I move amendment No. 1:
In page 2, before section 3, to insert a new section as follows:
" 3—(1) The proprietor of a hotel is under a duty to receive at the hotel as guests all persons who, whether or not under special contract, present themselves and require sleeping accommodation, food or drink and to provide them therewith, unless he has reasonable grounds of refusal.
(2) Subject to the terms of any special contract, the proprietor is under a duty to provide such accommodation, food or drink at the charges for the time being current at the hotel."
This amendment which, in fact, substitutes a new section for Section 3 has a couple of purposes. First of all, we want to make it clear in what manner Section 3 will apply in the case of a person coming to a hotel with a special contract. Under the section as it stands, the duty imposed on a hotel proprietor to receive all comers applies primarily to guests coming without a special contract. Where a person has a special contract —in other words, where he has booked in advance or made a reservation— the proprietor's duty to receive him arises, in the first instance, out of the contract itself. Of course, as I have already indicated, it is the intention that, if a hotel proprietor refuses to honour a contract, the guest can fall back on and rely upon the statutory duty to receive. As the section is drafted at the moment, I do not think it makes this intention quite clear. I am satisfied, and I think the House will be satisfied, that the statutory duty to receive all comers should be specially expressed to apply to all persons, whether or not they come under a special contract. I think it will be agreed that subsection (1) of the new section achieves this.
Where there is a special contract, that is, where a person has made some special arrangements in advance, the proprietor may be bound under the terms of that arrangement to provide the guest with accommodation, food or drink at special prices. It is necessary, therefore, to ensure that the statutory provision will not interfere with the contractual right of the guest to receive accommodation, food or drink at those special prices. Subsection (2) of the proposed new section seeks to achieve this, by beginning with the words: "Subject to the terms of any special contract...."
The second purpose of the amendment is to meet objections which have been raised by the hotel industry about the obligation to provide accommodation, food or drink at "reasonable prices". I mentioned on Committee Stage that this provision is a re-statement of existing common law. The object is to ensure that a hotel proprietor will not be able to evade his duty by offering to all comers, as he is supposed to do, accommodation, food or drink at excessive prices, and thereby in reality evading his obligations. The hotel industry have recommended to me that the obligation to supply at reasonable prices could be availed of by difficult, eccentric or unscrupulous persons to create unnecessary difficulty for hotel managements and to upset the normal running of their businesses. They maintain that the provision about reasonable prices is unnecessary nowadays because all such prices in registered hotels are published by Bord Fáilte, and if a hotel proprietor seeks to charge more than the published price, his registration can be terminated.
I am not convinced that the expression " reasonable prices " would, in fact, give rise to the difficulties that the hoteliers seem to envisage but, in deference to their objections, I have decided that we should possibly make the situation a little clearer. As the House will see, subsection (2) now stipulates that the duty is to provide accommodation, food or drink "at the charges for the time being current at the hotel". Possibly that wording is a little more satisfactory, and it is certainly more satisfactory from the point of view of the hotel proprietors. It is a change which, as I said, I have agreed to make in deference to them.