There is an amendment in my name on the Orders of the Day to insert a new section before Section 12. Since I put the amendment down I had some communication with the Minister. We failed to impress each other with our respective points of view. I do not propose to move the suggested new section and with the leave of the House I will withdraw the amendment.
DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS (BRIDGE) BILL, 1927. - INTOXICATING LIQUOR BILL, 1927—REPORT (RESUMED).
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I ask the indulgence of the House to permit me to move an amendment consequential to a series of amendments I moved on the last stage. The amendment is:—
Section 2, sub-section (1), in line 43, to delete the words "or on St. Patrick's Day."
CATHAOIRLEACH
The House will recollect that a number of these amendments were consequential upon the Senator's amendment in regard to St. Patrick's Day.
Amendment agreed to.
CATHAOIRLEACH
The following amendment is a Government amendment:—
Section 26, sub-section (7). In line 2 of the new sub-section inserted in Committee, to delete the words "requisition of" and to substitute therefor the words "requisition by."
Amendment agreed to.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I would like to correct a false impression that is conveyed by the amendment paper. If Senators will look at amendment 3, where a new section is proposed to be inserted by the Government, they will observe that it is the same section as is contained in the Bill. It was apparently put down through some mistake. The new section the Government propose is not there. We are dealing with amendment 3, but what is on the amendment paper is Section 58 as it stands in the Bill. The section the Government is proposing is quite different.
When this amendment was under discussion on the last occasion some Senators thought it was unduly severe, and that it imposed too great a personal responsibility on the members of the Committee of the club. I have considered that in the meantime and the amendment which I am asking the Seanad to accept now reads:
Before Section 58 to insert a new section as follows:—
58—(1) If any excisable liquor is supplied for consumption on the premises of a club registered under the Registration of Clubs (Ireland) Act, 1904 or is consumed on the premises of any such club by any person in contravention of the rules of such club relating to the supplying and consumption of excisable liquor on the premises of such club, such club shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof, in the case of a second or any subsequent offence, to a fine not exceeding forty pounds.
(2) Proceedings under this section may be brought against a club in the name under which it is registered under the Registration of Clubs (Ireland) Act, 1904 and any summons or other document required to be served on a club for the purpose or in the course of such proceedings may be served on the secretary of the club and any warrant for the recovery of the amount of a fine imposed on a club under this section may be executed against the goods and chattels of the club."
I think that meets the point that was raised by the Senators.
Has the amendment been circulated?
CATHAOIRLEACH
Unfortunately it has not.
It seems a reasonable amendment, at any rate.
It says: "The secretary or some other person——"
Would the Minister make clear what the effect of the amendment is?
CATHAOIRLEACH
The effect of the amendment is to make the club itself the offending party and proceedings are to be taken against the club and that any fine imposed on the club is to be levied by execution on the property of the club. Then it provides that notice of any action of prosecution against the club is to be served on the secretary of the club.
Then I understand that there will be only one fine.
CATHAOIRLEACH
One fine for each offence.
Under the section, as it stood, each member of the club could be fined.
CATHAOIRLEACH
That is now out of it; that has disappeared altogether.
In the absence of the secretary, who is to be fined?
The secretary is defined as either the person formally appointed as such, or any person performing the duties of secretary.
The Minister's amendment has now settled the matter with regard to clubs. It is quite clear that action can be taken against the clubs, but that the individual members are not liable.
CATHAOIRLEACH
There is no provision for taking proceedings against individual members.
Should there not be a provision that the secretary must be served on the club premises? In that case it would be more likely to come to the knowledge of the club members if notice were served on the secretary in the club.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Supposing the secretary was not there, then he could not be served.
Has the secretary to be served personally?
CATHAOIRLEACH
The amendment says that the notice must be served on the secretary of the club, but if you insert in that amendment that it must be served on the secretary in the club it would raise another difficulty.
Amendment agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move:—
Before Section 61 to insert a new section as follows:—
61.—(1) The holder of an on-licence (in this section referred to as the on-licence) in respect of premises situate in a county borough or in the county of Dublin or in an urban district may apply at the annual licensing District Court next after the passing of this Act or at any succeeding annual licensing District Court that in lieu of a certificate for the renewal of the on-licence there be granted to him in respect of the said premises a certificate for a new spirit retailer's off-licence or a certificate for a new beer retailer's off-licence or certificates for both such new licences.
(2) When an application under the foregoing sub-section is made the Justice of the District Court, if he is satisfied that a certificate for the renewal of the on-licence might have been granted and that the sale of intoxicating liquor for consumption on the premises is no the principal business carried on in the premises to which the on-licence is attached, may, if he so thinks fit, grant to such applicant the certificate or certificates so applied for by him.
(3) When an application under sub-section (1) of this section is granted, a new licence or new licences shall notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other Act be granted to the applicant in accordance with the certificate or certificates granted to him in pursuance of such application.
(4) When a new licence or licences is or are granted under the foregoing sub-section no new on-licence shall at any time thereafter be granted in respect of the premises to which such new licence or licences are attached.
(5) When an application under sub-section (1) of this section is refused such application shall be treated as an application for a certificate for the renewal of the on-licence and dealt with accordingly.
(6) In this section the expressions "spirit retailer's off-licence" and "beer off-licence" have the same meanings as such expressions respectively have in the Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910."
With regard to this new section that Senator Jameson has moved, with two deletions, I could accept it. That would be the deletion of the words in line 3 of sub-section (1): "or in the County of Dublin or in an urban district" and the words in line 5 "or at any succeeding annual licensing District Court." The effect of that would be to confine the operations of the section to county boroughs and there would not be a recurring opportunity for people to avail of the provisions of the amendment, but that they would within a short time of the passing of the Act, have to make up their minds definitely whether or not they proposed to avail of it.
So far as I am aware that meets the case that I was trying to deal with. It is the kind of case that must be dealt with after the passing of the Act.
Why exclude urban districts? It seems to me that an urban district should be in the same position as county boroughs. However, I will not press the point.
We are not sure that we want to make it easy for people to get off-licences generally and that off-licences in fact, are for the most part grouped here around the county borough of Dublin. Off-licences present rather a special difficulty in the matter of police supervision or rather a bigger degree of supervision is required. We are out definitely to limit the operations of this amendment closely to the county boroughs.
Amendments agreed to.
New section, as amended, agreed to.
In view of the understanding that we might continue the Report Stage until to-day I gave notice that I would move that the Standing Orders be suspended to-day so that the Fifth Stage of this Bill could be taken now. I now move:—
That the Standing Orders be suspended for the purpose of enabling the Fifth Stage of the Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1927, to be taken to-day.
I second.
Is there any reason for this?
CATHAOIRLEACH
Senator Douglas states that on the last day when the Report Stage was about to the dealt with it was held over at his request for the purpose of considering a new section, and he then undertook that he would facilitate the Minister by putting down this notice of motion.
Has the necessary notice been given?
CATHAOIRLEACH
It is on the agenda.
And in addition to that I gave formal notice to the House that I would move this to-day.
Question put and agreed to.
Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration and do now pass"—put and agreed to.
In his statement when this Bill was before the House on the 5th inst. the Minister said: "The amendment is to make it clear that when a licence is forfeited, as the result of three convictions, no new licence should thereafter be granted." I think there is a slight error there, and that the word should be as a result of three "endorsements."
It could not be forfeited by convictions. It could only be forfeited as a result of endorsements flowing from convictions. The Senator is right.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I wish to make it clear that the confusion that arose over Section 58, of the so-called Section 58, is not due to the officials of this House. There was never a Section 58 in those terms. An amendment was proposed by Senator Dowdall to introduce a Section 58 in these terms. After that amendment was moved by Senator Dowdall it was withdrawn in order to give the Minister an opportunity of looking into it and introducing an improved draft of the section. As a result, there was confusion, which has now been cleared up.