusal to say he was refusing to serve a drink because it would break the law to do so. There is an additional factor, that is, where you have an Act like the Intoxicating Liquor Act specifically directed to provisions governing the sale of intoxicating liquor, it would override this sort of general provision.

Could you not make sure of that by saying it is subject to the hours which are fixed by law?

Ex abundanti cautela. I am advised there is a well-known rule covering cases of this sort, that a subsequent general Act does not affect a special Act by implication, and that is exactly the sort of situation we have here.

Except that this is not implication; it is definite.

General provisions do not abrogate special provisions.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Barr
Roinn