Amendments Nos. 2 to 14, inclusive, are related and may be taken together by agreement.
Seanad amendment No. 2:
Section 30: In page 22, line 22, after "declares""," inserted.
Licensing of Indoor Events Bill 2001: From the Seanad.
The Dáil went into Committee to consider amendments from the Seanad.
Seanad amendment No. 1:
Section 25: In page 18, line 41, "or 20" deleted and ", section 20 or section 20A" substituted.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Perhaps the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, should tell the House what these Seanad amendments are about and the rationale for them.
Regarding amendment No. 1, section 25 of the Bill replaces section 5 of the Fire Services Act 1981 with a new section 5 that updates the penalty provisions of the Fire Services Act and brings them into line with current practice. It also gets rid of the complicated procedures for dealing with offences set out in the old section 5(3) of the Fire Services Act. This procedure involved the DPP and the defendant's right to trial by jury in the criminal procedure legislation of 1967. This was a very cumbersome, complex and lengthy process which hindered the effective enforcement of the new penalty provisions of the Act. In short the local authority could not take enforcement proceedings in serious offences under the Fire Safety Act. They went to the DPP and there were delays in enforcement. This is much too serious to allow lengthy delays. Section 30 amends section 20 of the 1981 Act to insert a new section 20A.
Can the Minister spell out the practical implications of these amendments? I understand him to say the purpose is to enable local authorities to take cases themselves directly under the Fire Services Act, without having recourse to the DPP. To what court will these cases be taken? What sort of time frame is involved here? What offences does the Minister intend to introduce? What are the implications for defences in the cases being taken?
The amendment aims to include the new section 20A of the Fire Services Act providing for the closure notice to which we referred on a number of occasions both on Committee and Report Stages. Section 30 of this Bill and the new provision will ensure that non-compliance with a closure notice may be prosecuted, not just as a summary offence but as an indictable offence. This will be a matter for the local authorities to pursue through the Circuit Court.
How did this amendment and the others arise? Did they originate from the Department or were they tabled by Members of the Seanad? If they came from the Department, why was there a change of view? As we spent considerable time both on Committee and Subsequent Stages, I was quite surprised to see these come back from the Seanad.
This deals with section 30, which is the closure notice.
Is it not section 25?
The closure notice is dealt with in section 30. This is to ensure that the penalty section of the Fire Services Act is amended so that it can be prosecuted as a summary or as an indictable offence. It came from the professional advisers in the Department. It will allow us to update the fines to €3,000 and €120,000 for the summary and the indictable offence. Index linking will be addressed across the whole range when the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform introduces the fines Bill at a later stage. In the meantime we want to update the fines, which are too low.
The purpose of the amendment is to define the procedure dealing with those running an event or a venue who do not comply with a closure order. I presume the closure order must be issued in writing. What is the delay between the issuing of the closure order and taking proceedings to force the organisers, promoters or those responsible for the venue to close it? Is it possible to stay open until proceedings are taken and what happens in the meantime? How are people covered in the meantime?
This amendment merely ensures that the case will not go through the DPP, which is a much more cumbersome, complex and lengthy process, and which is not in anybody's interest. Very few of the cases passed to the DPP see the light of day because of the lengthy process of dotting every "i" and crossing every "t". Based on advice, this amendment simply includes the new closure order as both a summary and indictable offence. It is no more or less than that.
This does not clarify the length of time involved. Where a closure notice issued to the proprietors or other people responsible, this amendment will allow them to be prosecuted without going through the DPP. However, what happens in the time between the issuing of the closure order and the court proceedings? It could be a week, a month or any length of time. Can whatever has been organised in that venue continue unobstructed in the meantime?
That is quite clear in section 30(3), which states:
A closure notice shall take effect–
(a) if the notice so declares immediately the notice is received by the person on whom it is served,
The section later states:
In case such an appeal is taken, on the day next following the day on which the notice is confirmed on appeal or the appeal is withdrawn or the day specified in the notice as that on which it is to come into effect, whichever is the later.
Sometimes when amendments come back to the Dáil from the Seanad they relate to fairly minor technical matters which could not have been foreseen or arise from some substantial issue that arises from the debate in the Seanad itself. The Minister is proposing quite a significant change in the law. If this arose from the professional advice available to the Minister, I am surprised this was not flagged at an earlier stage. It comes before us quite late in the day and it is incumbent on us to understand the exact import of this change.
Do I understand the Minister to say that a local authority – in effect the chief fire officer of such a local authority – can now take a prosecution in the Circuit Court under the Fire Services Act for an indictable offence without recourse to the DPP? Will such cases be tried without a jury? What offences are embraced by the proposed change? Is it just the offences that were traditionally covered by the Fire Services Act or is it intended that the new offences, provided for in the Licensing of Indoor Events Bill will also be covered? For example in the case of a person operating an indoor event without a licence on whom the local authority serves a closure notice which is not complied with, it is now intended that the local authority can prosecute that without reference to the DPP.
On earlier Stages, I raised concern about how the indoor licensing legislation might be used. A large public meeting might be organised, perhaps at short notice and perhaps on an issue where communities are in conflict with a local authority on an issue relating, for example, to service charges or a major planning issue and the numbers attending the meeting might exceed the threshold allowed for in the legislation.
Is the Minister of State telling the House that in the case of a meeting to protest at something the local authority has done, the local authority can, without recourse to the DPP, serve a closure notice and prosecute the organisers of the event leading, perhaps, to prison sentences or sizeable fines? Similarly – I instanced this at earlier stages in the debate – if a university students union, for example, organises a lunchtime concert and does not apply for a licence a closure notice could be served on the students and the same thing could happen.
It is important that we understand that this is not a minor matter. It is about local authorities being given the power to prosecute. We all think that what is envisaged here is the prosecution of a rogue operator of a premises who piles large numbers of people into a premises which does not have fire escapes and in which exit doors are locked and so on. None of us has any disagreement with such a person being pursued in court as expeditiously as possible. Unfortunately, this legislation has a wider remit than that and the House should understand clearly exactly what the Minister of State is proposing, particularly as it has arisen at a very late stage. If this was signalled by the Minister's professional advisers I have to express some surprise that it was not flagged at an earlier stage.
My professional advice is that the closure notice should be incorporated into the section, with a view to ensuring that cases could be brought before the courts and dealt with more speedily. The amendment simply includes the closure notice in the penalties section of the Fire Services Act. We are dealing now with Part 3 of this Bill, which does not deal with indoor events but with the fire services legislation.
Many of the questions raised by Deputy Gilmore are those I raised myself at the time and I was convinced that this is in the best interest of public safety. We are unanimous regarding the importance of public safety.
I hope there is no ambiguity. This measure relates to Part 3 of the Act and the Fire Services Act. Anyone who seeks to justify the existence of the Seanad might remember that this matter was raised in that House, not by Opposition Members but by the Government. This gave the Government an opportunity to improve the Bill. Had this gone through we might not have had the opportunity to deal with the matter for some time.
Minor offences will always be dealt with in the District Court and serious offences in the Circuit Court before a jury. There is nothing new here. It is exactly the same as if the measure had been passed in the Dáil. The closure notice was simply included at that stage as a summary offence and we now want to ensure that it can be an indictable offence as well.
One thing has changed since the last time we discussed this Bill. Grumbles of discontent have been heard from the promoters and operators of events. I sense that this will continue and intensify. One very salient point has been made. The passing of this Bill may well see a significant increase in ticket prices for indoor events. I am concerned that there may be a €10 or €20 increase in ticket prices to comply with the red tape and bureaucracy which this legislation is foisting on us. Of course there is a need to provide greater fire safety and protection for citizens but that does not mean we have to place a restrictive layer of bureaucracy on to existing legislation. We are much better off licensing buildings in which events take place than imposing significant bureaucracy every time an event is held. I agree with my colleague, Deputy Gilmore, that this could represent an insurmountable obstacle to holding events, whether by a student body, a religious body or any body in civil society that wishes to host an event.
Why is the Minister not coming at this from a building point of view rather than from an event point of view? That is how things work in other countries and I believe they work better. That would ensure that we do not have more red tape and an increase in ticket prices. I ask the Minister of State to clarify this?
Deputy Cuffe refers to the possibility of prohibitive costs, and so be it, but public safety comes first. I am not particularly interested in the additional cost because safety is of paramount importance.
It will not be necessary to have an application for each individual event. There can be a multiple application and there need only be an additional €500 for a single event. There is no question of even considering that. The event will be licensed and not the building. That is the right way to go.
I hope promoters will incorporate the additional cost of the licence into their profits rather than pass it on. Whoever pays, it is a small price to pay for public safety.
With respect, a Chathaorligh, pigs might fly. To envisage a promoter not passing this cost on to the consumer is expecting too much of a promoter. Is this best practice abroad? Can the Minister of State say this is exactly the path that other countries are going down in ensuring fire safety? I am not convinced it is, from my limited knowledge of how things operate outside this country. I may be speaking with the professional bias of an architect and a town planner but I believe a building is either safe or it is not.
To look at every event on a one-off basis will place a stranglehold on every group in civil society which wishes to hold an event or a concert or have an impromptu celebration. We are renowned, as a nation, for being able to host an impromptu event at short notice, whether to welcome Seán Kelly back to Dublin after winning a sports event or to express concern at a new imposition at local level. We tend to host events on a very quick basis within a matter of days and that will be prohibited by this legislation. It is more akin to public order legislation than fire or public safety legislation.
This legislation has not come before the House following a brief period of drafting. All the stakeholders have had an input into it, including the chief fire officers and advisers in the Department of the Environment and Local Government. Promoters have also had an opportunity to let us have their observations. Any responsible promoter whose interest in public safety and fire safety is of paramount importance will have no difficulty with this Bill.
May I raise a point of order? Is the Minister of State suggesting that it is irresponsible of a promoter to oppose this Bill?
I do not get the Deputy's point. This Bill is about public safety and there is almost unanimous support for that. We know only too well, going back to the days of the Stardust fire, the necessity to introduce this legislation. It has been hanging about for far too long. With the co-operation of the large parties, we arrived at this day. I hope this Bill can be enacted very soon, the regulations will be introduced and as a result promoters and citizens alike will benefit.
We all agree with the Minister of State that safety is the main concern. However, could there be a conflict of interest in the local authority being the body granting licences? Some events which would require a licence might be contrary to the wishes of the local authority, such as a public meeting on incineration. People at such a meeting could be very upset with the county manager adopting a waste plan after getting the authority to do so from the Minister, for example. The local authority might not want any fuss or bother about such a plan so one could have a conflict there. The authority might not want a very contentious meeting to take place; it would not be a fire safety issue but a meeting to prevent an incinerator being built, pardon the pun. There would be a conflict between the local authority and the organisers of an event, therefore the local authority, through the fire officer or someone else, might not be the proper authority to decide on allowing such an event to take place on the grounds of public safety.
We are not dealing with indoor events but Part 3, which relates to the amendment. The licensing system only applies to large scale events with 1,000 people or more attending – the number is lower for children. We are implementing the Hamilton report and best practice.
There has been no problem with the outdoor licensing system. People will be able to attend events which will be well managed from the crowd control and safety point of view. Regarding the local authority having a vested interest, there is a structure in place allowing one to appeal a decision to the District Court within weeks. As a result of an amendment we accepted from Deputy Gilmore we changed the timescale by one week. This applies to crowds of 1,000 people and unless the crowd is bigger than that there is no need to apply for a licence. I cannot see the local authority acting on foot of vested interests. It is unlikely that over 1,000 people will want to attend an indoor event to protest or express their views about incineration but they may appeal the authority's decision to the courts in any case. I do not believe, however, a local authority would put vested interests before the common good.
Deputies should confine their comments to the amendment.
I will stick to the Bill. I am concerned that the amendments were introduced without any explanation whatsoever of what went on in the Seanad. I did not know why the Minister moved the amendment in the Seanad – whether it was an amendment from a Senator or the Department itself.
This Bill has had the longest incubation period I have experienced, going back to the tragic events of 1996 which led to the decision to set up a working group to examine safety at indoor events. We all accepted the contents of the reports in principle and the Bill is based on those reports. We had long and exhaustive sessions in the House and some of us sat through every line of this legislation.
I am also worried about the vested interests of the local authority but, on balance, I accept the arguments of the Minister of State. I reject out of hand any assertion that there should be blanket rules for venues rather than events. There is a hell of a difference between a sit-down musical like "Les Misérables” in The Point and a rave concert at the same venue. There must be differ ent rules for different events. We cannot have blanket rules, as that would be a fatal flaw, and thankfully we have not allowed that to happen.
Would "Les Misérables” be the Fine Gael event?
Deputy Cuffe went into some detail about the events I referred to on Second Stage and was quite sarcastic in my absence.
I reject out of hand both the professional and legislator's opinions that there should be blanket rules for venues rather than rules for individual events. I support the contents of the Bill in that context.
If the Deputy is talking about—
I sat through the full meeting.
Acting Chairman
The Minister of State without interruption.
People are right to express themselves and it is for me to justify the legislation. The outdoor system works well for local authorities and there does not appear to have been any conflict.
I thank the Minister of State for clarifying the point I made earlier, that the changes he is introducing today apply only to the original Fire Services Act rather than the new provisions of the Licensing of Indoor Events Bill.
The Minister of State referred earlier to the co-operation he received from the larger Opposition parties regarding the legislation. I remind him that the issues we are discussing were the subject of amendments tabled by Deputy Allen and me on Committee and Report Stages. My amendments attempted to address the issues of whether we should be licensing events or venues. I felt we should licence venues rather than events, albeit with different categories of events being provided for. I made the point then and reiterate now that there is a very serious danger that the legislation will licence out of existence the organisation of entertainment and social events generally. We already have a problem in that voluntary local events are no longer being organised because of insurance problems and fewer will be organised because of the requirement to get a licence for each event months in advance.
That will contribute to the growing consolidation of general entertainment events being centred on public houses and places where alcohol is available. If one raises the threshold for the organisation of events outside that area one will send more and more of it into the pubs. It is very difficult to find an indoor entertainment of any kind which is not associated with a pub.
It will also make entertainment increasingly a domain of commercial activity. Fears have been raised that ticket prices and access to entertain ment generally will be more restricted and based on price, and those fears will become a reality. We are all for safety, an issue I addressed on Second Stage, but parts of the Bill are cases of regulation running wild with itself. The net effect will be to reduce the range of options for indoor entertainment and activities which are likely to be organised in the future. I am satisfied with the response of the Minister of State to the specific amendments before us.
I appreciate the interest Deputy Gilmore has taken in this Bill. We are talking about a threshold and there is no need to apply for a licence unless it is for more than 1,000 adults. The threshold will be set out by way of regulation and, at the request of Deputies on Committee Stage, I indicated what the regulations would specify, which is, 750 adults. We covered the occasional meeting which might take place in the various universities and we overcame that issue. Some 1,000 adults is the figure. In the cases of pubs, I do not know too many which would accommodate 1,000 or 750 adults. The Deputy would have had reason to criticise me at a later stage had I not introduced this amendment to include this as an indictable offence. Amendments Nos. 2 to 14, inclusive, are related and all apply to section 30 regarding the closure notice to be inserted in the Fire Services Act 1981. The amendments have been recommended by the Parliamentary Counsel and have been accepted by the Seanad. They are mainly textual or technical amendments to improve the text of and to provide for greater clarity in the provisions of the Bill. The amendments remove commas or insert the word "sought" after the word "obtained". They are fairly minor, technical amendments but are important to the text of the Bill.
Amendment No. 5 removes an inaccurate reference to the prescribed manner as it is considered that this may lead to confusion as nothing is prescribed nor is proposed to be prescribed in relation to this matter. Amendment No. 7 is required to deal with an issue of duplication. Subsection (7) is being repeated in section 11. The amendments are to improve the text of the Bill.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 3:
In page 22, line 23, after "served,""or" inserted.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 4:
In page 22, lines 37 and 38, "notice: provided, however that" deleted and "notice but" substituted.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 5:
In page 22, lines 47 and 48, "in the prescribed manner" deleted.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 6:
In page 23, line 14, ", as appropriate, " deleted.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 7:
In page 23, line 18 deleted.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 8:
In page 23, lines 41 and 42, "complied with" deleted and "remedied" substituted.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 9:
In page 23, line 43, after "by""notice in" inserted.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 10:
In page 23, line 45, after "sought""and obtained" inserted.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 11:
In page 23, line 48, "complied with," deleted and "remedied, or" substituted.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 12:
In page 23, line 50 and 51, "complied with" deleted and "remedied" substituted.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 13:
In page 23, line 51, "no longer concerned " deleted and "of the opinion" substituted.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 14:
In page 24, line 7, "(12)" deleted and "(11)" substituted.
Are of those technical amendments relevant to section 30?
They are relevant to section 30 only.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendments reported.
Acting Chairman
The Seanad amendments are reported and a message will be sent to Seanad Éireann acquainting it accordingly.