Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are consequential on amendment No. 1. By agreement amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 will be discussed together.
Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1980: Committee and Final Stages.
SECTION 1.
I move amendment No. 1.
In page 2, lines 7 and 8, to delete "The references in section 35 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1962, to the Dublin Metropolitan District are" and to substitute "Any references in the Licensing Acts, 1833 to 1977, or the Registration of Clubs Acts, 1904 to 1962, to the Dublin Metropolitan District shall be deemed to be".
The need for these amendments arises as follows. The Bill as introduced refers only to section 35 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1962, which section provides that the county borough of Dublin is deemed to include the whole of the Dublin metropolitan district for the purposes of the licensing laws. When the Bill was being drafted it was thought that, in the event of an extension of the Dublin metropolitan district, the status quo in relation to the operation of the Licensing Acts as they apply to all licensed premises would be maintained by defining the Dublin metropolitan district, as referred to in section 35 of the 1962 Act, as being the Dublin metropolitan district as it existed at the time of passing of that Act. However, there are other references in both the Licensing Acts and the Registration of Clubs Acts to the Dublin metropolitan district which need to be taken into account to ensure that the status quo is not disturbed.
Section 56 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1927, as inserted by section 6 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1960, and as amended by section 6 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1962, relates to the hours during which drink may be sold in registered clubs and provides, inter alia, that, in the county boroughs of Dublin and Cork, drink may not be served on any week-day between the hours of half-past two o'clock and half-past three o'clock in the afternoon. It also provides that, for the purposes of the section, the Dublin metropolitan district shall be deemed to be a county borough.
Sections 19 and 21 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1960, refer to hotels and provide, inter alia, that in a county borough a new hotel to get a licence to sell drink must have 20 bedrooms, while elsewhere the figure is ten bedrooms. Sections 19 (5) and 21 (1) and (2) of the 1960 Act deem a county borough, for the purposes of the sections, as including the Dublin metropolitan district.
The amendments, therefore, are necessary in order to ensure that, when the Dublin metropolitan district is extended, (a) registered clubs outside the Dublin County Borough and the existing Dublin metropolitan district, which at present may serve drink on any week-day between the hours of half-past two o'clock and half past three o'clock in the afternoon, may continue to do so, and (b) there will be no change in the conditions under which a new hotel outside the Dublin County Borough and the existing Dublin metropolitan district may get a licence to sell drink.
There appears to be more in the amendments than in the Bill. As I understand it, the purpose is to ensure that the Dublin metropolitan district is extended beyond the borough but that the original licensing laws appertaining to the borough will not carry over with the extension. There is a basic policy decision here as to whether the rules that apply in Dublin should extend into the larger area. As I see it, the provision regarding the "holy hour" is the main one. There are other provisions regarding bar licences in hotels and so on.
On the basis that the Government view is that the "holy hour" provision should not extend beyond the existing area, it is obvious that we are dealing with an amendment that is merely of a technical nature. I accept the technical amendment but I suppose I am at a late stage in raising the point as to whether it would have been wiser to have had a much broader review of the situation at this stage. I accept that this is not perhaps a Committee Stage debating point. However, since I entered the Dáil I have been of the opinion that there was need for a comprehensive review of the Intoxicating Liquor Acts in general. I am disappointed that this Bill will deal with only a minor point——
This Bill does not propose to deal with any review of the Intoxicating Liquor Acts.
That is what worries me.
It should not worry the Deputy. We are dealing with another matter, which is the restructuring of the courts system.
I appreciate that. However, that gives me an opportunity of raising a matter that I raised when I was dealing with law reform, namely, the need for a much broader review.
I am engaged in that review at the moment.
I am pleased to have that assurance from the Minister. I have found him prompt in dealing with matters but I must point out that I received a similar assurance from his senior Minister in 1977. The main point I wished to make was the absolute urgency of having a broad review of the matter. I accept that the amendment proposed is purely of a technical nature which is necessary. We support the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 2, line 9, to delete "that Act" and to substitute "the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1962".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 2.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 2, lines 14 to 16, to delete subsection (2) and to substitute the following subsection:—
"(2) This Act, in so far as it amends the Licensing Acts, 1833 to 1977, shall be construed as one therewith and may be cited together therewith as the Licensing Acts, 1833 to 1981, and, in so far as it amends the Registration of Clubs Acts, 1904 to 1962, shall be construed as one therewith and may be cited together therewith as the Registration of Clubs Acts, 1904 to 1981.".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
TITLE
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 2, line 5, after "1977" to insert ",AND THE REGISTRATION OF CLUBS ACTS, 1904 to 1962".
Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments and passed.