Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 8 Jul 2008

Vol. 659 No. 1

Intoxicating Liquor Bill 2008: Committee and Remaining Stages.

SECTION 1.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, lines 18 to 21, to delete subsection (3) and substitute the following:

"(3) The Courts of Justice Acts 1924 to 1961, the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Acts 1961 to 2007 and section 7(a), to the extent that it amends the Courts of Justice Act 1924, may be cited together as the Courts Acts 1924 to 2008 and shall be construed together as one.”.

This amendment seeks to excise section 1(3) and replace it with the amendment as drafted. I am not sure I understand why it is necessary for us to return to the Free State courts Acts for this purpose. I am told the citation used in my amendment is the more customary. I do not want to make a meal of this as we have a long way to go.

I appreciate that Deputy Rabbitte has a point with regard to the collective citation for the courts Acts, my Department is involved in a joint project with the Law Reform Commission to codify the courts Acts. The issue referred to here will be taken into account in this examination. This is an Intoxicating Liquor Bill rather than a courts Bill. I cannot accept the amendment. The reason section 1(3) is in the Bill is because section 7(a) refers to the jurisdiction of the District Court and it must be included to tie in with previous legislation in this area.

I do not dispute that section 7(a) ought to be included but the critical words are “the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Acts 1961 to 2007”. If the Minister acknowledges that in terms of refurbishment of the law generally this is desirable, I am not sure I entirely understand why then it is not desirable to take it on board here and enshrine it in this Bill.

I have nothing further to state on this other than this is not the Bill to deal with the collective citation of these Acts. It will be dealt with when the joint project reaches its finality. Section 7(a) refers to the District Court having and exercising all the powers and jurisdictions which it has. It refers to section 77 of the Courts of Justice Act 1924. This is why it must be indicated in the citation in the Short Title.

The Minister made an important point in his reply to Deputy Rabbitte with regard to codification and further reports pending. I respectfully suggest we park this Bill until such time as we have further and more lengthy legislation. Earlier this year, my party indicated we would consent to the passage of an interim measure. However, since then the situation has changed substantially. The most important sections of the Bill have been removed and other sections which caused difficulty for the Minister are subject to amendment. We have a garbled Bill which will not do anything to improve the situation.

The Deputy can save this debate for further sections of the Bill.

It is compounded by the fact that we have merely 90 minutes to discuss it. I suggest we park it. Earlier today, the Minister spoke about all-party committees. This Bill is ideally suited to such a committee.

The strong advice from the parliamentary draftsman is that this must be included to confirm the jurisdiction of the court as per section 7(a).

I am not asking the Minister to excise anything. I am asking which is the superior expression of what is required for a collective citation. I doubt he will change his mind and the Bill contains more important matters to be discussed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.

Amendment No. 2 is consequential on amendments Nos. 54 and 55 and the amendments will be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 4, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:

""Act of 2006" means the Criminal Justice Act 2006;".

When introducing the Bill, I announced my intention to table Committee Stage amendments to clarify aspects of the fixed charge penalty arrangements set out in the Criminal Justice Act 2006. This is the purpose of this group of amendments.

Amendment No. 2 inserts a reference to the Criminal Justice Act 2006 into section 2 of the Bill. Amendment No. 54 inserts a new section 19 into the Bill and amends section 23A of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 while amendment No. 55 inserts a new section 20 and amends section 23B of the 1994 Act.

The legal basis for the charge we are discussing is in section 184 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006. It has been formally commenced but the arrangements are not yet in operation. Discussions have taken place with the Garda Commissioner and the necessary administrative arrangements have been finalised. As a result, I expect to be able to make the necessary regulations introducing these charges shortly after the enactment of the Bill.

The charges will apply to two of the most common offences under the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994. Section 23A applies to offences under section 5 of the 1994 Act, namely, being disorderly in a public place, and section 23B applies to offences under section 4, that is being drunk in a public place.

Amendment No. 54 amends section 23A of the 1994 Act. As I stated earlier, the changes are technical but they are necessary before the arrangements can come into operation. The amendments to section 23A cover two issues, namely, the outsourcing of systems of the service of notices and the payments of the charges and the presumption that may be made in proceedings for non-payment that the notice was properly served.

Amendment No. 55 relates to section 23B of the 1994 Act. Sections 23A and 23B are cross-referenced regarding the administration of the system. As a result, the same arrangements apply to both sections. In other words, the changes to administration we discussed in regard to section 23A will apply also to the charges arising under section 23B. However, a further amendment is required in subsection (2), which also provides for the service of the notice by post in cases where it is not served on the person personally.

The difficulty is, as the Minister stated, this is a series of technical and necessary amendments but they are confusing. The confusion is compounded by the fact that the amendments are dependent on the Minister introducing regulations, which he proposes to do at some time in the future. We do not know what will be the import of the amendments until the regulations are drafted and the Minister does not know the form of the regulations because he has not turned his mind to them yet. This is another reason my earlier argument, which the Leas-Cheann Comhairle did not wish to hear, is all the more relevant.

I am happy to hear it now.

The Garda will be empowered to move people on if they are, in the opinion of an officer, drunk and disorderly. How will people be moved on? Where will they be moved to? Will they be moved from one corner to the next corner of a street? Will they be moved from a park bench to the corner of the street? Will they be moved from outside the public house to outside the chipper? The wording is technical and cumbersome and no effort has been made to use language that might be understandable. How will people be moved on? Will the Minister provide a practical example of what he thinks, following the enactment of the legislation and the introduction of regulations when he gets around to it, the net effect of these amendments will be in dealing with public disorder?

The Deputy referred to the moving on provisions, which are not related to these amendments. They concern two offences covered by the 1994 Act, namely, being disorderly in a public place and being drunk in a public place and the issue of fixed charge penalties. Such penalties are notified to the person who commits the offence and, subsequently, he or she receives a notice. Ultimately, he or she pays a fixed charge penalty similar to the fixed charge penalties for minor driving offences and the payment is made through An Post as the receiving agency. It is proposed in inserting this provision to remove responsibility from the Garda for the acceptance of cash payments. The regulations are under preparation. We are in discussion with the Garda regarding the appropriate charge and it is estimated we will commence them one to two months after the signature of the Bill.

I have a great deal of sympathy with Deputy Flanagan's remarks because the first I knew about the amendments was when I received them earlier. They were not provided for in the legislation and I have only recently commended the Minister's worthy civil servants on their prodigious output of legislation. However, I am always left with the impression that if for some reason or other, such as the resignation of a Taoiseach, we did not enact the legislation this week and returned to it in September, I could bet my life there would be as many amendments tabled again by the Minister. It leaves one wondering what was wrong with the Bill, as drafted, if the Minister has to keep thinking up amendments to make it consistent and effective.

I have no objection to the essence of the amendments, as advised by the Minister. It sounds like a good idea to take this responsibility off the shoulders of gardaí but I am not sure what the Minister is proposing regarding the operation of this provision. He outlined the two offences concerned but I am not sure how the penalties will be collected and discharged.

The principle is similar to that applied for basic driving offences where a fixed penalty charge is applied. A notice is served on a person and he or she has 28 days to make the payment. If it is not made, an additional charge is levied which must be paid within a further period of 28 days and the offender, therefore, must pay an increased penalty. If he or she does not pay, a prosecution follows. This is similar to the mechanism for pursuing minor traffic offences.

Will that be spelled out in regulation later?

Yes. The receiving agency for penalty charges applied for driving offences is An Post and that more than likely will continue to be the position.

There is a slight difference in how this relates to motoring offences. A car can be traced to a specific person. People furnish wrong names and addresses too frequently to the Garda and a number of my constituents have contacted my office inquiring as to how they can extract themselves from scenarios where they are being pursued regarding various offences they did not commit. The provision removes responsibility for collection of the charges from the Garda. A fine issues and a period of 28 days can elapse followed by another period of 28 days and then a court case. In the meantime, these charges hang over people whose names have been falsely given for a fixed charge penalty. How can they extract themselves? Must they wait until they go to court a number of months later? Is another mechanism available? Currently a person deals directly with the garda who is charging or fining him or her.

I anticipate when an offence is committed, the garda will take the person to the Garda station where he or she will be cited with a fixed charge penalty. It would be rare for a person to give a false name in those circumstances. If he or she did, that would also be an offence, which would have to be investigated.

What will be the practical import of the amendments and the regulations? Deputy Ó Snodaigh made a reasonable point. An alleged offender will be questioned by a garda, presumably at the scene of the public disorder or drunken state. He or she will be taken to the Garda station and an arrest will be made followed by a caution and a charge. Is it envisaged the person will be released at that stage into the community? When will the court hearing take place? Is it envisaged the regulations will be similar to those relating to driving offences? Will higher penalties be applied to those who opt to go to court? If so, that will be in marked difference to the regulations governing driving offences because a vehicle is not involved. Will the Minister place a greater burden on a person who feels his constitutional right to appear before a court will result in a greater fine or penalty being imposed by virtue of taking such an option? As we are not clear on these issues, I ask the Minister to take us through them. It is not sufficient to allow for regulations to be drafted outside the House where it or one of its committees would not have an opportunity to engage in formal discussion.

I could go through section 184 of the Criminal Justice Act, to which we are making technical amendments. It is a long section that lists the procedures under which fixed charge offences are dealt with by a member of the Garda Síochána.

Is that the 2006 Act?

Yes. No court is involved. The idea of fixed penalty charges is to try to keep as many people as possible out of court for minor offences.

If a person opts to go to court, will that choice result in a greater penalty? Will going to court militate against the citizen?

That would be a matter for the court to decide.

What if there is no court?

In driving offences, for example, I do not see the difference between owning and not owning a vehicle. The amendment is an effort to try to reduce administration, time in court and the time used by the Garda so that relatively minor offences can be indicated. People would not be brought to court. However, if the person does not pay after two notices, he or she would be summoned to court.

What in the provision is new? Is it the fixed charge? Is the Minister claiming that the power to move on someone who is being disorderly, drunk or whatever does not exist? Is the fixed charge the new aspect that the House is being asked to agree to?

It is not new, but this will be the first time it will be applied to public order offences.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 3 is consequential on amendment No. 52. Amendments Nos. 3 and 52 will be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 4, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:

""Court" means the District Court and in relation to any application to the Court means the District Court for the court area in which the premises to which the application relates is situated;".

This is a technical amendment, whereas amendment No. 52 is important. Under the Minister's proposal, the closing times of licensed premises — premises with special exemptions, those commonly regarded as nightclubs and those operating with theatre licences — would be at a fixed hour. The legislation will give rise to serious public order consequences. Consequently, the amendment would introduce tiered or sequential closing. Amendment No. 52 introduces a new concept, that of a nightclub licence.

Under the Minister's proposal, thousands of people would spill out onto our streets simultaneously, pressurising emergency services, taxi ranks and fast food outlets and giving rise to flash points. It would create areas in which social disorder would be more likely to occur. The industry estimates that the country's 500 nightclubs are frequented by approximately 500,000 per week. Does the Minister believe it to be a good idea to have that many people pouring onto the streets at the same time as the thousands who frequent pubs? In Dublin city alone, there are 800 pubs.

The amendment proposes to regulate nightclubs and that industry. Currently, there is no distinction between a late bar and a club or a venue at which there is drinking, dancing and music. Amendment No. 52 would allow for the certification of what constitutes a nightclub premises. Such a premises would operate under strict conditions, which are included in amendment No. 52. It states: "the premises shall only operate for business between the hours of 10 p.m. and 4 a.m." should a court deem fit on foot of an application. This is an enabling, rather than a prescriptive, provision. The nightclub would not operate as a public house or under any other licence during the day. It would strictly be a nightclub or night venue. It would also be distinguished from the ordinary seven-day licensed public house by virtue of the fact that its patrons would be subject to a fixed charge admission.

The premises should provide entertainment through music and dancing. Much of the late night bar industry is predicated upon a dancing facility that, in many cases, is no more than a fig leaf because there is no requirement that a particular area of the premises be designated for dancing. Under the Fine Gael amendment, the area reserved solely for dancing must consist of not less than 20% of the club's gross floor area. To ensure that public disorder is kept to a minimum, the amendment calls for at least two security personnel to be present on the front door with additional security personnel inside the premises during opening hours.

Since the nightclub licence shall be subject to an annual District Court application in the manner of public house licensing, it will be open to any member of the public or a Garda superintendent in the event of disorder to make objections or allegations of nuisance, noise or disturbance.

The amendment is innovative and would, under strict conditions, meet a demand for night-time music, singing and entertainment. It would also address an inadequacy, namely, people operating licensed premises under various guises — theatres, singing venues and seven-day public houses with special exemptions. It would confine the special exemption to the ordinary seven-day public house, which is in line with the spirit and the letter of the Bill. It would address the matter of the growth in the number of questionable theatres, which was discussed on Second Stage.

I ask the Minister to take the amendment on board. In previous reforming intoxicating liquor legislation, we did not give full and adequate consideration to these issues, but we have an opportunity to do so now.

I hope the Minister will accept these amendments or a version thereof. He has not had the time or opportunity to reflect on the implications of not doing so. I carry no can for the nightclub industry; I have no shares in it and I am past the stage of visiting those establishments. However, the prospect of disgorging the patrons of the nightclubs of this city onto the streets at the same time is positively to invite public disorder. For many years, the entertainment industry was unable to function satisfactorily because of the absence of public transport. Since deregulation, the availability of taxis has immensely improved. The staggered hours we enjoy between the closing times of pubs, establishments with theatre licence and nightclubs means public transport providers are able to cope with the demands on their services.

In addition, this proposal will impose inordinate strain on other public services. We in this House seem to believe we have done enough in simply passing a law. However, a problem with many of the laws we pass is that they are not enforced. In this case, unless it is enforced, it is valueless. Public services in Dublin city, whether the Garda Síochána, the ambulance service and so on, will be unable to cope with a fixed closing time. It is unworkable. There is a certain naivete behind the Minister's efforts. This is not to impugn his motives in any way. I share his goals. However, in a capital city, one of the leading cities of the European Union, the notion that we can regulate the entertainment industry in the fashion proposed is naive.

No figures were produced in the Dr. Gordon Holmes report or elsewhere as to the contribution made to the problems of public disorder and binge drinking by the activities of the nightclub industry. I am sure it is not a significant contribution. When I say there is a certain naivete informing the legislation, I mean that the phenomenon of binge drinking, youth abuse of alcohol and consequent public disorder is complex and that some of the measures in this Bill miss the target. The Minister accepted as much when he promised to excise the sections relating to early morning opening. I do not know what the Minister's household is like but I never encountered a teenager in my home heading to an early morning pub at 7 a.m., unless it was on the way home. Most teenagers are more likely to surface at midday than to be ready to go to an early house at 7 a.m. I am confused as to the supposed connection between early houses and the phenomenon we are seeking to combat, which is binge drinking and youth public disorder.

If the patrons of the nightclubs of this city and other towns and cities throughout the State are disgorged onto the sidewalks at the same time, when public transport cannot be accessed and where they end up congregating outside takeaway joints, we will simply be inviting an increase in public disorder. In a society where adult entertainment is part and parcel of the way people live, we should consider whether it is reasonable to seek to regulate it to the extent proposed in the Bill.

Given that the Minister's goals in this legislation are undoubtedly admirable, it is a great pity that we will not get a chance to work through all the amendments. For example, the changes he proposes in regard to theatre licences will cause great hardship and difficulty. The problem is not that people attending a performance have an opportunity to discuss it afterwards over a drink but rather the abuse of this existing provision. This is in addition to the punitive system of tariffs introduced by the Minister. My amendment No. 15 is also designed to facilitate staggered closing hours. I am convinced that we will regret the implementation of measures which see a return to the bad old days in this city where people staggered out of nightclubs, pubs and theatres and could not hail a taxi in typical Irish weather. That is not a recipe for improving the current situation.

I hope the Minister will take these amendments on board. Although there is scope to improve them further, they succeed in addressing an issue of significant concern. This is a problem that exists not only in this city but also in small towns throughout the country where everybody spills out of the pubs and onto the streets at the same time to congregate at the one or two chip shops that are open. People who have consumed alcohol tend to bump into each other and a fracas invariably ensues.

Staggered opening on a sequential basis allows for greater control over the activities of people who have consumed alcohol in public houses and nightclubs. It is estimated that some 500,000 people will be converging on the streets at the same time in the towns and cities of Ireland. Given that the Garda Síochána is already overstretched, it is an unreasonable proposition that it be tasked with ensuring public order in those circumstances.

Amendment No. 52 would allow for a degree of sequential opening. This would ensure that people who do not wish to frequent nightclubs can go home secure in the knowledge that transport will be available, whether on a late-night bus, if they are lucky enough to be in Dublin city, or by taxi. Likewise, by the time people are leaving nightclubs, whether at 3 a.m., 3.30 a.m., 4 a.m. or even later, taxis would be available to take them home. There would be no large disgorging of people at the same time. Most people I know wish to go home long before 4 a.m. While many young people might be able to dance the night away, it is a long time since I have managed to stay out dancing until 4 a.m.

In a modern society, we must consider what is the appropriate degree of regulation to impose on people's enjoyment. We must ensure the potential for disorder is reduced while facilitating those who wish to frequent nightclubs and so on. Part of the proposed amendment would address that. As it stands, the legislative proposal is a recipe for disaster. Hopefully that will not happen, however, and the Minister will have the wit to take on board what Deputy Charles Flanagan and others have been trying to point out, that 500,000 people coming on to the streets at the same time will do the exact opposite to what was intended when the Bill was first introduced. At that time, we were told the legislation was to tackle anti-social behaviour, public disorder, late night drinking and everything associated with it. I welcome most of the Bill's provisions, which will have far-reaching consequences and will hopefully reduce many of the problems in urban areas, particularly those concerning off-licences. However, the proposal to have everybody coming on to the streets at once will not serve any useful purpose and is a retrograde step.

If we had had more time to tease out the Bill in committee, including presentations from those working in the drinks industry and hospital staff, we might have been able to come up with a reasonable proposal along the lines of Deputy Flanagan's amendment. That would allow Ireland to be modern, while beginning to tackle the drink culture in our society, including the disorder that occurs every week. Thankfully, according to the most recent statistics, it has been reduced, but if this Bill is enacted I do not think that reduction will last long. I believe we will see an increase in drunk and disorderly behaviour, in addition to associated problems.

The amendment constitutes a sensible approach. Up to now we have not had any structure in place to deal with nightclubs. Such clubs have been a phenomenon for a long number of years, having taken off in the late 1970s and early 1980s. A litany of special exemption orders comes before local courts every week or month and gardaí must attend the courts for this rigmarole. Everyone knows what is going on, yet we allow it to continue. Deputy Flanagan's amendment No. 52 would put nightclubs on a statutory footing once and for all, which is something we have not done up to now. I remember debating the matter in this House when we got rid of meals which, in theory, were served in nightclubs. Officially they were restaurants and one had to consume a meal. Sadly, I was one of those who frequented nightclubs regularly at the time and in reality slop was dished out to people at all hours of the night. No one knew what they were getting but it complied with the letter of the law and facilitated that situation.

The Deputy did not even notice.

I never noticed.

He learned from the experience.

The nightclub industry has developed based on loopholes in the existing legislation. It is about time that we placed it on a proper statutory footing and Deputy Flanagan's amendment would do that for the first time. In that way, such clubs could only open at night-time and would have to charge a fixed admission price. I do not doubt that the Minister is serious about tackling binge drinking — everyone in the House is serious about it — but sequential charging could be examined in this regard. If one is in a late night pub before 11 p.m. admission is free. If one goes in after that time, a charge applies. The cost of drink can vary, with prices progressively rising during the night. That encourages people to go in early and get filled up with drink as early as possible to avoid the higher costs that apply later. In that regard, the Minister could examine the topical issue of sequential charging, rather than sequential opening.

For the first time, Deputy Flanagan's amendment would insert a restriction whereby one fifth of the gross floor area must be for dancing purposes. We should have proper security standards for personnel and CCTV cameras. I know of two assaults that took place outside nightclubs but when the people concerned went to get the CCTV footage it transpired that there was no video in the cameras. If CCTV was provided on a proper legal basis it would protect individuals who frequent such facilities. As with pub licences, they would have to be renewed annually. It is important to have sequential closing in place, in addition to placing nightclubs on a statutory legal footing.

In a later section, the Minister refers to test purchasing but there is an anomaly as to who has ownership of the CCTV footage. I hope there will be a provision in the legislation whereby if test purchasing takes place, CCTV footage can be confiscated by the individual concerned. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that because there is not much point in sending in a child under the age of 18 if that footage can then be used to identify or victimise the child at a future date. That needs to be examined in the context of test purchasing.

The amendment, however, proposes to address the issue of public order. As Deputies Rabbitte and Flanagan said, if we put everyone on to the streets at the one time, it will lead to chaos. In every other country where that provision has been tried, it has failed and it will fail here also. It will lead to chaos and a litany of public order problems for the Garda Síochána. The Minister should re-examine sequential closing to ensure that there is a natural progression emerging from pubs and nightclubs into public transport and then returning home. In many of our larger towns and cities, it is virtually impossible to get home by public transport at a late hour.

It would be nice to make progress on the amendment.

I want to make a final point about nightclubs. On Second Stage, I proposed the introduction of a national identity card that is tamper-proof. The current ID card is not tamper-proof, but an improved one would help to address the problem of under-age drinking.

I too would like to support Deputy Flanagan's amendment and I appeal to the Minister to accept it. When Mr. Holmes addressed our committee, I gave the example where the joint policing committee in Tralee suggested that the bar should close a half hour earlier. According to the local superintendent, the incidents of public disorder decreased because of that. However, we were not referring to the two night clubs in the town at that time.

This is about public order. It is about preventing flash points all over towns and cities in Ireland. When people leave the bar, the majority of them will go to a night club. That can prevent people from crowding around flash points and they have somewhere to go. By 4 a.m. they will have sobered up. If that element is taken out, then we could create a major problem, perhaps even mayhem in some cases.

I know that the Minister listens to people. If he listens in this instance, he would be making a major contribution. Sequential closing times are operating in Dublin at the moment, with the agreement of the various night club proprietors. Apparently, it is very successful. That example supports this amendment. The night clubs in my constituency are very well run, as they have high standards and there is always security. If they are not comfortable, people will not enter them, unlike some bars. They also provide a very good product. If there is no time lapse, then night clubs will be no different from bars and we will lose an essential social element. Deputy Rabbitte also pointed out that they are part of our tourism business. All over Europe, bars open later at night and Dublin is thriving with tourists. However, this part of the Bill could be to the detriment of the tourism industry. I appeal to the Minister to accept Deputy Flanagan's proposal.

I want to lend my support to the amendment put forward by Deputy Flanagan. As a young person who regularly frequents night clubs, I must say that this Bill could do great damage to the entertainment industry and will effectively lock the door on night clubs at a particular time. That will force young people out onto the street. If this amendment is not accepted, the Minister will be dealing with an even greater problem in the months to come. I appeal to him to accept it as it represents common sense. It is time that night clubs were put on a statutory footing, and this amendment does that.

I see a lot of merit in this particular amendment. The concept of sequential closing is a good one. A point was made to me from someone in the industry that there could be merit in looking at having a closing time for serving alcohol, with a longer period for drinking up. That period would not be used by people stocking up on drink to drag things out. Non-alcoholic beverages, such as tea and coffee, and food could be served and would help people to sober up. It would slow their exit from night clubs and take the strain off the public transport services such as taxis and so on.

There is a real need to make sure that everybody is not coming onto the streets at the same time. There should be some more thinking outside the box, like the idea where people could have a single drink just before the sale of alcohol was to cease, without being rushed out of the premises. They could usefully be encouraged to stay there for non-alcoholic beverages and food.

I have thought long and hard about this issue, and I have come to a conclusion based on the figures available to me. This country has a severe problem with the consumption of alcohol, whether we like it or not. We have one of the highest levels of alcohol consumption in the European Union. In 2006, it was 30% higher than the EU average. A eurobarometer survey in 2007 indicated that 34% of Irish drinkers consumed at least five drinks on one occasion. In comparison, just 10% of the rest of Europe reported such a level of consumption on one occasion. When those people were asked about the frequency of consuming five or more drinks on one occasion, 28% of Europeans stated that they did so at least once a week, while 54% of the Irish respondents did so.

People may exaggerate in surveys, but we can also look at the figures for those people admitted to hospitals with intoxication. Between 1997 and 2002, admissions increased by 76%. Between 2000 and 2005, there was a 135% increase in juvenile alcohol related offences.

There seems to be a misunderstanding of the position up until last year. Night clubs and late bars were legally obliged to close at the same time. It is only because of the lacuna in the law for theatre licences — admitted in a Sunday newspaper by a night club owner — that night clubs could gain an extra hour or two for the sale of alcohol. I understand that people have to make a living, but I have to take into the account the figures that were brought to the Government's attention last year. We asked the advisory committee to look at this in a targeted way over a short period of time and we rushed the legislation through so that we could implement the main recommendations of that report.

Deputy Flanagan's amendment would effectively permit night clubs to remain open until 4 a.m. The fact is that special exemption orders apply to night clubs and the only other vehicle to be used is the theatre licence, of which 76 exist across the country, with 36 of them in Dublin. The remaining night clubs and late bars were obliged to close at 2.30 a.m., with drinking up time until 3 a.m. Premises across the Border that apply to the courts to extend their opening hours do so until 1 a.m. on weekdays and midnight on Sundays. Some 76 theatre licences were granted by the Revenue Commissioners in 2007. As a result of a court case there was then a rush to apply. To date this year more than 150 such theatre licences have been issued, with more on the books. Gordon Holmes's committee strongly recommended that urgent attention be brought to bear on a significant loophole. The increasing use of theatre licences by nightclubs and late bars to circumvent special exemption order provisions was and continues to be a source of serious concern to the Government and the advisory committee which recommended urgent action.

Sections 9 and 10 contain proposals to give effect to the recommendations of the advisory group. In future, holders of theatre licences will be permitted to apply for special exemption orders under the same rules as other licensees. This is a necessary step in order to address problems arising from the increased availability of such licences and to ensure equality of treatment for all premises operating late at night. Deputy Naughten referred to some research that indicated that opening up the licensing hours in other jurisdictions has been shown to be beneficial. The truth is the opposite. We reviewed what is happening in England and Wales, which provides a salutary lesson for those who would liberalise the licensing laws in the hope of reducing anti-social behaviour. Late in 2005 when longer opening hours were introduced, British Ministers argued that the aim of longer hours was to reduce disorder when everyone emerged from licensed premises at the same time. A research report issued by the British Home Office in March 2007 reported that there was no clear evidence that positive benefits had accrued from staggered or better-managed closing times. It stated that there were no clear signs up to then that the abolition of the standard closing time had significantly reduced problems of disorder. The report stated that the evidence from those countries that had moved from strict opening hours to a more relaxed regime, such as Australia, New Zealand, Scotland and Iceland is that liberalised regimes tend to result in higher levels of consumption and more alcohol-related problems of crime and disorder.

It makes a big difference for late public transport.

In some of my public comments I referred to another recent survey carried out in England by the Local Government Association. It reported increases in alcohol-related incidences. For example, half of all police authorities stated that the longer opening hours had simply resulted in incidences occurring later in the night. The survey of 20 police forces indicated that crimes committed between 3 a.m. and 6 a.m. had increased by 22%. Meanwhile three quarters of the health authorities surveyed have reported increases in spending as a result of the rise in accident and emergency admissions. The chairman of the Local Government Association is reported as saying that the longer drinking hours have made no impact whatsoever in reducing alcohol-related violence. He said that the vast majority of councils, police and hospitals have reported no change at all with violent incidences generally just being shifted to later in the evening.

Based on our levels of alcohol consumption coupled with our unfortunate culture for binge drinking — I gave some of the figures earlier — there is no reason to believe that longer opening hours here would lead to any improvement in the levels of anti-social behaviour and public disorder. On the contrary, there is a likelihood that the situation would worsen. I have had detailed discussions with the Garda Commissioner and other senior gardaí on the matter. Their view is that later opening hours for some premises would simply result in people moving from premises to premises as they close. The reality is that as the pub closes people will go to the late bar and then on to the nightclub. The Garda Síochána strongly preferred the situation that pertained until recently where there were only 36 theatre licences in Dublin. Up until two years ago the closing time for nightclubs and late bars was 2.30 a.m. apart from on Mondays.

People refer to staggered opening. In reality people would be staggering from premises to premises if we gave an opportunity to go from bar to late bar and then on to nightclubs. Local authorities have some responsibility in this regard. They were given the power by the Oireachtas in 2003 to give a recommendation to local District Court judges about closing times. However, no local authority has used this power. While I understand the difficulty people in the industry have and understand the arguments made, the Bill was in effect designed to reduce the accessibility to and availability of drink in a very targeted way in certain areas.

The Bill will not be the silver bullet to solve all the problems. We need to deal with education and instil in the population that what is going on cannot go on forever. From generation to generation we are now beginning to have one of the worst drinking cultures in the western world. Following the loosening of the legislation in recent years the situation has got worse and not better. In this Bill we are merely curtailing the opportunity that certain establishments had to put in theatre licences, which was a loophole to get around the special exemption. We are not changing in any way the existing time limits for special exemptions, which for some years have been 2.30 a.m. with drinking up time to 3 o'clock on most nights and 1 a.m. on Monday mornings.

We had a debate a number of years ago on the Sunday night-Monday morning issue. The empirical evidence shows that there is a serious problem with abstention from work on Monday mornings. Before we changed the Monday morning closing time, there was a significant difficulty in getting people to work on a Monday morning. Unfortunately I cannot accept the amendment. I can understand that the Deputies on the far side of the House are genuinely interested in the issue of public disorder in their communities. However, given the evidence on our doorstep and in other countries around the world, their suggestion to allow nightclubs to open, in effect, until 4 a.m. is the wrong way to go.

I do not hold with what the Minister has said for a number of reasons. I regret that we will not have the opportunity to debate the matter fully. The Minister talked at great length about the effects of alcohol and the adverse consequences of a drink culture. He knows that the Government of which he has been a member for many years has no alcohol strategy at all. When the Department of Health and Children recommends one thing it is completely ignored by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is merely dealing with the manner in which alcohol is available through licensed premises. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment has its own view regarding the alcohol industry.

When the Minister lectures the House about the adverse consequences of alcohol he knows that a lack of joined-up thinking between the Departments of Health and Children, Enterprise, Trade and Employment, and Justice, Equality and Law Reform have given rise to the situation. The matter of opening hours is a very small player in adverse consequences of drink and the drinking society we have. It is not fair for a Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to ignore the role of his colleagues in the Department of Health and Children. It is important to remember there is no strategy. The 25 or 26 recommendations of the 2004 task force on alcohol were all ignored. Even though the Minister was in another Department at the time he was a member of the Government. It is a bit rich of him to lecture Members of this House on the issue.

The second point the Minister made was in respect of public disorder. There is no greater recipe for public disorder than having all licensed premises close at the same time. The Minister referred to a comparative analysis with other jurisdictions. The jurisdiction used was Northern Ireland, where until recently on a Sunday a child could not play in a park and a newspaper could not be bought. The Minister should not use a comparison with the jurisdiction north of the Border, a different society with a different attitude to the retail sector and alcoholic beverages.

The Minister spoke about defending the industry and the need to look after the workers. It is unfair and disingenuous for the Minister to say any amendment from this side of the House is to protect jobs or that industry. Not one Member other than the Minister has used this argument. It is spurious and without foundation.

How is it that all Deputy Charles Flanagan's amendments are parroting the claims of the interest groups?

No, they are not. The Minister's party has shirked from dealing with the concept of a nightclub in a regulatory manner. He is in denial and does not accept such a concept exists. It will just be a fig leaf of a dancing area in an ordinary seven-day public licensed premises.

The Minister facilitated loopholes with theatre licenses until a committee told him to call a halt. If it were not for that particular amendment, the Bill would contain no new provisions. The Minister should not talk about introducing regulation when the Government has consistently shirked from dealing with change in the retailing of alcohol to meet the needs of a modern society.

My amendment would have for the first time recognised in law the status of a nightclub. There is no current distinction between a nightclub and a bar. It has not been recognised in law when it should be. It is regrettable the Minister is not taking this point on board.

It is regrettable the Minister is not taking on board the main points of Deputy Charles Flanagan's amendment. There is a need to describe a nightclub in legal terms. I agree there was abuse of theatre licences and special exemptions. Once a loophole is identified, it will be abused. There may be a need to close some of the existing loopholes but in doing so it must be recognised that nightclubs exist. People go to nightclubs to enjoy themselves and not just to get drunk. Many go to dance, make liaisons and the like. A separation must be made between those attending an establishment to dance and those going to the pub for relaxation. Whereas I do not agree with all the provisions contained in Deputy Charles Flanagan's amendment, it has some good points. If more time were allocated, it could have been teased out with provisions on, say, a separate entrance to a public house and nightclub.

The Minister will end up with the same if not a worse problem than that he is trying to address with this legislation. If all licensed premises shut at the same time, even with every member of an Garda Síochána rostered to be on patrol at the same time, there will still be public order problems. The idea is to reduce the number of people coming out of licensed premises at the same time.

If the existing laws were implemented properly, publicans would not serve intoxicated people who are a danger to themselves. The Bill addresses the problem of on-the-street drinking which will hopefully reduce public order offences and the potential for them. The Bill will not address binge drinking and the problem of young people wanting to get out of their faces on drink. That can only be addressed over the long term through education and ensuring existing laws are implemented in full. Only then will people have a more mature attitude to alcohol consumption in nightclubs and so forth. Some of the changes in law such as regulation of the private security industry, CCTV on licensed premises and better lighting at exits to nightclubs will have benefits in time to ensure less public disorder.

The Bill contains some good provisions on the sale of alcohol. It is a pity this one aspect of the Bill does not address the main problem. The Minister will have to return with later legislation to define a nightclub rather than it being a glorified pub with a designated corner for dancing. The industry, the public, the courts and an Garda Síochána deserve this.

I suspect part of the problem is that the average age of the clientele attending nightclubs is somewhat lower than the average age of Members in the House tonight. Members' aspirations to do the right thing is one matter but the practicality is entirely different. The Minister's line about staggered hours was not a bad one, that people would be staggering from one emporium to another if sequential closing were permitted. The Minister is correct that some of the 500,000 patrons of nightclubs would stagger to another venue if it were open. Whether the closing time is 1.30 a.m or 3.30 a.m, the same type of client who will stagger to a taxi or another place of entertainment will stagger after 1.30 a.m. as well. We have all known the phenomenon in the pub of people stocking up with drink because closing time is half an hour earlier, or whatever. The Minister is right that we have a problem with alcohol in this country. Anybody who has read the report about the harmful effects of alcohol cannot be but convinced that it is a real issue in our society. However, we are addressing particular legislation promoted by the Minister's predecessor as seeking to address the phenomenon of youthful misuse of alcohol, binge drinking, public disorder and anti-social behaviour. Quite frankly, the Minister and I are both out of touch if we put the great preponderance of people who go to nightclubs at the weekend — it is largely a weekend phenomenon — into that category. That is not the nature of people who patronise nightclubs. It is unrealistic to think we can correct the malaise, which we all agree exists, with this type of measure.

I thought the arguments made in this discussion related to whether this was likely to invite further public disorder and create chaos in the streets in terms of people being disgorged at the same time and creating flashpoints, as well as testing the adequacy of public transport, the capacity of public services to cope and the efficacy of policing at this hour of the night. Although we did not address the issue in terms of employment and so on, the Minister is right that there is an employment dimension. I did not make my main arguments on the issue of sequential closing on the basis of the employment considerations, but there are such considerations. For example, I had representations from a place with a theatre licence in the heart of Temple Bar. I do not know what type of establishment the Minister would expect to find in Temple Bar, given what it was defined to do — regardless of whether it achieves this end. However, the effect of the legislation on this establishment is to reduce the working hours from 31.5 to 23 per week. If the Minister is the employer, he must acknowledge that this has implications for him trying to maintain structured staffing over the seven-day week. Remember, there is very little business in these places between Monday and Thursday. This particular place functions from 11 p.m. until 3 a.m. or 3.30 a.m. To enforce Sunday closing on it would mean there would not be a Sunday opening, which has other implications as well.

The Minister is expressing a lack of faith in the maturity of the great majority of people who frequent night places of entertainment because of the actions of a minority. It is desirable to have a tough regime in such establishments and that staff are trained to deal with the phenomenon of drunkenness. For that reason, employers have to be able to structure their staffing in such a way to facilitate that. Otherwise, the issue goes underground, and we are not doing a particularly effective job at enforcing what we have at present. The notion of trying to change the character of the entire late night entertainment industry in this and other cities, because of the actions of a small minority, will not be effected by law. The person who resolves to get drunk out of his or her mind in the fastest time possible will do it whether the closing time is midnight or 3 a.m. I have read no literature that challenges that point.

We have set ourselves an objective that looks very good, but we have a problem. Some of the tragedies that occurred in this city did not happen at 3 a.m. Some of them happened in the evening, while it was still daylight. I do not believe a Bill such as this will challenge that type of behaviour. We should have some confidence in the maturity of people frequenting these places to conduct themselves in a proper fashion and allow the industry to structure itself so that there is a certain professionalism about the way it deals with things. The phenomenon of drunkenness caused by the longer hours, as claimed by the Minister, relates to a minority, and this is more complex than trying to address that minority's and our problems.

I do not accept for a minute what Deputy Flanagan says about lack of co-ordination between Departments. My Department is working very closely with the Department of Health and Children in relation to this and other initiatives on the health side.

It was clearly indicated when we published the general scheme for consultation in 2005 that we accepted there was a need for nightclub permits. That legislation will be brought forward towards the end of the year. The sale of alcohol Bill will involve a codification of the entire law on the sale of alcohol. We published the proposals in 2005, which included what the Deputy is endeavouring to do here. However, the difference between what we are bringing forward and what the Deputy proposes is that it is not my intention to move from the existing position of nightclubs and late bars opening until 2.30 a.m., with drinking up time until 3 a.m. on the Monday morning. I am driven by all of the issues, including the report of the Department of Health and Children on the harm caused by alcohol. The Deputy acknowledges is an enormous problem. The figures are frightening and this Bill will not solve all the issues, but we are endeavouring — as the advisory group indicated we should — to take urgent action to close a loophole that it is acknowledged exists.

We can exaggerate all we like about 500,000 people disgorging onto the streets. The reality is that was happening up until last year. Nightclubs and late bars only had authority to serve drink up to 2.30 a.m., with drinking up time until 3 a.m. Last year, there was a dramatic rise in the number of licences, albeit the numbers were relatively small, with 76 in the country and 36 in Dublin. This year, the figure to date already is 150. Taking a full year, that means 74 extra premises have an advantage over all the other late bars and night clubs and, in effect, have longer opening hours. The amendment suggests that this be extended to virtually everybody.

Deputy Flanagan's proposal in regard to a nightclub permit provides that nightclubs would only open at night. However, the vast majority of nightclub owners who made representations said this provision would not satisfy them; the reason being that all of them already have bar licences. Therefore, they would not be satisfied with that type of proposal. In the forthcoming sale of alcohol Bill, we will propose the introduction of a nightclub permit, under which the club would have specific conditions, including the type of dance floor and so on——

The Minister is conceding on this point. He should have said that an hour ago.

——but the only difference between it and a special exemption order is that it would be a yearly permit. In order words, nightclub owners would only have to renew their permits once a year in the courts because their premises are dedicated nightclubs, whereas the owners of late bars would have to continue to apply for special exemption orders.

It is not my intention to change the time of closing given that, as a nation, we have an alcohol problem of near epidemic proportions. The general public are strongly of the view that public disorder would occur as a result of such a change. Gardaí have given a strong message that they believe the position that pertained up until two years ago whereby under the law late bars and restaurants in effect closed at the same time, would be far better than having staggered opening hours.

I accept Deputy Flanagan's point that not every one of the 500,000 people concerned would go from pub to late bar to nightclub, but I hazard a guess that a substantial proportion of them would go from one to the other. That has been the nature of what has happened. I accept that a relatively younger population go to these nightclubs. Like most people in this House, I am a parent and I see what is going on in society. This provision is not only targeted at young people, but on most occasions when they go out young people do not come home until 5 a.m. or 6 a.m. The reality is they are in public houses. We give out about the fact that there is disorder on our streets at different times. Gardaí have given a strong message that from a resources point of view, it is better that people come out of these premises within a concentrated period.

No one has denied the empirical evidence found in virtually every study that has been carried out in regard the extension of opening hours. The case has been proven, as it was in the UK recently, that such a change has had an adverse effect rather than the type of effect people had intended.

The hours were changed in Scotland.

Tessa Jowell is on record as saying that the café culture and the liberalising of opening hours would allow for a situation where people would act responsibly and reasonably, but the exact opposite happened.

In Glasgow they had to change the measure providing for a closing time of 2 a.m. because everybody disgorged onto the street at the same time. That is a city with a similar profile to this city.

How stands amendment No. 3?

I will press it as it is an important issue.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

Amendment No. 4 is in the name of the Minister, amendment No. 5 is an alternative, amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 16 are related and amendments Nos. 10 and 11 are consequential on amendment No. 13. Therefore, amendments Nos. 4, 5, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 16 may be taken together.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 4, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

"3.—Subsection (2) (inserted by section 4 of the Act of 2000) of section 3 of the Act of 1927 is repealed.".

The amendments to sections 3 and 4, together with the related amendment No. 4 to the 1927 Act, give effect to my commitment regarding early morning houses. As I said when introducing the Bill, my intention is to permit premises which are already availing of the general exemption order facility, to continue to apply to the District Court for such an order, subject to compliance with the relevant conditions. Premises which were not availing of the facility on 30 May cannot now apply. This is provided for in amendment No. 14.

Amendment No. 13 gives effect to my proposal that off-sales of alcohol will not be permitted in such premises before 10.30 a.m. Amendments Nos. 4, 10 and 11 are consequential changes.

The substance of the changes proposed by Deputy Flanagan in amendments Nos. 5 and 16 are already included in the Government amendments.

I accept what the Minister has done here. It was an act of folly in the first instance to single out the early morning houses for closure in the manner envisaged. I am pleased the representations made to the Minister from this side of the House and from people outside the House have given a stay of execution to the early houses but I do not know for how long that will continue.

There had never been any indication or evidence that these houses were sources of public disorder or had attracted the attention of the Garda Síochána in a way that might give rise to public order difficulties. It was mentioned there was a problem with the early houses being used by people on their way home from late night venues but, from speaking to proprietors and early morning licence holders, I was interested to note that special arrangements had been in place for some time and that this was not a problem.

I am pleased the Minister is not proceeding with the closure of the early houses. My amendment No. 5 is probably dealt with in a later ministerial amendment. Accordingly, I will withdraw my amendment.

I agree with what has been said. I welcome the fact that the Minister has changed his mind about this provision. My amendment seeks to oppose the section and to have the status quo apply, but I accept the Minister’s distinction between alcohol consumption on the premises and the selling of alcohol for consumption off the premises for the relevant hours is probably a better construction.

I am puzzled as to why this provision was included in the Bill. I instanced my puzzlement earlier about the fact that no young people, to my knowledge, have ever found themselves in early morning houses and the streets are usually well aired before they surface. I asked the Minister's predecessor whether it was reasonable to posit the notion of a housewife in Castleknock who could not access a bottle of wine early in the morning and whether she would get into her soft top and drive down the docks in the hope that she could get a bottle in that location. I do not believe that scenario is realistic. I cannot see the connection between the stated purpose of this Bill and the inclusion of this section and for that reason I am glad the Minister has changed his mind.

I thank the Deputies for their comments. This measure was not aimed at young people. It was a proposal from the advisory committee because some evidence was brought to its attention that in some instances public disorder issues arose where, particularly in Dublin, people were queuing to get into some of these premises to feed their alcohol problem and that this was leading to public disorder in and around those public houses.

I listened to representations from Members on all sides of the House and to those of representatives of some of the interest groups. It was clearly indicated to me subsequently when I spoke to the Garda Commissioner that, by and large, gardaí did not have a difficulty with the early opening houses, except in a number of specific instances. As a result of an undertaking given by the vintners' associations and an understanding with gardaí in regard to the specific early opening houses that would be looked at very closely, it was agreed we would return to the position whereby the existing houses would be allowed to continue to open early but no new premises would be allowed to do so. A Member of this House and my party suggested a way of dealing with the off-sale to equate it with off-licences and that was a good compromise.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.

Is amendment No. 6 dead?

Yes.

Section 3 deleted.

NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 4, before section 4, but in Part 2, to insert the following new section:

"4.—Section 17 of the Act of 2003 is amended by—

(a) after subsection (3) the insertion of the following new subsection:

"(4) Any person other than a licensee who takes intoxicating liquor from a licensed premise for the purpose of its being sold on the account, or for the benefit of profit shall be guilty of an offence.",

(b) in subsection (4) the insertion of the words “or other person” after “licensee”.”.

This has been of concern to a number of people for a while. It is the "dial a can" system whereby in recent years pubs and off-licences have circulated fliers stating that one can telephone an order which a courier or somebody in the employ of the premises would deliver to one's door. The problem I have with that is that far too frequently young people use this. When the delivery person arrives and sees people aged 14, 15 or younger at the door, rather than travel all the way back to the off-licence or pub and forgo the tip or delivery fee from the publican or off-licence owner, he or she hands over the drink to the young people.

I got a commitment from the Minister that under section 17(3) of the 2003 Act it is an offence for a licensee to engage in or permit such activity. I examined it and could not find that it was that specific. In this amendment I am trying to ensure it is specific that sales of off-licence goods can happen only on the premises, that one cannot transfer one's licence to an individual who will travel in a car to a location dictated over the telephone and sell drink to whoever is there. The licence is for a particular premises; that is the purpose of my amendment. The practice has been highlighted by the Minister and his advisory group. It needs to be tightened to end this practice once and for all. There is a difference if the sale is conducted by credit card over the telephone because the money has changed hands and the driver is only making a delivery. However, where the exchange of funds is at the door, in the park or wherever the delivery has been directed, this needs to be tightened up much more. Hopefully the wording I propose would deal with that.

While I cannot accept the amendment, I have some sympathy with the sentiments expressed in it. My advice is that "dial a can" is already illegal. In its report the group suggested that there should be enforcement of the existing provisions. It did not recommend any legislative change. The Garda was represented at chief superintendent level and the group recommended that the Garda target "dial a can" and similar services with a view to prosecuting the offending licensees. I would expect that the Garda would target those services. While my advice is that it is already illegal and needs no further legislative change, if something comes to our attention between this and the publication of the sale of alcohol Bill towards the end of this year or in the new year, we will re-examine it.

I thank the Minister and will look at the sale of alcohol Bill when it is produced. This applies not just to the licensee. If I telephone a taxi company and ask a driver to buy drink from an off-licence and deliver it with the agreement that I will pay the taxi fare and the price of the drink, that is a transfer. That taxi driver is selling on alcohol and that is not illegal because the transaction has happened between the taxi driver and the licensee. Given that we are short of time I will leave it until the sale of alcohol Bill is produced.

I would like to say a word in support of the substance of the amendment before we dispose of it. If we are talking about the public disorder, anti-social behaviour, vandalism and binge drinking phenomenon, what Deputy Ó Snodaigh has highlighted contributes much more to dangerous, anti-social behaviour in communities, neighbourhoods and estates than what we have discussed in previous sections of the Bill. It is a classic example of the point I was trying to make about enacting law here that cannot or will not be enforced. When the Minister tells Deputy Ó Snodaigh that "dial a can" is already illegal, it is patently obvious to any of us who represent certain communities that it is not being enforced.

I have nothing further to add. The recommendation of the report was that the existing legislation should be enforced. I am prepared to return to it. In the event of its coming to our attention that there is a difficulty regarding the circumstances Deputy Ó Snodaigh has indicated, I will take action in the sale of alcohol Bill.

What is the existing legislation?

Section 17(3) of the Intoxicating Liquor Act. This is the distinction to which Deputy Ó Snodaigh refers. It makes it an offence for a licensee with intent to evade the conditions of the licence to take intoxicating liquor from the licensed premises for the purpose of its being sold on the account or for the benefit——

That refers to the licensee, but the licensee would not be taking it.

That is the point, but the group did not indicate there was a problem. However, since Deputy Ó Snodaigh has raised it, I will be prepared to re-examine it in the context of the sale of alcohol Bill.

It is not already covered.

In those circumstances, under the section there would be the possibility of getting a prosecution or conviction against the licensee but not necessarily the taxi driver.

It is most unlikely. In the cases to which Deputy Ó Snodaigh referred and those that have been commonly reported to us and in the newspapers, there is no question of the licensee taking the goods off the premises. The licensee engages in the transaction of selling to somebody who comes in as an agent.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh links it to a licensed premises. His amendment reads: "Any person other than a licensee who takes intoxicating liquor from a licensed premise for the purpose of its being sold on the account". It is linked to the licensed premises. Under existing legislation a licensee would be prosecutable in that instance. Going on the recommendations of the report, the advisory group has asked that the Garda Síochána examine this and it should be given some time. I will return to it. Licensees may not be aware of what is happening in some instances and we can re-examine that. I will take advice from the Garda Síochána.

As it is now 10.30 p.m., I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day: "That the amendments set down by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on Committee Stage and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill; in respect of each of the sections undisposed of, that the sections or, as appropriate, the sections as amended, are hereby agreed to in Committee; that Schedule 1 and Schedule 2, as amended, and the Title are hereby agreed to in Committee; that the Bill as amended is accordingly reported to the House; that Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed.

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 77; Níl, 39.

  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Ahern, Noel.
  • Andrews, Barry.
  • Ardagh, Seán.
  • Aylward, Bobby.
  • Behan, Joe.
  • Blaney, Niall.
  • Brady, Áine.
  • Brady, Cyprian.
  • Browne, John.
  • Byrne, Thomas.
  • Calleary, Dara.
  • Carey, Pat.
  • Collins, Niall.
  • Conlon, Margaret.
  • Connick, Seán.
  • Coughlan, Mary.
  • Cregan, John.
  • Cuffe, Ciarán.
  • Curran, John.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • Devins, Jimmy.
  • Dooley, Timmy.
  • Fahey, Frank.
  • Finneran, Michael.
  • Fitzpatrick, Michael.
  • Fleming, Seán.
  • Flynn, Beverley.
  • Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
  • Gogarty, Paul.
  • Gormley, John.
  • Grealish, Noel.
  • Hanafin, Mary.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Healy-Rae, Jackie.
  • Hoctor, Máire.
  • Kelleher, Billy.
  • Kelly, Peter.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Kennedy, Michael.
  • Killeen, Tony.
  • Kirk, Seamus.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Lenihan, Conor.
  • Mansergh, Martin.
  • McDaid, James.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • McGrath, Finian.
  • McGrath, Mattie.
  • McGrath, Michael.
  • McGuinness, John.
  • Moloney, John.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Mulcahy, Michael.
  • Nolan, M.J.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
  • O’Brien, Darragh.
  • O’Connor, Charlie.
  • O’Dea, Willie.
  • O’Flynn, Noel.
  • O’Hanlon, Rory.
  • O’Keeffe, Batt.
  • O’Keeffe, Edward.
  • O’Sullivan, Christy.
  • Power, Peter.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Roche, Dick.
  • Ryan, Eamon.
  • Sargent, Trevor.
  • Scanlon, Eamon.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • White, Mary Alexandra.
  • Woods, Michael.

Níl

  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Bannon, James.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Breen, Pat.
  • Burke, Ulick.
  • Byrne, Catherine.
  • Carey, Joe.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Coonan, Noel J.
  • D’Arcy, Michael.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Doyle, Andrew.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • English, Damien.
  • Enright, Olwyn.
  • Feighan, Frank.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Flanagan, Terence.
  • Hayes, Brian.
  • Hayes, Tom.
  • Hogan, Phil.
  • Kehoe, Paul.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McEntee, Shane.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McHugh, Joe.
  • Naughten, Denis.
  • Neville, Dan.
  • O’Donnell, Kieran.
  • O’Keeffe, Jim.
  • O’Mahony, John.
  • Perry, John.
  • Reilly, James.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Sheahan, Tom.
  • Sheehan, P.J.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Timmins, Billy.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Pat Carey and John Cregan; Níl, Deputies Paul Kehoe and David Stanton.
Question declared carried.
Top
Share