Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 18 May 1988

Vol. 380 No. 8

Private Members' Business. - Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1988: Committee Stage (Resumed).

SECTION 13.

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 8, lines 21 to 30, to delete subsections (1) and (2) and substitute the following:

"(1) Where it appears to the Board that a restaurant in respect of which a Bord Fáilte Certificate is in force no longer complies with the standards specified in section 8 or, as the case may be, under section 12, the Board shall give or send by post to the holder thereof a notice—

(a) stating that it appears to the Board as aforesaid,

(b) requiring the holder to take specified steps within a specified period in order to bring the restaurant into compliance with the standards aforesaid, and

(c) informing the holder that, if the requirements in the notice are not complied with, the Board will cancel the Certificate.

(2) If the holder of a Bord Fáilte Certificate fails or refuses to comply with a requirement in a notice under subsection (1), the Board shall cancel the Certificate."

This amendment replaces subsections (1) and (2) of section 13 and most of the changes are drafting ones suggested by the draftsman. It also clarifies a couple of procedural points where the question of cancellation of a Bord Fáilte certificate arises.

The first point clarified is that the notice from Bord Fáilte to the holder of the certificate can either be given in person or posted. Section 13, as initiated, stated that the requirements of the notice would have to be carried out in a time to be specified in the regulations. There would be a whole range of requirements that might have to be complied with by different restaurants, for example, one restaurant owner might have to undertake major structural alterations while another might have to make only minor changes. It would have been unreasonable for the regulations to specify a standard time to be complied with in all circumstances. Therefore, under section 13, as it is proposed to amend it, the board will specify the period in which the requirement must be complied with in each case, the period in each case depending on the work to be done.

Amendment agreed to.

Before we proceed, could I ask, with your indulgence a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, if the position with regard to the scheduling of our work could be clarified?

Sections 13 to 29, inclusive, to conclude not later than 9.10 p.m.; sections 30 to 39, inclusive, to conclude not later than 10 p.m. and Committee Stage to conclude at 10.30 p.m.

Thank you.

Amendments Nos. 31 to 36, inclusive, not moved.
Section 13, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 14.
Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 not moved.

Amendments Nos. 39, 61, 63, 65, 67 and 69 are related.

I move amendment No. 39:

In page 9, subsection (1) (ii), line 10, to delete "on St. Patrick's Day or".

Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 40 to 43, inclusive, not moved.
Section 14, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 15.
Amendment No. 44 not moved.
Section agreed to.
SECTION 16.
Amendments Nos. 45 to 47, inclusive, not moved.
Section agreed to.
SECTION 17.
Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 not moved.
Section agreed to.
SECTION 18.
Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 not moved.
Section agreed to.
SECTION 19.
Amendment No. 52 not moved.
Section agreed to.
SECTION 20.
Amendment Nos. 53 not moved.
Section agreed to.
SECTION 21.
Amendment No. 54 not moved.
Section agreed to.
SECTION 22.
Amendment No. 55 not moved.
Section agreed to.
SECTION 23.
Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 not moved.
Section agreed to.
SECTION 24.
Amendments No. 58 not moved.

I move amendment No. 59:

In page 11, before section 24, to insert the following new section:

"24.—A draft of every regulation proposed to be made under this part shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas, and the Regulation shall not be made until a Resolution approving the draft has been passed by each such House."

The regulations relating to special restaurant licences are of vital importance. While there is provision to annul the regulations within 21 days, this has already proved to be totally unsatisfactory. Because of the importance of the regulations we should have a provision whereby the regulations are confirmed by both Houses of the Oireachtas so that we will have an opportunity to examine the content of the regulations and, if necessary, debate them. It may be that there will be no need for a debate and that we could confirm them on the nod, so to speak, but we should at least get the opportunity of having a look at the regulations, of discussing them if we feel it is right to do so and give the opportunity to both Houses to confirm these regulations provided we are satisfied with the content. I have nothing further to say on the matter. It speaks for itself.

In regard to amendment No. 60, could I be allowed to correct a word in the first line to substitute the word "regulation" for "order", if that is permissible? The arguments in favour of this amendment have been advanced by Deputy Barrett in a similar amendment and in earlier contributions we have made it quite clear that all of us consider the regulations to be introduced for the purposes of laying the basis for the special restaurant licences to be of paramount importance to the whole working of this part of the Bill. This issue is of such importance that it is reflected in amendments from Fine Gael, the Labour Party and The Workers' Party. I understand from some of the contributions from the Progressive Democrats earlier on that they, too, would support the idea that in this instance these regulations, because of their importance to the whole working of this part of the Bill, must be laid before the House and receive the support of the House before they pass into law.

At the moment the regulations are circulated and it is then incumbent on the Opposition to table, within 21 sitting days, a motion of dissent for debate. That is fraught with all the difficulties that were explained earlier, of finding the time and being prepared to forfeit valuable and scarce Private Members' time to such a debate. Because this is a new departure in the licensing laws which will have a fairly significant impact on the licensed trade, we are all united on this side of the House in asking the Government to ensure an opportunity to discuss the regulations as and when they are introduced even on a limited basis. I hope the Minister will agree to these amendments and that it will not be necessary to put the matter to the vote as we have indicated is our intention.

I support the thrust of these three amendments, that the regulations be laid before the House before they are approved rather than as expressed in the Bill which is the annulment procedure.

The effect of the amendments could be to delay the coming into effect of the regulations under section 12 prescribing standards for restaurants qualifying for special restaurant licences as well as regulations under section 9 amending the amount of the fee payable for a special restaurant licence. Thus, if the standard regulations were made at a time during the summer when neither House of the Oireachtas was sitting, the end of the summer recess would have to be awaited before the regulations would come into force. This would delay the coming into force of the provisions of the Bill regarding special restaurant licences and that is a delay I am sure nobody would want, particularly those anxious to obtain licences.

I have noted very carefully the views expressed by the Members having regard to the real importance of the regulations. Because of the conditions laid down under which licences can be obtained, I would be doing something by accepting the amendments which has never been done in the Oireachtas, and that is having a discussion before regulations are brought in rather than moving a motion for their annulment. I accept the thrust of the amendments. I am not too sure if the wording is technically correct and I would need advice on this, but I accept what the movers of the amendments, Deputies Barrett, Taylor and McCartan say. It will put more pressure on me which I will have to deal with — but that is my problem — in having the regulations up front well on time so that we do not get caught in the trap of the summer recess.

Let me intervene here on a matter of information for Deputy Taylor. We are dealing with amendment No. 59 in the name of Deputy Seán Barrett but the Deputy may discuss his amendment.

I did not think they were being taken together.

Yes, they are now, and amendment No. 60.

I mean no disrespect to the Seanad but I wonder whether it is not unduly cumbersome to require the regulations to be approved both by this House and by the Seanad; maybe this House would be sufficient. I am not saying this from an ideologically anti-Seanad point of view but from the point of view that it would double the work.

I recognise that it is doubling the work but the Deputy will understand that this Bill has to go from here to the Seanad. In fairness, I have good broad shoulders but I do not think they are round enough to take the abuse I would get if I went to the Seanad on that basis. One of the consequences of accepting the amendment is that it would have to go before both Houses of the Oireachtas. I said earlier, in reply to Deputy Kelly, that the regulations were practically ready. I feel confident that between now and the summer recess it will get to both Houses of the Oireachtas. I accept the concept of what is involved in the three amendments but I need to discuss the matter with the parliamentary draftsman to find the proper form of words for Report Stage, if that is agreeable.

I will give the Minister the freedom to manoeuvre.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

As amendment No. 60 is on the same lines as the previous amendment I will withdraw it on the understanding that the Minister will address the matter on Report Stage.

Amendment No. 60 not moved.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 25.

I move amendment No. 61:

In page 11, line 37, to delete "on St. Patrick's Day or".

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 62 not moved.

I move amendment No. 63:

In page 11, between lines 41 and 42, to insert the following paragraph:

"(c) on St. Patrick's Day, where that day falls on a weekday, before the hour of half-past twelve o'clock in the afternoon or after the hour of eleven o'clock in the evening, or".

During the Second Stage debate several Deputies called for a change in the permitted hours on St. Patrick's Day so that they would be the same as on any ordinary weekday where St. Patrick's Day falls on a weekday. The purpose of this amendment is to go most of the way towards that call. The amendment to section 25 will mean that when St. Patrick's Day falls on a weekday it will have normal weekday opening hours except that opening time will be 12.30 p.m. instead of the usual weekday opening time of 10.30 a.m. I would see little demand for having licensed premises open any earlier than 12.30 p.m. on St. Patrick's Day. When St. Patrick's Day falls on a Sunday, normal Sunday opening hours will apply. The amendment to section 26 will apply the same new St. Patrick's Day permitted hours to registered clubs. The amendment to section 9 will apply normal special restaurant weekday permitted hours to those premises on St. Patrick's Day when it falls on a weekday. The amendment to section 28 deletes a superfluous exemption between 2 p.m. and 3 p.m. on St. Patrick's Day when it falls on a weekday.

I recall that during Second Stage the Minister seemed to agree that the reference to St. Patrick's Day in the Bill was superfluous. I recall that I made the point that I could see no rationale for keeping St. Patrick's Day as a special day and treating it as Sundays. It was on that basis that I put down several amendments to delete the words "on St. Patrick's Day". So far as the Minister has done that in relation to other sections I welcome it. In this instance, where it falls on a weekday I cannot understand the rationale behind what the Minister is doing. He is creating yet another hybrid type of opening hour where if St. Patrick's Day falls on a weekday no licensed premises may open before 12.30 p.m. and must close at 11 p.m. Is there no reference to summer time? Why are we not falling in with the normal licensing hours? I do not understand the rationale behind it. If it is that it is a feast day and people are expected to go to Mass then we would be doing the same thing on many other feast days. I am taking a very partisan view on that. I am looking around for a rationale and some reason because the Minister has not supplied one and perhaps he can enlighten me.

I would like to ask the Minister when he is dealing with restricted hours how this applies to early closing licences? Will these licences be restricted as well? There are approximately some 240 such licences in the country and while I appreciate that they got an opportunity in 1960 and again in 1964 the then owners of the licences did not avail of the opportunity given to them. Will the Minister consider a small amendment now? I am asking him to bring the six-day licences, or early closing licences, up to seven-day licence status. This, I believe, would earn considerable interest for the Exchequer if the Minister would agree some kind of a converting rate with the vintners' and other associations. Because of the change of time it would be very easy for the Minister to make this adjustment now.

It should be an agreed principle that the hours should be restricted to a certain degree whereby public houses which are serving alcoholic drink should not take place until Church services have concluded, that is the general feeling. On St. Patrick's Day, with many parades after Mass and Church services, which could take up to an hour, it should be an agreed principle that they be closed until 1.30 p.m.

I think that is very reasonable.

If we agree to this amendment should it not by definition follow that the reference to St. Patrick's Day be taken out of subparagraph (b) from the point of view of clarity because it gives a double reference?

It is being taken out.

The Minister does not appear to have put down an amendment to that effect.

It is in amendment No. 61.

I should like to add to what I have said already. I understand what Deputy Lynch has said, that people are about their normal business on St. Partick's Day up to a certain hour and perhaps to open at 12.30 p.m. is not unreasonable but I cannot understand why closing time should be 11 p.m.

In fairness to Deputy Colley if it falls on a Sunday 11 p.m. is normal Sunday closing time, and there is a half hour drinking and getting out time. If it were to fall on a weekday in summertime, it would be 11.30 p.m. plus the half hour.

That is common sense.

I accept that.

The Minister did not say what he would do with——

Deputy Carey raised a matter which is not covered by this amendment. It is the question of the extension of the six-day licence into seven-day licences——

And early closing licences.

It is a very complicated area and a very difficult subject and certainly not one with which I can deal without proper notice. If the Deputy wants to consider an amendment for Report Stage we will give it a good discussion then and if he gives me as much time and notice as he possibly can it will give me more time to work on it and have a more worthwhile discussion on it on Report Stage. I could not deal with it now. There is no basis——

There is an opportunity for the Minister to get some revenue and 240 times £1,000 should be of use to the Department.

I appreciate what is there but it is a complex and delicate subject which requires careful examination and I have no base from which to work. I am giving the Deputy a mechanism whereby we can have a worthwhile discussion on it. I ask him to give me his amendment as early as he can and I will give it as good a run through as I possibly can.

Mr. Barrett

May I ask the Minister to give some consideration on Report Stage to perhaps extending the hours on New Year's Eve to 12 o'clock or something of that nature with half an hour's drinking up time? I think it only reasonable when people who are going to be chucked out can go into a restaurant or halls that have exemptions. The Minister might consider that on Report Stage.

I will give the matter further consideration for Report Stage. I have given a great deal of consideration as to whether I should have an amendment down for discussion on it. I decided against it on the grounds that 11.30 p.m. is late enough on New Year's Eve.

It is not consistent with restaurants.

I have taken advice from the Garda on this and discussed it with them. I might as well tell the whole story now as I am at it. They were not at all in favour of that. It would be 12.30 a.m. or 1 a.m. when people would be coming out of pubs and they think that extra one and a half hours might itself cause problems. They would prefer to see people going home earlier being the night it is.

To be truthful, I do not think the people will be going home.

With regard to a point made strongly by the vintners and allowing that they have extended hours, they still regard it as unfair that restaurateurs will have their time extended further. Is there an anomaly there which might be rectified?

Is the Deputy suggesting I should give favourable consideration to an extraordinary extension on New Year's Eve or is he saying hs is against it?

I am not referring to that. I am referring generally. I stand corrected if I am making the point wrongly.

I have had discussions with representatives of the vintners' association who contend that even though they have extended hours to whatever time, the restaurants will have an advantage over them in that they can remain open longer.

In fairness, one cannot compare one with the other. The restaurateurs will be dealing with a very small percentage of the drinking population whereas the vintners will be dealing with a very large percentage of those who want to take a drink. They are two totally and distinct separate things. It is an unfair comparison for vintners to make on the grounds that they want to stay open for an extra hour when there is no hope whatsoever that they will be given that concession.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 64:

In page 11, to delete lines 43 and 44, and in page 12, to delete lines 1 to 6 and substitute the following:

"(2) Every person who—

(a) allows or permits persons to remain on the premises for the purposes of consumption of intoxicating liquor in contravention of this section shall be liable upon summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £300, or in the case of a second or any subsequent offence, a fine not exceeding £600 or

(b) in fact sells or exposes for sale any intoxicating liquor or who opens or keeps open any premises for the sale of intoxicating liquor in contravention of this section shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable upon summary conviction thereof, in the case of a first offence to a fine not exceeding £400 or in the case of a second or any subsequent offence, to a fine not exceeding £800."

I am attempting to differentiate between two offences if possible and I am trying to get a word in to do it. The Bill as it stands imposes a fine of £400 for a first offence and £800 for a second or any subsequent offence for persons either found on a licensed premises after the permitted hours or a person serving alcohol after the permitted hours. The two offences are different. It is a far more serious offence for somebody to serve drink after 11.30 p.m. on a weekday than for somebody to be found on such a premises after 12.5 a.m., yet the same maximum fine applies to both. I have tabled an amendment to reduce the fine to £300 for persons found on the premises and £600 for subsequent offences and I have left the fine of £400 where a publican is caught serving drink after the finishing hour.

I hope the House will agree to this amendment. It gives us an opportunity of expressing our opinion as to the seriousness of an offence and I think it far more serious that somebody serves drink after a permitted hour than that a publican is trying to clear his premises and not supplying drink after the permitted hour. I ask the Minister to accept this amendment.

This amendment relates to the penalty which may be imposed on licences for allowing persons to be on licensed premises during prohibited hours or for selling drink during prohibited hours. It is an offence under section 29 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1962 to permit a person to be on licensed premises during prohibited hours, the penalty for a first offence being £20 and for a subsequent offence not more than £40. In addition the offence is endorsable. I note that the effect of the Deputy's amendment would be to change the nature of the offence from permitting a person to be on licensed premises to allowing or permitting persons to remain on the premises for the purpose of consumption of intoxicating liquor. This qualification of the provision would make it extremely difficult to prove offences in such cases.

Deputy Barrett also proposes that a fine for a first offence should be increased to a maximum of £300 and for a subsequent offence to £600. In deciding on the amount of the fine it must be borne in mind that the offence is endorsable but that under the Courts (No. 2) Act, 1986, the endorsement is now at the discretion of the court. I am also bearing in mind that the Bill already provides that the penalty for selling drink during prohibited hours is being increased to a maximum of £400 for a first offence and a maximum of £800 for a second or subsequent offence.

Bearing all these considerations in mind I am disposed to agree with the proposal in the amendment that the fine for allowing persons to remain on licensed premises during prohibited hours should be increased to a maximum of £300 for a first offence and a maximum of £600 for a second offence. I note also that the second part of the amendment would make some changes in the description of the offences of selling drink during prohibited hours now provided for in section 2 (2) of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1927.

To summarise in relation to this amendment, I would be disposed to agree with Deputy Barrett's proposal that the amount of fine for permitting a person to be on licensed premises during prohibited hours should be increased, but it is not clear that the wording of the amendment would improve on the text of the existing provision. I would like to take up that matter with the draftsman and have it further considered before Report Stage. I can accept that part of it. I am afraid I cannot accept the other part of the amendment because it would create a number of difficulties.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 25, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 26.

I move amendment No. 65:

In page 12, line 34, to delete "on St. Patrick's Day or".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 66:

In page 12, between lines 38 and 39, to insert the following paragraph:

"(c) on St. Patrick's Day, where that day falls on a weekday, before the hour of half-past twelve o'clock in the afternoon or after the hour of eleven o'clock in the evening, or".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 67:

In page 13, subsection (2), line 3, to delete "on St. Patrick's Day or".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 26, as amended, agreed to.
Section 27 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 68:

In page 13, before section 28, to insert the following new section:

"28.—It shall not be lawful for any person to compel or attempt to compel any employee of a licensed premises to work hours longer than those worked prior to the coming into effect of this Act.".

This amendment tries to establish the position of employees by reason of the increase in the licensing hours. Employees should not be compelled by law to work extra hours by reason of the increase in the licensing hours. This is crucial from the point of view of the licensed trade workers because their history has been one of a struggle to gain reasonable and decent working conditions and to achieve hard won gains. We are concerned that, by extending the hours, these rights would be substantially eroded. I do not want to take any more time because I know we are near the time appointed for taking the remaining sections but I should like to hear the Minister's response.

I cannot be much help because I am advised that a provision of this kind is totally outside the scope of the Bill. It is unrelated to the legislation.

Will the Minister consider, on Report Stage, the question of occasional licences for ballrooms? There are six at present and I ask the Minister to consider a small increase in their number.

I will consider it for Report Stage and perhaps the Deputy, or anyone else who is interested, will consider tabling an amendment in case I am not able to table one.

I have had very strong representations in this regard.

Question: "That the amendments set down by the Minister for Justice to sections 28 and 29, inclusive, if not disposed or, are hereby made to the Bill and in respect of each of the said sections that the section, as amended, is hereby agreed" put and agreed to.
Section 30 agreed to.
SECTION 31.

Amendment No. 72 in the name of the Minister. Amendment No. 73 is cognate and amendment No. 75 is consequential. I am suggesting, therefore, that we discuss amendments Nos. 72, 73 and 75 together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 72:

In page 14, subsection (1), line 31, after "deliver" to insert "or permit any person to sell or deliver".

Section 31 replaces provisions in the 1924 Act which was repealed by section 4 of the Bill. During Second Stage, the question was raised as to whether the changed wording of section 31 meant that there was a change in the category of persons who may be made liable for offences under the section. The propose of this amendment, which follows in this respect the 1924 provisions, is to make it clear that no change is intended in the categories which may be made liable. The main effect of section 31 is to remove the word "knowingly" which, hitherto, made prosecutions difficult in these cases.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 73:

In page 14, subsection (1), line 33, after "deliver" to insert "or permit any person to sell or deliver".

Amendment agreed to.

In respect of amendment No. 74, amendments Nos. 76, 77, 78, 81, 82, 84, 85 and 86 are related. Consequently, I suggest that these amendments be debated together.

I move amendment No. 74.

In page 15, subsection (3), to delete lines 6 to 8, and substitute the following:

"(a) £250, in the case of a first offence,

(b) £500, in the case of a second offence, or

(c) £1,500 or 12 months imprisonment, or both such fine and imprisonment in the case of a third or any subsequent offence.".

This amendment is an attempt to bring the level of penalty up to a more realistic level in view of the serious nature of the offences we are considering. We propose, in general terms, a provision of increased fines in the first and second instance of the offence and on the third offence, in addition to the fine, the imposition of a term of imprisonment. On the Second Stage debate, many Deputies indicated — and this view should be strongly addressed — that the sale or provision of alcohol to people under the age we consider undesirable, amounts to peddling a drug.

The fines contained in the sections do not in any way reflect this. Even on a third offence, there is no threat or sanction of imprisonment. We are dealing with people who, on the whole, are experienced and sensible in their line of business, who should know what they are doing and who should fully appreciate the consequences of handing over, for gain, alcohol to children of 15 years or under.

The situation is very serious, particularly in urban areas. It is illegal but, nonetheless, in cities and provincial towns alcohol is sold to young people on a systematic basis. For that reason, a monetary fine is not enough to deter the persistent offender. There should also be the availability of the endorsement of his licence. As the Minister and many Deputies know and appreciate, signing over to nominees is an avenue available to the threatened publican, licence holder, as a means of avoiding the ultimate endorsement requiring the suspension of the licence. Therefore, it is not a useful or foolproof way of imposing sanctions.

The other important aspect of the proposal, certainly for a third or subsequent offence — I made this point on Second Stage — is that by leaving open the option of a term of imprisonment the court not only will have the opportunity to mark its serious view of the persistent recurrence of the offence but will have the opportunity of compelling the offender, namely the licence holder, to be committed to community service work. That is a very useful mechanism available to courts as an alternative to imprisonment but under the scheme of community service legislation, it cannot be imposed except as a substitute or in lieu of a term of imprisonment. For that reason the court must have available to it the possibility of the imposition of imprisonment and to go on then to consider, as an alternative, community service work. I cannot think of a better way to get people who persistently offend the code we are seeking to introduce to appreciate the harm they can visit on communities, the consequences they can impose on young people who imbibe alcohol than to have them do some useful work in those communities such as maintenance, redecoration, refurbishment or upkeep of a community centre often frequented by those young people at night time for their drink parties. They could be put working in youth clubs which are used as a place of entertainment by young people. We have always made the point that it is not possible to legislate away the problems we face.

It might seem odd that The Workers' Party, who consider themselves to be to the forefront of the progressive movement of enlightened civil liberties, are making an argument for increased sanction and penalty but we must have a balance between the good of the community and the sanction to be visited on an offender. In this instance we say that fines must be increased to a more realistic level and, for the persistent offender, our courts must have available to them the option of imprisonment. We cannot think of a better person to be sent to prison, if ever a person is to be sent to prison, than the person who persistently peddles and for gain alcohol to young people. We are suggesting that for a third, or subsequent offence, such a sanction should be applied.

When considering the other amendments to be taken in conjunction with this it is worth noting the fines involved. For the sale of intoxicating liquor to persons under 18 years a fine of £50 is imposed for the first offence. I must suggest that is not a realistic sanction for somebody who is engaged in business and making good money.

What is the multiple?

I am making the suggestion that the fine for a first offence should be £250 and, by the multiple of five, the fine for the second offence should be £500 and for a third offence £1,500. They are not unrealistic. If one looks at recent road traffic and misuse of drugs legislation one will see that the penalties are greater than the fines I am suggesting, even on a multiple of five. For a first offence for driving without insurance cover the fine is of the order of £1,000.

I do not think the £1,000 mark has yet been breached for a summary offence.

A fine of £1,000 is imposed for an insurance offence if the defendant ignores the court.

In practice if one does not appear in court one can expect to get the works but I do not think the figures I am suggesting are unrealistic. We must remember that in sections 31 to 33 we are trying to deal with those who are running lucrative businesses and making good incomes out of the sale of alcohol. If we are to restrict ourselves to monetary sanctions they must be such as to hit those people in their pockets, an expression often used in our courts.

Section 34 deals with the exclusion of children from licensed premises. The range of penalty for such an offence is £50 for a first offence and £100 for a second offence. We are suggesting that the fine for a first offence should be increased to £100 and for a second, or subsequent offence, to £250. I do not believe they are unrealistic figures.

To some extent I agree with the sentiments expressed by Deputy McCartan in regard to fines. However, his suggestion in regard to imprisonment is going too far. I suggest that the Minister examine the possibility of such a penalty if there is a third offence within, for example, a period of three years of the first offence.

I hope that the passing of this legislation will restore a sense of responsibility across the board. The Minister is doing his best to restore that sense of responsibility. We must remember that responsibility has to be shared across the board and take into consideration the role of parents, consumers, retailers and wholesalers.

Before the Minister indicates his attitude to penalties I should like to draw his attention to Deputy Colley's proposal in regard to them. It is the last amendment on the sheet. But by the way things are going I do not think it will be reached. Will the Minister indicate if the Department have given consideration since Second Stage to an alternative to prison sentences and fines? In my view fines have been low because as far as most publicans are concerned endorsement was the most severe penalty. They are not concerned about £50 or £100. In relation to the penology of the Bill, will the Minister say if the Department have given any thought to the question of suspension because I am convinced that, as set out in Deputy Colley's amendment, it would be the most effective sanction we could impose? If we told the owner of the average pub in Dublin that he would be closed for a month he would not make a mistake again. I am told by Deputy Colley that the vintners agree that that would be preferable.

In my view the biggest offenders are the owners of off-licences. I accept that some publicans supply young people with intoxicating liquor. I am aware of a person in my constituency who was serving drink to under-age people and was taken to court by local residents who had the support of the Garda. The district justice stated that the evidence before him was not sufficient to convict that person. He said it was necessary to produce photographs of young people leaving the premises with drink in their possession. Off-licences have caused serious problems in Dublin and we have had a lot of vandalism caused after cider parties. In many areas bus crews are refusing to operate because of drunken teenagers, and gardaí have to accompany them. The fines should certainly be increased.

I am grateful to Deputies for what they have said on this subject, not just tonight but when speaking on Deputy Barrett's Bill and on Second Stage of this Bill. I accept the thrust of Deputy McCartan's amendment. I am a bit worried about the multiple of five, but I accept that the amounts specified in the Bill are far too low. It must be said that 99 per cent of publicans have no interest in selling drink to under-age people but there are the cowboys who will do it and these are the people we want to catch. The ordinary publican will not be in trouble because he will have respect and regard for young people and will not try to profit from their problems and weaknesses. We must be in a position to deal with the rogue operator and I am satisfied that the fines laid down are not good enough. I will do something about it on Report Stage.

Regarding Deputy McDowell's comments on an amendment by Deputy Colley, I have not been very successful in getting support on the question of suspending licence holders. It is a matter we are still considering. It was fairly well aired on Second Stage. There is general agreement that we should focus our attention on protecting young people from unscrupulous licence holders. These include off-licence holders, publicans, hoteliers and people who run discos.

I will withdraw the amendment in view of the Minister's agreement to look at the question. A number of Deputies have addressed the question of third and subsequent offences being open to the sanction of imprisonment. I accept that we are talking about the 1 per cent who are rogues and I also accept Deputy Barrett's point that in the city area these are more often off-licence holders than publicans. We are talking about people who are peddling something which is potentially as lethal as drugs and causes so much crime and vandalism.

The Deputy will bear in mind that it is an endorsable offence and if a person is caught three times he is permanently out of business.

There are devices which enable a licence holder to slip around that.

I accept that.

This type of provision presents no threat or worry to 99 per cent of publicans and off-licence holders. On the north side of the city the rogue operators are to be found in Phibsborough, in Fairview and along the seafront in Clontarf. They are readily identifiable and we can no longer tolerate their activities.

I believe in the sanction of community service. I am not interested in locking people up. A good lesson for a publican or an off-licence holder would be to give him community work for a day or a month in the area where he is making trouble. The only way we can do that is in substitution for the penalty of imprisonment. If the Minister wants to insert one month instead of 12 months I will not object. I simply want to enable a court to impose the sanction of community service.

I have to admit that the penalties here are similar to those in my Bill and I was struck by the contributions of a number of Deputies relating to the level of penalty. I would not object to an increase. The problem about fixed fines is that £100 or £200 could be a considerable amount to a rural publican but to a city publican it is only a drop in the ocean. Often such fines do not have the intended effect. I sympathise with the point made by Deputies Colley and McDowell in relation to some sort of alternative punishment. The suspension of a licence has an equal effect right across the board. I take Deputy McCartan's point that a community service order might be appropriate.

This House has shown its commitment to doing something about people who insist on serving alcohol to people as young as 12 or 13 years of age. Most of this occurs in off-licences. We now have an opportunity to do something about it. The public who sent us here have been asking for action long enough. The penalty should be of such severity as to make it unprofitable to engage in that type of activity.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 75:

In page 15, lines 12 to 16, to delete subsection (4), and substitute the following:

"(4) In any proceedings against a person for a contravention of subsection (1) or (2) of this section, it shall be a defence for such person to prove that he had reasonable grounds for believing that the person in respect of whom he is alleged to have committed the offence was over the age of 18 years, or if the person is charged with permitting another person to sell or deliver intoxicating liquor contrary to the said subsection (1) or (2) to show that that other person had reasonable grounds for believing as aforesaid.".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 31, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 32.
Amendment No. 76 not moved.
Section agreed to.
Section 33 agreed to.
SECTION 34.
Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 not moved.
Section agreed to.
SECTION 35.

Amendment No. 79 in the name of Deputy Colley.

Amendment No. 80 is cognate and I suggest we take amendments Nos. 79 and 80 together, by agreement.

I move amendment No. 79:

In page 17, subsection (1), lines 10 to 12, to delete "which is used for the sale or consumption of intoxicating liquor at any time during the period in respect of which the exemption was granted" and substitute "to which the exemption order relates at any time during the period in respect of which the exemption was granted, unless such person under the age of 18 years is accompanied by his parent or guardian".

This is a technical amendment, dealing with an exemption on a licensed premises. The section seeks to prevent those under the age of 18 being on premises while there is an exemption. In general I would agree with this but there are situations where it could cause difficulties. For instance, children could be in a hotel attending a wedding. Another instance is that of a hotel where, for the purpose of the Licensing Act, the whole premises would be licensed, including bedrooms. There could be young children in those bedrooms and an interpretation of this section as it stands could mean that these children would have to be ejected from the premises if there was an exemption order. I realise this is very technical but I do not think the Minister would wish it to have that effect.

The situation is more or less restricted to hotels where the exemption order might apply. It would also affect a restaurant with a special restaurant licence where an exemption order applies and a wedding party is taking place. Under those circumstances there are children who should legitimately be allowed to be on the premises. I would add that this should be in the company of their parents of guardians. My two amendments were designed to take account of those situations.

There could be a wedding party in a pub, also.

This amendment would enable an under-18 year old person to be present in part of the licensed premises to which an exemption order applies if accompanied by his parent or guardian. The Bill provides, in section 33, that persons under the age of 18 years will be prohibited from purchasing or consuming alcohol. The whole point of the exemption order is to enable intoxicating liquor to be consumed outside the permitted hours. If we were to accept Deputy Colley's amendments, we would be making a bad situation much worse. How will the licensee know who are the parents or guardians of those young people of 17, or who are accompanying them? It will lead to terrible problems and will bring about an impossible situation. I know what the Deputy is trying to achieve, but we are talking about drinking outside the ordinary hours, of wedding parties at about 12 o'clock midnight.

I accept what the Minister is trying to do, which is to restrict after-hours drinking to those who are over 18 years of age and that is very reasonable. In the case where this takes place in a hotel which legitimately can house children in the bedrooms and where legitimately guests in that hotel are entitled to drink in the bedrooms and to bring children into them——

I do not think that there is any dispute whatsoever between us on this issue. Perhaps the Deputy would give me an opportunity of discussing the matter with the parliamentary draftsman to see if I can come up with anything which will cover the point.

Let us suppose that a hotel has an exemption order and the Minister is holding the wedding party of some relative of his and I am a guest in the hotel, accompanied by my children. I do not want to be told where they can and cannot go in that hotel, because some other guest is using part of the hotel for which there is an exemption order. The definition of a licensed premises or a hotel covers the whole structure. I know the gardaí will not search bedrooms to find children, but the children might be in the recreation rooms at 1 o'clock in the morning and the gardaí might take the view that they should not be there.

The first point I want to make is that the people staying in the hotel would be deemed to be living there. Secondly, if four young girls or young boys under 18 years of age come into a hotel, a bar or anywhere else and buy four club oranges and go into the toilets where they consume a noggin of wine, who is to blame? I am talking about shared responsibility of all sectors across the board in this legislation.

As I have already said, there is nothing at issue between Deputy Colley and myself. I shall talk to the parliamentary draftsman and see if we can work out a formula to try to give us what we all want.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 80 to 82, inclusive, not moved.
Question: "That section 35 stand part of the Bill" put and agreed to.
SECTION 36.
Amendments Nos. 83 to 85, inclusive, not moved.
Section 36 agreed to.
SECTION 37.

Here we have amendment No. 86 in the name of Deputy Taylor.

I move amendment No. 86:

In page 19, subsection (1) (a), line 6, after "place" to insert "or in private property where the member suspects with reasonable cause that trespass has occurred".

This is the section which gives powers to members of the Garda Síochána in relation to offences where people are found in a public place with intoxicating liquor and so on. That is excellent as far as it goes, but a very common situation is that these people may trespass on private property in the full public view, perhaps a vandalised house, a private park, a garden, or whatever — not a public place. They would be trespassers in a private place and it would perhaps be important also to cover that situation. I am proposing an addition to section 37 by means of my amendment.

I support that amendment. It makes very good sense. In urban areas in many of the places mentioned by Deputy Taylor people trespass who have intoxicating liquor with them. It is a useful amendment.

I appreciate the concern which may underline this proposed amendment. However, I can show by illustration that the adoption of the amendment would make the effect of section 37 impossibly wide. That section enables the Garda to seize containers of drink where it is suspected that certain offences under Part IV of the Bill have been or are being committed. Let us take the situation where a member of the Garda Síochána suspects that the young person had consumed drink in a licensed premises and at some later date the Garda is aware that the youth concerned is in a private house in which the Garda suspects the youth is trespassing and has a container of intoxicating liquor. If those circumstances obtain, the effect of the amendment would apparently be to give the Garda the right to enter that private house to seize the container of liquor. I suggest that this would be an unreasonably wide extension of section 37. If a Garda sees a youth or youths in a public place with bottles he may be reasonably certain that the bottles contain intoxicating liquor. If however, they are in a private house it would be difficult for him to be reasonably certain of that.

I assure Deputies that when this provision was being drafted a large variation of the provisions now in section 37 were considered and it was decided that the provision in the Bill as it stands was as far as we could reasonably go in this matter. In the light of what I have said perhaps the Deputies can understand the difficulty I am in, and that while I appreciate what they are trying to do, I am unable to accept their proposition. By accepting their amendment I would widen the scope of the section to a degree I had not anticipated.

That is precisely what I am trying to achieve by this amendment — the widening of the section. The Minister has his problems with the section but we have problems on the ground with actual cases. I do not know how it is in other constituencies but in many parts of mine there is a plethora of vandalised, abandoned houses and people are congregating in them regularly night after night, causing the most appalling problems. Are we going to leave those problems now that we are dealing with the thing? Now is the time to deal with this and this is the very section that covers it.

If the Deputy does not mind me interrupting him for a moment, would he consider excluding a private dwelling house? Perhaps we could meet the problems by inserting "on private property", but not "private dwelling house"?

An unoccupied private dwelling house.

(Interruptions.)

A place which was then being used as a private dwelling house, because a former dwelling house is not——

I appreciate that.

It arises in these derelict houses——

(Interruptions.)

Do a bit of drafting.

I will do a bit of drafting.

I will support Deputy Taylor on this.

All right, we will do something about it. I appreciate the point and I want to do something about it. I will come back to Deputies about it.

Deputy Taylor is happy to leave it in the hands of the Minister?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 87:

In page 19, subsection (1), between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:

"(c) and such member may, in addition, where necessary to preserve the public peace arrest without warrant any person he suspects, with reasonable cause, to have committed an offence under sections 31, 32, 33 and 37 of this Act.".

I am moving this on behalf of The Workers' Party. This is a very sticky provision. When a member of the Garda Síochána confronts one of these unlawful assemblies or drinks parties — I do not want to use the term "cider parties" in deference to the cider trade, as we agreed on Second Stage — he is unable to arrest on the spot without warrant those persons he suspects with reasonable cause to have committed an offence under a number of the sections in this Bill. This point is often missed in legislation of this sort. The last time I came across it was in dealing with trespassers on the railway line.

If we want the Garda Síochána to be of use in enforcing the law we are seeking to introduce, we must give them the power to arrest when necessary. If a member of the Garda Síochána is called out to the scene of one of these unlawful assemblies by irate neighbours or people worried by them, the powers under this section enable him simply to seize, detain and remove, without warrant, a bottle or a container. In other words, he can confiscate the alcohol. What would happen is that these people would head off post haste to the off-licence or to the pub to replenish their stock and then they would go back to the waste ground and continue the party. Alternatively, they would scatter, either dropping the drink or carrying it off, depending on the opportunity to escape, or they would stay and adopt a drunken or brazen attitude, taunting the Garda, knowing they cannot be arrested.

I suggest that the garda sent to deal with this type of problem should have the power where he can identify the ringleaders, to isolate them, to take them in and make them answerable for the offences committed, to allow them to cool off in a prison cell for the night and face a court and judge in the morning. That is the only effective way to nip the problem in the bud in many of these instances. If these parties are scattered they will just reassemble. We must be a bit more realistic and try to address the outdoor drinking assemblies that are the real problems in this area.

I know that other Deputies feel as Deputy McCartan, and I do, too. The drafting format used by Deputy McCartan makes what he wants to do much wider. It makes it far wider than what he wants. I, and I am sure, Members of the House can accept the thrust of what he wants and I am prepared to try to find a proper formula of words on Report Stage to deal with that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question: "That section 37 stand part of the Bill" put and agreed to.
SECTION 38

I move amendment No. 88:

In page 19, subsection (1), to delete lines 37 to 47, and substitute "any person under the age of 16 years".

This is a change from what I had in my Private Members' Bill in that the Minister has allowed for apprentices. On reflection, a number of young people aged 17 and so on do casual work especially in the summer months in hotels and bars. It is a little bit too harsh to exclude them from earning a few bob that may be going into the home. At least parents can decide whether they want to allow their children to work in such a place.

On a point of clarification, I would not see any great difficulty if they were employed for purposes other than selling drink, purposes such as general roustabout, cleaning off tables and so on, rather than working behind a bar.

What about serving at tables?

If it is serving by selling——

What is selling a drink?

I do not want to get into the technicalities of it now.

The reality is that there are numerous 16 and 17-year old people doing work in hotels, particularly during the summer months, and they are not causing any great problems. It would be a shame to deprive them of the legal right to do so.

(Interruptions.)

Would the Minister accept it if they were outside the bar?

I would have great difficulty in accepting the amendment if they were there for the purpose of selling drink but if they were there for other purposes I think I could meet the Deputy.

If they are there for any purpose other than selling drink — as long as they do not take cash.

All right. If the Deputy agrees I will come back to that on Report Stage.

Perhaps we will get stuck again on Report Stage. The reality is that a 17-year old can do some summer work in a hotel serving tables and so on and it is not reasonable to prevent him from doing that. They are doing that at the moment and it is not causing any great problems. If the Minister is going to allow an apprentice to serve drink, if he is over 16, the fact that one is not an apprentice——

If a youngster of 17 is selling drink it makes it difficult when another 17-year old comes looking for drink. We are trying to stop under-age drinking.

A 17-year old or a 14-year old can consume drink in the privacy of his home and perhaps that is the way it should be because at least it is controlled and people are taught how to control drink. The reality is that a 17-year old goes to work with the knowledge of his parents and that is quite different from a 17-year old going into a pub without the knowledge of his parents. It is reasonable to allow a 17-year old to work in these places. I am prepared to leave this over until the Report Stage if the Minister wants to consider it further.

If Deputy Barrett will consider what Deputy McDowell has suggested by way of a format of words, I would appreciate it.

I would prefer to leave it to the Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 38 agreed to.
SECTION 39.

Amendments Nos. 89, 90, 91 and 92 can be taken together in two minutes. The order requires that I must complete this section at 10 o'clock. The House can agree to giving it another minute or two if it wishes.

Can we have another five minutes?

All right, it is agreed to finish this section at 10.5 p.m.

I move amendment No. 89:

In page 20, before section 39, to insert the following new section:

"39.—Every person over the age of 18 years shall be entitled to obtain from a member of the Garda Síochána, duly authorised by the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána for this purpose, a card displaying details of name, address, date of birth, photograph of the person applying for the card, signature of such person, and signature or stamp of the authorised garda; such card may be presented to a licensee by such person over the age of 18 years where the licensee requires it.".

This amendment is intended, as is Deputy Barrett's amendment, to allow for the issuing of an identification card. My amendment particularly does not require presentation of the identity card in each licensed premises. It allows for it to be produced if the licensee demands it. That is a reasonable approach to the issue. I would not like to have something imposed on every 18-year old or on everybody over 18 but my amendment is reasonable. I am aware that many public houses already operate their own identity card systems. The Minister indicated on Second Stage that he would look at this point and perhaps he would do so now.

The purpose of my amendment, amendment No. 90, is to enable the Minister to make regulations providing for the issue to any person, on request, of an identity card. I deliberately worded my amendment in that way so as to keep it as simple as possible. I was very pleased with the debate which took place on Second Stage of this Bill and on my own Bill on this issue. We managed to get above the hysterical point where people begin to rant and rave as if by issuing identity cards we were going back to the time of the last World War and stamping people with numbers. What I am endeavouring to achieve in this amendment is a compromise where identity cards would be issued on a voluntary basis, whereby if I wanted an identity card I would be able to go into the Department of Justice and obtain one in the same way as I could go into the Department of Foreign Affairs and obtain a passport, if I so wished. I think we would find that young people would avail of that opportunity because they would find it is very handy to have an identity card. There would be no compulsion on them to do so and it is very important to stress that point.

The second part of my amendment would oblige the Minister to lay the regulations before the House for approval. That would provide this House with an opportunity to discuss the regulations the Minister may make on the issuing of identity cards. I ask the Minister to take on board my amendment because it adopts the right approach and would give us time to consider the ways and means of setting up a procedure for the issuing of identity cards by way of ministerial regulations. Again, we would have the opportunity of debating those regulations when the Minister would bring them before the House. I want to stress that what we are trying to achieve in this amendment is a compromise where it would be possible for people to obtain identity cards on a voluntary basis. I am quite confident that young people would avail of such an opportunity. It is evident from letters to the newspapers that young people would have no difficulty in accepting the principle of carrying an identity card.

Having considered this issue The Workers' Party do not go along with the idea of carrying an identity card. While the amendment seeks to achieve the issuing of identity cards on a voluntary basis, we believe that such a scheme would leave those who opt out at a disadvantage. I believe that the carrying of identity cards is unnecessary as we have removed the word "knowingly" from the legislation and have placed a responsibility on the shoulders of the proprietor to find out if a person seeking a drink is over 18 years of age. As we have said time and again, if there is any doubt in the mind of the proprietor the thing for him to do is not to serve a drink to the customer. There are other ways and means by which a person can get some form of identification. For example, every person at some stage must obtain a birth certificate and this can very easily be carried in a pocket or in a handbag and produced if necessary. There are any number of ways and means——

A person could carry his brother's birth certificate.

Equally, a person could use his brother's identity card and the point I would like to make——

A person's photograph would be on the identity card.

Deputy McDowell should not interrupt Deputy McCartan as there is only one minute left.

One point I made on Second Stage and which I would like to make again now is that in the busy thoroughfare of a licensed premises at night the flash of a card will often be used by a proprietor as an excuse for saying merely that he saw an identity card being produced though he did not have time to examine it carefully. The word "knowingly" has been deleted and the responsibility now rests on the proprietor to find out whether the person seeking a drink is over 18 years age. If the proprietor is in doubt he should not serve the drink.

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle——

I regret that I cannot call on Deputy Barrett. If Deputies do not show concern for others I cannot manufacture time. We agreed earlier that we would extend by five minutes the order already made.

There is one minute left.

There is not one minute left according to the clock which guides me. Deputies might be more considerate towards their colleagues.

May I deal briefly with the points which have been made on the amendments?

During the course of the Second Stage debate on this Bill and the earlier debate on Deputy Barrett's Private Members' Bill there was wide consensus that those who are expected to enforce the law should be helped in some way. As was said here on a previous occasion we are all concerned about Big Brother. I have given this matter a lot of thought as to how we should go about dealing with it. At first I thought we could adopt the approach as outlined in Deputy Colley's amendment but having given the matter some consideration and having taken advice on it, I think the approach adopted in Deputy Barrett's amendment would be more suitable as it would give me the power to introduce regulations which would have to be brought before the Oireachtas for approval. Therefore I am prepared to take on board Deputy Barrett's amendment.

I would like to say on behalf of The Labour Party that we oppose these two amendments and do not go along with this concept of a half way measure.

How far are you prepared to go?

We think the Bill is all right as it stands. The issuing of identity cards is not necessary at this time. We will not be supporting any of these amendments.

Are you prepared to go any distance?

Not on the cards issue.

I just wanted to know that for the sake of the record.

I must now put the following question: "That amendments Nos. 91 and 92 as set down by the Minister for Justice are hereby agreed to the Bill and the section, as amended, which includes Deputy Barrett's amendment, is hereby agreed". Is the question agreed to?

No, it is not agreed. We do not agree to Deputy Barrett's amendment and we want to vote on it.

Deputy Barrett's amendment cannot be put.

Can it be deferred until Report Stage when a vote could be taken on it?

Why can Deputy Barrett's amendment not be put? The Chair has put Deputy Barrett's amendment together with the other amendments.

We do not accept it, we are opposed to it.

Will we take a voice vote on it?

Would the Minister reintroduce the amendment on Report Stage?

If Deputy Barrett is agreeable to that.

I am agreeable to reintroducing it on Report Stage.

Shall I put the question, excluding Deputy Barrett's amendment?

Look at how considerate we are towards Deputy McCartan and Deputy Taylor.

It gets very difficult if the House starts to change its mind minute by minute.

I am just being considerate.

We are only being helpful.

I will now put the revised question.

Question: "That amendments Nos. 91 and 92 as set down by the Minister for Justice are hereby made to the Bill and that section 39, as amended, is hereby agreed to" put and declared carried.
SECTION 40.

I move amendment No. 93:

In page 20, line 32, to delete "18" and to substitute "eighteen".

This amendment is to correct the method by which the figure 18 was written in the Bill as initiated. The parliamentary draftsman would prefer if it was written in the same way as in the original section 4 of the Registration of Clubs Act, 1904.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 40, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 41.

I move amendment No. 94:

In page 21, subsection (1), line 3, after "1904," to insert "or any restaurant licensed pursuant to this Act".

I am trying to achieve consistency, contending that the same rules should apply to special restaurant licences as apply to clubs and pubs.

I must point out that this section, if amended as proposed, would not constitute a coherent provision. This is because the essential feature of this section is to give the Garda power to enter and search the premises of a registered club. If the Deputy's intention is that this section should be amended so as to give the Garda power to enter and search premises of special licensed restaurants, then further amendment of the section would be required. I would invite the Deputy's attention to section 3 of the Bill, the effect of which will be that it will be construed together with the Licensing Acts, 1833 to 1988, that all those Acts shall be construed together as one. A special licensed restaurant will be a licensed premises as required in section 1 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1927. Accordingly, any member of the Garda Síochána will have the same power to enter the premises of special licensed restaurants as he had in relation to other licensed premises. Therefore, the provision the Deputy is seeking is there already.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 41 and 42 agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.

I move amendment No. 95:

In page 21, before section 43, but in Part V, to insert the following new section:

43.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) of this section a person shall not publish, or cause to be published, any advertisement drawing attention to any function to be held on the premises of a registered club.

(2) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to—

(a) the publication of a notice inside the premises of the registered club in which the function is to be held, or

(b) any advertisement in so far as it relates to a function involving any sport, game or physical recreation, or

(c) any circular issued by a registered club to its club members.

(3) Where there is a contravention of subsection (1) of this section then—

(a) the registered club,

(b) every person entered in the register of clubs as an official or member of the committee of management or governing body of the club at the time the advertisement is published, and

(c) any person who published the advertisement or caused it to be published

shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding—

(i) £300, in the case of a first offence, or

(ii) £500, in the case of a second or subsequent offence.

(4) In a prosecution for an offence under subsection (1) of this section—

(a) it shall be a defence for a person mentioned in subsection (3) (b) of this section to prove that the advertisement was issued without his consent or connivance and that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the publication of any such advertisement; and

(b) it shall be a defence for a person mentioned in subsection (3) (c) of this section to prove that he is a person whose business it is to publish or arrange for the publication of advertisements and that he received the advertisement in question for publication in the ordinary course of business and did not know and had no reason to suspect that its publication would constitute an offence under the said subsection (1).

(5) For the purposes of this section an advertisement published by displaying or exhibiting it shall be treated as published on every day on which it is displayed or exhibited.

(6) In this section "advertisement" includes every form of advertising, whether in a publication or by the display of notices or by means of circulars or other documents or by an exhibition of photographs or a cinematograph film, or by way of sound broadcasting or television or by inclusion in a cable programme service, and references to the publishing of an advertisement shall be construed accordingly.".

The purpose of this amendment is to restrict the advertising of functions in registered clubs. Functions in registered clubs should be for the entertainment of members and their guests. Any Deputy who picks up a paper and looks through the entertainment columns, or even the special or personal notices, will see advertisements for functions such as discos. These are aimed at the general public and not specifically at club members. There is great potential for abuse of club certificates in these public advertisements and this amendment recognises that fact. The provisions will not apply to notices posted inside the club premises or to circulars to club members because both of those methods of advertising are legitimately aimed at club members. Also the provision of the section will not relate to a function involving any sport, game or physical recreation. Any contravention of the provisions of the section by a registered club, a club official or a member of the committee of management or a person who publishes the advertisement will be deemed to be an offence carrying a maximum fine of £300 on first conviction and a maximum fine of £500 for the second or subsequent offences. The provisions of subsection (4) provide a defence for club officials and persons who publish advertisements.

I might seek some information on this matter. In respect of subsection (4) (a) I accept the general purport of what the Minister is endeavouring to tackle because, all too often, clubs are something more than they should be in the running of their activities. The line of defence being made available in this subsection appears to me to be very generous indeed. I wonder if ever a prosecution could be seriously mounted if the line of defence provided there is so readily available. I should like to hear the Minister's views on that.

May I suggest to the Minister that there is a loophole here which I would envisage would be used by the clubs? The Minister says that it does not apply to any advertisement in so far as it relates to a function involving sport, game or physical recreation. If dancing is not physical recreation I do not know what it is and every dance in a club will be advertised.

I will have a look at the points raised by Deputies for Report Stage. I do not want there to be any loophole. I will endeavour to have the provisions tightened up. I am thankful to Deputy McDowell for giving me the benefit of his professional experience. I will also check out the point raised by Deputy McCartan.

It seems much too wide.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 96:

In page 21, before section 43, but in part V, to insert the following new section:

43.—The reference in section 5 (d) of the Registration of Clubs (Ireland) Act, 1904, to twenty-five members shall, as respects objections to the grant after the passing of this Act of a certificate of registration under that Act, be construed as a reference to one hundred and fifty members.".

The Registration of Clubs (Ireland) Act, 1904, enables intoxicating liquor to be supplied in a club to members and their guests. A court may refuse to grant its pre-registration certificate if the number of club members is fewer than 25. During the Second Stage Debate Deputy Seán Barrett proposed that, to help prevent a proliferation of clubs whose main objectives and purpose would be the supply of intoxicating liquor, the minimum number of members should be increased. I accept the validity of the argument. Accordingly, this amendment proposes to increase the minimum number from 25 to 150 members. This should ensure that genuine clubs only, with a genuine purpose for existence, will gain certificates in the future. Of course, renewals for existing clubs will not be affected by this measure even though their membership be fewer than 150.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 97:

In page 21, before section 43, to insert the following new section:

"43.—(1) This section shall apply in relation to any premises in which intoxicating liquor is not sold for consumption on the premises, but in which intoxicating liquor is sold for consumption off the premises on foot of an off-licence or a wine on-licence and in which commodities other than intoxicating liquor are sold by retail.

(2) This section shall not apply in relation to any premises where the only business carried on is the sale of intoxicating liquor for consumption off the premises and the sale of commodities ancillary to such business, such as cigarettes, tobacco, cigars, matches, confectionery, and beverages other than intoxicating liquor.

(3) In any premises to which this section applies, intoxicating liquor shall not be sold by self-service methods and shall not be sold otherwise than from an intoxicating liquor counter.

(4) If in any premises to which this section applies, there is a contravention of the provisions of this section, the holder of the licence in respect of the premises shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500.

(5) In this section—

‘self-service methods' means any method of sale allowing a customer to supply himself with the article sold on or before payment therefore;

‘intoxicating liquor counter' means a counter, or a separate portion of the licensed premises concerned from or at which commodities other than intoxicating liquor are not sold or paid for.:

(6) This section shall come into operation on such day as the Minister may appoint by order.".

During the Second Stage debate the point was made, especially by Deputy Davern, that the sale of intoxicating liquor alongside household commodities in premises such as supermarkets could lead to impulse buying of alcohol. It was also pointed out that, where alcohol was paid for at the same cash desk and at the same time as other commodities, there was very little real control over such sales. I agree with those sentiments. There is no doubt that there is scope for abuse of the ban on the sale of alcohol to under eighteens under the present methods of sale of alcohol in some shops and supermarkets. Subsection (3) is intended to do something about those circumstances by banning self-service sales, ensuring that intoxicating liquor will be sold only from a special intoxicating liquor counter.

Subsection (1) restricts the application of the provisions of the section to premises which sell alcohol for consumption off the premises on foot of an off-licence or a wine-on-licence. Most supermarkets and shops that sell intoxicating liquor do so under one or other of those licences. It also restricts the provisions of the section to ordinary mixed trading premises. The provisions of subsection (2) exclude ordinary off-licences whose only business is the sale of intoxicating liquor, that is apart from the sale of such ancillary products as cigarettes, tobacco, cigars, matches, confectionery and beverages. The provisions of subsection (5) provide a maximum penalty of £500 on being convicted of contravening the provisions of this section. Subsection (6) is self-explanatory, and subsection (7) will require a commencement order bringing the provisions of the section into operation. This is to give shops and supermarkets time to make the necessary alterations for compliance with the provisions of the section.

The enumeration of the different sections by the Minister and those contained in the amendment do not seem to tally. Perhaps the Minister would look at that as I speak.

I welcome this amendment and commend Deputy Davern for having drawn it to the Minister's attention. It is one of the problems many of us encountered in trying to deal with the question of the sale of alcohol to young people, having identified the ease with which alcohol can be taken from the shelves of supermarkets and open-shelf shops. Now that we are imposing such a rigorous code on the proprietors of shops, off-licences and other places — in terms of the non-sale, delivery or provision to persons under the age of 18, the question arose: how did one address the problem presented by the open-shelf shop or supermarket? Clearly this amendment goes a great distance in addressing that problem and is to be welcomed by everyone in this House. Because of the scale of the problem, and the significant role these types of shops have played in the past perhaps the level of the penalties to be imposed warrant further consideration. Am I correct in thinking that the endorsement of licences is not a sanction readily available in respect of the supermarket or the open-shelf shop.

In the context of our earlier discussion would the Minister consider the imposition of a penalty, by way of imprisonment, as a means of implementing the community service regime about which we spoke? That is something the Minister might consider between now and Report Stage, within the overall context, because it is my belief that the fines are unrealistically low.

I have no objections to the amendment but with regard to the phrase "self-service methods" may I ask the Minister if a person who purchases alcohol at a liquor counter in a supermarket——

Maybe "supplied" would be a better word.

——has to pay for it at the time he gets it?

Yes, it is not available on a hand-out, take-out, put it in your basket and walk-out basis. It has to be bought across the counter and paid for.

The other point I want to make refers to sweets retailers off-licences which I never knew existed. I understand that a number of the shops which are causing a great deal of the problems in relation to under-age drinking have sweets retailers off-licences. Apparently this licence may be granted, renewed or transferred by the excise authorities without the production of a court certificate. The licence expires on 30 September and the excise duty payable is £50. I understand that many of the main offenders who sell drink to under-age teenagers hold these sweets retailers off-licences. It is time we did something about them. I want to know if the Minister can bring an amendment forward on Report Stage to deal with this. Now that we are tightening up the area of under-age drinking, the Minister should bring forward an amendment on Report Stage to deal with this. I believe these licences should be abolished. It is crazy how these licences are got; they can be transferred all over the place. I have been told that it is this type of shop which is selling the bulk of the cider and so on to under-age drinkers.

I thank Deputy Barrett for bringing this matter to our attention.

It is time that provision was repealed.

I am advised it is already covered by what we are doing but we will have a look at it to see if we can tighten it up more.

There are on and off-licences for sweets retailers.

Having regard to what Deputy Barrett said, I will have a look at the matter. Does Deputy Carey think Bunratty Castle operate under that provision by selling mead at mediaeval banquets?

They do not sell.

They give value for money. I do not know how they do it but they do it reasonably well. I will have a look at that provision, Deputy Barrett.

Will the Minister deal with it on Report Stage?

Yes, if I can.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 43 agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.

I move amendment No. 98.

In page 22, before section 44, to insert the following new section:

"44. —Section 18 (2) of the Act of 1962 is hereby amended by the substitution in subparagraph (ii) for "at the time at which the last race of the meeting starts" of "thirty minutes after the time at which the last race of the meeting starts.".

Section 18 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1962, provides that liquor licences may be issued to greyhound race tracks allowing intoxicating liquor to be supplied at the track from a period beginning 30 minutes before the commencement of the race meeting up to the beginning of the last race of the meeting. I am satisfied that these times are too restrictive and, accordingly, to meet the demand from patrons and to ensure that a visit to a greyhound race track meeting provides a full evening's entertainment I propose in this amendment to allow drink to be supplied for up to one half-hour after the commencement of the last race of the evening.

Why after the commencement of the last race of the evening? Why not at the end of it? There could be a slow race around the track.

The Deputy does not know much about coursing.

I bet he knows more about coursing than track. In reply to Deputy McDowell, there is only a question of 30 seconds on average.

Does this apply to coursing?

No, it applies to greyhound tracks.

At what time of the evening is the last race normally held?

The last race is normally at 9.30 p.m. Up to now drink could be supplied up to the start of the last race. I am now extending that by half an hour after the last race, 10 p.m.

Bord na gCon deserve the relief.

I think so and those of us who have had experience of racing tracks during the earlier and more careless times of our careers would agree with that.

There must have been some very specialist representations.

No. Deputy Carey, Deputy Davern and I represent parts of the country where there is a very strong greyhound tradition.

I knew Deputy Davern had his finger in the pie somewhere. He is smiling like a Cheshire cat.

May I ask the Minister to consider, between now and Report Stage, provision for the transfer of a licence on a Sunday because with the advent of Sunday racing, unfortunately there is no such provision?

I am sorry but I cannot. I have gone as far as I can. I cannot give the Deputy any commitment that I would do so on Report Stage. This has not been adverted to up to now. It is a difficult question and it deals with a whole new area which would require very serious consideration. There are those who suggest that perhaps the people who entertain themselves away from home on Sundays should return to their home districts before they start entertaining themselves in other ways.

Some would go by helicopter and others would go by car.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 99:

In page 22, before section 44, to insert the following new section:

"44. —(1) Where a court has convicted a person of an offence under the Acts and such offence is deemed for the purposes of Part 3 of the Act of 1927 to be an offence to which that part of that Act applies, the court may in lieu of, or in addition to such endorsement, order that the licence relating to the premises shall stand suspended during such period as shall be specified in the order, being not less than one day and not more than thirty days.

(2) Where a licence is suspended under subsection (1) during a period, the premises to which it relates shall not be used for the purposes of sale or of consumption of intoxicating liquor, and in any proceedings arising out of the sale or consumption of intoxicating liquor on the premises during the period of such suspension, it shall not be a defence to show that there was a licence in being authorising such sale or consumption.".

We referred to this earlier in the context of penalties under the Bill. I know the Minister has given some consideration to it and has undertaken to do so further between now and Report Stage. I want to emphasise again the importance of having a penalty which affects licence holders evenly, equally and is a real deterrent. Earlier we discussed the fact that endorsement in the end can be got out of and licences can be transferred so it really is not the ultimate penalty it is considered to be. Suspension could be very effective in this area and I earnestly urge the Minister to find some way around any difficulties that are being perceived at present.

I thank Deputy Colley for her comments on amendment No. 99. I will do, as I already said I would, when earlier we informally or unofficially considered the contents of her amendment in conjunction with Deputy McCartan's amendments.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 44 agreed to.
SCHEDULE.

I move amendment No. 100:

In page 22, before "Licensing Act, 1872", to insert:

“Licensing Act, 1872.

Section 12 (penalties for drunkenness).

The substitution in the second paragraph for ‘forty shillings’ of ‘£50’.”.

The point was made very forcibly by Deputy Davern on Second Stage that the fine for being found drunk in a public place or a licensed premises was totally out of line with modern monetary values. The present maximum fine of £2 was set in 1872 and doubled to £4 in 1924. Accordingly, I propose in this amendment to increase the maximum fine for being drunk and disorderly to £50.

I can only add my voice and say that this is long overdue. It is a plea which has probably come from every District Court in the country in an effort to deal with people who are found drunk on the highway. I do not know if it will have any great effect because it will deal mostly with people who will have their money well drunk by the time they get to court.

I bet many Members of the House will come to me with petitions to have these £50 fines reduced on the grounds of inability to pay.

Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.

When is it proposed to take Report Stage?

Next Tuesday, subject to agreement by the Whips.

I hope the Whips will allow adequate time for all these issues to be raised.

We made a lot of progress when each of us became a Whip in our own right from tea time tonight.

Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, 24 May 1988.

With respect to time, may I say that the Chair appreciates the manner in which Deputies recognised the time constraints on everybody?

Top
Share