Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 28 Jun 1988

Vol. 382 No. 9

Special Restaurant Licence (Standards) Regulations, 1988: Motion.

Minister for Tourism and Transport (Mr. Wilson)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the following Regulations in draft:

Special Restaurant Licence (Standards) Regulations, 1988.

a copy of which Regulations in draft was laid before the House on the 23rd day of June, 1988.

The recently enacted Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1988, allows restaurants which comply with prescribed standards to apply for the first time through the courts for a special restaurant licence. This licence will enable such restaurants to supply a full range of intoxicating liquor to their patrons but only in connection with the consumption of a substantial meal.

I am already on record on numerous occasions welcoming the licensing of restaurants which I see as a most positive development from the tourism viewpoint. I am also in agreement, however, with the principle underlying this Act, that the extension of licensing to the restaurant sector should be handled carefully and in a responsible manner. A Bord Fáilte certificate certifying that the restaurant complies with standards prescribed in regulations made by the Minister for Tourism and Transport under section 12 of the Act will be a prerequisite for the grant of a special licence. Accordingly I now place before the House for approval, in accordance with section 24 of the Act, a draft of the regulations which I propose to make in relation to standards for restaurants for the purposes of a special restaurant licence.

Before we embark on a discussion on the Regulations I should like to point to a number of important provisions already written into the enabling legislation strictly controlling the sale and supply of liquor in restaurants. Under the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1988, a restaurant in receipt of a special restaurant licence cannot, for example, contain a bar. Furthermore, drinks can only be ordered at the same time as a substantial meal is being ordered. If a restaurant should have a waiting area, such area cannot exceed 20 per cent of the size of the floor area of the dining area. The Act also gives Bord Fáilte clear powers in section 23 to revoke a restaurant's certificate if standards are not being complied with. The draft restaurant regulations now before the House are designed to ensure that only genuine, good quality restaurants can even be considered for a licence in the first instance.

The House will see that the regulations are comprehensive and detail standards covering all aspects of a restaurant's operation. They are set out very clearly and are largely self-explanatory. In summary, they include requirements covering such aspects of a restaurant and its operation as: the physical structure and layout of the restaurant; furnishings and fittings in relation to waiting, dining, kitchen and service areas, cloakrooms and toilets; menus, catering, hygiene, management and staffing.

The whole objective of the regulations is to ensure that the special restaurant licences will be available only to restaurants of good standard whose primary business is the serving of full meals to the public. The supply of intoxicating liquor will be merely ancillary to their catering business. This point has already been made most forcefully by my colleague, the Minister for Justice, during the Dáil debate on the provisions of the Bill.

The regulations will be implemented by Bord Fáilte who will be the inspecting authority. Bord Fáilte are the body statutorily charged with the registration and grading of hotels, guesthouses and other forms of tourist accommodation. Monitoring of standards and inspection of these establishments have, of necessity, involved the board for many years in restaurant and catering standards. The board have also introduced a voluntary inspection of restaurants for the purposes of inclusion in their annual "Dining in Ireland" publication. The resultant level of expertise which the board have developed means that they possess the necessary credentials and competence to undertake their role under this piece of legislation. I can assure the House today that the regulations will be both rigidly and fairly enforced by the board. Under no circumstances will a restaurant be certified unless it complies fully with the provisions of the Act and these regulations.

The draft Regulations provide for the inspection of restaurants at least once a year by the board. Where warranted, the board will not hesitate to exercise their powers under section 13 of the Act which enables them to revoke a restaurant's certificate at any time if the restaurant does not continue to comply with the standards laid down.

Inspection and application procedures for a Bord Fáilte certificate are set out in Part II of the regulations. Applications must be accompanied by an application and inspection fee of £325 stipulated in the Second Schedule. This fee and the £75 certification fee are pitched at these levels to cover the cost to Bord Fáilte of processing applications, verifying entries, carrying out inspections, preparing reports, issuing certificates, maintaining a register and enforcing the regulations throughout the year. Fees at lower levels would effectively mean that the State would be subsidising the restaurant sector to ensure that they satisfy the statutory requirements for liquor licensing.

For some time now our overseas visitors, particularly European and US visitors, have been expressing surprise at the fact that they could not enjoy our national beverages with their meals. This new restaurant facility undoubtedly gives a boost to Irish tourism and indeed to the sale of a whole range of Irish alcoholic beverages hitherto not available in restaurants. We owe it to our visitors and, indeed, to our own people to provide this facility. The draft regulations now before the House will ensure that they can enjoy this facility with their meal and in the confines of a good quality restaurant.

Once the regulations are approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas it is my intention that a commencement order be introduced immediately. This will allow restaurants to apply straight away to Bord Fáilte for a certificate of approval and give them the opportunity of securing the special restaurant licence at the earliest opportunity. I should now like to commend these draft regulations to the House for approval.

Mr. S. Barrett

I welcome the introduction of the special restaurant licence and sincerely hope it will benefit the tourist industry substantially. It is long overdue that our genuine restaurants should be able to serve one with an alcoholic drink with a meal. I do not think there would be an grave objection to that. I also welcome the opportunity to debate these regulations and to seek clarification in respect of some of them.

I received today the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1988, as passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas. From my reading of it there is an error in section 25(2). If one reads the Official Report of 24 May, 1988, Volume 380, column 2420, one will see that the Minister accepted an amendment in good faith from me that the level of fines be reduced from £400 and £800 to £300 and £600 respectively. The Act as published shows the fines at £400 and £800. Something appears to be wrong here. The Minister said, "I would accept Deputy Barrett's figures of £300 and £600 instead of £400 and £800." I am sure that point will be checked.

In relation to the regulations themselves, it was not quite clear whether we could amend regulations as distinct from just opposing individual regulations. I think the Minister, in fairness to him, has made an attempt to outline protection for the licensed trade and at the same time to set a high standard for restaurants who will seek and perhaps get these special restaurant licences. However, I seek clarification on a few points.

Regulation 4 (2) (a) provides for "survey drawings of the restaurant in respect of which the application is being made". These have to be accompanied by the application. It is not clear whether a similar situation will arise at renewal of these licences. What happens if between the application and the renewal date an extension is added to the restaurant? I brought this point up when we were debating the Intoxicating Liquor Bill. If somebody adds an extension is that part and parcel of the licensed premises?

Mr. Wilson

Or cuts off a bit.

Mr. S. Barrett

Yes. In other words, is it obligatory when seeking renewal of one's certificate always to submit with one's renewal form all of this information? Likewise, regarding the requirement of showing evidence that the restaurant complies with the Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts and any by-laws that may be enforced, will we automatically refuse a licence if evidence of by-law approval cannot be produced? This would have serious consequences for some restaurants because some small extensions are added to buildings over the years be they for private residence or premises where by-law approval was not sought and the owners subsequently sought by-law approval and could not get it because the engineers attached to that local authority will not produce a document to say that by-law approval is in place. Have Bord Fáilte any discretion or is it obligatory on one to show that one has planning permission and by-law approval and that if one has not got them it is a clear case of refusing a certificate? Regulation 4 (4) provides: "In carrying out an inspection of a restaurant pursuant to Regulation 4 (3) the officer of the board shall have regard to the standards set out in Part III of these Regulations". This would imply that some discretion is left to the inspector from Bord Fáilte as to whether strict compliance with these regulations is entirely necessary. I want these points clarified because questions will be asked about them in future.

Regulation 5 (9) refers to the reception area. There is no definition in the Bill of the reception area and this is an innovation in these regulations. We have in the regulations and in the Bill a provision that the waiting area cannot exceed 20 per cent of the floor area of the dining area of the restaurant, but there is no definition of a reception area. The regulations require the reception area to contain "furnishings, fittings and equipment of good quality and in good condition". Where did this reception area come in? Is it an area where one can consume alcohol, is it similar to the waiting area or what is it? Again, as there is no definition of the reception area in the Bill there is need to clarify that point.

The Restaurants Association of Ireland have made a point — I am sure they have made it to all spokespersons for the different parties — about Regulation 7 (3) — I think Deputy Colley has an amendment down to delete this regulation — which provides that "The overall capacity of the total dining area of the restaurant shall not exceed 250 diners and there shall be not less than 0.9 square metres of floor space for each diner". I was trying to think of a restaurant that I know that can cater for more than 250 diners off the top of my head. I cannot.

Miss Colley

I can, in the Deputy's constituency.

Mr. S. Barrett

Why was the figure of 250 selected? I am more concerned that, irrespective of the capacity, whether it is 10, 250 or 300, the owner of the premises complies with the regulations and the Act and that sufficient floor space for each diner should be available. If you have a premises that can accommodate 300 diners and you provide 0.9 square metres of floor space for each diner, surely it is unreasonable that Bord Fáilte would refuse a certificate provided all the other regulations are complied with. We do not impose a restriction on the size of a licensed premises or a hotel, so why should we say 250 diners is the maximum in a restaurant provided there is sufficient floor space for each diner? Why has the Minister selected that figure of 250?

Rather than insert a regulation in relation to the cost of the meal what the Minister has done in these regulations is quite wise. He has set standards, and I compliment him on that. I was afraid we would reach the ludicrous situation that a substantial meal would be regarded as a meal for which you charged £7 or whatever. I go along with what the Minister has done in defining what is a genuine restaurant and what is not because in areas of cost matters can be quite ridiculous. The provisions in the Licensing Acts in relation to extended hours are quite ludicrous as matters stand at present.

I turn now to the regulations relating to cloakroom facilities and toilets. Here again we have standards set out which are reasonable, based on size and the number of persons a restaurant can cater for. A number of restaurants at the moment perhaps have a very good reputation, supply good food, have excellent management, but the design of the building is such that maybe one could not straight away provide the type of requirements as laid out in Regulation 9 (4). It would be a little unreasonable if we were to refuse a Bord Fáilte certificate for what I would regard as a genuine restaurant. Perhaps in the short term they could not possibly meet these requirements. At the same time what they have may be sufficient in the short term. Will the Bord Fáilte inspector have any leeway in deciding whether a restaurant which can seat, say, between 60 and 100 persons but may not have three WCs and two washhand basins for females but would hope to provide them in the very near future, as soon as they got planning permission for an extension or whatever to the building, are entitled to their certificate, refusal of which could have serious consequences for their business? Is there any discretion here for Bord Fáilte when inspecting these premises and examining the facilities and standards?

I am sorry, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle but the only way to deal with this is to go through each regulation. I will be as quick as I can.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has a minute and a half left.

Mr. S. Barrett

I do not think there will be too many in here in this debate anyway. Regulation 12. (3) provides that: "Catering for special groups shall not necessitate the refusal of casual diners or reduce in any way the range of food and the service normally provided in the restaurant." I presume that if a group hire a restaurant for a day for a particular function, and use up all the tables, that will not mean the restaurant will lose its certificate. The wording is very tight.

Mr. Wilson

Which regulation is that?

Mr. S. Barrett

Regulation 12. (3). It implies that if a group used all the space in the restaurant and there is no space for casual diners, that would not comply with the regulations, as I read them.

I am delighted that after the debate on the amendments in the Seanad the Minister has decided to include a regulation requiring annual inspection of the premises. This position is clarified in the regulations, but I still maintain the Bill, as worded, does not impose that obligation. By having this regulation included, we have achieved something from that debate.

I want to refer to the fees being charged. I was one of those in the debate on the Intoxicating Liquor Bill who said the taxpayer should not pay for these inspections or for the cost of producing certificates, and I still stand by that. In the second Schedule of the regulations it is stated that application inspection fees will be £325 and certification fees £75. I can accept that when one has the bother of inspecting a premises initially — looking at drawings, the application form and so on — there must be additional work involved compared with what would be needed at a renewal, but there could have been a third set of fees for the renewal inspection and renewal application. In many cases there will be no change in the year and it will simply be a question of checking against last year's inspection. Charging £400 a year is a substantial amount. The Minister might consider inserting a separate figure for renewal inspection because, as we said, if an inspector were going to Kerry he could inspect a number of restaurants in one day and a fee of £325 for each inspection is a considerable sum of money.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Perhaps the Deputy would discuss any further points he has to make later because, as of now, I must apply the order of the House.

Mr. S. Barrett

I have a few other points to make but perhaps I will get a chance to make them later.

Miss Colley

I warmly welcome the speedy introduction of these regulations because the new licensing regime will benefit the tourist trade in general and will remove one of the barriers which foreign visitors had to spending a pleasant time in Ireland. It is in Bord Fáilte's interests to make these regulations work and I believe they will set about implementing them in that frame of mind. I also welcome the fact that we have achieved the right to review and debate the regulations before they become law. There are a number of these regulations to which I would like to refer.

Because of the procedures of this House, I attempted to stay within the order of the House and make an amendment to the motion rather than to the regulations, but I have been informed that is out of order. However, I will refer to the contents of that amendment.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is perfectly entitled to do so.

Miss Colley

It is slightly unreal to have a block of regulations before the House and to be able to only take them or leave them. I notice the Minister and his officials are assidiously taking notes, but it is an imperfect system which does not allow us to individually amend regulations. I would not have chosen to delete certain regulations; I would have proposed to make certain amendments to them, but I felt that was not open to me.

The regulations to which I referred in my amendment — Deputy Barrett already referred to one of them, regulation 7.(3) — specifically refers to the capacity of a restaurant and the area which must be allowed to the diner. I see no problem about the 0.9 square metres being allowed to each diner, but there could be difficulties relating to the figure of 250 diners. Unlike Deputy Barrett, I know there is one, if not two restaurants in the Dublin area which otherwise would comply with the regulations — or certainly would attempt to. On the face of it they would appear to be restaurants which would comply but they would be over the limit of 250 diners. In every other respect, they would be in keeping with the high standards required not just by the legislation but by the regulations.

It is worth making the point that if a restaurant complies with the regulations and with the requirements of the Bill, there should be no particular reason that it should be prohibited from being enterprising and providing a service that obviously will be used by the community. These restaurants are already in existence. There is a market for them and I see no reason that we should be stuck on the figure of 250. I would prefer to see the first part of regulation 7 (3) omitted. It should start "There shall not be less than 0.9 square metres of floor space for each diner" and omit reference to the number of diners. We should leave it to the board to see whether the other regulations have been complied with and, by implication, that such premises would be a premises which should be licensed.

Regulation 9 (4) sets down particular specification for the provision of toilet facilities. That is so defined that it would be impossible for the board to have any leeway. Deputy Barrett asked if the inspector or the board would have any leeway, but it seems to me that if we have this regulation, there is no leeway. The board cannot have discretion. What I would have done was to put down an amendment saying that the inspector or the board would be allowed discretion or discussion between the restaurant owner and himself before a certificate was granted on the basis of adequate toilet facilities. The board can be relied on to make sure those facilities come up to scratch and they have the power to withdraw the certificate at any stage if they feel the restaurant will not comply with these regulations.

Regulation 11 (11) and 11 (13) deal with the availability of alcohol in the restaurant and the prices of those drinks. Regulation 11 (11) reads:

A range of spirits and beers including spirits and beers of Irish origin shall be included on the drinks list and shall be available for purchase with a meal during permitted hours.

I respectfully suggest there is no place for that in this set of regulations because we are talking about existing restaurants which do not have a spirits licence or a licence to sell beer, and which the board are being asked to certify have a drinks list. The purpose of the certification is to allow the certificate to be granted before an application is made for this licence. Therefore, there can be no list of drinks in this restaurant. Certainly it can be a requirement that following the granting of the licence that would be required, but — I do not want to be misquoted or misunderstood because I believe there should be a range of spirits and beers included on the drinks list — I believe it is a mistake to put it in there because the rest of the regulations refer to the situation before the licence was granted, not after.

The same would generally apply to regulation 11 (13). The drinks prices cannot be placed where the customer can see them in a restaurant which is not licenced for those purposes. I would ask the Minister to look at that.

Regulation 11 (11) specifies "including spirits and beers of Irish origin." I wonder what the EC would have to say about that and whether it is allowable to specify domestic products in regulations under State auspices.

I have some doubts in regard to regulations 4 (2) (c) and 4 (2) (d) which refer to the board's ensuring that the planning and fire regulations have been adhered to. This seems to set up Bord Fáilte as an authority in the matter of deciding whether planning and fire regulations have been adhered to. This should not be the case. The decision by the board is taken prior to the granting of a certificate. If a certificate is not granted, the restaurant owner cannot apply for a licence. This means that the board is in reality a semi-judicial licensing authority. There are proper procedures for planning and fire regulations which can be used and there is nothing to prevent those authorities being notifiable parties in the licensing application. Bord Fáilte are not equipped and should not have the authority to say whether planning and fire regulations have been adhered to.

I have in mind a restaurant owner who is planning to build a restaurant and wishes to be in compliance with the regulations. There seems to be no procedure whereby he can know that at the end of the day he will have done enough to obtain a certificate from the board. I believe there are procedures in other licensing areas which allow this to be taken care of. In some cases a very substantial investment can be made in the building of a restaurant with no sure knowledge that a certificate will be granted, although the owner may believe his premises are in compliance with the regulations. There should be some consultative process which would allow people to make an investment in a relatively sure atmosphere.

When an application is made to the board, there is no time limit within which they must carry out an inspection and make a decision. This is not tight enough and it it open to mistakes, abuse and favouritism. If somebody makes an application in September or October for a special restaurant licence he or she would surely expect that within six months at the outside Bord Fáilte would have inspected and made a decision. As far as I know there is no such requirement in the regulations. It is reasonable to expect that the board should act within a particular time.

I welcome the introduction of the regulations. My amendments were designed to be constructive. If the Minister can make changes at this stage it would be worthwhile. These regulations will be introduced immediately and it would be far better to ward off troubles now than to leave it until later.

Mr. McCartan

The speed with which the Minister and his officials have responded to the legislation passed by the House only last week is to be commended. It is clear that a lot of attention has been given to the matter and it is proposed immediately upon the passing of these regulations that a commencement order will be made.

It must be noted that this debate is taking place the day after other aspects of the originating legislation have been cast into doubt. It is regrettable that our entire licensed trade is under threat of strike action due to the extended hours of business provided for in the Act. It is regrettable that an amendment in the name of The Worker's Party put forward on Committee Stage was not considered by the House. We sought to provide that it would 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 the Act.

The Minister has stated that the regulations will come into force as soon as an order in respect of Part II has been passed and a commencement order has been put in place. Perhaps he would clear up the confusion which has arisen about the other portions of the Bill and say whether they are now in place and operating. Do the provisions regarding extended hours and under-age drinking and other regulations require a commencement order?

Perhaps the Minister would take a few moments to call on all concerned in the developing row to have sense and to appeal to the employers to recognise that this legislation devolves substantially increased responsibilities on staff and that they should respond sensibly and constructively to the reasonable demands for fair play in this regard. It would be very regrettable if this legislation at its inception were tripped in any way by an industrial dispute.

The regulations as published are welcome. There is nothing particularly intricate or ingenious about them. Concern about the overall thrust and direction of the provisions with regard to the special restaurant licence was expressed on Second Stage and on Committee Stage. I voiced a certain concern that we were legislating for an elite and well off section of the community. Deputy Kelly to some extent hijacked the whole debate by talking about legislation for tourists and referring to the bewildered and confused foreigner who could not understand why he could not get a glass of beer with his meal. We are legislating not just for tourists and foreigners but for all of us.

The definition of a substantial meal gives rise to serious concern. The clear intention is to provide for an elite type of restaurant and a very exclusive type of diner. The man in the street will not be in a position to benefit from these provisions. Deputy Barrett commended the approach of setting out the type of meal which should be served as opposed to laying down monetary levels, which have been set at ludicrous levels in the special exemptions laws. It is provided that that table d'hôte menu shall provide a choice of hors d'oeuvres, including fresh soups, five main courses, a choice of fresh vegetables and a choice of three desserts. It is also provided that a good selection of cheeses shall be available. Regulation 11 (5) deals with the á la carte menu. I note that soup is to be provided but it is not specified that it shall be fresh soup. Perhaps it is a typographical oversight.

The local cuisine which can be offered in certain restaurants which specialise in particular dishes is to be excluded. I am thinking here of restaurants that specialise in the serving of fish as a meal, or ethnic restaurants such as Italian restaurants. I am concerned that we are legislating all of these out, the type of restaurants frequented by working class people who do not want to sit down with good quality linen napkins as the regulations look for but want, nonetheless, what they rightly consider very substantial meals.

Mr. S. Barrett

Like what?

Mr. McCartan

They may like the opportunity to have a beer. Should they not be entitled to it? I know that the regulations of the House do not allow for amendment or for change but I would ask the Minister to keep under close review the operation of this section with regard to what constitutes a substantial meal. If there are concerns voiced by sections of the restaurant trade or by sections of the public because they feel hard done by, the Minister should be amenable to amending the regulations. This is a new departure and it is important that the Minister and his officials be receptive to changes should they be looked for. In proposing the regulations in regard to genuine good quality restaurants, we are a little bit stuck in the strip of some sectors of the city. There are other restaurants and other clientele that perhaps the Minister would not be too familiar with but who should be considered.

Mr. Wilson

I bet I am more familiar with them than the Deputy is.

Mr. McCartan

They should be considered and have the option of having a glass of beer as they eat their meal.

Having said that, I would like to ask a few questions about the regulations. The regulations laid down under 4 (1) that the only person who can apply is an owner and occupier is very restrictive. The restaurant is defined as "the premises". The only applicant can be a bricks and mortar owner and occupier. What is the position of a person who rents premises, has a leasehold interest or seeks to take on the restaurant trade of an existing restaurateur and is not strictly the occupier?

In regard to the question of the inspection, my reading of the regulations is that there would be one major inspection at the application stage and that is referred to in the schedule of fees. Will there be an ongoing annual fee for the annual inspection? I am glad that under regulation 14 it is insisted that there be an annual inspection but my reading is that there will not be any fee for this. Deputy Barrett has a different interpretation, that it will be £325 or £400 per annum. That certainly would be excessive and I do not think that is intended. I read it the other way — and I am concerned about this — that there will be no annual fee at all. I think there should be some fee laid down so that the point is made that it is not the taxpayer who will pay for these inspections of the applicant restaurateur. I would ask the Minister to comment on that.

In regard to the type of restaurant we are pitching this at, I am concerned that all self-service, buffet type restaurants will be excluded. Regulation 7 (4) insists that all service must be waitered. I wonder if that is not an over-restrictive provision in the regulations.

Mr. Wilson

It gives employment.

Mr. McCartan

That remark is so facetious it does not deserve a response.

Mr. Wilson

It is not facetious at all; it is factual.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy McCartan has scarcely a minute left.

Mr. McCartan

I know there is nothing in the regulations that would seek to preserve some of the rights of people in this area of employment, but if the Minister is concerned about employment, let it be gainful and well paid. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to my remarks, particularly in regard to the whole question of the pitch to which we are now putting the legislation on restaurants. We are being much too elitist in what we are seeking to do here today. Nevertheless I recognise that it is a new departure. We must proceed with a degree of caution. My only exhortation to the Minister is that he and his Department would be receptive to the many representations that he will receive both inside and outside the House with regard to the working of the regulations in the months to come.

Minister for Tourism and Transport (Mr. Wilson)

Níl mórán ama agam. Is mian liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis na daoine a ghlac páirt sa díospóireacht. I will have to skip very quickly through. Regulations will have to be made for all operations.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If I might interrupt the Minister, the Order requires that the business be concluded at 5.15 p.m. It would be my approach that we would not pressurise the Minister unless he welcomes this.

Mr. Wilson

I thought I had only five minutes. That is why I was working up a sweat. As I indicated, the regulations, including those on the renewals, will have to be adhered to. There will be no inspection if, for example, the survey drawings are not in. The same applies to planning. I want to make it quite clear that it is in the waiting area only that drink can be served.

The next point that was raised, and it was raised by Deputy Colley as well, was on the question of the 250. It is a problem to make a decision as to where exactly to stop. No matter where one stops not everybody will be satisfied. It is the old philosophical question in regard to how many hairs one has to pull from a horse's tail before it is not longer a horse's tail. As one begins to extend it or reduce it, one will have problems with people who think the number should be larger or smaller. We wanted the legislation to cover restaurants, not larger areas where the major part of activity might be cabaret or entertainment and where we would lose sight of the food which is basic to the whole business. We would be going into the function room area rather than the restaurant area if we went higher than that. We had to pick a particular size. I admit that there may be individual restaurants which will find themselves in difficulty with regard to that. There is also the possibility that they could attenuate in order to cut down, say, to 250.

Miss Colley

There are difficulties about the licensing regulations. There must not be access to the two places.

Mr. Wilson

I did not envisage the cutoff or attenuated area being used for any such purpose. I welcome what Deputy Barrett said about the inclusion of the words "substantial meal" rather than going into the cost of a meal as this could become ridiculous in times of inflation or in times of deflation.

With regard to the remarks that were made both by Deputy Barrett and Deputy Colley about toilet facilities, it is one of the areas where visitors have complained about our standards and about the size of accommodation. I see very strong reasons for adhering to the dimensions laid down. Deputy Barrett mentioned some very good restaurants that may have difficulties. I am sure that they will be able to find a way in which to expand their facilities. Even in places where no discretionary element is provided for, it is important that rules be applied sensibly, with reason, justice and equity. I would adhere with the proposition that the regulations have to be adhered to.

Deputy Barrett referred to the fees. An inspection will take place each year. If we ever decide it should be reduced we will have to come back to the House to get agreement but as of now the regulations state that an inspection will have to be carried out each year and that the fees have to be paid.

Deputy Barrett also referred to the fines that would have to be paid and the acceptance of an amendment. I think the fines which the Deputy is referring to are the fines outlined in the Schedule to the Act. The fines to be paid by persons found on licensed premises during prohibited hours are being increased from £20 to £300 for a first offence and from £40 to £600 for a subsequent offence. Those are the two figures mentioned by the Deputy. This was agreed to in the House.

Mr. S. Barrett

No.

Mr. Wilson

The fines mentioned in section 25 (2) are for separate offences and there was no agreement to alter these. Perhaps this is something which I should have done at the outset, but I would like to pay tribute to the Minister for Justice and all those who worked assiduously on this Bill. I know it got the full legislative treatment in the House and I pay tribute to them for their diligence and the way they handled the matter.

Mr. S. Barrett

Let me correct the Minister. If he refers to Volume 380 of the Official Report he will see that the amendment in my name referred to section 25.

Mr. Wilson

As I understand it, the fines of £300 and £600 are outlined in the Schedule. It is what was put by the Chair and was accepted by the House that will stand. Perhaps the Deputy could take this matter up with the Minister for Justice at some date in the future.

Mr. McCartan

Could the Minister clarify how much has to be paid?

Mr. Wilson

The exact same.

Mr. McCartan

In both cases?

Mr. Wilson

Yes. Deputy Colley in her first contribution referred to capacity but there is nothing further I can add to what I have already said. I accept what she said that there may be one or two restaurants which, apart from capacity, would fit in in every other way and I would suggest that attenuation might be of help in that regard. If its gets too big it gets out of the realm of the definition of "restaurant".

Miss Colley

Section 6 of the Bill, the definition section, states in respect of the definition of "restaurant" which any other business carried on is ancillary and subsidiary to the provision of such meals". The Minister has said he is afraid that barn-like cabaret places will open up.

Mr. Wilson

We would have a restaurant the size of Croke Park if we did not set down some limits. This figure was arrived at following a lot of discussion and agreement was finally reached on a figure of 250. I am not in the position to change that figure. I do not know what will happen in the future but for now I will have to adhere to what is outlined in the regulations.

Mr. S. Barrett

What difference does it make whether it is 200 or 300, given that they would have to comply with the provision that there has to be 0.9 square metres of floor space for each diner? It is purely an arbitrary figure.

Mr. Wilson

A figure of 0.9 square metres might not be enough floor space for some diners I know but——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Perhaps we would let the Minister conclude and if time is available and the Minister is agreeable we could take one or two additional questions.

Mr. Wilson

I could not understand what Deputy Colley was getting at when she referred to the price list. By law, public houses have to display a price list. What is required here is that restaurants would have to put up a price list where the customer can see it and it is only fair that this should be done post factum as soon as the newly licensed restaurant is under way. In regard to planning permission all that would be required is evidence that planning permission has been received. There are no judicial implications in it. If at one of my political clinics someone brings in a document from the planning authority which shows that they have received planning permission that would be adequate and I do not see any problems about this at all.

Miss Colley

Possibly, there are many premises that would not have got planning permission for example, pre-1963 buildings. It is evidence that the restaurant complies with the provisions of Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts: it is not necessarily planning permission.

Mr. Wilson

Deputy Barrett referred to extensions but the fact of the matter is that if a certificate is sought from the planning authority as regards the status of a pre-1963 building I do not think that there would be any problems in regard to it. Bord Fáilte will be very conscious of the need to expedite matters. In regard to the renewal of licences, the courts will sit at fixed times — that is so in regard to licensed premises. I am assured that the inspection team are ready, willing and eager to go and that there will be no undue delay.

Deputy McCartan referred to the staffing of licensed premises: I am the wrong Minister in regard to that matter as I think he was mainly speaking about public houses rather than restaurants. I agree it is important that there be no industrial action in licensed premises and I appeal not merely to the employers but also to the workers — Deputy McCartan appealed to the employers but I would appeal to both groups — to try to avert industrial action if at all possible.

I am grateful to Deputy McCartan for his welcome for the regulations but I think he went off on an ideological jag when he referred to elitism. I do not believe that this is the case. The fact that you have a table d'hôte of considerable proportions does not impose any obligation to start with the egg, as the Romans used to say, and end with the apple. I would not be able to work myself into an ideological sweat about what we are doing here. Any citizen should be able to visit and partake selectively of a good substantial meal in any of our restaurants. I agree wholeheartedly with him when he says that there are specialist restaurants and there is nothing in the regulations which would inhibit specialist restaurants from continuing.

One of the things which I am delighted about, and Deputy McCartan referred to this, is that there is now a variety of cheeses available. I suppose there are about 15 small regional producers of cheese at present. These cheeses are delightful and at a recent festival of fromage in Paris — where they are very snooty about their cheeses — the adjudicator, a Frenchman, judged the Irish cheeses as being in the very top rank. I hope that continues to be the case. There is a very fine goats cheese in Cavan which I recommend the Deputy to try if he ever goes there as well as a Gouda which is made at Kingscourt. I am only putting in a little plug here.

Minister for Agriculture and Food (Mr. O'Kennedy)

And Tipperary.

Mr. Wilson

Cheeses are also made in Tipperary, Cork, Wexford and Galway. Excellent cheeses are made in the Burren, which I could recommend to anybody.

Mr. McCartan

The Deputy from Wexford brings me strawberries so perhaps the Minister could bring me some cheeses.

Mr. Wilson

I am referring to cheeses only because the Deputy mentioned them. He appealed also for an open mind and I am sure that our minds will be kept open on any improvements that might be made in the regulations in the future.

In relation to the question raised by the Deputy, if I understand him correctly, on whether the holding of a lease would entitle a lease holder to apply for a licence, the answer is "yes". The Deputy raised the question about confusion as to what was and what was not in operation as of now. The entire Act is in operation except for Part II, which deals with special restaurant licences, which is what we are dealing with here; section 40 which deals with voluntary age cards and section 47 which deals with restrictions on the sale of alcohol in supermarkets. The Act was signed into law by the President on 22 June. There is nothing mandatory about the Act. These requirements need to be met only if a restaurateur wants the new type of licence. If a restaurateur who has a restaurant with an established reputation and a good wine cellar wants to keep his restaurant as it is, of course he may do so. I think some people are puzzled about that. The main complaint over the years has been specifically that one could not get the wine of the country — either beer of whatever colour, Irish whiskey or Irish gin — in a restaurant and people felt, and I agree with them, that this should have been remedied.

Standards and some detailed level of inspection will apply to all renewals as well as to the initial issue of a certificate and that is what dictates the costing. I did not fully understand Deputy Colley's remarks about the European situation. In all such areas it is only if some preference is shown for the products of a country, whether it is a service or a product as in this case, that one might come under EC regulations and be inhibited from doing something. Here there is a mention of Irish products but this is not exclusive of products from any other EC country. I think I have covered most of the points which were raised.

Mr. S. Barrett

Catering for special groups.

Mr. Wilson

I think I understand the thinking behind that regulation, and this is from experience. What the regulation wants to avoid are instances where a restaurant which is catering for special groups has a fixed menu for that special group, who have lobster for their principal dish, and I am told, if I go into the restaurant, that because there is a group in possession of the restaurant that I can only have lobster simply because the restaurant is almost full with a special group. What the regulation wants to avoid is the situation where a restaurateur can use a special group to in some way cut down on what is available to the general customer. That is as I understand the regulation and I agree with it.

Miss Colley

Would the Minister refer to my main query about drink lists and the ranges available having to do with the logistical business of the regulations. The regulations seem to imply that one has to have this list before a certificate can be granted and that the restaurant owner would not be allowed to show that he can sell spirits or beer or show the prices for the same because he does not have a licence.

Mr. Wilson

I do not think there will be any problem with that. When a restaurateur goes to court and gets his licence he will then, and not until then, be in a position to sell the spirits or beer which he cannot sell now. He can then put up his list of prices and his certificate from Bord Fáilte and can do business.

Mr. S. Barrett

He cannot do that. He cannot go to court unless he has a certificate.

Miss Colley

The regulation is ambiguous.

Mr. Wilson

Both Deputy McCartan and Deputy Barrett appealed for commonsense and I believe the normal deduction any ordinary person who knows that neither spirits nor beer can be provided now where there is only a wine licence would make is that he has to go to court and get a licence before he can display his list of spirits and prices.

Mr. S. Barrett

I accept what the Minister has said but we debated this at length when we were discussing the Bill. The problem is that a contrary inspector may say "you are not complying with the regulations because the regulations say you must do this and this and must have the following range". The inspector may say that he has inspected the premises and there is no such range of drink or, for arguments sake, there is no reception area. This new reception area was introduced by the Minister and this is very dangerous because there is no mention of it in the regulations.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister in his reply concluded the debate.

Mr. S. Barrett

We had agreed——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair would be empowered to hear a relevant question but there can be no question of the debate being reopened now.

Mr. Wilson

I hope that there is no lunatic in my Department or in Bord Fáilte who would say to somebody "The law does not allow you to sell spirits or beer but you must be selling spirits or beer before I give you a certificate and before you go into court."

Mr. S. Barrett

That is what the regulations say.

Mr. Wilson

I know there are unbalanced people in our community but I am convinced nobody is so unbalanced as to adopt that position.

Miss Colley

The Minister——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputies will appreciate my point. I will allow a little latitude for a brief and relevant question but, in fact, the debate has concluded to all intents and purposes.

Miss Colley

Does the Minister think there is a possibility that the regulations could be nullified by a clever person who goes to court? That is what I have in mind and I ask the Minister to consider the regulations in that light. We want lists of beverages and price lists to be displayed but I am afraid that those requirements in the regulations could be found to be null and void because they would be contradictory.

Mr. Wilson

If one applies the cui bono criterion, in whose interest would it be to nullify the procedure which the Deputies have worked so painstakingly on during the past few weeks in this House? It is to the benefit of the applying restaurateur to get his licence and to the benefit of Bord Fáilte and the tourism industry who have been yearning for this for years. I do not know where this crackpot who would nullify all the work that has been done here would come out of.

Mr. S. Barrett

There are plenty of people who do not want these licences to be issued.

Mr. Wilson

They are very few and far between.

I recommend the regulations to the House. Tá mé buíoch des na daoine a ghlac páirt sa díospóireacht. Tá súil agam go n-éireoidh go geal leis na bialanna agus leis na hóstáin sa todhchaí agus go háirithe go rachaidh sé chun sochair don turasóireacht.

Question put and agreed to.