Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 20 Feb 1963

Vol. 56 No. 4

Hotel Proprietors Bill, 1962: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Justice (Mr. Haughey)

This Bill is concerned with the duties, liabilities and rights of innkeepers or, as it is more apt to describe them nowadays, hotel proprietors. It is one of the measures foreshadowed in the Government's published Programme of Law Reform and its purpose is to amend the law relating to innkeepers so as to bring it into closer accord with modern social needs and conditions. In addition, the opportunity is being availed of to clarify and restate the law in a single comprehensive statute, which will obviate the necessity to refer to previous enactments.

The obligations and rights of innkeepers are based on the common law and their origin can be traced back to the Middle Ages. Whether the rules derived from mediaeval views on causation or on the nature of a public calling, or from a commonly held suspicion that innkeepers were in league with highwaymen to pillage travellers, must remain a matter of speculation and controversy. What is beyond question is that the rules exist today and that basically they serve a useful, and, indeed, essential, purpose in modern society.

It is the common law duty of the innkeeper to receive and lodge every traveller at any hour of the day or night, unless he has reasonable grounds of refusal, and to receive any property which the traveller brings with him, provided there is accommodation for it at the inn. Breach of this duty renders the innkeeper liable to criminal as well as civil proceedings. The innkeeper is under a strict liability for the loss of all property brought to the inn by a traveller irrespective of whether it is lost by theft, through the negligence of another guest, or by the acts of the innkeeper's servants. The only cases in which the innkeeper can escape this liability are where the loss arises from an act of God or of the enemies of the State or the guest's own negligence. The Innkeepers' Liability Act, 1863, modified the liability by providing that an innkeeper shall not be liable to any guest for the loss of property to an amount greater than £30, unless the property is lost through the negligence of the innkeeper or his servants or has been deposited expressly for safe custody with the innkeeper. This limitation does not extend to horses or other live animals or to any carriage, motor car or other vehicle. The innkeeper has the right to detain the property of a guest who fails to pay his bill and, under the Innkeepers Act, 1878, he has the right to sell the property after six weeks in order to satisfy the debt.

Social and economic conditions have undergone considerable change since the existing law relating to innkeepers first took shape and, as might be expected, it is now out of date and anomalous in a number of respects. With a view to remedying this situation, I have had a detailed study of the matter carried out by my Department in the course of which consideration has been given to the research and ideas of experts in this field and the legislation of other countries. The present Bill represents the outcome of that work. It restates the fundamental principles of the existing law, but in a form which should prove more adequate and appropriate to our times.

Senators will notice that the term "inn" is being discarded in favour of "hotel". This is a necessary concession to modern usage, although there are some who may regret that the lovely old English word "inn", with its subtle hint of the charm and hospitality of a bygone age, is being pushed into virtual oblivion. Such is the penalty we must pay for progress. The Bill imposes on the proprietors of hotels, as defined in Section 1, new statutory duties, liabilities and rights in substitution for those at present attaching to innkeepers under the common law. The definition of "hotel" reproduces the substance of the present common law concept of an inn and automatically includes every establishment registered as a hotel with Bord Fáilte Éireann. This latter provision is new and is designed to remedy one of the unsatisfactory features of the present law, namely, the difficulty of ascertaining whether a particular premises is an inn. In future, persons staying at registered hotels can be certain that they will enjoy the benefit of the protection accorded to them by the Bill. Apart from registered hotels, the question whether a particular premises constitutes a hotel for the purposes of the Bill will be a question of fact in every case. In can be taken, however, that, in general, guest houses, boarding houses, and similar establishments do not come within the ambit of the Bill.

Section 3 re-enacts the duty of a hotel proprietor to receive all persons presenting themselves and requiring sleeping accommodation, food or drink and to provide them therewith, unless he has reasonable grounds for refusal. In that connection, I notice that one of the columnists in our daily papers expressed some anxiety that this ancient privilege, which the ordinary citizen has, might be taken away from him and I would like to assure that particular columnist and the House that this is not so. It may be observed that the duty applies to all persons whether or not they come to the hotel under a special contract. It is very common practice nowadays for people to book hotel accommodation in advance, and, although by doing so they acquire a contractual right to the accommodation which they have reserved, I am satisfied that it is desirable that they should also enjoy the benefit of the statutory protection accorded by this Bill. Section 3 provides that, subject to the terms of any special contract, the hotel proprietor must supply the desired accommodation, food, or drink at the charges for the time being current at the hotel. This provision is necessary to ensure that a proprietor will not be able to offer a prospective guest facilities at a price which he knows will deter the guest from accepting and in that way evade his statutory obligations.

It has been argued that in modern times the duty to receive all comers is an anachronism and ought to be abolished. I am unable to accept that point of view. It seems to me that, if the proprietor of a premises holds himself out as prepared to cater for all and sundry, it is only reasonable that he should be bound to receive every person who comes in a fit state to be received and who is willing to pay for the services and facilities of the hotel. I am sure the House will agree with me that it would not be in the public interest or in the interest of the tourist industry that hotels should be able to reserve their hospitality for selected guests.

I should like to point out that the duty to receive imposed by Section 3 will extend to all persons who seek admission to the hotel as guests. The existing common law concept of confining the duty to travellers is being abandoned. I am satisfied that this concept is unreal and no longer of any significance under present day conditions. In England, the Court of Appeal has admitted as much by holding that a person who visits his local inn for a drink is a traveller even though his home may be only a short distance away.

Section 5 of the Bill provides that it shall be the duty of a hotel proprietor to receive property brought by a guest provided there is suitable accommodation for it at the hotel. This will oblige the proprietor to admit the luggage and other property normally brought by a guest but it will leave him free to refuse items of an exceptional character such as, for example, dangerous or cumbersome articles or articles likely to cause inconvenience or offence to other guests. A proprietor will, for example, be entitled to refuse to admit dogs or other animals if he has no proper accommodation for them. In other words, you will not be entitled to have an elephant admitted to the hotel unless the proprietor has special accommodation for it.

Section 6 of the Bill provides that the proprietor shall be strictly liable for any damage to, or loss or destruction of, property brought to the hotel by a guest. Although the historical circumstances which gave rise to the concept of strict liability have largely disappeared, there is clearly still good reason why a hotel proprietor should be under a special obligation in regard to the safety of the goods which guests bring with them and upon which, in return, the proprietor has a lien for his charges. The visitor to the modern hotel is, as much as in the past, exposed to the risk of loss through negligence on the part of the proprietor or his servants, but it would often, by the nature of the case, be difficult for him to prove negligence, as he would have to do if strict liability were abolished. For the overseas visitor the difficulty of obtaining legal redress in such a case would be even greater. I have considered this matter very carefully and I am satisfied that it is entirely fitting that the principle of strict liability should be retained. I am confirmed in this view by the fact that the principle is accepted in most Western European countries and that it has long been enshrined in most legal systems throughout the civilized world. If we in this country were to abolish strict liability, visitors to Irish hotels would be placed in a much less favourable position than in other European countries and I have no doubt that such a situation would react unfavourably on the tourist industry here.

Although the Bill preserves the basic obligations of innkeepers in respect of property, it makes an important change by confining those obligations to the property of guests who stay overnight. I think that it is entirely inconsistent with the original notion on which innkeepers' liability was based that the obligations in respect of property should extend to articles brought to a hotel by casual visitors who merely call for a meal or a drink. Indeed, the present law has led to the anomalous situation wherein a casual visitor dining at a hotel is indemnified against the loss of any property which he brings with him, including a motor car, but is not so indemnified if he eats at a restaurant. To remove this anomaly and to restore the law to what was clearly originally intended, the obligations imposed on a hotel proprietor by Sections 5 and 6 of the Bill will extend only to the property of a guest who has booked sleeping accommodation.

The liability imposed by Section 6, that is to say, the strict liability for loss or damage, is being extended to property of which the proprietor takes charge outside the hotel, as, for example, where he sends a servant to collect the luggage of a guest from a railway station. This is a logical extension of the scope of strict liability. In so far as a motor vehicle is concerned an important new safeguard is being introduced for the proprietor in that his liability for loss or damage will not apply unless he has been previously notified that the vehicle has been brought to the hotel. This, I submit, is also a logical amendment of the existing law, as it is manifestly unfair to a hotel proprietor to burden him with liability in respect of a motor vehicle of the presence of which he may be totally unaware.

In a Circuit Court case some years ago it was held by the Court that by virtue of the Accidental Fires Act, 1943, a hotel proprietor was not liable to a guest for damage caused by accidental fire occurring on the hotel premises. The Act in question was framed to deal with liability for damage caused by fire accidentally spreading from one premises to another and I am satisfied that it was not intended to apply to the liability which a hotel proprietor has towards his guests. For the avoidance of doubt, therefore, Section 11 of the Bill makes it clear that the Act of 1943 does not apply in such cases.

The strict liability of a hotel proprietor will not apply where the damage to, or loss of, property can be shown to be due to an unforeseeable and irresistible act of nature or an act of war. This follows the existing common law rule. In the case of contributory negligence by a guest the position will be governed by the Civil Liability Act, 1961, which provides for the apportionment of liability having regard to the relative degrees of fault of the parties. If the hotel proprietor is found to be guiltless of what may be called moral fault, while the guest is guilty of negligence, the whole loss will be borne by the guest.

Section 7 of the Bill increases from £30 to £100 the existing limitation on innkeepers' liability in certain cases. This change is necessary in view of the fall in the value of money since the Innkeepers Liability Act, 1863, was enacted. In fact, the view was expressed in Dáil Éireann that the figure of £100 is not high enough and that it ought to be increased substantially. While I would be prepared to consider any suggestions which Senators may have to make in this regard, I personally feel that a limit of £100 is, on the whole, reasonable in relation to present day values. As under existing law, the limitation will not apply to motor cars or property which is deposited with the proprietor expressly for safe custody or property which is damaged or lost through the negligence of the proprietor. In order that a proprietor may obtain the benefit of the limitation, a notice in the form prescribed in the First Schedule of the Bill will have to be displayed conspicuously in the hotel premises. This notice will have to be in both Irish and English and it will replace the existing notice prescribed by the British legislation of 1863.

As I mentioned at the outset, the duty of innkeepers to receive travellers and their property is an obligation under the criminal law as well as a civil responsibility. While the threat of civil proceedings is likely to be adequate in most cases to ensure that hotel proprietors will fulfil their obligations, it is possible to envisage circumstances arising in which, on grounds of public policy, the State would wish to be able to enforce compliance with the obligation. Accordingly, Section 12 of the Bill provides that a hotel proprietor who commits a breach of this obligation will be guilty of an offence and will be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £100.

The question of the strict liability of hotel keepers in respect of the property of their guests has been under examination by the Council of Europe in recent years and a Convention on the subject aimed at securing uniformity of the law among member countries has been drawn up. The Convention was signed last December on behalf of the Irish Government, and the changes in the law which are provided for under this Bill will enable us to ratify the Convention in due course. There will, I think, be general acceptance of the fact that unification in this particular branch of the law is most desirable from the point of view of the development of international tourism. Because of the great importance of this industry to our economy, we in Ireland cannot afford to lag behind other European countries in this matter.

To sum up, therefore, the Bill is a step in the process of bringing our law up to date so as to make it reflect current outlooks and fulfil the needs of modern society, at the same time enabling us to enter into commitments for the harmonisation of our law with that of other European States. The Bill adopts the basic common law rules relating to innkeepers which have proved beneficial to the community in the past, discards such of the rules as have outlived their usefulness, and resolves certain questions of law which are at present in doubt. Lastly, the Bill collects all the law on the subject into a single document, thereby facilitating the task of making the law known to the people, and indeed, to the legal profession. I believe that these are worthwhile objectives and I feel confident that the measure is one which will commend itself to the House.

Mr. Lindsay

Anything in relation to the codification of the law in any aspect of our social life is always welcome. As a codification and a bringing up-to-date, this particular piece of legislation is welcome. However, in my respectful view, it falls very far short of being a necessary all-embracing piece of legislation, in view of the international tourism to which the Minister referred.

When I saw the Bill first and saw that it was to be confined to those buildings known as hotels, classified under lists kept by Bord Fáilte, I immediately thought of another list which, I think, almost certainly is kept by Bord Fáilte, a list of guesthouses. Now I understand that these guesthouses and boarding houses are not within the scope of this Bill. Tourism alone has taken on such magnitude in this country that it is not confined to the hotels kept in the list prepared by Bord Fáilte. In fact, I would say that the visitors who stay in that list of hotels would certainly not form half of the percentage of our local tourist traffic. We have guesthouses; we have the ordinary boarding houses, and, in fact, it is well-known that Bord Fáilte have also got a list of approved private houses to which guests are sent by the local tourist office or, indeed, in many cases, by the over-full hotels themselves.

It is a pity that that vast amount of room available to tourists should be left out of the ambit of this Bill, and that, when the Minister took the time and the trouble to prepare it and bring the law up-to-date and make certain modifications and changes, he did not give us a more comprehensive measure. Indeed, as it stands, the Bill is one that will require a good deal of serious thought and study prior to its ultimate passing through the House.

It is true, of course, as the Minister said, that times have changed. Social conditions have altered so considerably since the first requirement of all that compelled the notice we see "pursuant to Queen Victoria..." decorating the hallways of our hotels at the present time. He did mention in regard to a conspiracy as between innkeeper and highwayman for the pillaging of travellers, that these conditions no longer exist. I admit that they no longer exist because in a great many cases, particularly in relation to prices charged by our semi-State owned hotels, the highwaymen have become the managers of these places and the travellers are still pillaged.

I do not agree that the figure of £100 is sufficient to cover what might be the amount recoverable for property deposited in any hotel. In relation to the old figure of £30 I do not think it is a fair reckoning, because nowadays, I think, people can bring more with them; there is more accommodation for transport, private property and belongings. I do not think that this provision about not extending the Accidental Fires Act to hotels in this case is a good thing. If a person takes a car to a hotel and has it kept in the hotel garage—he has only a certain kind of insurance—and if there is a fire in the hotel which is proved to be accidental and in which that car is lost, where does the onus for remedy rest if he is not comprehensively covered himself?

Mr. Haughey

A motorcar is one of the things in respect of which the proprietor has full liability.

Mr. Lindsay

On the whole, I would say that we would welcome this Bill, but it still is one that requires a considerable amount of study. It is with a certain hesitation that one would give it a full welcome seeing the number of houses that are left out. Perhaps, the Minister may have another Bill in mind dealing with guesthouses, boarding houses and those private houses that are used so extensively during the season. If he has and if one is coming pretty quickly out of the stocks to bring these things up to date, this measure will be complete in itself. However, as it stands it is most inadequate.

Professor O'Brien

I should like to welcome the Bill as it brings the law into line with the changed circumstances of modern times. It is also a good example of codification of law where a good deal of litigation could take place and where decisions are hard to reconcile with one another. From the point of view of simplifying relations between people and enabling people to recognise their rights and obligations towards one another the Bill is a move in the right direction.

It is a fact that the hotel business nowadays has become much more important than it was in the past as it forms an important part of the tourist industry and the tourist industry is one of our growing export industries in the country. Therefore, it is very important that people who come here as tourists should be properly protected against people with whom they have contractual dealings. Hotels receive considerable assistance from public funds and have almost become a type of public utility. Therefore, it is right that they should have corresponding duties towards their customers.

Also, as the Minister stated, there is an international Convention of the Council of Europe and it is important that Ireland should fall in line with other countries. As the Minister stated at the end of his speech, it will now be possible when the Bill is passed for us to ratify the Convention.

Another reason for welcoming the Bill in the House is that the position of innkeepers at common law is very onerous indeed. It is a very long time since I was a law student but I do remember that there were two types of people who are insurers: innkeepers and common carriers; when an injury is inflicted on customers it is not necessary to prove negligence on the part of either innkeepers or common carriers. This is an extremely onerous obligation but it may be justified—and certainly it can be explained—by the circumstances of the Middle Ages when people were so much at the mercy of innkeepers and common carriers.

Innkeepers' liability was to some extent reduced by an Act of Parliament of exactly one hundred years ago, 1863, which limits in certain respects the liability of the innkeeper, to the sum of £30. The position of the innkeeper is still that of the innkeeper in common law, the insurer of goods of people residing in the premises provided that he is an innkeeper within the strict meaning of the term and not merely a person who keeps guests or a boarding house keeper.

As the previous speaker says, the question was raised in the Dáil whether the new amount of £100 is appropriate to the changing circumstances of modern times. There is no question but that the value of money has fallen by more than that in the past hundred years, but at the same time the principle, I think, is correct and the principle is maintained in the Bill. The exact amount is of secondary importance. It is only the liability of the innkeeper as insurer which is limited to one hundred pounds. As far as damage to guests' property is caused by negligence of the innkeeper or when the guest becomes a depositor, his liability is still unlimited. It is quite clear that Section 7, therefore, means that only his liability as insurer in the strict sense of the term is limited to one hundred pounds by this section.

It is quite right, I think, that the distinction between travellers and lodgers should be abolished. The ordinary inhabitant of a hotel today is not a traveller staying only one night and moving rapidly from night to night but a person who stays perhaps for a considerable period or certainly for several nights. From the point of view of the tourist trade I think such people, although they may be subject to special contractual rights, should be quite clear that their full rights are preserved.

As the last speaker said, the exclusion of boarding houses and private houses accepting lodgers is rather questionable. Tourists who stay in premises which are not hotels or inns within the definition of the Bill have not got the same protection as those who do stay in hotels or inns within the definition of the Bill. It could still be a matter of considerable litigation as to whether premises constituted a hotel or not. It is provided that premises registered as hotels by Bord Fáilte should be taken to be hotels but it might be a matter of some difficulty to draw a line between premises as to whether they were hotels open to receive all travellers or merely guesthouses or boarding houses. I agree with the previous speaker that now in an age of tourism where people stay for considerable periods under the same roof the rights of such people should receive special protection. I think this is a matter to which the Minister might direct his attention on the Committee Stage of the Bill. It could be a matter of considerable litigation at the present time whether premises are, in fact, hotels or not. If premises are registered under Bord Fáilte, then they are hotels, but if they are not registered it becomes a matter for decision whether they are hotels or not and this could involve considerable litigation or in certain circumstances a certain amount of injustice.

The Bill imposes many obligations on hotel proprietors but it does not impose more than they had before. It rather reduces their liability than increases it but from one point of view it might be regarded as a one-sided Bill. All the liability I think is on the hotel keepers' side and there is nothing in the Bill to protect hotel keepers against customers. There could be a considerable amount of possible loss if people who booked rooms failed to turn up or cancelled at the last moment. In cases of this kind I wonder whether an action for breach of contract would lie by the hotel keeper against the prospective customer. It would impose a loss on the hotel keeper in that he could not rent the room to somebody else and I should like to ask a question whether an action would lie in circumstances of that kind. The Minister might clarify the point.

Subject to these few observations I welcome the Bill and I think it does bring the law up to date and codifies it in a desirable manner.

Mr. Cole

Like the previous speaker, I feel that when the Minister had this question under consideration he should have had the Bill include all those guesthouses and boarding houses and deal with all at the one time. Judging from his opening remarks, I feel that this Bill has either gone too far with regard to hotels or perhaps has not gone far enough regarding the whole position.

On the point of what are termed hotels, inns or boarding houses, I might, first of all, refer to the Title of the Bill itself which is rather misleading for one thing; "an Act to amend the law connected with inns and innkeepers and for purposes connected with that matter." I would think a suggestion like an Act to make provision in respect of the law in relation to hotels or anything like that would be much more appropriate. I know this is a small point. This whole question of inns and innkeeper law is of ancient origin. I think the earliest Act mentioned is the Act of 1652 relating to horses only. There was obviously an innkeeper law before that time. Times then were vastly different from what they are now. There were dangers not alone in relation to hazards on the roads but also from other users of the roads such as robbers and highwaymen. In addition, men in those days had to carry, by reason of there being no banking facilities, large sums of money on their persons and in their luggage. It was against this sort of background that the whole law of inns and innkeepers grew up in respect of travellers only. The present Bill refers to any person presenting himself at a hotel. The whole law grew up as regards the traveller only and it was definitely unreasonable for an innkeeper in those days to refuse accommodation to a traveller if it could be avoided. For one thing, the roads and the hazards of the roads constituted a considerable danger for the traveller, and the possibility of his getting into another hotel or inn was remote. Probably his only mode of travel was on horseback. In those days probably each town had one inn with one or two inns in the larger towns, but it was very difficult to get accommodation.

Nowadays I think hotels to a certain extent are falling over themselves looking for customers. Even in small country towns where railway stations existed the hotels used to send representatives to these stations looking for customers and actually caused annoyance to people getting off trains by approaching them to stay at some particular hotel.

In most country towns now we have quite a considerable choice of hotels— all looking for clients. It is not the case now, except for a few weeks in the summer, that the hotels are full. It is not the case that they will refuse anybody. The Minister should have another look at Section 3 of the Bill to see if it is necessary in this present day and age. Having regard to the number of hotels, the mode and speed of travel nowadays, it is unnecessary to retain that sort of legislation. I think it should be left to the hotels themselves to consider what is reasonable. After all, no two judges, no two Ministers, or no two people will come to the same conclusion as to what is a reasonable excuse for a hotel to make. Is the condition of the guest, shall we say, a reasonable excuse? It has been held in the past that a person obviously suffering from an infectious disease was entitled to be admitted to a hotel.

Mr. Haughey

Was entitled?

Mr. Cole

Yes, was entitled. Supposing a hotel proprietor now knows a person is suffering from an infectious disease, I think that is a reasonable ground.

Mr. Haughey

I would say that most Senators would agree with you that it was a reasonable ground.

Mr. Cole

We are re-enacting what was supposed to be the common law position that was held reasonable at one time.

Mr. Haughey

Could the Senator give us the reference to that?

Mr. Cole

I could if I had Halsbury here. I will do so later. I have no doubt it should not be now. We must endeavour to see what is reasonable. Take the case of a small hotel. Perhaps, the clients, being older people, do not demand any service after seven o'clock or so and the hotel proprietor is thereby able to charge a lesser sum and send his staff home.

Mr. Haughey

What about a Fine Gael convention coming to a Fianna Fáil hotel?

Mr. Cole

That would be reasonable.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

We would have to get it fumigated before we went in.

Mr. Cole

Is the proprietor of that hotel prepared to receive guests? He may have rooms available and no staff. Would that be reasonable? I think there will be difficulty. The important part of this Bill hinges on what is reasonable and what is not reasonable. I feel, having regard to the present competition between hotels, the Minister should, despite his opening remarks, take another look as to whether we should retain the part about liability.

The same to a certain extent applies to the type of client. Take a small private hotel. I do not know whether the Minister can say whether there is now such a hotel as a private hotel. They still have it stated as such over the door and probably they hold themselves out as hotels proper. Are those people compelled to receive the remnants of a late night party who have decided they will not go home, demand a room in the hotel, and ask to have the bar opened and be supplied with food? These are probably unreasonable grounds. If they are reasonable grounds, they are excluded and what other unreasonable grounds are hotels going to suggest?

I should like to know from the Minister how many prosecutions have there been under this section in the past five or ten years in this country. I remember one such, in a large hotel in Dublin, where an undesirable person was turned out. Surely if at a rather expensive hotel an obviously undesirable person—a tramp—turns up and says I want a room, food and drink for tonight, payment is demanded beforehand and he says he will pay, he must be taken in. Is that a reasonable excuse? It will be very hard to get a general view on it and the whole matter should be left open to the hotels who receive what guests they wish.

The other question I want to refer to is the liability of the innkeeper for goods up to the £100 level. I am not quite sure that I would not see a lot of good ground for doing away with that also. It is the usual custom that the guest is given a key to his room and it is locked by him. Provided there is no negligence on the part of the innkeeper by having duplicate keys freely available, I feel it is unreasonable to expect an hotel keeper to be liable if, shall we say, an experienced thief breaks into that hotel, and is able to open those doors or comes in some other way. The hotel keeper is liable up to £100 for objects in those rooms. Nowadays, travellers can for a very small amount insure, if their own insurance company does cover it, their own private property. If they have not that cover I feel it is adding to the expenses of the hotel to compel the hotel proprietor to take out an insurance policy to cover all that sort of thing. But it is the other matter, the unreasonable refusal that I should like the Minister to consider again. I presume he has not had a very forceful argument on behalf of the hotels to do away with that, perhaps because there was not much hope of getting him to do it.

At the present time when hotels are looking for clients and having regard to the number and variety of hotels, guesthouses and boarding houses, I feel that hotels should be allowed to develop, perhaps, a certain type of hotel for a certain type of guest —perhaps old people, perhaps young people. The proprietor should be allowed to keep or reserve his hotel for the possibility of that type of guest turning up on the same evening or the same day. He should not be compelled to take in guests who do not conform with the type of client that he has been accustomed to keep.

The only other point I should like to ask the Minister to consider is this. Supposing a guest arrives in a hotel with very little, if any, luggage, does the lien that the hotel proprietor has entitle him to act after the first night or must he leave that guest there for a week in the hotel knowing that he has nothing; that it is very doubtful if he is going to be paid and knowing that he has nothing worth while which he can seize? Can he say after the first night: "I want to get paid or else out you go." I would support what Senator George O'Brien said that a hotel keeper should have some rights against his guest, but particularly he should have the right—stated by statute—to eject guests who behave in an indecent, obscene or unseemly manner in the hotel. I should like to see that in this Bill.

Mr. Desmond

Generally speaking, this Bill could be regarded as a most welcome step in the right direction. There is no doubt we should not relent our efforts to ensure that the tourist is properly treated, having regard to the value of tourism to our national economy. But, I think there are some shortcomings in the Bill because I notice that there is no difference whatsoever in it as to the way the employees in the hotels may be treated. Now, the industry is very important. It is very important that the proprietors should operate the industry properly and the employees in the hotels are also a very important element of the industry.

I assume that one of the reasons for bringing in this amending Bill was to improve the position generally, and as a result, the tourist industry would profit. There is no doubt about that and everybody agrees that it is important to further the tourist industry because of the effect it has on the economy of the country. I should like to see the Minister at some stage bringing in an amendment to deal with the points I have made, that is, in so far as the workers in the industry are concerned. There is, of course, accommodation for tourists, the safeguarding of the tourists' property—the customers' property. Everybody who goes to a hotel is a customer and in most cases he could be regarded as a tourist going from one part of the country to another or coming from some other country.

Now, a very important element of the hotels is the employee. There is no reference to accommodation for employees in the Bill. It could be claimed that if there is no reference to them in the Bill that proprietors could regard themselves as free from having any kind of major obligations to have accommodation up to a standard. Of course, quite a large number of hotel proprietors, or guesthouse proprietors, as they might be termed, will do the right thing but being free, with no obligations under the Bill, there is the temptation not to worry about the matter.

What is the position of an employee who dutifully carries out his orders as regards what is in the Bill? The employee, in the interests of tourism, finds himself in trouble with the employer for doing so. That can easily happen. Somebody might say that he can go to his trade union but it is not so simple to take up the matter because there is a considerable number of catering workers employed in hotels outside places like Dublin and Cork who have not got the opportunity of being organised to any extent. They live in the hotels and can be easily threatened with dismissal, as they have been from time to time, if they take up the affair, and operate through the ordinary working class movement, which is the trade union.

An Cathaoirleach

These matters are hardly appropriate on this Bill.

Mr. Desmond

I thought they were an important part of the industry.

An Cathaoirleach

Yes, but not an important part of this Bill.

Mr. Desmond

I shall just make this point. I should like to see the Minister bringing in an amendment to cover the points I have made. In that way the people concerned may be able to be made part of the Bill. The employees I have referred to are not covered, even by the Conditions of Employment Act. The Minister is aware of that, of course, and that it is a big handicap to workers because most workers in industry in the country are covered by the Conditions of Employment Act. As far as I know those employees are not. Then, would we not need to safeguard them in some way? If the Cathaoirleach says I cannot proceed on that line I cannot do so. I would ask if the Minister would be prepared to bring in an amendment to have them covered in some way.

An Cathaoirleach

It is not appropriate on this Bill.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

As I understand it, the intention of the Minister in introducing this Bill was to define the obligations of hoteliers to their guests and the obligations of guests to hotel proprietors in one piece of legislation. In so far as that was the intention of the Minister and in so far as the Bill achieves that object, I, of course, welcome it. I think it highly desirable that the law should be brought up to date and that the law relating to any given subject should be codified and be readily available in one Act. I think, however, that the Title of the Bill is very misleading. It says: "An Act to amend the law relating to inns and innkeepers and for purposes connected with that matter". I could sympathise with Senator Desmond in the points he was making, because if we were to take the Bill at its face value, so to speak, as outlined in the Title, one would think that the Bill should deal with these matters. However, I think that in the Dáil the Minister made it clear that it is really only a Bill to define the legal obligations of hotel-keepers to their guests and guests to their hotel-keepers.

There has been some considerable discussion as to whether this Bill applies to hotels properly so called or whether it applies to hotels, guesthouses, boarding houses and private houses that keep paying guests. From what I have read of the Dáil debates I am of the opinion that the Minister intends that the Bill should extend to establishments other than hotels, that it should extend to guesthouses or other establishments that hold themselves out as prepared to accept all comers who require sleeping accommodation, food and drink. My own opinion is that the definition in Section 1 of this Bill will lead to endless trouble and litigation, if anybody thinks it worth his or her while to pursue the matter. The only thing that is clear from the section is that the definition "hotel" includes every establishment registered in the register of hotels kept under Part III of the Tourist Traffic Act, 1939. That is the only thing which is perfectly clear in the Bill. It would appear from the section that some other establishments other than those registered under that Act are intended to be covered by the Bill, because if that were not so the definition would merely say that "hotel" means every establishment registered in the register of hotels kept under Part III of the Tourist Traffic Act, 1939.

Mr. Haughey

I do not wish to interrupt but, perhaps, we could consider this more fully on Committee Stage.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

I agree but I am putting the Minister on notice. I do not intend to go into it any deeper than that, but I certainly think that it is anything but clear and that the Bill badly needs to be tidied up. It has a bearing, too, on something I shall say later on. I entirely agree with Senator Cole's views on Section 3 which is the section which makes it incumbent on hotel-keepers to receive guests at any time of the day or night. As the Minister said in his opening remarks, the law relating to innkeepers goes back to the Middle Ages. Obviously, this provision must be one of the earliest obligations ever placed on hotel-keepers by common law or otherwise. It is obviously a provision that was intended to ensure that travellers would not be stranded in the middle of the night, in the days of slow travelling, far away from any shelter. In the days when this rule was introduced, inns, I am sure, were few and far between. Travel was very slow. It was quite impossible to arrange accommodation in advance unless one knew a very long time in advance that one had need to travel. It was reasonable then, I suppose, to impose a legal obligation on inns to receive guests. That was all in the days gone by, which were entirely different from the present time.

The Minister in his opening speech made a point which, I think, supports my argument. He said that the traveller is now a thing of the past. One of the courts in England has apparently held the view that if you move round the corner to the local to have a drink before bed that you are a traveller, and they have in so many words abolished the definition of "traveller" as we know it. I cannot see why there is any more necessity to impose an obligation on a hotel to do business, because that is what this section is doing, than to impose on, say, a draper the necessity to sell clothes.

We do not impose an obligation on a solicitor to act for all clients nor do we impose an obligation on an accountant to do business for everybody who chooses to instruct him and to pay him. Not alone are we going to impose in this Bill an obligation on hotel-keepers to receive guests, but we are going to make it a criminal offence for them to refuse to do so. That is going very far. It will show you how out of date the law was until the passing of this Bill.

At the present time it is an offence for a hotel-keeper to refuse to receive a guest unless he has reasonable grounds for refusing him. It is a very serious offence; it is an indictable offence, on which he can be returned for trial and charged before a judge and jury. I suppose he can get penal servitude. I do not know. That is really absurd. This Bill recognises the absurdity of that because it says that it will not be necessary to send a hotel-keeper for trial before a judge and jury. He can be tried in a summary fashion before a district justice.

I repeat that that is quite absurd and unnecessary because the country is now well catered for with hotels. The ordinary law of supply and demand ensures that nobody will be left out in the cold. There is keen competition between hotels.

I wish to come back for a moment to the Definition section. It is not too clear whether this Bill merely deals with hotels which are registered under the Tourist Traffic Act or whether it deals with those establishments and with guesthouses, boarding houses, et cetera. I think the probability is that it deals only with the larger hotels which hold themselves out as prepared to receive all comers. If that is so Section 3 is all the more objectionable because it means that the person who is prepared to stay in the more expensive hotel, the better class hotel, the more exclusive hotel, can insist on his right to be accepted and provided with food and drink at reasonable prices but if a man who comes up from the country to a football match wants to stay in a modestly priced guesthouse or boarding house in the city of Dublin he has no such right. He cannot say: “I demand to be admitted and under the law of the land you must admit me and provide food and drink at reasonable prices.” It may be argued that he can go to one of the hotels which hold themselves out as being prepared to receive all comers but that may be out of his class and beyond his resources. He may be put up from, say, 15/- for bed and breakfast to more than double that. Unless the Minister can very clearly tell us before he finally asks us to pass this Bill that Section 3 deals with hotels, guesthouses, boarding houses and every establishment of that nature.

Mr. Haughey

I have already told you that it does not deal with every establishment of that nature.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

Then I suggest that the Minister has provided one law for the better-off classes and another for the not so well off classes.

Mr. Haughey

That is a non sequitur.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

I think it is absolutely clear that this measure deals only with hotels.

Mr. Haughey

You have very cheap hotels, too, and very dear guesthouses. In fact, there are far more cheap hotels than dear ones.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

Is the Minister seriously arguing that ordinary bed and breakfast establishments are not a good deal cheaper than hotels?

Mr. Haughey

Ordinary bed and breakfast establishments usually are hotels.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

I leave it to the good sense and practical knowledge of the members of this House to decide whether the point I am making is a bad one or a good one. I know that the majority will not agree in a division but I think that in their hearts they will agree that the point I am making is a good one.

That is the only point of principle I wanted to make but like Senator Cole I feel that I should appeal to the Minister either to make this application universal or to drop it.

Mr. McGuire

I have not a great deal to say on this Bill and what I have to say is prompted by a few remarks which have already been made. Following what Senator Fitzpatrick has just said it seems to me strange that Irish hotels are singled out to be an industry bound by such strict regulations under the law. In fact, it is the only trade I can think of— apart from the licensed trade which seems so much under the eye and finger of legislation.

I have always advocated consultation between the Government and relevant vocational bodies as one of the best forms of preparing and introducing legislation and in this connection I should like to ask the Minister what the hotel keepers themselves say. I am sure that the Minister has consulted the hotel-keepers themselves.

Mr. Haughey

I have and I might say that I made substantial amendments to meet their points.

Mr. McGuire

If so that is as good as asking if they are satisfied. The line I always take is that it is all right for us to argue the different points but the main thing is whether the hotel keepers who will be subject to this law are going to be satisfied. It would be a pity that we should waste our time fighting for something they will not fight for themselves.

A point just struck me when the Senator referred to rules and regulations. It deals with the workers connected with the hotel industry—they were fighting it in a big way in connection with the White Paper. The idea of organised labour is that a lot of these things should be settled by collective bargaining. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot use the law to impose rules and regulations on employers if at the same time you insist that they have the right to do these things by collective bargaining.

I made a speech last night at the FUE annual meeting in which I suggested the development of the system in this country of individual agreements as well as collective agreements. If that were made the system of employment all over the country it would cover not only collective bargaining on a national basis but individual agreements as in this Bill.

An Cathaoirleach

Conditions of employment are not relevant.

Mr. McGuire

The point is the absence of any reference in the Bill to the people employed in the industry.

Mr. Nash

At the outset I should like to thank the Minister for his gracious acknowledgment of the assistance his Department got from the Council of the Law Society in the drafting of this Bill. I assure him on behalf of the Law Society that we should be only too happy to give any assistance possible at all times on any matter regarding codification or bringing up to date our present legislation.

In my view the Bill is to be commended and the Minister is to be congratulated for introducing it. It has two important hallmarks. It codifies the legal position and bears in mind the altered circumstances of the Bill. All the old Acts and decided cases— the whole lot are brought up to date and provision is made for the altered circumstances of today.

Likewise, the Bill is another instance of our country's determination to take a part in the Europe of the future. It enables us as a country to do something we should have been unable to do unless the Bill were passed: to be a party to the Convention of the Council of Europe. In many respects and in many of its details the Bill follows that Convention.

There have been criticisms of the Bill which at first glance would appear to be commendable. On reconsideration, however, I doubt if they would commend themselves to the Senators who made them. It has been suggested that the duties and the obligations placed by this Bill on the owners of hotels should likewise be imposed on the owners of guesthouses and lodging houses. The owners of hotels, guesthouses and lodging houses in this country have been placed in a very special and privileged position, first, under the Tourist Traffic Act and their registration thereunder and, secondly, by reason of the very generous grants and loans which they have got from the State. That privileged position must be paid for, or at least should be acknowledged to the public, and one of the obligations which hotels should undertake, particularly having regard to the generosity with which the hotels have been treated, is that they should at all times and in all reasonable manner, and un-unless there is a justifiable excuse, provide food and lodging for all travellers requiring such.

To suggest that this is an obligation which is placed on them and not on other members of the community is to suggest also that traders and other members of the community have received from the State the same privileges and the same generosity which the hotels of our country have received. Furthermore, to avoid that obligation would possibly lead to the introduction of a system which exists in other countries of an unfortunate discrimination between people because of colour bar or because of some other reason which would be objectionable to our inherent sense of the dignity of man.

With regard to the boarding houses and the guesthouses which exist throughout the country, some are merely for the accommodation of people who can ill afford to pay high tariffs; for the accommodation, in many cases, of extra builders' labourers who are drafted in and who have to send home money for the support of their wives and families and for the accommodation, even in the city, of people—young boys and young girls— in moderate position with moderate incomes. In many cases these boarding houses and guesthouses are kept by widows who thereby endeavour, through the summer months, to ameliorate their economic position and add a little to what, perhaps, is a very moderate income. I think it would be most unreasonable to suggest that these people should be under the same obligations as hotels, and I am sure that, on reconsideration, the Senators who criticised the Bill for that reason will feel that, far from this Bill providing one law for the rich and one law for the poor, it does endeavour to facilitate everyone according to his particular circumstances.

Section 6 of the Bill has been criticised because it imposes a paradoxical liability on hotelkeepers irrespective of contract or irrespective of negligence up to a certain moderate limit. There is just one feature regarding that section to which I should like to draw the Minister's attention. The Civil Liability Act entitles the hotel to a reduction in the liability if there is any negligence on the part of the guest. Let us take, for example, the hotel which refuses to provide, or which has lost, the keys of the various rooms, or does not provide a key for a room. A lady is staying in that hotel and instead of locking her fur coat in the wardrobe she leaves it on the bed. It is worth, say, £200 or £300. The coat is stolen. First, there is a liability on the hotel for £100, which may be only one-half or possibly one-third of the value of the coat. In the second place then the hotel should be entitled, I think, as the section stands, to argue that this lady, appreciating that she had no key for her room, should have taken her coat down to the office or should have locked it in her suitcase so as to ensure that it would not be stolen. She is thereby guilty of some contributory negligence to a fifty-fifty extent and so instead of getting £300 she would get £50 for a coat worth £300.

Mr. Haughey

It would not work that way. The contributory negligence would be assessed in relation to the total value of the coat.

Mr. Nash

If that is so, it would meet the difficulty in that respect. I thank the Minister. I have nothing further to say on the Bill except to express my own personal view that I feel it is a most essential piece of legislation. It will go far towards assisting our tourist industry. It is a very welcome step—a further step I should say—in the codification of our law.

Mr. Haughey

First, I should say that I fully agree with Senator Nash that this is an excellent piece of legislation. I should like at the outset to deal with the main, and possibly the only real criticism which has been made of the Bill. That is the fact that boarding houses and guesthouses have not been brought within its scope. To criticise the Bill on these grounds is to completely misunderstand its purpose and intention. I want to make it clear that this is not a tourist traffic Bill. Tourist traffic and its regulatiton is a matter for the Minister for Transport and Power and all matters of that sort and in connection with our tourist traffic fall to be regulated by and legislated for by him if necessary.

This Bill deals with a particular and special legal relationship, namely, the relationship between a hotel proprietor and his guest. In so far as the general regulation of hotels is concerned, their standards of accommodation, the prices they charge, cleanliness, hygiene, and so forth, that is a matter which falls under the jurisdiction of the Minister for Transport and Power as Minister responsible for tourism and his agent in these matters—Bord Fáilte Éireann. If hotels, boarding houses and guesthouses have to be controlled in that sense, with regard to cleanliness, standards of accommodation, and so on, this also is a matter for tourist traffic legislation and for Bord Fáilte.

It would be completely inappropriate to include boarding houses and guesthouses within the scope of this Bill because there is this essential difference. Boarding houses and guesthouses do not hold themselves out to receive all comers and the distinguishing characteristic of what is in this Bill, or outside it, is simply that. If an establishment holds itself out as prepared to receive all comers it is brought within the ambit of this Bill and, incurs all the appropriate liabilities. The normal guesthouse or boarding house does not hold itself out to receive all comers. It is only in business to receive its own customers, people to whom it is under special contract. If, for one moment, it sets itself up to receive all comers, it is no longer, for the purposes of this Bill, a boarding house or guesthouse. It is a hotel and it becomes liable. But it would be unfair to impose on the ordinary boarding house or guesthouse, which merely caters for its own guests under special contract, the liabilities which the Bill places on hotel proprietors. Most of these establishments would be unable to, and indeed should not be expected to, assume such obligations. In contrast to the views expressed by Senators, one of the principal worries which members of the Dáil had was whether by some chance or other, the obligations and liabilities under this Bill would be imposed upon these establishments.

Most of the points raised by Senators were I think more appropriate to the Committee Stage, but, perhaps I might deal with one or two specific queries which were put to me. First of all, Senator Cole asked about private hotels. Of course, there can be no such thing. An establishment can only call itself a hotel if it is registered as such with Bord Fáilte. That is laid down in the tourist traffic legislation. If a premises is so registered, then by definition it comes within the scope of this Bill.

Senator O'Brien raised the question of the loss which hotel proprietors would incur by virtue of a person making an advance booking and then not taking it up. That is a matter which can be dealt with in two ways. First of all, the hotel proprietor can regulate his business in such a way as to protect himself against loss, as, for example, by refusing to take bookings unless accompanied by a deposit. Over and above that, the hotel proprietor has the same right of action against a person who is in breach of a contract in that regard, as that person would have against the hotel. Admittedly it is a right of action which would be difficult to enforce as a rule but, nevertheless, it is there. It is almost certain that in a large majority of cases the hotel would be entitled to sue a person who made a booking and then did not take it up. That of course would not be a matter for this Bill. There are no provisions in this Bill in regard to that but it would be covered in what I would call the law of contract.

I reject, of course, the suggestion that this is a one-sided Bill. Several Senators have referred to the fact that we appear to put onerous obligations on hotel keepers and single them out as a particular business for the imposition of legal disabilities. In that connection I want, first of all, to point out that the hotel business is a unique business. It has been regarded as such down through the centuries and for a variety of reasons I think the hotel keeper is in a very special position in relation to his guests. People staying in a hotel are, in a peculiar way, at the mercy of the proprietor. They are at his mercy as regards their personal convenience and safety and as regards their property, and it is illogical to compare hotel proprietors to drapers, grocers, or anybody of that nature. They are in a unique position and it is only proper and right that the law should step in and regulate and control the relationship which exists in this unique business. As I say, it has been a tradition down through the centuries and I see no reason to alter the position. So far as I have altered it, what I have done is to make the position of the hotel proprietor less onerous than it has been under the common law and under the various Innkeepers Acts. I have met the hotel proprietors and have discussed the Bill with them. I have listened to their suggestions and their problems as sympathetically as possible and have gone a fair distance to meet a number of suggestions they have put forward.

Senator Cole mentioned a number of points. May I say with respect to Senator Cole that he seems to be getting his lines crossed.

On the one hand he says this Bill is placing unnecessary and onerous obligations on hotel-keepers as such and at the same time he wants to have it applied to boarding-houses and guest houses. Surely if the Bill is onerous and unnecessary in the case of hotel keepers, who, by and large, are bigger, wealthier, and better established, it would be far more so in relation to boarding houses and guest houses? However, I think Senator Cole may have fallen for the general line of argument which was put forward by the Senators who preceded him and that that is not really his case at all.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Haughey

I think like many a better man before him he has been misled by the Leas-Chathaoirleach of the Seanad. Senator Cole did refer to the case of a guest coming to a hotel with an infectious disease. I understand there was an old case in 1701 where it was held that such a person was entitled to be admitted, but I do not think that decision would be followed today. In any event the position of the hotel keeper in that regard is surely protected by the Public Health regulations. Over and above that, I think any body of reasonable men would regard as a reasonable ground for refusing admission to a hotel the fact that somebody was suffering from an infectious disease.

Any other points which I think were made can be more effectively and thoroughly dealt with on the Committee Stage. But, I want to say again that the Bill is designed to deal with a specific legal relationship and that legal relationship only comes about because certain establishments hold themselves out to receive all comers. If they do not hold themselves out they are not within the scope of the Bill—unless they are registered as hotels—and this legal relationship does not arise.

There is a criterion which must be applied to them if they set themselves up to receive all comers. If they do they automatically incur all the obligations and liabilities which the Bill imposes. If they do not set themselves up to receive the public at large, the Bill does not apply to them and they are more or less private establishments dealing with their customers on the basis of contract. If any provision has to be made in regard to these establishments it should be under Tourist Traffic legislation. This particular Bill sets out, as I said, to deal with the specific legal relationship between the hotel proprietors and their guests and is not a Bill which purports to regulate tourist establishments.

Mr. Nash

Might I ask the Minister one question. Has he any records of any prosecutions in the past five or ten years?

Mr. Haughey

I have no such records. I shall explain why it is proposed to keep this particular criminal element in the Bill. Generally speaking, I think the relationship between a hotel proprietor and a guest would be decided on the basis of civil law and any action which would arise would normally be a civil action. However, it is, as I said in my opening remarks, desirable that the provisions with regard to criminal proceedings should be retained. The State, by means of prosecution, will be able to insist that the hotel proprietors face up to their obligations and liabilities as laid down in the Bill. One can readily think of an instance, as mentioned by Senator Nash, where there would be an attempt to establish a colour bar and it might be desirable, as a matter of social policy, to see to it that such a development did not occur in our Irish hotels.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for next sitting day.