Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 8 Apr 1981

Vol. 95 No. 15

Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1980: Second Stage.

Minister of State at the Department of Justice (Mr. Doherty)

The purpose of this Bill is to clear the way for an extension of the Dublin Metropolitan District Court District to include the whole of Dublin county with the exception of the district electoral division of Rathmichael in the south county. This extension of the Dublin Metropolitan District was recommended by the Committee on Court Practice and Procedure in their Twelfth Interim Report and it is a necessary measure to ensure the efficient structuring of the District Court in the Dublin area.

The Bill does not propose to effect any substantive change in the liquor licensing laws. It is necessitated by the fact that, as the law stands, there is a possibility that an extension of the Dublin Metropolitan District Court District as proposed could have the effect of extending to Dublin county licensing provisions which at present are applicable in Dublin city, but not in Dublin county. This is so because there are sections in the Licensing Acts and in the Registration of Clubs Acts which provide that the Dublin Metropolitan District Court District shall be deemed to be a county borough for the purposes of the Licensing Acts and the Registration of Club Acts, while, more specifically, section 35 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1962, provides that, for the purposes of the Licensing Acts, the County Borough of Dublin shall be deemed to include the whole of the Dublin metropolitan district and such borough and district shall be deemed, for the purposes of those Acts, to be a city.

There are significant differences in the law relating to the sale of intoxicating liquor in its application to the County Borough of Dublin on the one hand and Dublin county on the other. For example, different conditions apply in relation to the granting of new licences in the borough and in the county. Another example is the afternoon closing from 2.30 to 3.30 p.m. which applies in Dublin city but does not apply in Dublin county. Differences also apply in relation to the availability of exemptions for special events, general exemption orders and the opening of licensed premises on Sundays.

The legal position in regard to the "city" of Dublin — that is for the purposes of the Licensing Acts and the Registration of Clubs Acts — is that any extension of the county borough automatically extends the "city" but the effect of any extension, or indeed contraction, of the Dublin Metropolitan District Court District is not clear. I think it is reasonable that any area incorporated into the county borough should attract the "city" provisions of the Acts but there is no good reason why the application of those Acts should be affected by changes in the court district.

This Bill proposes, accordingly, to put the matter beyond all doubt by providing that any references in the Licensing Acts or the Registration of Clubs Acts to the Dublin Metropolitan District are references to that district as it was at the passing of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1962 and that the application of the Licensing Acts and the Registration of Clubs Acts is not affected by any change made in the Court District under the Courts Acts. In other words, the Bill proposes to maintain the status quo in relation to the operation of the Licensing Laws in Dublin city and county following the extension of the Dublin metropolitan district.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Staunton

This Bill is controversial in one sense only, in the sense that it is extremely limited and does not begin to cover all that needs to be introduced legislatively to up-date legislation in relation to all the matters concerned with alcohol which has not been amended since 1962. I think Deputy Fitzpatrick of my party drew a very interesting parallel in the Dáil between this Bill and the Constitution of the country as it relates to the North of Ireland and the fact that we claim jurisdiction over them and in the next breath we recognise that we do not in practice legislate for Northern Ireland. This Bill is a bit of a nonsense in my view in the sense that in one breath it seeks to extend jurisdiction from what has been described as the metropolitan area to most of the County of Dublin and having done that it states in the next breath that it does not propose to effect any change in the laws as they apply and as they differ at this time between the metropolitan area and the county of Dublin. The matter seems to be of such minor import that one wonders whether it was necessary to introduce the Bill.

While I have not fully read the Minister's reply in the Dáil, my brief reading of it suggests to me that he did not address himself to what I understand is one of the reasons why this Bill is being introduced. I have been informed that there was a breach of licensing laws in a certain publichouse on the north side of this city and it was found that the pub was situated partly in the metropolitan district and the other part in the county district. On these grounds apparently the publican got off scot-free and this required new legislation.

I think the indictment of Government in introducing this is the fact that it does less than justice to whatever commitment the Government have in this area. The Minister for Justice has been making commitments over a period of years relating to matters such as the off-licence trade, the abuse of it, the question of drink sold by supermarkets, the situation in the discotheques where young people are involved, abuses in particular in recent years of extensions all around this country where sections of the licensed trade are in a position to get extensions which are probably very lucrative financially while other publicans are not in the same position, the effect it is having on alcoholism and absenteeism from work, and many other factors. These are the essential issues in so far as intoxicating liquor is concerned, and, as I said at the outset, I have to say that this Bill is a nonsense and does less than justice to any commitment which the Government may have in the area of intoxicating liquor.

Again, even addressing oneself to the area to which the Bill purports to address itself, namely, the metropolitan district of Dublin and the county of Dublin, we have this business of what is described as the "holy hour" legislation under which pubs in the city centre in what is described as the metropolitan district are not allowed to sell alcoholic liquor between 2.30 and 3.30 p.m. Regardless of what one feels about the merits or demerits of that legislation — I am of the view, and it is a personal one, that there is some merit in it — there is an anomaly if you begin to treat sections of the same city differently. What was the metropolitan district of Dublin 20 or 30 years ago is not necessarily now the only metropolitan area in this city, because this city has grown tremendously in the last 20 years or so and many of the areas which had been suburbs are essentially metropolitan districts, with new towns growing up in so many areas within a five-or ten-mile radius of the GPO. Is it not nonsense to suggest that in regard to the "holy hour" closing time there should be sections of this city to which this law should apply and other vast sections of the city to which it should not apply at all?

I want to conclude on this note: the Bill is really unnecessary, but on this side of the House we would have been happier to have waited a little longer to see if the Minister for Justice would come through with his commitment to bring in substantive legislation in the area of alcoholic liquor of which what we are dealing with now would only be a minute part but which would address itself to the main issues. The only controversy in this Bill is the extreme limitation of it at this time of social need. It is a classic example of the Government and legislature of this country dragging their heels years behind public opinion. Public opinion is years ahead of us on this particular matter. It is a great pity that we have not got to grips with the real issues.

Mrs. Cassidy

Although the collective citation refers to the Licensing Acts, 1833 to 1977, in fact the first licensing statute for Ireland was passed in the reign of Charles I in 1634, and it provided for the licensing of ale-houses, which it described as "receptacles for rebels and other malefactors and harbours for gamesters and other idle disordered and unprofitable livers". It provided that on the payment of the sum of five shillings and six pence per annum an ale-house could be licensed, but it laid down certain cardinal principles of the licensing code: first, the supervision of the magistrates in respect of licensed houses and also that licences should not be granted unless to proper persons or for suitable premises.

Since that date we have passed a great number of licensing laws and we have licensed everything from packet boats to bogs and it has long since become apparent that the code has become so complex and involved that consolidation of the law has long been both necessary and desirable. The code was described as, and I quote "so complex, uncertain and contradictory that it is difficult to carry the laws into effect or to reach the meaning and the intention of the Legislature". That was said in a judgment in the 1880s and that is over one hundred years ago, and this was quoted by the late Mr. Justice Cecil Lavery in an unreported case about ten years ago. So, the problem is that without codification of the law any licensing Bills that we address ourselves to of necessity will be of a piecemeal nature.

Consolidation and codification of the law was the main recommendation of the Intoxicating Liquor Commission of 1925. It described the code as a veritable legal jungle and certainly it is a jungle in which legislators would tread at their peril. Codification is also a recommendation of the 1957 Commission. Without consolidation, therefore, we are in danger of passing piecemeal legislation which may or may not have the effects desired by the Oireachtas. It is, for example, quite clear that the provisions of the 1962 and 1964 Acts are quite irrelevant to the drinking habits of the 1980s, and this Bill may or may not have the effect which the Minister desires. Although I think I understand what he is coming at and I have a great deal of sympathy with him in proposing this Bill, I must say that I will find it necessary to ask for clarification on certain points at Committee Stage.

Minister of State at the Department of Justice (Mr. Doherty)

I must make the point that much of what Senator Staunton said here this afternoon has no relevance to the Bill that we are dealing with. It is purely a Bill to ensure that there will be no change in the status quo in so far as the licensing laws are concerned, following the restructuring of the Dublin Metropolitan District Court District. In that connection Senator Staunton has said nothing. I am preparing liquor licensing legislation at present; it is pretty far advanced at the moment and I expect that the legislation will be introduced late this year. This Bill is introduced for the purposes of retaining the status quo, in an attempt to provide a better court structure in Dublin city and county, to ensure that there is much more convenience for people who have to travel at the moment long distances from the north side to Rathfarnham and elsewhere throughout Dublin to gain court access. The Bill proposes to ensure that certain licensing laws that obtain in Dublin city at the moment would not be extended to Dublin county. When we set about dealing with a change in the licensing laws, as I propose to do later this year, some of the comments of Senator Staunton will be perhaps more relevant than they are today.

Mr. Staunton

The Minister stated that legislation is being prepared at the present time. Could he give us an indication of how advanced that legislation is?

Mr. Doherty

I told the Seanad that it was advanced.

Mr. Staunton

Is the introduction of it imminent?

Mr. Doherty

It will be introduced later this year. I have already said that.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.