Can the Minister further elaborate on the definition of a conference? What is a conference and what is not a conference?
Intoxicating Liquor (National Concert Hall) Bill, 1983: Committee and Final Stages.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill".
Does the word "function" mean concert or conference only? Can it mean anything else? Is the definition exclusive?
It is exclusive, there is no further definition of "concert" or "conference".
"Function" I take to mean a concert or conference in the concert hall to which a person is admitted upon payment or by invitation. It does not specifically detail who could issue the invitation — could a member of the staff invite somebody in for a drink? Would it be by invitation to people to attend a specific performance or concert or can an invitation be issued casually by any member of the staff working in the National Concert Hall?
This refers to invitation by the management, which would normally be by ticket.
I am not getting on my feet to pick up niggly little points but, from my experience as a proprietor of a licensed premises, I know the difficulties that are continuously encountered with regard to the licensing laws and their implementation.
With regard to the definition of "conference", it seems that if Senator Durcan, Senator Lynch and myself were to book part of the hall to discuss this Bill, for example, and if it was accepted by management that it was a conference, we could consume drink up to one hour after we had finished our debates. If that remains as open as it is, drink can be sold and consumed in the concert hall for 24 hours a day, 365 days of the year. A conference has got to be defined if it is going to be possible for the authorities to prove legal trading there. What constitutes a conference?
While there are many projects held in the concert hall such as exhibitions and that type of thing, they do not come under this definition. The definition of "function" is quite specific and has been carefully considered by the draftsman. I am assured that this will not lead to the kind of abuse which the Senator suggests.
Do the assurances that the Minister has received in relation to my query enable her to say quite definitely that Senators Durcan, Lynch and myself, with the consent of the management, would not constitute a conference?
A specific guarantee cannot be given to that extent. As a result of the extreme suggestion which the Senator has made, there could be a conference every day of the year at a considerable cost. It might be theoretically possible.
Another point which arises from section 1 is that, if I may read it, "function" means a concert or conference in the concert hall to which persons are admitted upon payment or by invitation. I gather that the invitation has to be by management there, but is this always so? Can the organisers of a conference issue an invitation to a member of the public? Can the participants or the performers in a concert invite their friends? The other thing that worries me in relation to this section is "and, where a function extends over more than one day, the part of the function held on any day shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be a separate function". You can have a conference beginning, for example, at 10 o'clock in the morning and the sale of liquor is allowed for an hour previous to that. There could be a break, for example, in the afternoon and there is an hour allowed for consumption of drink after the end of the conference. You have a space of an hour and a half between the end of the conference and the beginning of the evening concert. As far as I can see, it is quite legitimate to sell drink during that hour and a half. I do not know what the duration of the concert is, but no matter how lengthy it is, the sale or consumption of drink is allowed for one hour after it finishes. You are talking about many hours. If the situation was reversed and the concert was held in the morning, at least one could say when the concert has terminated. On the other hand, if you have the concert in the morning, an hour and a half time lag after its end and then a conference starting, there is no way you can indicate clearly the end of a conference as you can the end of a concert and still there is this hour of liberty. Can the participants of a conference invite members of the public and can the promoters or artists of a concert invite members of the public?
The invitation must be by management, as with other theatres. The Senator is making the point about having two functions running into one on the same day. I have seen how the concert hall operates at the moment. They have a break and the management can be relied upon to ensure that the explicit demarcation in the Bill will be recognised. The Senator suggested that an afternoon conference could run into the evening, and that could happen, but I believe that we can have faith in the discretion and integrity of the people who are running the concert hall.
Would the Minister accept my contention that it will be virtually impossible to prove illegal trade in the accepted sense of the term as we know it, in the circumstances we have outlined?
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
On section 2 (1) and 2 (2) there is something that troubles me. The Minister mentioned that the licence will not have to be renewed annually. The Bill is to be construed as part of the Licensing Acts, 1833 to 1981, so, presumably, the form of licence that can issue pursuant to the provisions of this Bill is not different from the normal type of licence. There is nothing specifically in the Bill that states that it should not be renewed annually. Subsection (2) says that the licence will remain in force while the concert hall is in existence but it would appear that it still has to be renewed annually. An ordinary licence remains in force so long as a licensed premises complies with certain statutory provisions, and many licences have been in force for 100 years or more, but they still have to be renewed annually. I am a little worried that section 2 does not state that fact.
Another point I am worried about is in relation to licences granted under section 2. All licences, as I understand it, are subject to the provisions of the Fire Act, 1981, an Act passed following the Stardust disaster. That imposes very rigid obligations on applicants for licences and applicants for renewal of licences, to satisfy the licensing authority that their premises comply with the provisions of the fire officer. In the event of the concert hall ceasing to be maintained in accordance with its current good standards and if a situation developed in the years ahead that the place became badly maintained and a fire hazard, do the provisions of the Fire Act apply?
I take it that the licensed premises, which indeed is the whole premises, as has been quantified by the Minister, would in the ordinary course of events, be subject to inspection by the fire department. However, as this is a new building all these aspects would have been taken into consideration, because planning permission would not be given for any such type of building unless it had met all the requirements. As I understand it the bars have been in existence since its inception, so I take it for granted that it was passed by the fire section of Dublin Corporation. However, I would expect that it would be subject to review annually or part-annually as all licensed premises are and, indeed, many public buildings such as hospitals.
Section 2 (2) relates to what I regard as the ordinary licensed trade. It would be almost impossible to implement, in that you could define the 30 minutes prior to the start of a conference although they are usually 10 or 20 minutes late or perhaps a half an hour late. You could define an hour after a concert but I doubt if you can define an hour after a conference.
I presume the Minister would be relying — rightly so — on the management of the concert hall to see that the licensing laws or regulations as stipulated in the Bill would be carried out as efficiently as the management are carrying out their functions at the moment. It is quite evident that the management there have done an excellent job, and we hope that they will continue to do so.
Section 2 (3) states:
A person who sells intoxicating liquor at the Concert Hall otherwise than in accordance with a licence under this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £500.
I regard that as a safety measure built into the Bill. I cannot envisage how a person can be discovered selling liquor, unless it is through the management, because we have not been told if the Garda have the authority to walk in and out in order to supervise the concert hall. Does a special warrant have to be issued to inspect the premises? There are guarantees that should be given at this stage.
With regard to Garda inspections the position is the same as for any licensed premises. The provisions are there in the event of abuses with regard to the Senator's other question: the substantitive provisions of the Fire Services Act will apply.
There is a lot of teasing out to be done yet. The Minister says that the Garda will have normal powers of inspection. In the course of my remarks on Second Stage I indicated that there was a distinction between the powers the Garda had for raiding certain types of licensed premises. What normal powers have they? Is it the power to raid the ordinary public houses or are they to have special powers for raiding the clubs? While there is provision for a fine of £500 for illegal operations there is no provision for a fine on others — the people we in the licensed trade would know as the "found ons". How can the Garda say then that there is illegal trading if we have no provision for fining "found ons"? Are the powers of inspection the pub powers of inspection or are they the club powers of inspection? There is no provision for fining "found ons" so I should like to hear if there is such a person as a "found on" within the terms of this legislation.
The inspection powers are those applying to ordinary licensed premises.
Are Christmas Day and Good Friday included in this legislation?
Is the Senator asking whether those days are included within the provisions of the Bill or whether the provisions in respect of Garda inspection apply on those days?
Is the concert hall allowed to sell liquor on Christmas Day and on Good Friday?
Yes.
We should be opposed to that. There are no concerts held anywhere in Ireland on Good Friday to my knowledge — and I am very well briefed on this — and I do not think anyone should be allowed to sell liquor on Christmas Day either. I would be totally opposed to the selling of liquor on either of these days. Apart from that reservation, I see a need for this Bill and I welcome it.
Perhaps I could reassure the Senator. It is very unlikely that there will be functions on Christmas Day in the concert hall. Equally it is very unlikely to have functions there on Good Friday, and it would be only when functions are on that the licence would be in effect.
Knowing the industry that the hall has been provided to cater for, if money can be made by the sale of liquor on those days, I can visualise the idea coming into the minds of promoters and other such people. Therefore, I am totally opposed to having that included in the Bill.
I wish to come back to the Minister on the question of whether there is provision for the annual renewal of the certificate. I am very conscious of the Minister's statement earlier on that adjacent licensed premises have not complained to date. I accept that the running of the concert hall up to now is first class but we cannot guarantee that for all time. If the situation arose that the concert hall began to be operated in a way that was objectionable to either adjacent licensed premises, to the superintendent for the area or to people resident in the area who can object to it, how can they register their objection if there is not an annual renewal procedure?
I take the Senator's point, but we must rely on what has been shown in the past two years to be excellent management procedures and a very responsible approach to this facility.
To refer back to the possible sale of intoxicating liquor on a Good Friday — I would not worry too much about Christmas Day: it is a day of celebration for everyone — taking into consideration the great name that this National Concert Hall has, and it is not just a Dublin concert hall, it is our National Concert Hall of which we are all so proud and which has achieved so much in such a short space of time, if intoxicating liquor was at some stage sold on a Good Friday it would do untold damage and would attract much adverse publicity. Is there any way we could include a subsection that would eliminate that possibility or do we have to put an amendment down?
I would remind the Senator that on Good Fridays alcohol is available with meals in hotels so it is not something that is totally unprecedented. It is not very likely that the Good Friday option will be taken up.
There are two other points on this section. The first is the reliance on the decency and good sense of the management of the concert hall. If we say that we rely on these particular outstanding qualities in relation to the present management, are we by implication saying that there are 15,000 other licensed owners throughout the country who are not deserving of the same categorisation? I would not be totally happy with that position.
I wish to revert to the question of fines. There is provision for a fine of £500 for the illegal sale of drink. We have failed so far to identify what are illegal sales and how they can occur. We have failed equally to identify who "others" are or who the "found ons" would be. Reverting to the fine of £500 which I assume would be on the concert hall or on the board of management — I should like to know who it applies to — I would welcome it if it had general application to every retail licensed holder. Is this an indication of the thinking for the future? If a fine of £500 were to have general application throughout the retail liquor licence trade as a replacement for endorsements and forfeiture of licence I would be happy to accept it.
The offence would be by the management only. This is not setting any precedent. Perhaps we should keep in mind the special and unique situation in which we are introducing this Bill.
Finally, I would ask the Minister if we are to accept that it is impossible to identify "others" or "found ons" and that therefore that category of people will never apply where the concert hall is concerned.
No. There will be no offence for people found on.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."
I am subject to the advice of the Chair, but there is a question that I believe I am entitled to raise on this section because it says that the Act will be cited with all the other Acts between 1833 and 1983 and construed together as one. I raised on Second Stage the fact that this was a rescue package because a licence in relation to the concert hall was becoming important. I outlined circumstances which exist in my own county in which the livelihoods of two families are in jeopardy by virtue of one conviction and one endorsement on their licences and two prosecutions pending, possibly meaning endorsements. If these three endorsements come together the livelihoods of two families are gone. We talk of equality. It is close to the hearts of all of us. Therefore, could I have an assurance from the Minister that a similar rescue packet will be available should the worse happen in those cases?
The points raised by Senator Howard are not confined to his area. They are part and parcel of what I spoke of earlier, but the outmoded, outdated intoxicating liquor laws have——
I hesitate to interrupt the Senator, but this clause is purely a citation clause and points of substance should not arise on it.
I do not argue with your judgment, but Senator Howard referred to the Licensing Acts of 1833 to 1983 being construed together. The Minister should take cognisance of the remarks and points raised here today regarding the matters that have been referred to and promise to bring in blanket legislation to up-date the Intoxicating Liquor Acts as they stand. We would accept that.
Question put and agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.