Amendment No. 6 is related to amendment No. 2 and both may be discussed together.
Private Members' Business. - Licensing (Combating Drug Abuse) Bill, 1997: Committee and Remaining Stages.
Section 1 agreed to.
Amendment No. 1 not moved.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 5, subsection (1), line 5, to delete "other".
Sections 3(1) and 17(1) refer to a garda applying for a licence revocation or forfeiture "notwithstanding any other penalty". The sections therefore carry an inference that a licence revocation or forfeiture is a penalty, which in turn implies that such a revocation or forfeiture is a criminal measure. A revocation or forfeiture under the sections concerned is a civil matter and the proposed amendment should eliminate the potential for confusion in this regard.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 5a, 7, 8, 9 and 10a are related to amendment No. 3 and all may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 5, subsection (1), line 38, to delete "Where" and substitute "Subject to subsection (2), where".
I thank Deputy O'Donnell for tabling her two amendments, which are an improvement on the present wording. The Minister is, therefore, accepting them. Deputies will note that two of the amendments have been worded so that their wording will be consistent with Deputy O'Donnell's amendments. For further consistency with those amendments, my amendments Nos. 5a and 10a provide for the deletion of the word "proper".
The Minister's amendments Nos. 3, 5, 7 and 9 are related and their purpose is to provide for a warning procedure for licencees at risk of having their licences revoked or forfeited. On Second Stage Deputy O'Donoghue said that before initiating licence revocation proceedings, notice should be served on the licence holder that the Garda Síochána are of the view that illegal drugs are on sale or are being supplied on the premises and directing the individual concerned to put his or her house in order. In a similar vein Deputy O'Donnell indicated that it would be fairer if licence revocation proceedings were initiated only after the Garda pointed out to the licence holder that known drug dealers were on the premises and the licence holder failed to do anything about it.
It is fair to say that the vast majority of licence holders are decent people who want to earn an honest living. They would be appalled if they heard that their premises were being used for drug dealing. For that reason, the Minister has framed her proposals on the assumption that the Garda would warn licence holders before taking proceedings. She did not envisage situations occurring in which licence holders would suddenly have the rug pulled from under them. Nevertheless, having reflected on what was said on Second Stage, she decided to include provision for a statutory warning. Her amendments provide for warnings where there is a reasonable suspicion that the licence holder did not exercise reasonable control over his or her premises to prevent the sale, supply or distribution of any controlled drug. The licence holder will be given a reasonable period of time to enable him or her to take whatever action is necessary to prevent drug related activity on the premises.
It will be seen from the amendments that the Minister does not propose to apply the new warning to cases in which a licence holder permits or suffers the use of the venue for the sale, supply or distribution of any controlled drugs. She decided not to do so because permitting or suffering drug abuse entails a more active involvement on the part of the licencee in drug related activity. In such a case, early action would be needed rather than waiting several weeks for the warning procedure to be completed. I commend amendments Nos. 3, 5, 5a, 7, 9 and 10a to the House.
I thank the Minister for taking on board the reservations which Deputy O'Donoghue and I expressed on Second Stage and I thank her for accepting my amendments. I was concerned that the current wording would seem to suggest that any sale of drugs in a premises was due to lack of proper control by the music licence holder. Failure to exercise proper control would lead to the licence holder being barred from holding a licence for five years. I had suggested that "reasonable control" is a fairer test. Section 10 envisages the licence holder making reasonable arrangements to prevent the sale of drugs.
I support the Minister's amendments. They indicate an acceptance that the vast majority of licence holders are willing and enthusiastic in helping the authorities to combat drugs on their premises. However, the obligations placed on them must be reasonable in all the circumstances, given that the revocation of a licence is a serious penalty to impose. The Minister's amendments have moved to make the tests and obligations on them more reasonable.
I also welcome the Minister's initiative. However, while not blaming the licence holders generally, it must be borne in mind that large numbers of drugs are sold on many of these premises, at times to far more than the value of £10,000 and under the auspieces of the licence holders.For that reason Deputy O'Donoghue put down an amendment which he hoped the Government would accept, but unfortunately it was not acceptable and was deemed to be out of order. It is a serious matter when people can deal on these premises. This the first time the issue will be tackled from a specific aspect and it is right that the amendments be agreed to.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No 4:
In page 5, subsection (1), line 44, to delete "proper control" and substitute "control which was reasonable in all the circumstances".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 5, between lines 46 and 47, to insert the following subsection:
"(2) An application under subsection (1) shall not be made on the ground that the licence-holder did not exercise control which was reasonable in all the circumstances over the place to prevent the sale, supply or distribution of any controlled drug, unless a member of the Garda Síochána has previously —
(a) advised the licence-holder that he or she has a reasonable suspicion that there was such sale, supply or distribution at the place,
(b) warned the licence-holder to take whatever action was necessary to prevent such sale, supply or distribution, and
(c) given the licence-holder a reasonable period of time, being not less than 4 weeks from the date of the warning, to enable the licence-holder to take whatever action was necessary to prevent such sale, supply or distribution.".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 5a:
In page 6, subsection (3), line 10, to delete "proper".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 5 to 16, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 17.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 12, subsection (1), line 35, to delete "other".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 17, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 18.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 13, subsection (1), line 22, to delete "Where" and substitute "Subject to subsection (2), where".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 13, subsection (1), line 27, to delete "proper control" and substitute "control which was reasonable in all the circumstances".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 13, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following subsection:
"(2) An application under subsection (1) shall not be made on the ground that the licence-holder did not exercise control which was reasonable in all the circumstances over the premises to prevent the sale, supply or distribution of any controlled drug, unless a member of the Garda Síochána has previously —
(a) advised the licence-holder that he or she has a reasonable suspicion that there was such sale, supply or distribution on the premises,
(b) warned the licence-holder to take whatever action was necessary to prevent such sale, supply or distribution, and
(c) given the licence-holder a reasonable period of time, being not less than 4 weeks from the date of the warning, to enable the licence-holder to take whatever action was necessary to prevent such sale, supply or distribution.".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 13, subsection (5), line 40, to delete "may" and substitute "shall".
This is a minor amendment proposed for consistency with the equivalent provision in section 4(2) in relation to places with public dancing or public music and singing licences.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 10a:
In page 13, subsection (6), line 50, to delete "proper".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 18, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 19 to 21, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 22.
Amendment No. 11 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 22 stand part of the Bill."
Amendment No. 11 was tabled to section 22 but the Ceann Comhairle's office deemed that it was not relevant to the Bill. However, the position of the Fianna Fáil Justice spokesperson, Deputy O'Donoghue, is that full-time, temporary or early release should not be given to people who deal in drugs. It is unfortunate that the amendment was ruled out of order on the basis it was not relevant to the provisions of the Bill.
That is so.
It is still my party's position that full-time, temporary or early release should not be given in any circumstances to people who deal in drugs.
The amendment to which the Deputy referred and some of Deputy O'Donoghue's other amendments were ruled out of order on the grounds that they were not relevant to the provisions of the Bill as read a Second Time.
Question put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 12 not moved.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments, received for final consideration and passed.