Vol. 86 No. 8
The Dáil made one amendment to the text of the Bill, as initiated. This amendment is set out on a sheet which has been circulated to Senators.
It is not possible in the time available to print a separate text of the Bill as passed by Dáil Éireann. The necessary amendment has been made in the certified copy of the Bill received from the Dáil.
I do not propose to take up the time of the House unduly with this short Bill which has only one provision.
Section 11 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1962, provides, subject to some restrictions, that an occasional licence may be granted by the District Court to the holder of an on-licence to enable him to sell drink at an unlicensed place where a special event is being held during such times and on such days, not exceeding three, as may be specified in the licence. A number of special events, notably the Spring Show, the Horse Show, Galway Races and some others, last for more than three days and in some cases it has become established that they benefit from occasional licences over the entire period of the event. Apparently the practice in some districts has been that the court has granted two consecutive occasional licences in respect of some of those events.
Recently, however, a District Justice refused to grant a second consecutive occasional licence for the week of the Irish International Boat Show in the RDS Ballsbridge. The applicants for the licence initiated certiorari proceedings in the High Court to have the order of the District Court quashed. Showing cause why the order should not be quashed, the District Justice stated that on his interpretation of section 11 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1962, he has no jurisdiction to grant more than one occasional licence in respect of any event. The High Court held that the District Justice was correct in his interpretation.
The kind of events which I have mentioned have been able to operate under occasional licences in respect of the whole period of the event concerned. The only way this can now be continued is by amending the law. The Bill allows for this possibility and I commend it to the House.
Very briefly, there is no opposition from this side of the House to this measure. Indeed, it is an example of how far behind public opinion legislation and court attitudes sometimes are. Public opinion, in this case is obviously ahead of us. We are trying now to amend section 11 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act to provide that these on-licences can be for periods of more than three days. It is obvious, in particular in relation to the events specified here, that this is highly desirable and there is no reason why we should not give this Bill an expeditious passage.
It is quite obvious that six days is much more appropriate than three days. The Minister might take a look at the whole licensing code with a view to looking at anomalies of a similar kind. I am not calling for a radical revision of the code which would update the whole intoxicating liquor code to present day requirements. It is merely a suggestion. I am sure there are other areas—I have no specific ones in mind —where similar improvements are necessary, where court proceedings of the kind that happened here have to go through and anomalies have to be created by public demand which cause us to bring in ad hoc legislation. Perhaps for a change we might pre-empt this by having a good look at the legislation with a view to bringing it up to date with present-day circumstances.
I take Senator Lenihan's point. Indeed, I may say that for some time past I have been considering the licensing code as a whole. I have had discussions from time to time with parties who would have direct commercial views on how it is operated and I got a number of views on changes that might be made. Unfortunately, the views are widely divergent. I do not think it is going to be possible to have any ominibus amendment based on any sort of an acceptable consensus. This is something that is unavoidable because of the nature of the subject. To amend the intoxicating liquor code generally to take account of any anomalies that might be lying undiscovered or have been so far relieved will be a fairly formidable legislative task. In addition, consolidation is badly needed in this area because there are Acts going back to the middle of the last century. The amendment that came up from the other House was to state that, as originally printed, the Bill said the Licensing Acts, 1883 to 1962. Of course, that should have said 1833 which is an indication of the number of Acts still on the Statute Book in relation to the licensing laws.
The matter has not been overlooked. I am accumulating a lot of information and suggestions and, when time permits on the appropriate occasion, someone I hope will have the pleasure of reforming the law in this area.
I thank the Minister for his gracious comment.
When I say "someone" I mean a successor from this side.
