Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1980: Second Stage.

Minister of State at the Department of Justice (Mr. Doherty)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The Bill does not propose to effect any substantive change in the liquor licensing laws. It is designed to clear the way for an extension of the Dublin Metropolitan District Court District to include most, if not all, of Dublin County. Such extension of the Dublin Metropolitan Court District was recommended by the Committee on Court Practice and Procedure in their Twelfth Interim Report and it is a necessary measure to ensure the efficient organisational structuring of the District Courts in the Dublin area.

I am advised, however, that, unless this Bill is first enacted, there would be a possibility that the extension of the court district as proposed might have the effect of extending to Dublin County licensing provisions which at present are applicable in Dublin city, but not in Dublin county. The reason this is so is that section 35 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1962, provides that, for the purpose of the Licensing Acts, the county borough of Dublin shall be deemed to include the whole of the Dublin Metropolitan District Court District and such borough and district shall be deemed for the purposes of those Acts, to be a city.

There are significant differences in the law relating to the sale of intoxicating liquor in its application to the county borough of Dublin on the one hand and Dublin County on the other. For example, different conditions apply in relation to the granting of new licences in the borough and in the county. Another example is the afternoon closing from 2.30 to 3.30 p.m. which applies in Dublin City but does not apply in Dublin County. Differences also apply in relation to the availability of exemptions for special events; general exemption orders and the opening of licensed premises on Sundays.

The legal position in regard to the "city" of Dublin, (that is, for the purposes of the Intoxicating Liquor Acts) is that any extension of the county borough automatically extends the "city" but the effect of any extension, or indeed contraction, of the Dublin Metropolitan District Court District is not clear. I think it is reasonable that any area incorporated into the county borough should attract the "city" provisions of the Intoxicating Liquor Acts but there is no good reason why the application of those Acts should be affected by changes in the court district. This Bill proposes, accordingly, that section 35 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1962 be amended to put beyond doubt that the reference to the Dublin Metropolitan District therein is a reference to that district as it was at the passing of that Act and that the application of the Intoxicating Liquor Acts is not affected by any change in the court district effected under the Courts Acts. In other words the Bill proposes to maintain the status quo in relation to the operation of the Intoxicating Liquor Acts in Dublin city and county.

I should mention that the Bill may need to be amended to cater for two relatively minor points. The term Dublin Metropolitan District is used also in the Registration of Clubs Acts and the Bill ought to cover that also. The definition of "hotel" for the purposes of the Intoxicating Liquor Acts includes a reference to the Dublin Metropolitan District and that aspect also needs to be covered.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Deputy Keating

This Bill is a very slight and largely technical measure which, in essence, does no more than clarify section 35 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1962, and, in itself, is not a matter of great weight.

I regret the Minister in passing did not take this opportunity to outline the other important measures needing attention and legislative change in the context of a Bill which grandiosely is termed the Intoxicating Liqour Bill, 1980. One could reasonably have concluded that something more significant than a mere clarification of a section in an Act almost 20 years old would be included. Therefore, I regret we did not on this occasion — I gather there is no likelihood of it happening soon — get an opportunity to discuss the real issues in relation to conditions of licensing, aspects of employment, conditions of sale and many reforms necessary, some of which have been outlined by the Garda Representative Body and other interests relating to the important and growing needs in the worrying area of intoxicating liquor and all its implications.

I wish to express regret also that we have been given a Bill supported by a statement by a Minister which tells us "...the Bill may need to be amended to cater for two relatively minor points". It is not asking too much of the Minister to tell us clearly whether the Bill needs to be amended or not. He leaves us in an even greyer area than usual. I ask the Minister to reply as clearly as possible if he has fully considered the whole of the 1962 Act, not just in relation to geographical jurisdiction in the Dublin city area but other aspects of that Act which may need updating in the light of prevailing trends. Does he intend to introduce at an early date legislation which will deal with the real issues in this area, such as the widescale abuses in certain respects which have been well outlined to the Minister and to many of us in the House by organisations, some with vested interests like the vintners' association, but all of whom are at one about the need to update the law? I do not intend to broaden the debate——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am afraid the Deputy is doing so.

Mr. Keating

It is regrettable that we have not been given the opportunity to have a meaningful and timely debate on issues of real concern rather than this technical clearing up. I regret the lack of clarity in the final paragraph of the Minister's speech. I hope it is not a symptom of the way the Government view this whole important area, the laws in relation to intoxicating liquor which are mostly outdated.

Mr. Horgan

I do not know how long it is since we were promised an overhaul of the licensing Acts. It is with considerable disappointment that we view this minute measure put before us today. I do not know why the overall review of licensing legislation that we have been promised by successive Governments, not just this one, should take so long. It would sometimes appear that the will of Governments and of the Legislature is being frustrated by some of the interests referred to by Deputy Keating. This is the kind of Bill that could be dealt with more effectively by a committee of the Houses. It is ridiculous to think of the entire House meeting on a Tuesday afternoon to discuss this piffling measure.

Mr. Keating

Hear, hear.

Mr. Horgan

It has some significance, of course, and if it has to be done it must be done, but within the terms of reference of the Bill we are made aware of some of the anomalies with which the licensing system is riddled. A net consisting of a number of holes tied with string is a fair description of our licensing laws. In the third paragraph of the Minister's speech we are faced with the fact that for the purposes of the licensing laws people living in different parts of the State are treated differently. I represent a constituency which is partly in the city and partly in the county of Dublin and there is nothing more laughable than the idea that when you cross this administrative boundary, this mythical line, you are suddenly a different kind of person as far as drinking is concerned. Those in my constituency who live on the city side of the boundary would be considerably affronted by the idea that they need to be protected by the licensing laws from being able to drink between 2.30 p.m. and 3.30 p.m.

Mr. Keating

They are living in a disadvantaged area.

Mr. Horgan

Likewise, residents in the county area of my constituency, if they ever paused to think about it, would be equally affronted by the various assumptions that are made about their drinking behaviour, about the different laws, standards and regulations which are applicable to their social drinking as compared with the social drinking of their friends and colleagues on the other side of the administrative boundary. Here we are dealing basically with a 19th century situation, to some extent carried into the twenties, in which cities are deemed to be dens of iniquity, their inhabitants more prone to drunkenness and all the other vices and therefore to be protected at all costs and prevented from access to alcohol except under strict conditions.

It is true that there is considerable strain and stress attached to living in many of our cities today and it may even be true that this prompts more ready recourse to alcohol by people under stress and strain in these areas than by those who live outside them, but the answer to these problems is not to create a licensing system such as the one we are now fiddling with in this Bill which makes artificial and arbitrary distinctions between people, depending on their places of residence, or between the holders of licences depending on where the licences are situated. The answer is to create cities that are reasonable and as far as possible non-stressful places to live and work in. If this Bill has any significance at all it will point to the absurdity of the distinctions in the present licensing system, and I hope the Minister's overall review will not be long delayed.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): This Bill reminds me of Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution. Article 2 provides that “Ireland” shall mean the island of Ireland, and its territorial waters, and Article 3 states that the laws of Ireland shall apply only to the area previously known as Saorstát Éireann. The Minister has told us that this Bill is paving the way for an extension of the Dublin Metropolitan District to include practically the whole of County Dublin. But in the next sentence he told us that the laws which apply to the metropolitan district shall apply only to the old area, to the metropolitan district as it was on the date of the passing of some other Act. It is just a replica of Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution.

I should like the Minister to tell us what exactly is the effect of the inclusion of most of County Dublin in the Dublin Metropolitan District. What effect will that have on the administration of justice? What change will it make for the part of County Dublin that is being brought into the metropolitan district which is not in it now? I should like to have my mind clarified on that before the Minister concludes. The Bill is known as the Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1980, an Act to amend the licensing Acts of 1833 to 1977. An Act was introduced in 1960 and another in 1962. Those two Acts did more than anything else to create the machinery for granting the multiplicity of extensions and exemptions that have been so much complained about over the last number of years. Strange as it may seem, those Acts were brought in by the present Taoiseach when he was Minister for Justice. One never knows what might be ahead of the Minister of State. Those Acts very badly need to be updated because they are loosely drawn and are being availed of to apply for and obtain late night extensions by the thousand. For example, in one of the Acts——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is extending the scope of this debate.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I am not.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We cannot discuss the whole licensing code under this small Bill.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): The size of the Bill has nothing to do with it. I am referring to the Title which says it is an Act to amend the licensing Acts of 1833 to 1977.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy cannot debate under this Bill every Act that has been passed during that period. This Bill refers to one matter only.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): The Title says it is an Act to amend the licensing Acts 1833 to 1977 and I was going to refer briefly to the parts of those Acts I consider should be amended.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must be relevant to the Bill before the House. We cannot debate every licensing Act that has been passed during that period.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Would the Chair please tell me what provision in this Bill confines me in the manner the Chair is seeking to confine me?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The rules of the House confine the debate to the changes being made in the law.

Mr. Keating

Are we not entitled to refer to omissions?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I will give the Deputy every latitude, but surely we are not going to debate every licensing Act passed?

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): We are not, because that would take a very long time.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

And would not be relevant under this Bill.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I submit that what confines me is the title of the Bill under which I would be at liberty to put down an amendment to amend any of those Bills and the Chair could not rule it out of order.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It would not be.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): The 1962 Act defined a substantial meal as one costing at least 5/-, 25p.

Mr. Horgan

You would not get a bag of chips for that now.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Within the last year or so that figure has been increased, by order to £2.50. In 1960 one could get a reasonable meal for 5/- but to have that as a guide as to what would justify a late night extension is absurd in the extreme.

I agree with Deputies who said that the Minister of State and the Minister for Justice should have availed of this opportunity to update certain aspects of the law. I will deal with this matter in the broadest possible sense. There are certain aspects of the licensing laws, particularly with regard to extensions, exemptions and occasional licenses, which are causing grave concern to a broad section of the community. They are causing worry to parents, embarrassing young people, causing absenteeism from work and damaging this country socially and economically——

Mr. Horgan

Except for the people who are making money out of this.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Only certain sections of the licensing trade are making money out of it. The ordinary publican is not. He is being done out of business by hoteliers and others who are getting these extensions every night of the week.

This part of the licensing legislation needs to be changed and the Minister is running away from that task. The Minister of State said he appreciated that this was a social evil and promised to bring in a measure to deal with it. He has not done that. He brought in this Bill which the Chair decided is a non-event. I blame the Minister and the Government for failing to tackle this problem in a realistic way. This is 1981 and the criteria laid down in 1962 do not have any relevance to today's circumstances. The whole thing needs to be changed.

Mr. Horgan

Do not forget the bona fides.

Minister of State at the Department of Justice (Mr. Doherty)

This Bill does not propose any changes in the licensing laws. The Deputies' comments were not intended as a worthwhile contribution to the Second Stage debate.

Mr. Keating

We are all out of step except the Minister.

Mr. Horgan

How very rare to bring in a Bill which is not designed to change the law.

Mr. Doherty

Deputy Fitzpatrick was the only one who asked why an extension of this area was necessary.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): And what the effect would be.

Mr. Doherty

The Bill is intended to pave the way for the necessary reorganisation of the Dublin Metropolitan District Court which is very urgently needed. The existing position where areas in the north city suburbs, such as Ballymun and Finglas, are served by the District Court sitting at Kilmainham is very inconvenient for the residents of those areas as they have to travel past the central city courts to reach the courthouse at Kilmainham. These areas could be far more conveniently catered for by the metropolitan district courts at the Four Courts or by the establishment of court venues in those localities. Similarly, parts of Ballyfermot to the west of the city could be more conveniently catered for at Kilmainham but are, in fact, in the Dublin metropolitan district and are serviced from the city centre courts. A re-alignment of these areas can only be made if the Dublin Metropolitan District Court district is extended to include all the areas involved.

To achieve an integrated and rational District Court structure in Dublin city and county it is essential that there be maximum flexibility in relation to the venues at which cases can be taken. This flexibility can only be achieved if the whole of the city and county are included in one District Court district.

Difficulties arise for the legal profession in particular in identifying the exact location of the existing metropolitan district boundary as it cuts through densely populated suburban areas. An extension of the metropolitan district boundary to make it coterminous with the county boundary would eliminate this difficulty. These are the reasons that have been justifiably recognised for the proposed technical change. The preparation of legislation for changes in the licensing laws is in train at the moment.

Mr. Keating

In view of the fact that the essential difficulty here appears to be the anachronism of the existing city boundary and because there are many other anomalies created by the city boundary being outdated by the spread of the city, does the Minister consider that his provision seeking to rectify that, with respect to a specific area of application, is at odds with other areas needing change which as yet have not been attended to? Second, and more important, would it be better if he or his colleague or somebody on the other side introduced a measure to deal with the essential problem which is——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is entitled to ask a brief question but not to make a further speech. The Second Stage is over.

Mr. Keating

I am just concluding my question.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

A brief question.

Mr. Keating

The Second Stage of the debate took about 25 minutes with four people participating. That, by any standards, is not bad. I think we are making great progress.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair agrees, but it cannot allow further debate once the Second Stage finishes. A brief question may be allowed, a very brief question and nothing more.

Mr. Keating

I was about to ask, before I was interrupted, whether or not the Minister felt that the best way to deal with this issue would be to deal with the fundamental problem which is the outdated city boundary, because there are anomalies throughout every sector of law and administration arising from that and not just in this area. The Minister may say that that is a matter for his colleagues. However, I am wondering about the mechanics of dealing with such anomalies, whether in education, where there are school meals problems, or in local authority housing, where different subsidies apply. The fundamental problem is the outdated city boundary which means, as Deputy Horgan and others have pointed out, discriminations or differences in attitudes of central and local government, depending on which side of the road one lives on in certain parts of Dublin. Could that be dealt with? That would mean the clearing up of all of these various peripheral and downstream areas. Otherwise we are going to get a long list of such Bills under various headings and, presumably, have the same interesting but fairly academic debate on each of them. Why not tackle the central problem? That is what I would like to know.

Mr. Doherty

We are simply preparing the way for a necessary and desirable restructuring of the District Court here in Dublin. I have no intention of departing from what is proposed in that connection by way of dealing in this reply with matters that are not part of this proposed legislation.

Mr. Keating

But it does arise out of the situation the Minister has outlined.

Mr. Doherty

It does not arise from the point of view of preparing the way for court restructuring for all the reasons I gave in reply to a very properly put question by Deputy Fitzpatrick.

Mr. Keating

Am I not right in assuming that the only reason the Minister is proposing restructuring, to use his own word, is because the city has grown beyond the city boundary?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The city boundary is certainly a matter for another Minister.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Am I right in thinking that, if the Minister extended the Dublin metropolitan district as he intends to do and did not enact this measure, one of the consequences would be that the holy hour or the hour for closing would extend out over the city boundary into huge built-up areas? Does the Minister not think that that would be a good thing?

Mr. Doherty

It is likely that it would. There are a number of other features of the existing licensing laws that are applicable in the Dublin city area and do not obtain in Dublin county. There is the question of urban licencing and nonurban licencing and the question of licences for hotels.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Change the value of the licences.

Mr. Horgan

Might I ask a brief question?

Mr. Doherty

I was attempting to reply to a question.

Mr. Horgan

I will let the Minister finish.

Mr. Doherty

It would also extend to the question of opening hours and facilities for markets, fairs and such that obtain in the city at the moment. Therefore it would alter the limits or confines imposed at present on the city licensing laws.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are getting into a Committee Stage debate now. Deputy Horgan may ask a brief question.

Mr. Horgan

Would the Minister confirm that what he is bringing in here today is an extraordinary legislative anomaly in that most Bills are brought in to change the law but this Bill is being brought in to prevent a change in the licencing laws in the area to which the court is being extended?

Mr. Doherty

The question of changing the licensing laws is a matter for another day. I have stated already the purpose of this Bill. Certain changes could be made by ministerial order, but if we did not have this Bill we would certainly be changing the law in so far as it applied to Dublin county.

(Interruptions.)

Question put and agreed to.

Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 31 Mar 1981

Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1980: Second Stage.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 31 Mar 1981