Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1962—Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage.

Debate resumed on the following amendment:

In page 13, line 54, after "Act of 1960" to insert "pursuant to an application notice of which was given, pursuant to the rules of Court, to the appropriate county registrar or the appropriate district court clerk". —(Deputy M.J. O'Higgins.)

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I regard this amendment as a technical one and I hope the Minister will accept it. The provisions of Section 17 provide that in the case of applications affected by that section after the passing of the Bill or the commencement of its operation as an Act, new applications cannot be granted. There is a saving provision in connection with what I might call full applications for new licences which are dealt with under subsection (4) (a). It is quite clear in the case of full applications for a new licence that if the notice of application was given before the commencement of the Act, those applications may still be granted by the court.

The next thing dealt with in the section is the case of declarations regarding the fitness of premises to be licensed when certain works of alteration are carried out or possibly in the case of a virgin site where the premises are actually erected. They are dealt with under Section 15 of the 1960 Act.

Paragraph (b) of subsection (4) of the present Section 17 in the Bill provides that in those cases also the licences may be granted provided the declaration has actually been made by the court before the commencement of the Act. There are cases where the necessary preliminaries would have been taken, notice is given to the Garda, county registrar and district court clerk and where expenses will have been incurred by way of architect's fees for doing the necessary planning, where the newspaper notices have been inserted but where the application has not actually come before the court. In those cases, I am suggesting to the Minister that he should provide for the case of pending applications even though the declaration has not actually been made. I have got the Minister's suggestion in connection with this matter and perhaps I could study it for a moment. I think the Minister's suggested amendment meets fully the point I am making and I would accept that. I think it is identical with the idea I have in mind.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Haughey)

I move amendment No. 28A:

In page 13, line 55, after "Act", to insert:

"or that notice of an application for such a declaration was given, pursuant to rules of court, to the appropriate County Registrar or to the appropriate District Court Clerk before the commencement of this Act, and that such declaration was granted (whether before or after such commencement)."

This amendment is to meet the idea put forward by Deputy O'Higgins. I would like further to amend the amendment as circulated by substituting the word "made" for the word "granted" in the second last line.

Amendment, as altered, agreed to.

Mr. Haughey

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 13, between lines 55 and 56, to insert the following section:

"Where a person is convicted (whether before or after the passing of this Act) in relation to any premises in respect of which he holds a licence for the sale of intoxicating liquor by retail and which is situate in the Court area of Swinford of more than one offence (being offences each of which was committed during the period from the 19th day of May, 1961, to the 23rd day of May, 1961) and more than one of the convictions would, but for this section, fall to be recorded under Section 25 of the Act of 1927 on the licence, not more than one of the convictions shall be so recorded."

It will be remembered that on Committee Stage I was pressed by a number of Deputies to do something for the Swinford publicans. I have decided to accede to those requests to some extent and the purpose of the amendment is to give what I may prescribe as a partial amnesty to the publicans in Swinford who committed a number of offences against the licensing laws on the occasion of the fleadh ceoil in Swinford last year. There was a substantial request from all parts of the House to the effect that these publicans should not, by reason of what occurred on that occasion, lose their licences.

This is a very unusual type of provision and I want to make my own position with regard to it clear. The suggestion was made on the Committee Stage that we should not discuss the matter because it was, to some extent, sub judice. I am prepared to grant that there is some validity in that point but as long as we do not suggest that any publican was or was not guilty of any offence we are entitled to take note of the fact that there are on record convictions against various publicans and that other charges are pending. I think we should refrain from making any comment about the degree of blame which should attach to these offences. I do not want to say any more than that except that the full picture was not given here by a number of Deputies on the Committee Stage.

However, having said all that I think there is some basis for the arguments which were put to me and in all the circumstances I feel that the compromise I am proposing goes as far as I can go. It is clear from the wording of the amendment what the intention is.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I think the Minister has met the suggestion that was made to him in this connection quite fairly in this amendment. I appreciate what he says regarding matters which are sub judice but I think the House must never abrogate its right to discuss whatever it thinks proper. I agree that it is not proper to discuss matters which are sub judice if there is any danger of prejudicing any person. The Minister has met the request in a fair way in providing that no more than one conviction arising out of this particular occasion and special circumstances can be recorded.

The danger which faced the publicans in this area was that their licences might have been lost arising out of very exceptional circumstances, and it would not have been necessary to introduce this amendment or to make special and peculiar provisions of this sort if the Minister had decided to adopt the suggestion made from these benches to allow the court to have discretion with regard to the recording of convictions. The Minister argued in relation to an amendment yesterday evening that it was only in relation to the immediately after closing hours offences that the question of discretion in connection with the recording of convictions might be important. The fact that this amendment is now being introduced shows in a very effective way that there are, and that there may be from time to time, particular and special circumstances in which it would be a very valuable matter that discretion with regard to endorsements might be vested in the courts.

Mr. Haughey

I do not accept that at all.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 13, between lines 55 and 56, to insert a new section as follows:

"Section 23 (2) of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1960, shall be amended by the deletion of the word `two' and the substitution of the word `three'."

I do not know whether amendments Nos. 30 and 31 might be discussed together.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 together.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I think it is necessary to recommit for this amendment. Deputy Sweetman had a word with the Minister in regard to that. This amendment deals with the question of lapsed licences which are dealt with under Section 23, subsection (2) of the 1960 Act. Under that subsection the period for renewals expired, I think, on the 4th of the present month. Deputy Sweetman's suggestion in amendment No. 30 is that that period should be extended for a further year, until July of next year.

Mr. Cosgrave

The purpose of the amendment in Deputy O'Donnell's name and my name is to achieve a similar result with the slight difference that in the case of our amendment we suggest it remain in force for a period of six months. It is a well-known maxim ignorantia legis non excusat. That, in the main, applies to criminal matters. Undoubtedly, in this case quite a number of people were ignorant of their rights and failed to avail of them. It may be because of the circumstances in which the last Intoxicating Liquor Bill was passed. During the course of its passage it was stated it would be allowed to operate for a trial period and that amending legislation might be considered after that trial period had expired.

This may be the last occasion for some time before we have another Intoxicating Liquor Bill and, consequently, it seems reasonable, in view of the provision made in the 1960 Act and, indeed, in certain respects, made in this Bill, for cases to be considered where an application has been made to the court or a declaration secured. The dormant licence provision deals with somewhat similar cases.

A few people, most of them, I think, in comparatively remote areas, have what might be regarded as a valuable interest or at least an interest of some value—it may not be very considerable—if they are in a position to revive the licence by making an application to the court. Many of those people, through domestic or other circumstances, found their licences had lapsed and are anxious now to revive them. I would suggest that the Minister might amend the 1960 Act as set out in either of these amendments. The attendant publicity would direct the attention of any person who is interested and who feels that he or she has been prejudiced by being unaware of the position up to this. They should be given an extended period under which they could make an application to revive the licence which was either their property or the property of their family.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

With regard to amendment No. 30, the Minister may take it that, if he is prepared to give the six months, the year would not be sought.

Mr. Haughey

I am sorry that I cannot give way on this. I know that some people feel aggrieved by what has happened but I think that will always be the case. Were we to give six months or a year, there would still be hard cases who would say that they were not aware of the provision and would ask to have the period extended for six months. We must get finality. As Deputies know, hard cases make bad law.

The background to all this is that there are too many licences in the country. Some day we may have to face up to that problem but that is the background to the situation. We should set our faces very sternly against new licences coming into being in any way except where they are strictly necessary for the public convenience. There is no question in the majority of these cases or in any of these cases of there being a necessity for a renewal of these licences.

There is no licence at all in existence at the moment. All that is involved is a right to apply for a licence. We are not taking anything away from anybody which he already has. I think the Oireachtas dealt very fairly with this situation by giving two years' notice of this provision. Anybody who slept on his rights for that two years cannot expect he should get favourable treatment now.

There is another aspect of this matter. In the vast majority of these cases the licences which have lapsed are renewed entirely for the purposes of sale. In the past two years I would say that by far the majority of the licences which were revived were revived for sale. On that basis, there is no real investigation of the suitability of the premises or anything of that nature. Indeed, I think if most of these applicants were submitted to the test of suitability of premises, the courts would not renew the licences at all.

All that apart, the real principle at stake here is whether or not we wish to have more licences created or brought into being where they are not really necessary. I am informed that there are probably well over 1,000 of these lapsed licences throughout the country. We could not possibly contemplate having all of those 1,000 licences suddenly revived and brought back into operation. It would be entirely against the principle which we have adhered to of restricting the issue of new licences. It would have a very serious effect on business equities throughout the country, particularly in country towns. As well as that, the 1960 Act gave them sufficient notice to revive their licences.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

The Minister will realise that the risk of having the 1,000 lapsed licences renewed if an extension for six months were given is so remote that it need not be regarded at all if they were not revived in the past two years. The Minister will realise that there are hard cases. Probably he is right in saying there always will be when you set a deadline.

There was one case brought to my attention—I shall not mention the name—where a person wanted to apply and would have been in time under the existing legislation to apply but for the fact that the appropriate circuit court would not be sitting until after 4th July. Consequently, even though this person was aware of the position and wanted to take advantage of it, just by reason of the sittings of the court she was not able to. Her position now is that, unless an extension is granted, she cannot make the application at all.

I do not think the Minister will be going far wrong if he gives some very small concession. I would even settle for four months, something shorter than Deputy Cosgrave is looking for. Anyone who is interested has been brought up against the position in a very effective way by the fact that the deadline has been reached already under the 1960 Act. Their interest has been awakened and is alive now. If a further extension were given, the Minister would be unlikely to be asked to cater for hard cases after that. I do not think any would exist.

Mr. Haughey

I am afraid I cannot agree with the Deputy.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendment No. 31 not moved.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I move amendment No. 31a:

In page 17, between lines 9 and 10, to insert a new section as follows:—

"Notwithstanding anything contained in any other enactment a holder of a beer only off-licence shall be deemed on the passing of this Act to be the holder of a spirits off-licence subject to the same conditions as are now applicable to spirits off-licences."

The Minister agreed to consider this matter and I am moving the amendment on behalf of Deputies Ryan, O'Keeffe and Clinton to give him an opportunity of telling us the results of his consideration.

Mr. Haughey

I have considered this as favourably as possible but I cannot see any merits in the suggestion at all. I cannot agree to it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Haughey

I move amendment No. 32:

In page 19, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following section:

"Section 27 (which provides for the grant of a full licence for premises having a restricted licence) of the Act of 1960 is hereby amended by the substitution of `three years' for `two years' in subsection (4)."

The purpose of this amendment is to extend by a further year the time during which a six-day or other type of restricted licence may be converted into a seven-day licence.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

It is a pity the Minister did not mention this before No. 30. He might have been in a different frame of mind.

Mr. Haughey

As Deputies are aware it is possible at present to convert a six-day or other type of restricted licence to a full seven-day licence by paying £200 to the Revenue Commissioners. I am making this proposal because it is possible that the changes which the Bill would make in the hours of trading on Sundays may give additional advantage to seven-day licences and that some of the six-day licences, who up to now have been unwilling to pay this £200, may feel that under the new conditions it would be worth their while to do so. I want to emphasise that the difference between the proposal in amendment No. 32 and that in amendments Nos. 30 and 31 is this: This is where a licence is already in existence.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

And where the Revenue will get £200.

Mr. Haughey

That is neither here nor there. The person involved will have to pay a substantial sum of money in order to convert.

Mr. Cosgrave

The Minister's argument on this amendment nullifies completely what he said on the others. This is an increase in the number of licences.

Mr. Haughey

No.

Mr. Cosgrave

It makes a six-day licence into a seven-day without any extinguishment. The other at least revives a licence in existence. This is obviously a more valuable concession because in most cases six-day licences were far less valuable than seven-day licences. In fact, quite a number of premises availed of the 1960 Act to convert six-day licences into seven-day licences. The only difference, as Deputy O'Higgins has said, is that on this occasion the Revenue Commissioners also have a chance of getting a whack out of it. The applicant, once he pays the £200 or whatever the fee is, is entitled to get a seven-day licence for a six-day. Certainly, if the Minister argues there are too many licences, this in fact is increasing the breadth of the licence rather than the actual number.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I move amendment No. 33:

In page 20, between lines 23 and 24, to insert a new section as follows:

"On and after the passing of this Act, Section 25 (which relates to the recording of convictions on licences) of the Act of 1927; as amended by the Act of 1943, shall have effect as if the amendment made thereto by paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of Section 37 of the Act of 1960 had not been made."

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendment No. 34 not moved.

Question proposed: "That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration."

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Deputy Lynch wishes to make a point in connection with Waterford.

Mr. Haughey

I cannot think of what it could be.

Mr. T. Lynch

I would remind the Minister——

An Ceann Comhairle

Perhaps the Deputy could make his point more regularly on the Fifth Stage?

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

The Minister said he would agree to consider an amendment in relation to Waterford. We would like to make sure it will be real consideration. I am accepting fully the Minister's bona fides in this, but if it is amended in the Seanad the Minister will be hung up with his Bill until after the Recess. It occurred to us it might be preferable if the Minister would agree to accept the amendment now. It would shorten matters for him.

Agreed to take Fifth Stage to-day.

Question put: "That the Bill do now pass."

The Dáil divided: Tá, 57; Níl, 14.

Tá

Allen, Lorcan.
Bartley, Gerald.
Blaney, Neil T.
Boland, Kevin.
Booth, Lionel.
Brady, Seán.
Brennan, Joseph.
Brennan, Paudge.
Breslin, Cormac.
Burke, Patrick J.
Carter, Frank.
Carty, Michael.
Childers, Erskine.
Clohessy, Patrick.
Colley, George.
Corry, Martin J.
Crinion, Brendan.
Crowley, Honor M.
Cummins, Patrick J.
Davern, Mick.
de Valera, Vivion.
Dolan, Séamus.
Dooley, Patrick.
Egan, Kieran P.
Egan, Nicholas.
Fanning, John.
Faulkner, Padraig.
Flanagan, Seán.
Gallagher, James.
Galvin, John.
Geoghegan, John.
Gibbons, James M.
Gilbride, Eugene.
Haughey, Charles.
Hillery, Patrick.
Hilliard, Michael.
Kennedy, Michael J.
Kyne, Thomas A.
Lalor, Patrick J.
Lemass, Seán.
Leneghan, Joseph R.
Lenihan, Brian.
Lynch, Celia.
Lynch, Jack.
MacCarthy, Seán.
McEllistrim, Thomas.
MacEntee, Seán.
Meaney, Con.
Medlar, Martin.
Millar, Anthony G.
Moher, John W.
Moran, Michael.
Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
O'Malley, Donogh.
Ryan, James.
Sherwin, Frank.
Tierney, Patrick.

Níl

Barry, Anthony.
Burke, James J.
Corish, Brendan.
Cosgrave, Liam.
Desmond, Dan.
Dillon, James M.
Dunne, Thomas.
Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
Harte, Patrick D.
Lynch, Thaddeus.
MacEoin, Seán.
Mullen, Michael.
O'Higgins, Michael J.
Tully, James.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies J. Brennan and Geoghegan; Níl: Deputies Tully and Mullen.

Question declared carried.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 19 Jul 1962