Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 7 Dec 1983

Vol. 102 No. 7

Intoxicating Liquor (National Concert Hall) Bill, 1983: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Minister of State at the Department of Justice (Mrs. Fennell)

The purpose of this Bill is to enable the grant of a special licence for the sale of intoxicating liquor in the National Concert Hall. This is necessary because doubts have arisen as to the validity of the liquor licence now held by the concert hall.

Under existing law a certificate of the Circuit Court is required before a new liquor on-licence can be issued by the Revenue Commissioners. Since 1902, there is a further statutory requirement that a new on-licence cannot be granted unless the applicant has extinguished at least one licence of the type sought to be obtained. In an urban area a new on-licence can be granted on proof that there has been an increase of at least 25 per cent in the population of the civil parish since 1901, but an existing licence in the city or town would also have to be extinguished.

The licence now held by the concert hall was granted on foot of a Circuit Court certificate but in view of the doubts which have arisen about the validity of this licence the Attorney General appealed to the High Court to have the licence quashed. The appeal has been adjourned and an opportunity now exists to regularise the matter by way of new legislation.

There are precedents in the licensing code, in relation to premises such as airports, the bus station at Aras Mhic Diarmada and three Dublin theatres, for the grant of special liquor licences without a preliminary certificate of the Circuit Court. These precedents were borne in mind in the drafting of the present Bill.

Section 2 is the principal provision of the Bill. By virtue of this provision, the Revenue Commissioners will be required to grant a special liquor licence for the concert hall on application by the company or their nominee. A prior court certificate will not be required nor will it be necessary to comply with the provision in the licensing code as to extinguishing an existing licence. The licence will remain valid as long as the concert hall remains at its present location and will not have to be renewed annually.

The licence will authorise the sale of liquor to patrons and persons taking part in functions and to employees at the concert hall, from half an hour before the function until one hour afterwards. For this purpose "function" covers concerts — which may be regarded as the primary activity of the concert hall — and also conferences.

There is a penalty provision in subsection (3) to cover the unlikely eventuality that drink might be sold at the concert hall otherwise than in accordance with the terms of the licence.

Subsection (4) provides that upon the grant of the special licence envisaged in the Bill the liquor licence now held by the concert hall will cease to have effect.

Section 3 provides that certain provisions of the licensing code will not apply in relation to the concert hall. Since the normal regime of permitted hours will not apply, the application to the concert hall licence of provisions relating to exemption orders and occasional licences, or the provisions relating to prohibited hours, would not be appropriate. The exclusion of Part III of the 1927 Act means that the provisions in the code relating to the endorsement and forfeiture of licences will not apply to the concert hall licence.

I think it will be generally agreed that the National Concert Hall has been a great success and has provided a very welcome addition to the cultural life of this country. The hall is administered by the National Concert Hall Company, incorporated on 27 March 1981 and it gets an annual State subvention, the amount for the current year being about £170,000.

I trust it will be agreed by Members of this House that the grant of a special liquor licence for the National Concert Hall is fully justified in view of its unique national position. The present Bill proposes to ensure that the hall has a liquor licence commensurate with its needs. I trust that this Bill will be accepted as a straightforward and non-controversial measure and I recommend it to the Seanad for acceptance.

Mr. Lynch

It is my first time to speak on a Bill in this House in the presence of the Minister of State and I should like to take the opportunity to welcome her to the House. We on this side of the House support the Bill. I should like to place on record our deep appreciation for the manner in which the National Concert Hall has performed, so to speak, since its opening night. The standards achieved to date have surpassed many of our most optimistic expectations. We all have a great sense of pride in the fact that already so many famous orchestras have performed there. There was an historic performance by the Russian Symphony Orchestra, and the BBC Philharmonic Orchestra have also performed there. We should also mention our National Youth Orchestra. When I am driving I hear radio performances by them from the National Concert Hall.

I am also glad that there is a balance being maintained in the National Concert Hall. Irish music, ballads and folklore are getting much attention at this very high level. I understand that the concert hall is paying its way and we must pay a special tribute to the public for giving almost maximum support to it. It is quite evident that our National Concert Hall of which we are all so proud, is giving good value for money and giving entertainment at the very highest level which is not that easy to find in the present climate. We are glad that the hall did not turn out to be another national monument. It is very much alive and long may it live.

However, there are a few aspects of this Bill which need some clarification although the Minister has clarified some in her statement. I refer specifically to section 3 which provides that sections 4 and 5 and Part III of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1927, section 11 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 1962 and the provisions in relation to the prohibited hours of the Acts shall not apply in relation to the concert hall. That is fair enough. The Minister mentioned that intoxicating liquor could be served for half an hour prior to a function or a concert and for one hour afterwards. The section of the 1927 Act to which I have referred relates to abuses or alleged abuses in the licensed trade. I was a little concerned that we might be setting another principle in this regard but we in this House should ask ourselves how will the licensed trade in general react to the section being revoked once again.

There are people in the licensed trade whose livelihoods are about to be taken away from them as a result of this section of the Act. I would like to take this opportunity to tell the Minister that the section is becoming more difficult each day to comply with. This is due to such factors as the high cost of drink and people coming late into the ordinary public house. The advent of the breathalyser test was another factor in that. When people put back their drinking by an hour it is impossible for the licensed trade to operate under the Act as it stands. It is impossible to clear a public house in the time stated. The onus to vacate a premises at present is on the licensee. I firmly believe that the onus should be shared at least by the customer. With the best will in the world it is impossible today for a licensee to comply with the Act. More detail and attention are being paid by the Garda to ensuring that pubs are cleared on time than are being paid by them to the protection of other sections of the community. In saying that I am not reflecting on the Garda. I fully support them. They are there for the protection of the people and deserve every co-operation from the public. However, one can be sure that gardaí will be on duty, especially half an hour after closing time, yet in my own town only last week we were awakened in the middle of the night by people who had stolen a car in Dublin, driven down to the quiet town of Oldcastle, broke in a window of a premises that a man had spent a lot of money on after purchasing and renovating it and cleared off with about £7,000 worth of clothing. We had no gardaí on duty in this quiet, respectable town of Oldcastle during that night. This is what is happening around the country. The legislation needs to be changed urgently. The ordinary people in the licensed trade — I speak mostly of the family-run public house — when they had the handling of the drinks trade in this country ensured that we had not the problems that exist today in this area. While there may be exceptions in terms of abuses, people in the licensed trade know in their hearts and souls that people who engage in after-hours business go out of business eventually themselves because of that fact alone.

An Cathaoirleach

I have been very lenient with the Senator.

Mr. Lynch

I would just say to the Minister that numerous representations have been made by the Licensed Vintners Federation to the Minister for Justice to amend this Act and I hope that the Minister will take note of the remarks made here today.

With regard to the licensed trade, red lights are flashing and I would say that it is time the Minister for Justice, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Trade, Commerce and Tourism took immediate steps to salvage an industry which is crippled by the most extravagant demands that have ever been placed on any commercial aspect of business either in this or in any other country. It is a fact that what was thought to be the goose that lays the golden egg it is now a drooping hen. Anybody who knows what a drooping hen is knows what the life expectancy is. This is a matter of national importance.

An Cathaoirleach

I am afraid the Senator is still wandering.

Mr. Lynch

One final question: I wonder if the National Concert Hall will be what I would term a further victim to the demands of the Performing Right Society. I was not a Member of this House, and I do not know how many people here were, when the Act was put into effect. The Performing Right Society have the power under an Act whereby they can walk into any hotel or other public place especially where intoxicating liquor is being served and where public performances or, indeed, television programmes or tape music is being played and document the number of days that either live performances have taken place or tape music has been played, make an assessment and then demand from——

An Cathaoirleach

This is getting away from the Bill.

Mr. Lynch

I am asking the Minister to look into that aspect of it. I think that legislation should be either amended or abolished completely. It is quite stupid. Having made those remarks I would ask the Minister to look into the points I stressed in regard to the licensed trade in general.

We are all very proud of our National Concert Hall and we wish it every success. The Minister is quite right in introducing this Bill at this time instead of waiting until later on when it could be a long drawn out affair.

Mr. Durcan

The National Concert Hall is our newest national institution and one that we are all very proud of. As the Minister said in her opening remarks, it has already acquired a unique national position. It is a great tribute to the management and to everyone with responsibility for running the National Concert Hall that in less than two years it has acquired this position in Irish life. That in great measure is due to the standard of performances and to the general way in which the concert hall is managed. As such, I welcome this Bill in so far as it allows certain necessary facilities to be provided at the National Concert Hall. I should like to take this opportunity to wish the concert hall well when this facility is operational.

The fact that we are considering this Bill begs a question. Why are we considering it? We are considering it because our licensing laws are a most dreadful mish-mash and ragbag. Our licensing laws are in a most appalling condition. It is a terrible indictment of legislators over the past 60 years that it is necessary for the National Concert Hall to seek legislation to ensure that licensing facilities are available. It is most peculiar that without legislation they cannot acquire these facilities.

If one examines the development of the Intoxicating Liquor Acts over the past 60 years one will see that this kind of piecemeal development has taken place. We have had special legislation to allow licences for greyhound tracks. We had to have special legislation to provide a licence at Store Street bus station. We had to have special legislation to provide licensing facilities at our turf-burning peat stations. Of course, as the Minister said in her opening remarks, we had to have special legislation to provide for the licensing of airports. In fact in County Mayo we already have one licensed airport and I look forward to enjoying a drink at the Barr na Coille pub when the Connaught Regional Airport becomes operational.

It is most peculiar that all of this legislation is necessary for each of these individual situations. The question must be asked — and I would like to get the Minister's comment on it — why have the licensing laws not been codified or updated? In recent years we have seen codification in certain areas of our legislation. The Income Tax Acts have essentially been codified, the Social Welfare Acts were codified fairly recently, but in this particular case no effort, apparently has been made at all, despite the fact that since the foundation of the State we have had two-and-a-half special commissions dealing with the Liquor Licensing Acts. In 1925 we had a special commission. That commission recommended, on page 4 of their report, that codification be effected. I quote:

The first licensing Statute for Ireland was passed in the year 1634 and since that time the law has been constantly altered, amended and repealed by various Acts with the result that the licensing law has now become a veritable legal jungle in which none but the most intrepid and skilful explorer can find his way. We, therefore, recommend that the codification and consolidation of the existing law should be undertaken without delay.

Again in 1956 another commission was set up. In paragraph 46 of that commission's report they recommended consolidation of the licensing laws. Despite those strong recommendations, following both of those commissions, all that happened was that amending legislation to deal with individual situations was introduced.

I ask the Minister to set in train, within her own responsibility as junior Minister with responsibility for law reform, some steps to ensure that the licensing laws are updated. At a recent meeting of the legislation committee I raised this issue. I know that the legislation committee of the Joint Houses are to consider the matter in the future but I should like to see some impetus coming from the Department of Justice on this issue.

In her opening remarks the Minister referred also to the fact that if one wants to get a new seven-day licence one must go to the Circuit Court. Of course she is right. One must get a certificate from the Circuit Court and go from there to the Revenue Commissioners. If one wants to get a wholesale beer dealer's licence one goes to the District Court and from there to the Revenue Commissioners. If one wants to get a wholesale spirit dealer's licence, one goes directly to the Revenue Commissioners. If one wants to have a hotel licensed, one goes first to Bord Fáilte and from there to the Revenue Commissioners. I cannot see why a single avenue is not available, why a single licensing authority is not constituted for all types of licences and indeed why the types of licences we have are not looked at because many of them are obsolete, representing licences and circumstances which existed in the nineteenth century and have no bearing whatsoever on twentieth century life. There is an urgent need for the Minister to look at these areas and to see that the kind of consolidation I am talking about should be introduced.

When I mention the kind of licences which are irrelevant, one can equally comment on the difficulty there is in licensing outlets which exist and which are very necessary to a twentieth century economy. I refer to our restaurants and the difficulty in getting proper licensing facilities for them. Despite many calls in this House in my short time here, and also outside it, nothing has been done.

An Cathaoirleach

It is being raised now and it is out of order.

Mr. Durcan

The Bill is not one to amend the licensing laws generally but I think it is something that the Minister should direct her attention to.

An Cathaoirleach

I thought the Senator was going to talk about the shebeens.

Mr. Durcan

One could go on to the shebeens. There are many islands off the west Mayo coast — I should not say that there are shebeens operational in them, but Senator O'Toole will agree with me, that there is a need for licensing facilities on some of them.

Mr. M. O'Toole

Full agreement.

Mr. Durcan

The Minister should make facilities available for some of the people living in remote areas who do not have the facilities everybody else has and where it is impossible to get a new licence.

They are some of the points I wish to make on this Bill. The main question is that we must have a commitment to the consolidation and codification of the licensing laws. It is something which should be put in train immediately. If I can refer to the specific terms of the Bill itself——

An Cathaoirleach

I would be glad if you would.

Mr. Durcan

I was referring to the generalities of the Acts, but coming to the specific terms of the Bill, I am a little worried about section 2(3) which provides for the creation of an offence when a person sells intoxicating liquor to someone other than a person attending at the concert hall or taking part in a function or employed at the concert hall. That would seem to create a very strict statutory offence. The Minister should consider inserting the word "knowingly" after "who" in subsection (3). At this stage it may be difficult to introduce an amendment but it is something the Minister and her advisers might consider.

I am also a little concerned about the very specific definition of "The Concert Hall" in section 1. There may be a reason for this because licences are, of course, granted for specific premises. But what happens if the concert hall decides to change venue? What happens if the concert hall should acquire additional premises, if we have an expanding concert hall? Does that mean that we cannot have licensing facilities there? The definition as contained in section 1 is very restrictive but there may be very good reasons for that.

They are the only comments I wish to make. My main concern is that there does not appear to be any action from the Department of Justice in relation to codification and I would like to see a commitment from the Minister on that. I would like to wish the concert hall well with his new facility being made available to them.

Mrs. McGuinness

I should like to join with other Senators in welcoming this Bill, which is to provide a reasonable facility for the concert hall, and in wishing the concert hall itself well. I have a particular interest in this field and indeed I remember — it must be at least 20 years ago — singing in concerts for the Music Association of Ireland, which were aimed at raising money to provide us with a national concert hall. No one could be more pleased than myself to see such a fine concert hall provided and also to see that this gives an opportunity for Irish artists — also artists from abroad, but principally Irish artists — to have a venue in which they can give live performances of their work. In the whole field of music, of the theatre, of the Arts and so on, it is extremely important that as a State and as a Government we should encourage the performances of our own artists. In passing, it might be interesting to note that our own artists have been outside playing music here, in the hope of attracting our attention to the necessity for us to support the live theatre. While I know that other people have got away with wandering into shebeens and the licensed trade generally, perhaps I might get away with wandering into the live theatre and suggest that we all might support this campaign to reduce or remove VAT on theatre tickets, which would give an opportunity to Irish artists.

To return to the concert hall itself, it is particularly important when you provide a national venue like this, to have proper facilities with it. It is a very impressive when one goes to the concert hall so see the fine surroundings and the fine facilities that are provided. This is brought home to us when we see how sadly other live performance institutions have been neglected. Those of us who have been attending the operas in recent weeks have seen the decay of the Gaiety Theatre and have hopes that help may be given to it in the future. One of the important things about the concert hall is that when one goes into the building one is surrounded by a fine ambiance. This Bill to facilitate proper licensing facilities will add to that and help to provide facilities to the patrons.

The previous speaker is right in suggesting that the licensing laws and many other sections of our laws need to be codified and reformed. It is noticeable that as regards the licensing laws in the useful series of volumes produced by Mr. Woods on the law in the District Court he has to devote a whole volume, and by no means a slim volume, to the licensing laws alone as they apply in that court apart from the Circuit Court and the other courts. This bears out what has been said about the extreme complexity of the present code and the necessity for its simplification and reform. Those of us who travel abroad will see quite clearly the kind of difficulties that are created in this country by the licensing code as compared with what happens in other countries. I hope the Government will turn their attention to this in the near future.

I welcome this Bill and I hope it will lead to dealing with this whole situation as regards licensing of various types of premises on a more rational basis than is the case at present.

Mr. Magner

Before I deal with the Bill I should like to take this opportunity of belatedly congratulating the Minister of State on her appointment. She is widely admired for her work with women's groups. In Cork the Minister of State is well liked among Labour supporters but for so long as they admire her and vote Labour I will have no objection whatever.

With regard to the Bill I will not range over either restaurants, pubs or shebeens because the only interest I have in drink is as a consumer. The Opera House in Cork has a licence and we should be generous enough to allow the concert hall in Dublin have one also. However, there is one matter that disturbs me. I am thinking of fancy clubs, some in Dublin and some in London. What is the definition of a function or a conference? It is like a picket. How many people constitute a picket? How many people constitute a function? I would hate to think that we would pass a Bill that would set up a very elitist sort of shebeen. A person interested in arts and crafts and more interested in good whiskey might repair at any hour of the day or night to partake not in cultural events but in other sorts of events so the definition may be broad. Maybe I am jealous because I am from Cork and I could not participate if that situation came about, but I would ask the Minister when replying to define the function of a conference because that could conceivably be a loophole. I welcome the fact that the concert hall after many years of planning and so on is now there and is very successful in its own right. It is only proper that it has civilised facilities which I hope will be used by all within the confines of the law.

Mr. Howard

First, I wish to join with my colleagues in extending a welcome to the Minister of State. It is my first time to speak in her presence in the House. I admire the work she is doing in her role as junior Minister with responsibility for law reform. I would ask, like Senator Durcan, that within her area of law reform she would look seriously and urgently at the question of reform of the liquor laws as they stand.

I will, in the course of what I have to say, advance reasons as to why that is desirable. You allowed some of my colleagues a passing reference to certain subjects and you might permit me to do the same. I will be very brief.

An Cathaoirleach

Some of the Senator's colleagues took advantage of that.

Mr. Howard

I will not abuse your kindness in that regard. In relation to Senator Lynch's comments with regard to the Performing Right Society, I fully endorse his observations and I would suggest that there is common cause between us here to face this issue and hopefully to resolve it satisfactorily. Shebeens are not a feature of Mayo alone.

Senator Durcan referred to the licensing of restaurants. It was inevitable that this question would be referred to. I am satisfied that in this regard misconception has been manufactured and successfully sold, because the reality is that the owner of any restaurant who is seriously concerned about obtaining a liquor licence can do so under the law as it stands by normal application to the courts. The campaign that gave rise to these observations has at its root a desire to avoid the measure of accountability and examination that the licensing laws extend to all applicants through the courts structure. This is an attempt to get a licence by the back door. I do not intend to stray further from the point.

I will now return to the Bill. I want to assure the Chair in advance that I have taken the utmost care in preparing my remarks so that they would be related to the Bill or to the likely effects of it so the Chair need have no worries in that regard.

The Minister concluded her speech by saying that she trusted that the Bill would be accepted as a straightforward and non-controversial measure. That is a sentiment I cannot accept. I have reservations in regard to this Bill. I have reservations in regard to complications that I believe would arise from its passage, and I will endeavour to outline these.

This is a unique and extraordinary piece of legislation. It is a historic event in some ways, certainly in so far as that we should realise that when this legislation goes through we will be licensing the largest public house in terms of capacity throughout the length and breadth of this island, north or south. That will have implications for other licensed retail outlets. The licence that is proposed in this legislation to be given to the Concert Hall is special and unique, and is without parallel so far as the issue of retail liquor licences are concerned.

As legislators we should all be concerned about one concept that is basic to our legislation, that is enshrined in our Constitution and which has been upheld by the courts on many occasions, that is, that all stand equal before the law. Therefore, legislation, whatever else it may aim to achieve, should avoid in so far as possible creating within any sections of the community or any sections of the trade or within people, disadvantages for some and advantages for others. It is against that background that the impact of this Bill should be measured. I endorse fully the well-deserved tributes that have been paid to the National Concert Hall and to its management in particular. It has been a success since its establishment two years ago. It makes and has made a valuable contribution to our national culture; it has a vital role to play in our society and it is playing that role well and adequately. It is providing a much needed facility and I wish it every success in the future. I hope that it will expand and develop the success that it has achieved to date.

Equally I accept that the availability of drink is a desirable, probably necessary factor in the successful operation of the concert hall. I have no objection whatsoever to a liquor licence being available in the National Concert Hall provided that it is granted through the normal channels. There is a recognised and long-established method by which liquor licences are issued to the courts. There is a recognised and long-established set of regulations and requirements that applicants for liquor licences must fulfil. The vast majority of these applicants fulfil these regulations and requirements, in both the obtaining and renewal of their licences.

The Bill before us proposes to relieve the concert hall of the obligations, requirements and procedures that we expect every other liquor licence holder in this country to comply with. I am measuring this Bill against the principle of equality of all before the law and in that regard I find it difficult to reconcile what has been proposed here, that a special privileged status be conferred on a building, with the denial of that to other concerns in the same line of business. I am also concerned with the fact that there is no renewal requirement in relation to the liquor licence for this public house, and I do not use that term in any derogatory sense. It is a public house in the accepted meaning of the licensing code as we know it to date.

It is only fair to say that I have an interest in the licensed trade and I am involved with a trade organisation that represents a major section of the retail liquor trade. I want to make it clear that despite that, the views I am advancing here are my own personal views. They may well be supported with knowledge that I have obtained through years of experience at the retail end of the trade. I question what is proposed in the Bill and the implications and effects that this Bill will have, not alone within the liquor licensing code in the years ahead but also at retail level. I emphasise that I am taking that line on a personal basis and in my role as a legislator in this House.

Section 4 (2) of the Bill states that the Acts and this Act may be cited together as the Licensing Acts, 1833 to 1983, and shall be construed together as one. Senator Durcan rightly pointed out that the first licensing laws applied to Ireland were enacted in 1634. One hundred and ninety-nine years later it was found necessary to introduce further laws and indeed to try to combine the existing laws into one understandable, readable and enforceable measure. I do not know how highly the opinions of His Majesty King George IV in 1833 would be regarded in this House. The preamble to the Act that was passed in the sixth year of his reign stated that it was necessary to have this legislation because the laws governing the sale of drink in Ireland had become confused, doubtful and complicated. That was stated 199 years after the passage of the first licensing laws in relation to Ireland. In my opinion, 150 years further on, they are more complicated, confused and doubtful than they ever were. I join with Senator Durcan in his call for an up-dating of the licensing laws and I regret that the opportunity that presented itself with the presentation of this measure was not availed of to achieve that end.

About 19 different types of retail liquor licences are issued in this country under the various Licensing Acts from 1833 to date and the situation is confused and unsatisfactory at the moment. By the passing of this Bill we may well be adding a further layer of confusion to an already confused situation. I intend to show why I think that. Perhaps there is an adequate answer, and if there is I will be only too willing to accept it. In the confusion that has arisen in relation to the various licensing laws they are wide open to abuse and my colleagues here have referred to that abuse. Their operation, particularly at supermarket, off-licence and wine shop level, is a national disgrace. I believe there is a direct link between breaches of the licensing laws, illegal trading and alcohol abuse.

An Leas-Cheaathaoirleach

Senator Howard, I do not like to interrupt you but your contribution seems to be covering the whole of the Licensing Acts. We are dealing with a specific Bill, are we not?

Mr. Howard

Yes.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I wonder may you make a major speech on the whole licensing trade under this Bill. I merely say that to you.

Mr. Howard

I appreciate that and you may well recall that before the Cathaoirleach left the Chair I made the point that I took special care in preparing my remarks that they would be relevant to the Bill. I intend to show that.

Section 4 (2) provides that the Acts and this Act may be cited together as the Licensing Acts, 1833 to 1983, and shall be construed together as one. Therefore, this Bill when it becomes an Act under that subsection becomes part of the entire licensing package. Other sections of the licensing Acts are being referred to in various parts of the Bill, so I believe that they all impinge on one another. If the Chair will bear with me I will endeavour to show that the points I am making are related to the Bill.

As I said, I have read the Bill with interest. It introduces a totally new concept in liquor licensing at retail level in that it confers on the concert hall and its clientele special privileges, special status and a special drinking environment that will not be enjoyed by other outlets and their customers. Thirdly, the Bill will discriminate in a most adverse manner against the trading position of adjacent licensed premises, which premises are burdened in addition with constraints that will not apply to the National Concert Hall.

Finally on that aspect, I am satisfied that under the Bill it will be impossible to prove illegal trading, and I intend to show why I say that. I want to compare, against the background of equality for all the law, the manner in which we propose to license this building with the regime that we lay down for the ordinary citizen in his application for a retail liquor licence. Under section 2 of this Bill a liquor licence cannot be refused to the National Concert Hall. No one can deny it to them. The courts are excluded from this. Contrast that with the situation that the ordinary citizen would face if he were to apply to sell liquor at retail level in, say, Earlsfort Terrace, Lesson Street or adjoining areas. He would first of all have to apply to the Circuit Court. He would have to serve public notice, which is an invitation to objections. He would have to satisfy the court not alone as to his own character, fitness and suitability but equally as to the character, suitability and fitness of the premises proposed to be licensed. He would have to prove a population increase in the civil parish and that there was need for this additional retail outlet. He would have to prove that the proposed business would not have an adverse effect on existing retail business in the area and he would have to extinguish an existing liquor licence. His — or her — application could be objected to by the Garda, the local authority who I assume would be Dublin Corporation, the health authority, the fire authority, and local publicans on the basis of damage to their trade. It could be objected to by local property owners on the basis of interference, noise, or devaluation of property, and it could be objected to by any resident in the civil parish on the basis of noise, traffic or inconvenience.

Mr. McDonald

What about the PP?

Mr. Howard

He is excluded. He was included in the 1833 Act but he was subsequently excluded. These are demanding requirements which the ordinary citizen must meet. However, under this Bill the concert hall will be spared all this hassle. It will be sheltered from the risks and objections that may arise and from the requirements and the demands that we make on others.

In comparing the privileged way that we propose to grant this licence with the hassle that the ordinary citizen would be confronted with, I want to refer to another fact. This building has been generously aided by public funds and it receives a subvention from the Exchequer of £170,000 per annum. These facilities, again, would not be available to any ordinary citizen applying for a liquor licence in that area. It is a vast building with seating capacity in its main hall for 1,300 people and standing and other capacity for as many more. I could not help but be amused at Senator Durcan's suggestion that they will be buying further property to extend the trade area. However, I am simply making the point that here is a vast building with a vast seating capacity, aided by public funds and, furthermore, being provided with a facility in this very special way which we do not through our laws enable the ordinary citizen to avail of.

I am not satisfied that the function of issuing a retail liquor licence to the concert hall should be taken from the courts. I am not satisfied with the lack of provision for annual renewal of that licence through the courts. The vast majority of the other 15,000 retail liquor licences that are issued must be renewed annually in the courts. One of the principal objectives behind the annual renewal of licences is to ensure that the trading in the premises is not carried on in a manner that is found objectionable or disagreeable by certain categories of people. If the type of trading carried on is objectionable, they have the option and they are provided in law with the opportunity of going in at the annual licensing session and objecting to what is happening. We set out in this Bill to deny people that opportunity of registering their objections if the occasion should arise. This is a special concession that we are making available to this building and it is not available elsewhere.

How does the concert hall lose its liquor licence? As far as I can see from this Bill it can never lose it, short of a change there. Perhaps I disagree with Senator Durcan on this. We are all familiar with how the ordinary publican can lose his licence. He can lose it if he has three live endorsements which he can incur in the space of one week, and not alone does he lose his licence and his livelihood with it but he can never again hold a liquor licence and the premises to which the licence that is forfeit applied can never again be licensed. Again we have excluded the concert hall from that kind of risk. As far as I can see, they cannot lose their licence. Senator Durcan was talking about shebeens in Mayo. It is conceivable that poteen could be made in the concert hall and they still could not lose their licence for doing it. I am not saying that to be derogatory, I am simply saying that we cannot ignore the fact that we have left ourselves in that position.

Mr. McDonald

I would expect them to be traditional.

Mr. Howard

Good. There is provision for a fine of £500 for the sale of drink illegally, but I think it would be impossible to prove that drink is sold illegally there.

I have referred to the endorsements and recordable offences that can be imposed on the licence of the ordinary publican. There is no provision whatsoever for endorsements or recordable offences in relation to the licence we propose to issue to the National Concert Hall.

Another aspect that I want to turn to relates to section 2 of the Bill, a Leas-Chathaoirleach, but you might permit me to refer in general terms to what I have in mind so as to enable the Minister to anticipate the queries that I will be raising on Committee Stage. I want to refer to the type, extent and control of trading done. Does the licence apply to the entire building? Will it be legal to sell drink in any part of that building, and how many bars will be in the building? At the moment I understand there is a bar downstairs and a bar upstairs. Will it be legal to sell drink in every part of the National Concern Hall? How will drink and its sale be subject to Garda inspection? What will the Garda require if they want to inspect or, to use the usual phrase, raid the premises? Will they require the same authority that they require, for example, to raid a club where they must have a search warrant issued by an officer not below the rank of inspector, the name of the raiding garda must be on that warrant and it must be in existence for 24 hours before the raid takes place? Can a garda simply walk in off the street and can he raid the place as in the case of a pub? I would appreciate clarification as to what are the powers of the Garda for inspection in relation to the sale and consumption of drink outside the regulations, wide as they are.

Another question relates to the fine of £500 and to whom it may apply. I do not think it applies to the company; at least the Bill does not so state. If the Garda inspect the place how will they identify the legal trader? Section 2 (2) indicates that the people entitled to be there are the patrons, the participants and the employees. That is an extremely wide umbrella that anybody could very conceivably shelter underneath. It will be next to impossible to prove illegal trading, and I think that is accepted by the people who drafted the Bill because there is no provision whatsoever if you are found there to be fined. What is the position? Does the fine apply to those to whom the categories of patrons, participants and employees do not apply? That is extraordinary, particularly when 50 yards down the road at the corner of Leeson Street are Hartigan's, Dwyer's and Hourigan's and they can be raided and the people found on those premises can be fined and their licences can be endorsed on that. Restricted hours will apply to their premises. Their doors will close at 11 p.m. or 11.30 p.m. as the case may be, but the doors of the concert hall up the road can remain open and it can ring to the rafters till the small hours of the morning. If I were the proprietor of any of these three places I have mentioned I would certainly feel hard done by. When we pass this legislation we should be concerned about the adverse effect it is going to have on the trading position of adjoining or adjacent licensed premises. Senator Magner raised the question of the definition of a conference. No doubt on Committee Stage on section 1 of the Bill we can establish what are concerts and what are conferences. Successful concerts are held in the hall. Groups and individuals who can be bracketed together and who rate very highly in the estimation of many people — The Chieftains, Shaskeen, Dublin City Ramblers, Anna McGoldrick, and Foster and Allen — have performed successfully in the National Concert Hall and they will do so again and licensed trading will be permitted there up to an hour after the conclusion of performances. It so happened that the groups I have referred to have also played in my licensed premises in County Clare but I must observe restricted hours and I cannot trade for an hour after the conclusion of the performance of these artists.

We will be defining also what a conference is. I suggest to the Minister that every night of the week in licensed premises throughout the country local residents' associations, sporting clubs, ladies' associations, farmers' organisations all hold their meetings. Can we not argue that they equally are in conference and that it is not right that the location in which they hold their conference is penalised in a manner that will not apply to the building to which this proposed legislation applies?

What will the position be in relation to trading or drinking in the National Concert Hall on Christmas Day and Good Friday? These two days are set aside in all the Licensing Acts and it is provided that drink shall not be sold in weekday licensed outlets on either Christmas Day or Good Friday. Will the same restriction apply to the National Concert Hall or is this piece of law steadily falling into decline or disregard? In recent times certain clubs have advertised publicly on these days functions to which the public are invited to come and participate and where drink is available. I want to ask the Minister whether drink will be available in the National Concert Hall on Christmas Day and Good Friday.

I have a final query. Every licensed premises in the country is required by law to display the prices of the drink they supply. Will the drink control regulations apply to the sale of drink in the concert hall? Will they — as all other publicans are — be obliged to display a price list?

I do not want anybody to feel that I am advocating less control in either the sale of drink or the licensing of outlets and I do not agree that extended drinking hours would be a good thing. We have serious problems — perhaps later this evening we will be talking of them — related to alcohol abuse. There are three areas which can be related to what we are proposing to do here. The principal one is late night-early morning drinking. It happens in many places. The courts in 1981 issued 42,000 special exemption orders for the sale and consumption of alcoholic liquor, and this on top of the 15,000 ordinary liquor licences that are issued through the courts and the Revenue Commissioners each year. Late night drinking is one of the greatest problems associated with alcohol. It happens up and down the country and I believe it will also happen in the concert hall. Late night-early morning drinking has been identified by experts in the field as the primary cause of absenteeism from work. It is well to register that point but this is not the occasion to develop it. The second aspect under that heading that I would like to raise and which was raised in the other House is the problem of under-age drinking. It is unlikely that it is happening in the concert hall at the moment. In normal circumstances it is unlikely that it will happen there but should the National Concert Hall company decide to hold a rock concert in their building it will happen on a large scale and there is nothing in this Bill to say that it should not happen. I will not develop that point too much, and perhaps we will debate it later this evening, but if we accept that under-age drinking is the problems that most of us believe it to be then we have an opportunity as legislators to register where we stand.

I conclude by endorsing again the appeal that was made by Senator Durcan earlier for an update and rationalisation of the licensing code to eliminate the irregularities and inconsistencies that are there. This is urgent and necessary. One principle should be applied and that is that there should be a standard practice in relation to the issue of all liquor licences. If these licences are to come through the courts, all should come through the courts. The conditions and requirements should be equal for all applicants. The hours, conditions and terms of trading should be the same for all retail outlets. In other words, if some outlets are obliged to close at 11 p.m. or 11.30 p.m. then all should close but if some outlets are entitled by law to remain open until 3 a.m. then all should have the same entitlement. I want to eliminate privileges and exceptions. I want the Garda to have the same right of inspection of all premises. There should not be a privileged type of inspection for some premises and wide open inspection for others. The same rights and terms of inspection should apply to all. Let the same opportunities and the same obligations apply equally to all engaged at retail level in the liquor licence business.

The Minister in her speech referred to the circumstances that have given rise to this Bill. The National Concert Hall is at present licensed but there is a danger of that licence being lost. The circumstances in which the licence was obtained would appear to be doubtful. The local gardasuperintendent, as is his right, objected to it and it is now pending appeal in the High Court. We are coming to the rescue in relation to these premises but we are doing other things as well.

The new licence which we propose to issue to this building will take away from that garda superintendent the right he had up to now to object to the trading there if he thought such objection was warranted. We are also taking from the courts the right to issue the licence and the right to renew it. I understand that licence was issued in September 1981. It was first issued as a theatre licence and a few weeks later there was a further application to the Circuit Court in which the judge in question issued a full, unrestricted licence. We are now taking away from the courts and the Garda the rights they enjoyed heretofore in relation to the control of the business conducted there.

I am not suggesting that the people in charge of operations at the National Concert Hall would abuse the situation. Indeed, I have great respect for those people. I am simply saying that I do not believe we are acting in accordance with equality for all in providing special methods by which this licence can be obtained, which methods are denied to others. I have no great objection in coming to the rescue here. The objection I have is that from now on we will not use the same channels we expect every other applicant to go through in relation to seeking a licence.

I would have thought that in conducting a rescue operation in relation to the licence for the National Concert Hall we would in some way broaden our horizons and recognise that there are other licensees in need of rescue also. I know at least three licensees whose licences will be forfeited in the near future if circumstances take a certain course. I want to refer to one licensee in my own county who has one conviction on the licence and two prosecutions pending. If there is a conviction on both of these that licence will be forteited. The livelihoods of two families are involved in these circumstances. There is the livelihood of the parents who are in their fifties, the livelihood of a son employed on the premises and who has recently married and there has been a substantial investment of about £50,000 in renovating the premises in recent years. Therefore, if we come to the rescue of the National Concert Hall, I believe, in justice, we should be prepared to include such cases in this Bill to ensure that the livelihoods of two families are not shattered. In reality, if the National Concert Hall never got its licence no livelihood would be put at risk but in my county there are two families whose future is in jeopardy. Their cases could be decided in the coming weeks.

I want to conclude by asking the Minister to assure me that if the worst happens to my constituents in County Clare a similar rescue package will be applied or, alternatively, would a Private Member's Bill to rescue these people receive the same enthusiastic support as has this measure?

Mr. McDonald

I have listened with great interest to Senator Howard's very impressive speech. Coming from a man who has such standing within the Licensed Vintners' Association and is a successful publican himself his contribution must carry great weight. I support the Bill's general provisions. The opening of the National Concert Hall filled a void which for a very long time needed to be filled. It is being supported by the public and has introduced to our country artists and orchestras who otherwise would not have the opportunity of playing for our people. From that point of view it is necessary that the normal facilities be provided in the beautiful concert hall we have in Dublin.

Like other speakers I am rather disappointed that the Minister did not take the opportunity of further reviewing or overhauling the licensing laws in general. As has already been stated, it is widely recognised that there are some shortcomings and anomalies. I believe hours of trading should be set locally rather than nationally. Publicans should be able to come together to decide on the hours that would meet the public demand in their own areas rather than having the Act settling the situation right across the board. Opening hours should be either enforced or scrapped. Perhaps that sounds a little harsh but in all sectors of administration there is growing disregard or contempt for the laws of the land in this sphere as well as in many others.

I believe that a stronger stand should be taken against having lottery machines of any kind in public houses and I think that we should look for stricter administration. Worst of all is the blind eye that is turned in so many places to under-age drinking. That is something that must be tackled. I think publicans who allow the sale of drugs on their premises should have their premises confiscated. It is not just enough to bar them from having a licence. The authorities are pussy-footing with these grave abuses which are affecting the younger generation to an extraordinary degree.

Many interesting points have been raised on this Bill. I should like to ask the Minister to look at the problem where we have 200 or 300 licensees with six-day licences. Years ago these people were not interested in Sunday trade and they applied for only a six-day licence, but with habits in the country changing this has altogether changed. In the main these tend to be the smaller premises with mainly older people ekeing out an existence. I ask the Minister to look at the possibility of introducing a system whereby he would convert those existing six-day licences to seven-day licences. I think it is unreasonable for the State to expect these people — in the main they are the less well-off publicans and invariably are older people — to buy out a second licence in order to conver it to a seven-day licence. The Minister, as a matter of social justice, should rectify that anomaly which we find in so many towns across the country, to bring equality to the situation. If we can introduce a Bill like this for the better-off sections in our society then I think we should take a more sympathetic view of the few hundred small publicans across the country who are restricted by the terms of the six-day licences.

Should someone book the concert hall for, say, a passion play on Good Friday, then I assume it will be the only place in the whole country that will be able to let up the shutters and open up the pub on that day. I would have a grave objection to that; irrespective of the theme of the play. It has already been mentioned that there are two black days. Perhaps the concept of a black day is gone in the kind of society we are living in, but if the entire country has at least on the surface to abide by those rules — as I expect is the case in 99 per cent of the pubs across the country — I see no reason why any one place should be exempted. If the concert hall puts on a matinee it will be the only place that does not have a "holy hour." Is that a good thing or will it attract people into the concert hall who could be described as being on a pub crawl? They say the idea for the "holy hour" was to get people out of the public houses and not have them sitting in all day. Surely this is something that the Minister should look at. I am not too sure if the National Concert Hall is a semi-State organisation or if it is a private company making a profit. Do the Government consider the provision of this kind of licence will subsidise the operations of the entire venture there to a very considerable degree?

The concert hall should have facilities and they should be on a part with the facilities that are available in the great concert halls in Europe. I know that in the Philharmonic Hall in Berlin it is possible in the five or six minute intervals during the performance for several thousand people to go and have refreshments. I am sure the same kind of facility will exist in Dublin. It must surely be annoying and frustrating for people who earn their livelihood solely in the pub trade to have to compete with a semi-State organisation such as this who have all the benefits but none of the restrictions. I think restrictions are certainly necessary because of the way some elements of the trade appear to be abusing the system at the present time.

Mr. McMahon

I welcome the Bill in so far as it provides for refreshment in the National Concert Hall, something that is available in other places of recreation in the city of Dublin. Indeed it was surprising to most people that it was necessary to put a Bill through the Oireachtas to have this provision. Senator Howard dealt with the Bill in great detail and it was very enlightening to listen to him here this afternoon. I am not going to deal with the Bill in such detail but I will say I am disappointed that we deal with the licensing laws in a piecemeal way. During my time in the Oireachtas we have had a number of Bills dealing with the licensing laws. During the years we have had various Bills dealing with bits and scraps here and there. I refer of course to the legislation providing for drinks at dog tracks, at the bus station at Store Street and at racecourses. There was provision for the extension of licences or the granting of licences on special occasions such as sporting events and the like. They are all dealing with just one small aspect of the licensing laws, but most Members of the House would prefer to see a Bill dealing with this matter in a broader way.

We have, of course, the anomaly in the Dublin area where it is not possible for the courts to grant a licence for a premises which is within a mile of a premises with a licence that existed in 1963 or whenever the last major Bill dealing with licensing of premises was enacted. In my constituency of Dublin South-West, in County Dublin and in all parts of Dublin where there has been a tremendous development over the years we have had many proposals for licences for premises which were within one mile of a premises with an existing 1963 licence and it has not been possible to grant those licences. The time is long overdue for this anomaly to be rectified and I appeal to the Minister in this connection. When I was a Member of the other House on more than one occasion I drew the attention of the then Minister for Justice to this anomaly. I last spoke on it in 1975 or 1976. The Minister agreed with me at the time but despite that many years have now elapsed and still nothing has been done to correct it. I do not need to remind the House of the great development that has taken place in areas such as Lucan, Clondalkin and Tallaght where it is still only possible to grant a new licence one mile from an existing licence. It is a ridiculous situation and one I would urge the Minister to look at.

I am not sure Senator Howard was correct in saying that in passing this legislation we are granting a licence to the largest licensed premises in the country. I can refer to one with far greater seating capacity of the National Concert Hall. We are going to have larger public houses, something most people would not want, because it is not possible to have a licence in neighbouring housing estates. Because it is necessary to have a distance of one mile between an existing licence and the granting of a new licence, this tends to lead to larger premises. This is something which should be discouraged. It also tends to create the necessity for club licences. There are football clubs and other areas where sporting activities take place. I do not need to name the areas where there are many club licences. This is necessary, particularly in County Dublin, because of the legislation which prevents the granting of public house licences within one mile of an existing licence.

I urge the Minister, having heard the remarks in this House, to give serious consideration to a Bill which will update the licensing laws not only for County Dublin but for the whole country. The Minister should look seriously at the number of club licences being granted. Many parents are concerned that their children have to frequent places of recreation such as football clubs — where we are supposed to encourage our children to go — where one of the main attractions seems to be the licence which is operated on a daily basis. Some operate only at weekends simply because they have not the business to keep the bar open on a regular basis.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I am sorry to interrupt the Senator but I must ask him to get back to discussing the Bill.

Mr. McMahon

Many speakers have strayed from the Bill. It is an opportunity we have been given — which we are not often give — to draw attention to the anomalies, such as those to which I have referred. I will bow to the Leas-Chathaoirleach's judgment on the matter as to whether it should be discussed on a broader basis or just on the narrow basis of granting a licence to one premises. A complaint which I and many Senators have is that we deal with a matter as a problem arises. This is a parochial way of dealing with the licensing laws of the country.

How many people attending the National Concert Hall will take more than two drinks? Publicity has been given in recent weeks to the slogan "Just two will do". Is it intended that this licence will be used for those who will take just two drinks or is it intended that they will take more? I want to voice my abhorrence at the departure of the National Road Safety Association from their slogan of other years, "If you drink, don't drive". I am sure everybody will agree that was an extremely successful slogan. They say they have progressed to the slogan "Just two will do". I hold that the National Road Safety Association are not a competent body to judge how much drink a person can have and be capable of driving safely. It takes no account of a person's height or age or the amount of food a person might have had during the day. Neither does it take account of any medication a person may be taking. I maintain if a person is taking a particular medication and has one drink he or she is incapable of driving on the roads. Also it shows little appreciation of the difficulty of a person with a drink problem who drives. It is far easier for such a person to refuse the first drink than to have to refuse the third drink.

I hope the National Road Safety Association will take account of the protests there have been about their new slogan. It is too late now to change it but, we in County Dublin have refused to handle their posters. We have produced our own posters and we are taking full part in the road safety campaign over Christmas. I hope that the new slogan of the road Safety Association does not lead to more accidents than there would have been if they had remained with the old slogan "If you drink, don't drive".

I may have strayed from the Bill but it was necessary and I am glad of the opportunity of saying it in this House. I have said it at council meetings. I was successful in having our own National Road Safety Committee reject not all of the National Road Safety Association's posters but the one that says "Just Two Will Do". It is only right that there should be drink available in the National Concert Hall. While accepting much of what Senator Howard said it is necessary that it should be available there. Removing anomalies and updating legislation usually take a long time because big wheels move slowly. It may be necessary to put through this legislation so that refreshment would be available to our National Concert Hall goes but I appeal to the Minister to hasten the day when she will be back here with a more comprehensive Bill to deal with the licensing laws.

Minister of State at the Department of Justice (Mrs. Fennell)

I should like to thank the Senators who offered such kind and generous comments on my appointment and they are all the sweeter and better because of the fact that I am now almost a year in office. I should like to thank Senators for their wide ranging comments, and I am pleased that there has been general agreement on the pleasure that the concert hall has given to the whole country, not merely to the city. I know it is in Dublin but I think it is seen as a cultural amenity for the whole country. It is very important that in a recreational area like this there should be facilities for enjoying a drink. I must thank everybody, and I hope that I will be excused for suggesting that the publicans' Oireachtas lobby is alive and well and living in the Seanad because I certainly learnt an awful lot from the various contributions. I will attempt to deal with individual Senator's contributions; the same type of comments and proposals were made in the Dáil and there is a definite and genuine feeling that we need to have new legislation in relation to intoxicating liquor. I realise that other factors and interests must also be taken into account in this connection.

Senator Lynch spoke of the excellent standard of the concert hall. He said it is a place where recreation is provided and drink is an additional amenity whereas he is associated with the type of establishment where the provision of drink is the basic facility but excellent entertainment is also provided. He referred to section 3 of the Bill, which relates generally to provisions regarding exemption orders and occasional licences. It provides, in effect, that the concert hall licence cannot be endorsed or forfeited. I hope that all Senators would agree that these provisions should not apply in the case of the concert hall. Senator Lynch also referred to provisions applying to licensed premises in general. It would be inappropriate for me to make any comment on his general remarks in that connection, but I assure the Senator that consideration will be given to the points that were raised by him.

Senator Durcan and others referred to the need to revise the licensing code generally. He felt that it should not be necessary to legislate to grant an individual special licence. The codification of the licensing laws is a major task which would require considerable input of official time to accomplish. Initial steps in this codification process have been taken but will take some considerable time to bring to fruition. As to Senator Durcan's suggestion that the word "knowingly" should be put in the presence of this work in existing legislation has had the effect of nullifying some important enforcement provisions and I could not agree that it would be appropriate to introduce it in this Bill. As to the definition of concert hall this has been carefully considered by the parliamentary draftsman and he is satisfied that the existing definition is necessary and appropriate.

Senator Magner asked about the definition of "function" in the Bill. This definition is not unduly broad. The concert hall is a venue for a wide range of activities. There could be no objection to including concerts within this definition, and the addition of conferences has been very fully considered. There has been pressure to extend this definition much further, but I am satisfied that the present definition covers the range of activities where the supply of intoxicating liquour could be reasonably expected and used.

Senator Howard was concerned about the question of reform of the licensing code and the licensing of restaurants and I have noted his comments in this connection. The question of the abuses of intoxicating liquor is under review by the Minister for Justice, and this House will have an opportunity of considering in due course any proposals which may be brought forward for new legislation to combat such abuses. Senator Howard also questioned the propriety of granting a special liquour licence to the National Concert Hall, but I would remind the House that special licences are available to airports, Busaras and greyhound race tracks. I am satisfied that special arrangements proposed in relation to the National Concert Hall are appropriate in view of its unique national position.

On the question of the area licensed, this special licence will apply to the whole area of the concert hall and by virtue of section 4 the concert hall will come within the definition of licensed premises. It will, therefore, attract various enforcement provisions, including those for inspection by the Garda. There is no restriction under the Bill on the days in which liquor might be sold in the concert hall. Senator Howard particularly mentioned Christmas Day and Good Friday.

On the question of regulations regarding the display of drink prices, this is a question for the Minister for Trade, Commerce and Tourism. As to particular cases at present affected by the endorsement provisions in the licensing code, individual cases could not be included within the ambit of the Bill, but I will give very careful consideration to any proposals for a review of the provisions now applying in this area. I am not sure if it was Senator Howard or Senator Lynch who suggested that there would be complaints, or perhaps there had been some complaints or criticism, from persons in the licensed trade about the concert hall licence. In fact there have not been any complaints about the present situation or the proposed new legislation for the concert hall and it is not expected that there will be any.

Senator McDonald questioned the opening hours envisaged in the Bill. I am satisfied that the hours are appropriate for the concert hall and I am confident that the board will not abuse the special provision in that regard. I should point out in this connection that the concert hall has been, up to now, operating on the basis of a full publican's licence for over two years and it appears that no complaints have been made in that period. I should also point out that the concert hall licence which we are now discussing is more restrictive in this very important respect than the existing full licence. Under the proposed special licence, the sale of liquor will be permitted only in connection with functions in the hall whereas under the existing licence, as I have said, the position as to permitted hours is the same as in an ordinary licensed premises.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.