I would like to get some information from the Minister as to whether or not he intends all sections of the Bill to come into effect simultaneously or whether, as was raised here last week, it might be possible to advance some sections of the Bill?
Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1988: Committee Stage.
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."
Section 12 of the Bill gives the Minister for Tourism and Transport power to make standard regulations for restaurants. These cannot come into operation until the Bill is enacted into law. As soon as the regulations have been made, the Minister for Justice will bring Part II into operation by commencement order. The Minister for Tourism and Transport expects to be in a position to bring the regulations into operation soon after the Bill is enacted. I understand that the regulations are practically 99 per cent ready for the Minister to bring to the House as soon as the Bill is enacted. As a result of requests in the other House — to which I readily agreed because I can see the commonsense of them — I accepted the proposition that we would approve the regulations when the Bill is enacted. Heretofore, when regulations came in there were 21 days in which to annul them. That is the only hold-up and that is part and parcel of the need to get things moving as quickly as we can, bearing in mind remarks made by certain Senators on the last occasion that the law is being broken.
Would the Minister have any indication as to when we may expect this to happen if the Bill passes here tomorrow and if the President signs it?
If all Stages of the Bill are approved here tomorrow and if there are one or two amendments to go back to the Dáil, I would hope to get the agreement of all parties in the Dáil as quickly as possible. Then it is a matter for the President, which normally takes a few days. I hope the Minister for Tourism and Transport will come to the Dáil certainly before the summer recess and he will have to come here also to approve the regulations for the special licences for the restaurants.
Even though he would only be talking about restaurants, would that not hold up the remainder of the Bill in regard to public houses?
No, the remainder of the Bill will come into operation as and when we have the full approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas. The only delay will involve getting the regulations to deal with the requirements for the restaurant licences. That will take a little longer but, in the meantime, the remainder of the Bill will come into operation immediately.
I gave an assurance in the other House which I would like to repeat in this House. If in October or November it is seen that there is a need of further amendments I will be prepared at that stage to bring a special short Bill into the Dáil to try to improve the situation and to try to bring some common sense and reality into our licensing laws. I am not prepared to sit back for another 20, 30 or 40 years before we look again at the licensing laws. I volunteered that assurance in the Dáil and I would like to put it on the record of this House also.
I want to welcome that attitude on the part of the Minister because that is the way to deal with this type of legislation. Only practise will indicate to us how it works on the ground.
Can we take it that copies of the regulations the Minister will make will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas and in the Library so that we can look at them and go over them? I presume they are not ready yet?
In reply to senator Ferris, it is my intention to ensure that every Member of the Oireachtas — Seanad and Dáil — will have a full copy of the regulations before they can be implemented. They can only be implemented after approval by the Seanad and the Dáil. Senators will have to have them and there will be a debate on them. Then, and only then can they be implemented.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Government amendment No. 1:
In page 5, lines 27 and 28, to delete "at midday or in the evening, or at midday and in the evening,".
This is a technical amendment consequential on an amendment to section 14 of the Bill, the effect of which was to remove the afternoon break during which drink could not be supplied with substantial meals in special licence restaurants.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 6, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
In the other House there was a considerable amount of debate on the definition of "waiting area" the floor area of which does not exceed 20 per cent of the dining area of the restaurant. There is a provision in the Bill for the sale of liquor in the dispensing area. Is the Minister satisfied that a waiting area could not, in fact, become a second pub?
I gave every assurance to the other House, which I also want to give to this House — and I am thankful to Senator Manning for giving me an opportunity to do so — that it is my very firm intention to ensure that these waiting areas shall never develop into what we would call pubs. We have been as strict and as tight as we have been to ensure that this does not happen. We went to a lot of trouble, as was our responsibility, to study other areas to see what went wrong with legislation of this type when introduced. We learned from their mistakes and that is why I then decided to recommend to Government — and the Government agreed — that we should restrict the waiting area to 20 per cent of the size of the dining room area and that it should be defined as a waiting area and not a bar area. That is why we changed the definition of the bar area in the earlier part of the legislation. Drink may be ordered there when a meal has been ordered and drink may be served there, but there will not be a bar there. Drink will be there by waiter service.
I am not sure whether this is relevant to this section but the Minister has outlined a point of particular concern to publicans about the definition of a bar within a restaurant which is very questionable. May I ask the Minister — this has been asked by the Licensed Vintners' Association but I do not know whether or not the Minister has been informed of it — if a special licence is to be given to people with a defined area, we are not allowing a publican who is prepared to build or improve his premises to become a special restaurant area to get the same licence? In other words, if a publican decides to improve his premises — and many are now improving their premises enormously — is he allowed to apply for the same licence and get the same benefits as those who are getting a special licence now from Bord Fáilte?
In the instance outlined by Senator Cregan it may not be necessary for the vintner to give up his ordinary licence to do exactly what the Senator says but, in the event of his so doing — and I see no valid reason why he should — he could make an application for a special restaurant licence. I can see no advantage for him in doing so.
I agree with the Minister if that is so, but the special restaurant licence gives the licensee more benefits than a publican has. I have no objection to that if the Minister would agree that the publican is entitled to open for the same hours as a restaurant but the Minister is not saying that.
I may have misunderstood the Senator but I think I see more clearly now what he means, that is, that it is the desire of the vintner to get a restaurant licence. The special restaurant licence may be obtained under very specific regulation and, if a vintner wants to avail of the additional benefits by way of serving drink for an extra hour until 12.30 a.m., he must comply fully with the regulations that will be approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas to qualify for that special restaurant licence and only then can he qualify for that special restaurant licence. Otherwise every vintner in the country could apply for this licence. Representatives of their association in recent times said they see no reason — we all see every reason — why every pub cannot be allowed to serve food until 1.30 a.m.
The Bill will enable restaurants to get special licences at a cost of £3,000 but in fairness — and I am sure the Minister is aware of this — there are excellent pubs, particularly in the Dublin area and also throughout the country, which have great restaurant facilities and have a pub licence also. These are pubs that have been changed to become specialitists in restaurant food. Is the Minister saying that, because he does not have the special restaurant licence, the owner of such a pub is not entitled to have a person on his premises after 11.30 p.m., even at an extra cost?
Is the Senator not aware that the facility which he is talking about is already there and availed of by vintners because, if they wish to serve drink with food up to 12.30 a.m., they can make an application to the court for a restaurant certificate.
But this facility is now being stopped. Can the Minister clarify that? Is the Minister saying that when this Bill comes into operation that facility will not be stopped?
It will not. That facility will continue.
Fair enough.
May I clear a point so that we will not have repetition later on? The freedom of speech is great here but Senator Manning has put down amendments Nos. 28 and 29 which we will be dealing with later on and we are nearly bordering on them.
Maybe we should wait until we reach those.
The point raised by Senator Cregan may be relevant to the other section but he is talking about an extension that can be given to certain publicians who have facilities for dinner dances and late night drinking. A special licence can be obtained for this but this does not apply to the ordinary publican who has a restaurant on his premises in which, say, six people can have a meal. Senator Cregan wants to ensure that, in the defined area of their premises, they can give the kind of service under the special restaurant licence that is included under this section.
I am concerned about the Minister's definition of the waiting area and how that will be operated. First of all he specifies a percentage of the dining space, that only 20 per cent of the dining space can be used for a waiting space. The reality is different from that. There are high class restaurants where the waiting area is greater than 20 per cent. What will happen to those when this legislation is passed? Will they have to carry out alterations to curtail the waiting area? If people go into a restaurant and look at the menu and, while doing so, order a drink they will not be asked by the restaurateur — certainly no tourist would be asked because they would leave immediately — if they are definitely going to have a meal because if not they cannot be served a drink. You can have a drink while looking at the menu but it might happen that when you look at the menu you might not like anything on it and leave. Technically a restaurateur would be breaking the law in that case as the Minister has outlined it.
The practice at the moment is that you go into a restaurant, and are fortunate enough to be able to afford to go into one, you get the menu and order a drink but you might not have a meal there because you might not like what is on the menu, or the price might not be right. Because you had a drink there they could be in trouble. Let us reassure the restaurateurs about the insertion we are talking about here in relation to the waiting area. In a good restaurant a person might often have to wait an hour for a table. Therefore, this area will be a drinking area for people in the process of waiting for a meal and you might enjoy the meal a lot better at the end of it. Let us not be tied down to the parliamentary draftsman's words. I want to ensure that this is operable and from my experience at the moment, limited and all as it is, this would be inoperable.
Senator Ferris has raised a very real point. I have a slightly different situation in mind where a restaurant is established. There might not be a great trade in the restaurant. There is a waiting area and the owner decides that there is a good passing trade — people like to come in after work — and so he provides hamburgers, sausages, and so on, and also serves pints and all other types of drinks in the normal way. In the waiting areas, so defined, is the law being broken in that case? People may well even have their meal at the bar in the waiting area. One of the very common features of summertime in the country is when an outside area, a patio, is open out and people sit outside. This could be very much more than 20 per cent of the actual waiting area. Is the outside area counted as part of the 20 per cent? Again I could see the possibility, especially in populated areas, of a restaurateur availing of what is a very good market among people who would like to have a drink, a small piece of food, maybe outside the hours or whatever. The offer of food could make it more attractive.
I would like clarification from the Minister on what happens when the bar closes at 11.30 p.m. and the customers then move in, as Senator Ferris has said, to a restaurant. Is there a definition of the type of meal they can have and are customers in breach of the law if they have a drink before the meal, irrespective of whether they wish to continue and consume their order? Especially in tourist areas like Galway, this would discriminate very much against a publican. Everybody would leave at 11.30 p.m. and order a meal in a place which could still sell liquor up to 12.30 a.m. What is the situation at 12.30 a.m. if the meal is not finished?
I think that will come up later in the Bill.
I am referring to section 6. I came down from my office to have my say on that. What is the situation on that? If people look at the menu and order steaks and do not wait for the steaks, are they in breach of the law if they drink two rounds of pints in the meantime? If that is the case, it would be a very severe discrimination against a genuine bar licensee who has to close his premises at 11.30 p.m.
I am sure the Senators who have just raised these important points will now readily understand the difficulties I have had in trying to put this legislation together. It is a very complicated, complex, delicate, and unbelievably difficult piece of legislation. What we were trying to cater for from the word "go" was to provide a situation whereby in bona fide restaurants — not hamburger joints, not fish and chippers, not takeaways, nobody wants that, or at least those who want it are not getting it — where bona fide meals are being consumed, people will be entitled to have a drink with their meal. There was a general desire right across the board that that need should be catered for and, in doing that, I availed of the opportunity to try to be as liberal as I could in other ways to help the trade generally. That was the basis from which I started.
I wanted to ensure that restaurants which will now probably be eligible for these special licences will never develop into bars, or into pubs as such. That was something I had to protect against and I did that in the only way I could, that is, by defining "waiting area" and more so by regulation as Senators will see when the regulations come before them for their approval. A waiting area is within the building. It is not on the street, as Senator Manning mentioned. It is a custom and a tradition I enjoy myself. It is nice to sit outside drinking Ballygowan, watching the strollers pass by.
We have had to be very careful to define the waiting area. It is not a bar. It can never be a bar. It is an area where drink may be consumed by people who are there for the legitimate purpose of having a meal. It would be an offence to go there for a drinking session and not have a meal. If it is an offence, it is against the law and that is something that will have to be taken into account when that licence comes up for renewal in the 12 monthly period. The waiting area has been very clearly defined.
In the other House, as Members will probably be aware, there was genuine worry that already the sharkers were moving in greater numbers into Leeson Street, that the waiting area would probably be two floors of the house and the little dining room would be downstairs and overnight we would be given people licences to print their own money because of what would happen then. That is why we decided with full approval and without any vote in the other House, after many days of discussion in great detail on a 20 per cent limit of the dining area where drinks can be consumed, where it will not be a bar, where drink will be brought. I have tried to define clearly what the waiting area is as far as this Bill is concerned.
I will deal now with Senator Ferris's points. There is a full restaurant certificate available for public houses, for vintners who serve full means. They can have their special exemption in the normal way. That is not interfered with in any way in this Bill. There is the limited restaurant certificate. That is provided for again in existing legislation. There can be no fear. This was raised by Senator McEllistrim very forcefully on the morning the Bill was introduced here. I gave him a very clear assurance which I will repeat here. It is nobody's intention that fish and chippers, take-aways or caravans for that matter will be able to serve liquor and call it a substantial meal.
There has always been a problem about and an abuse of what was meant to be a substantial meal in the 1979 legislation. Everybody here knows that, and perhaps most people would have been aware of that abuse over the years at different functions we may have attended. Senator Ross has gone. He was the only one who admitted publicly that he broke the law on every occasion he went into a restaurant. I was wondering whether that meant he did not pay his bill. I do not mean that, of course. I apologise to him. We have to be very careful that the regulations to be made will clearly spell out what a substantial meal is, the type of premises which will qualify for this special licence, a whole lot of very strict requirements, more strict than many will expect and they will come before Senators for their approval.
If I were asked — and it is only an opinion at this stage — how many licences I could see getting under way in the first full year — not even this year, unfortunately, because of the heavy legislative programme of both Houses we may not have the restaurants up and running this year — I would say if there are 100 in the country I will be very surprised. We have to be careful that we do not allow them to become pubs overnight because I do not think that is anybody's intention. We all want to do what we can to encourage the tourist trade. We want to see people enjoying a drink of Guinness or a drink of whatever it is with their meal and doing it without breaking the law.
There should never be a law on our Statute Book making it an offence to drink a bottle of Guinness or a bottle of Heineken with your meal if that is what you desire. That is the way it should be. You can go into any pub in any part of the country, and most pubs are in the food business right now, without any great criticism from the restaurants. Most pubs are doing tremendous food business at present and I think most publicans would agree that, but for the food trade they are doing now, many of them would be feeling the pinch. I am speaking with a little bit of experience because over the past 12 months I have had many meetings with different interests in the liquor business and I hope I have a reasonable knowledge of the difficulties at present. I think I have covered most of the comments.
Obviously the Minister is very much involved and very much up to date on the drink trade. To a person who is involved in the trade the Minister is a breath of fresh air. It is good to hear a person who knows what he is talking about. If I can get a point clarified now we will get through the Bill more quickly. Because of the way consumption of drink is going and the way the drink trade is going generally, over the past two to three years, many publicans have put a lot of money into diversifying their business into the food trade. That has been welcomed generally. It has done no harm to the pub trade. Should we not be considering the idea of giving the same facilities to these people that the special licensed people are now getting? I do not think it is asking too much and I do not think we will be giving away too much. They have spent a lot of money in upgrading their businesses not alone for drink but to provide better facilities for our tourists and that is all the more reason why we should be considering them. I do not think any person should get it openhandedly. Bord Fáilte should recommend that they should get it. If Bord Fáilte recommend that the pub owner is serving substantial meals should he than not be entitled to have the same facility?
I thank Senator Cregan for his contribution. I do not think there is any difference between us on this because, as I understand it — and I am so advised — publicans can get a limited restaurant certificate if they want to which empowers them to serve drink up to 12.30 a.m. They may do that by applying to the courts for it. Under existing legislation — not this Bill — they can do that if they want to. They can make application for that. There are special requirements laid down.
I may be ignorant on this. Is the Minister saying that under that regulation he is given a constant right to serve drink up to 12.30 a.m. by applying for this facilitity?
Drink can only be sold up to 12.30 a.m. if it is being sold with food.
I am not denying that.
There is nothing between us then. If that is the position there is no reason why they cannot have a limited certificate licence. Drink can only be supplied with food.
The publicans have put a lot of money into their businesses particularly in Kinsale where there are excellent food facilities provided by publicans who have diversified from drinking to food but they are not entitled to serve drink up to 12.30 a.m. on a full time basis in the same way as a special licence holder.
I believe they can if they are supplying food but they cannot serve drink up to 12.30 a.m. unless they are supplying food and then they may go to the court and get the limited restaurant certificate licence.
Perhaps I might clear up the problem. In my county, which is a tourist county, we have pub owners who have restaurant licences. They had to go to court and those pubs can stay open until 12.30 a.m. It is difficult to get those licences in the courts but there are a good few of them in my county. I presume a licence is available to any publican who thinks he is serving a sufficiently good meal. He can apply to the courts.
The Minister said this Bill would not interfere with the existing rights of publicans who serve excellent bar food. I welcome that. Senator McEllistrim is assisting in the process of trying to explain. Under another Act publicans with facilities for dancing and dinner dances in clubs, and so on, have the facility to apply for a late night bar. They do it on special occasions, perhaps two or three nights a week. That is for a different purpose.
I am concerned about the legitimate publican who serves a legitimate meal. Can he serve it in the bar up to closing time and after under the special licence which is granted to restaurateurs? Are we into the question of the waiting area? Has it to be in another part of the premises or can the food be consumed in the bar?
It does not apply to the bar at all.
You can have a meal at the bar counter?
What Senator Ferris is saying will not apply. There will be no question of a waiting area in the circumstances the Senator is talking about because that is covered by different legislation. The only time a waiting area is specifically required is when we are talking about special restaurant licences because they are limited. I do not want the limited restaurant licences to develop into full pub licences any more than any body else does.
We do not want publicans who are legitimately involved in providing food to be in difficulty after hours particularly if they are serving proper food in the premises in the way Senator McEllistrim has said it can happen. In other words, the Minister is saying that publicans who want to do this can apply now to the courts outside of this legislation altogether.
Of course they can.
I would like to welcome the way the Minister has responded to make it easier for those of us——
All of whom are experts in the business.
The Minister said a publican can stay open if he is serving food. It has to be more precise than that. If he is serving food to me and to each and every customer, that is so. In fact, if a publican is serving food he might only serve food to 20 people and he may have 32 people in the bar. That is a policing problem, and a very serious one. The first response by the Minister to Senator Manning is a useful one and one we should welcome and recognise which is that the Minister is prepared to look at this law to see how it functions. That is welcome. Everyone in the industry welcomes the introduction of a new measure but it will not be Utopia. It will not be perfection in itself, by any means. The kind of friendly discussion the Minister is inviting now will tease out the problems. The Minister's attitude is the right one. I would like the Minister to keep to the specifics. How does he see it as a simple policing operation for anybody in the trade who wants to be openly in breach of the time limit?
I am being advised to keep to the specifics and I will. I want to be very open and straightforward with Members of Seanad Éireann because this is an area about which we all think we are knowledgeable. I do not think any of us could claim to have full knowledge in this area. For 12 months I have had more meetings than I will ever want to have again with any group on any other piece of legislation, but I felt that was necessary. It is totally non-political. It affects each and every one of us. I approached this with a very simple attitude but full of common sense, and that was: "Look, please help me to make a good law right across the board." I did not want any one vested interest — I ran into difficulty with this — to use their powers of persuasion or put pressure on me to take something from the other interests. Some Senators will know that I took flak for that and I did not care.
I went straight down the middle with each of the sectional interests. They are all entitled to make their living. They are all entitled to protect their investments. In the Dáil I accepted amendments which were good amendments. In fact, I have an amendment down here today which I got on the very last night we finished which I think is an excellent amendment. It means going back to the Dáil and I will do that because it is a worthwhile amendment. I have been very open, as I think we should and must be in areas like this.
With regard to the specifics and how we are going to enforce the special restaurant licences, the regulations, first, will have to be complied with. We will be dealing with those regulations when we come to the sections in the Bill. Those regulations will be very, very strict indeed. They will have to be complied with and they will have to be inspected by Bord Fáilte. I know this cuts across an amendment by Deputy Manning but I can see the value of what he is trying to do. I can see the sense in what he is trying to do and I have problems with it.
I want to see these regulations approved by the Oireachtas and only then going to Bord Fáilte. Bord Fáilte will then see that such a restaurant belonging to Senator Ferris is of such quality and that the types of meal served will fulfil the requirements of a substantial meal. Only then will he be given the certificate and the licence by the court to operate. That will be up for renewal on a yearly basis. He pays £3,000 for the privilege. Many criticised that and said it was far too high. I tried to keep a fair balance. I ran into trouble with the country vintners' associations who wanted me to give them all the money we collected from the license to buy up the old licenses that they have hanging around the country. My instinct is that any moneys I can get must be for the Exchequer and not for the vintners. I do not think any serious-minded person would object to that.
With regard to how these premises will be run, they will be subject to scrutiny by the law. There has to be a cut off time. If the law says drink may not be consumed with food after 12.30 a.m., there will have to be a cut off time. I suggest to people that, instead of starting their meal at 12.20 a.m. they might move it forward and start it at 11.20 p.m. or thereabouts. Otherwise it will be 1.30 a.m. or 2.30 a.m. when they finish. Perhaps in ten or 12 years time when most of us might still be around, there may not be any restriction on the sale of liquor at all. Perhaps we will be able to drink round the clock if we want to. As it stands at the moment, this is not on.
There will be difficulties. The inspection will not be confined to any senior officer. There was a privilege in older legislation but thankfully we have gone beyond those days. If a law officer wants to enforce the law and that law officer is properly and duly trained, he may inspect the premises. At the end of the year when that licence is up for renewal if things have not been run as they should be run, that licence can be objected to. That is about the only way. Nobody would want us to station a member of the Garda Síochána outside the door of the restaurant to monitor it. Nobody wants that.
In any case?
I want to say something about the public houses. We do not want it in public houses either. That is why I have swung the balance and put the onus on persons found on the premises to be about their business somewhere else, rather than having the entire responsibility put on the publican to put them out. That was unfair and it was wrong for me as Minister for Justice to see, as we all saw, many members of the Garda Síochána on duty emptying public houses. at night instead of being on the streets finding criminals. Everybody would agree with me on that also. That comes at a later stage in the Bill.
I understand fully what Senator McGowan is saying. If these special licences are given, they are given under very strict conditions. They will be monitored. They will be observed and, if at the end of the one year period, they are found not to be operated as they should be, that can be objected to in court and the whole thing will come up for very close examination.
I am very happy with the Minister's reply. He has covered most of the points raised in so far as they can be covered. He raised an important question of principle which, perhaps, should have been discussed on Second Stage, that is, the whole question of the policing of this legislation. He said something which would strike a very responsive cord in many people, that is, that basically the job of monitoring this legislation should not be the function of the police at all. It trivialises the role of the police. It marginalises them. It takes up energy which could well be used elsewhere.
I wonder if at some stage down the line, as a question of national policy, we might think of some form of tourist police — I do not even like to use the word "police". In Turkey, where I spent some time recently, I was enormously impressed by the very high standards observed by those engaged in tourism where there were real sanctions which could be imposed on these people by the Department of Tourism, not by the civil police. Again, it is no business of the police and there are sanctions which could be used, obviously not in this part of this Bill, but in some future thinking about the rationalisation of our police force. Perhaps he would consider creating a category of officials who could be specialist, who could be paid out of the tourist industry, out of revenue generated in the tourist industry. This is an idea which we might start thinking about.
I totally agree with Senator Manning. We are talking about 1988. We are talking about a time when crime is rampant, not alone here but throughout the entire world, when there is organised crime to a great degree. I have just come from a meeting of Ministers for Justice in Munich. Drug trafficking is on an upward boom in Europe at present because of the fact that cocaine is fetching twice the number of dollars per ounce as in the United States, so we will be flooded with it.
Are we content to sit back and have our police force emptying public houses at night, calling two or three times to put them out? Are we satisfied to have our police force taking up their time checking tax and insurance on cars? Are we satisfied to have our police force tied down filling out dole forms on Tuesdays and Wednesdays in many parts of the country and issuing dog licences? Is it not about time we had a radical change in what they are meant to do? Is it not about time we took the 400 or 500 of them who are sitting behind desks plodding at typewriters and put in young clerical assistants? If we are serious about protecting our people from the effects of serious internationally organised crime, it is about time to do what we are doing.
It is with this in mind that recently I established a Garda Advisory Committee to advise me on how the Garda can best be organised and what their roles and functions should be in an effort to move fast into the nineties, never mind into the year 2000. If we do not, we will be left so far behind and so many of our people will suffer that by the time we catch up it will be too late.
Let us hope the Minister's views get down among the ranks.
Some of my views which I gave publicly at some recent conferences did not receive the welcome they should have, but that will not stop me from ensuring that they get right down the line. I have no hesitation whatsoever in turning every stone in an effort to protect the community and to ensure that the taxpayers are getting value for moneys being spent.
I welcome most of what the Minister has just said but I also hope that he will reassure the citizens of this country that in his fight against serious crime, after late night extensions, after late night entertainment where drink has been consumed to excess, the gardaí will not be withdrawn completely from these duties and that they will continue to provide protection for innocent citizens. Young people may abuse the law in relation to intoxicating liquor and find themselves behind the wheel of a car which turns into a lethal weapon. If there is no police presence on the ground they will feel they have full freedom to indulge in these excesses. As the Minister is well aware, irrespective of the difficulties there may have been down through the years in implementing the intoxicating liquor laws, there has built up over the years a very strong bond, a deep respect and friendship between publicans and the gardaí. I would not like to see that being in any way interfered with.
There must always be a strong professional relationship between the law enforcers and those whose job it is to observe the law and it should not go beyond that professional relationship.
I was not in any way suggesting anything else.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are related and may be discussed together.
Government amendment No. 2:
In page 6, lines 36 and 37, to delete "is satisfied includinginter alia by annual inspection” and substitute “, having inspected the restaurant, is satisfied”.
I will probably upset Senator Ferris by saying that I support my amendment and I cannot support his. Mine is purely a technical amendment to improve the drafting of subsection (2) of section 8 of the Bill. Under this amendment the requirement that Bord Fáilte must inspect at least once a year will be continued, that is, to ensure that that yearly inspection will be continued.
The Minister's amendment does not upset me at all, technical and all as it might be, because I can see the reason for it. I hope the word "reasonably" will not upset the Minister too much either. Inserting the word "reasonably" before "satisfied" is, perhaps, a country definition. I have no doubt that the Minister's inspectorate will be reasonable. I am anxious to have a certain degree of reasonableness and that it will not be just black and white. It is a question of defining the words "reasonable" and "satisfied". It is in that context that I put it down for the Minister's consideration. I would like to hear his response to that.
I thank Senator Ferris. It is a point that has been made, as the Senator knows well, on different legislation at different times in different places. I am more than satisfied that the insertion of the word "reasonably" in the opening line of subsection (2) of section 8 would not add anything to the sense of the provision as it stands. The board must act reasonably in arriving at their decisions. They have to act reasonably in arriving at their decisions. I am advised very strongly by our law officers, by the Attorney General's office, that the amendment as suggested by Senator Ferris would introduce an element of uncertainty because it might suggest that if the board were not fully satisfied that the requisite standards were maintained, they might still issue a certificate. It is purely on legal advice that I am told it is not necessary. It would not add anything because the board must act reasonably under ordinary law as it is at present.
I accept the Minister's response that there is an obligation on the board to act reasonably. If inserting it in this way would leave a grey area subject to different interpretations as well, that would be against what I was trying to do.
We say that.
Have the board started down the road of inviting applicants?
Not yet. The board have not as yet been given the guidelines which must be fulfilled in the consideration of applications. Those guidelines must come before both Houses of the Oireachtas for approval, hopefully before the end of this month before the board may then invite applications.
The reason I asked about this is that I would have thought that we could have started down the road in anticipation of some legislation so that the board might invite applicants and start scrutinising applicants. It would have been nice to have some of the work done so that the licences would be in operation this year and they could start business this year. It looks as if even with the best will in the world it could be a little later.
I understand the common sense in what Senator Loughrey is saying. The problem is that the board have not got the authority to do that yet. Until such time as they have that authority they cannot do it.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 6, lines 37 to 41, to delete all words after "that" in line 37 down to and including "force," in line 41.
The effect of this amendment would be to remove paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of section 8, lines 37 to 41. It excludes everything down as far as "force" but allows the word "restaurant" to remain. The subsection would read differently. It is removing subsection (a). I would like the Minister's response to that possibility.
The effect of this amendment would be that the decision as to whether the restaurant concerned was of an acceptable standard would be left totally to Bord Fáilte without any reference to regulations made by the Minister for Tourism and Transport under section 12. Obviously this is not acceptable. It is clearly necessary not merely that minimum standards should be prescribed but that every interested party should be in a position to know what these standards are. This objective would best be met by regulations. Under this amendment it would be a matter for the board to decide the standards to be met in every case.
I have no doubt that Bord Fáilte would establish their own minimum standards. It would obviously be in everybody's interests, including in particular the interests of the restaurant owners, that the standards to be complied with should be available in statutory regulations approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas.
I am satisfied especially in relation to the previous discussion we had and the procedure the Minister will adopt regarding the regulations which will be laid down that this would be the wrong way to go about it. It is better to do it the other way, to lay down the regulations and then let Bord Fáilte fall into line. I was worried about the bureaucracy. Obviously, I can see the need for a certain element of control by way of legislation and regulations to set a guideline for Bord Fáilte. That would mean a more uniform distribution of the regulations throughout the country and you would not have particular counties, which are considered to be tourist counties, being treated more favourably than inland counties which are dependent on a different kind of tourist. It is better to have it done properly.
Is the Minister happy, or does he see a change although he admits that there may be a need for change in the next 12 months? Are we right in saying that Bord Fáilte are the right people? Is it necessary to set up a particular body the Minister thinks would be better equipped because, as Senator Ferris said, there are areas where we have tourism but there are other areas where we need to get something moving? Are we right in saying that over the past ten years Bord Fáilte have done the job and they are the right people to do it, that a board set up by a Government, irrespective of who the Government are, are the right people to be managing this?
Since the points raised by Senator Cregan arise under the next amendment I shall take them both together.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Could we dispose of this amendment first. Is the amendment being withdrawn?
Yes. We can discuss the principle under the section.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are related and amendment No. 11 is consequential. Perhaps we can discuss the three of them together.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 7, subsection (5), lines 18 and 19, to delete "and of the reasons therefor" and substitute ", of the reasons therefor and his right of appeal to the Ombudsman against such refusal".
Some of the points have been made by Senator Cregan already. Basically, the problem is that, as we look at the regulations there, we can see the criteria which would enable a restaurant to get a licence. They are fairly broad but they are open to interpretation. There is the possibility of a difference of opinion and people who may very well be seen by some people as competent managers of staff may seem like "Fawlty Towers" to other people and there may be variations.
That is not the basic point. The basic point is a sense of fairness and the suitability of Bord Fáilte to carry out this operation. Bord Fáilte's principal and only role is to promote and develop tourism. The board have been saddled with other jobs over the years which basically should have been done by somebody else. For example, why should Bord Fáilte be saddled with the job of grading hotels? In France, for example, one of the countries with the best developed sense of tourism, the State or a State agency does not have the job of grading hotels. These are graded by the Michelin Guide, Egon Ronay, by various other people and, to a certain extent, the grading is often carried out by the willingness of customers to pay the prices in particular hotels.
We have entrusted that task to Bord Fáilte. I know that, in the question of grading of hotels, there is frequently a major difference of opinion as to whether or not a particular hotel is entitled to the grading it has got. People can go to a Grade A hotel on a bad day and feel that there is no justification for another hotel, for reasons which can be a bit mechanical almost, has been rated downwards and yet the service can often be better than a Grade A hotel. The point I am making is that Bord Fáilte should not be saddled with this job. I am not certain that Bord Fáilte, who have gone through a great period of demoralisation — they are getting their act back together again in the last while — should be asked to do something for which they do not have any particular competence and which is not part of their main brief. The end result may very well be that there will be dissatisfaction about the granting of licences, that the standard may not be seen to be uniform across the country. There will be people who will have a genuine sense of grievance and it is the absence of any openness or court of appeal I am worried about.
I know this was discussed at great length in the other House and I know there is no easy answer to it. Some people would favour the District Court. In our amendment I put down the possibility of these cases being referred to the Ombudsman. I have to say at the outset that I am not happy that that is the answer either. After the recent controversy about the Ombudsman I see it as one possibility where somebody who feels he or she has a genuine grievance could take the case to have an impartial adjudication on it. This may very well mean that the Ombudsman might need extra staff. He might need extra teeth that he has not got already although I suppose the Ombudsman would be able to get outside independent advice on these matters.
I will not push this amendment very far because I am not sure that the Ombudsman is the answer. The legislation is weakened by the absence of any sort of appeal mechanism against the decisions of Bord Fáilte. I am heartened to a certain extent that the Minister has said that he will review this legislation at an early stage to see if there is satisfaction, to see if there is a sense of grievance around the country, that people feel they have been hard done by or that certain areas are more favoured than others. We are used to dealing with officials and bureaucrats and they may well develop a sense where the officials concerned may, in an effort to protect themselves, adopt standards which are unnecessarily high or, indeed, they could even go the other way and lower the standards so that they will not incur the ire of those who are turned down.
This is really the problem. It was raised in the other House and it was not resolved there. The amendment in my name goes part of the way to addressing the problem. It is not, I believe, the ideal answer but I would like a little further thought on this section.
Bord Fáilte are a fairly competent body to make a decision on whether a restaurant should qualify for a liquor licence. I am sure that certain criteria will be laid down by Bord Fáilte, possibly in conjunction with the Minister for Tourism and Transport. Bord Fáilte have vast experience of grading hotels and restaurants and they are a very competent body. I heard Senator Manning say that a district justice——
This was one of the proposals in the other House.
I do not think a district justice would be a suitable person to make a decision on whether restaurants are suitable to have a liquor licence made available to them. That is what I understood the Senator to say. Bord Fáilte are more competent.
I agree with the Senator that he probably would not be.
Bord Fáilte are the most competent body to make a judgment on whether a restaurant is suitable. I am sure that certain criteria will have to be laid down by the Minister for Tourism and Transport and Bord Fáilte for restaurants to qualify for a licence.
Might I intervene very briefly at this stage to clarify something? It is not Bord Fáilte. It is all those people here who tell Bord Fáilte what we want by way of standards in restaurants. It is not being left to Bord Fáilte. They are an excellent, competent body. There is no doubt about that in anybody's mind. Like any State organisation they have had their good times and their bad times. I believe they are going through a good time now. I believe there is motivation there that we have not seen in Bord Fáilte for a long time and I hope it zooms in all our interests.
Each and every one of us will lay down the standards when they are brought in here by the Minister for Tourism and Transport in a very short time. They are the standards Bord Fáilte will be told to implement and they have got the professional expertise to see to it that they are implemented. I fully appreciate the points made by Senator Manning in his amendments Nos, 5, 6 and 11 when he asks: if there is a refusal what happens? I do not think Senator Manning would want me to go into all the reasons why Bord Fáilte have the certain degree of professionalism they have, bearing in mind their duties in the grading of restaurants, in grant-aiding restaurants and hotels to upgrade their cooking facilities, their kitchens, their diningrooms and so on. They are very much involved in that on a daily basis. That is part and parcel of their function as and from day one.
I accept what the Minister has said. I would be concerned in view of the slimming down of the Bord Fáilte operation and the loss of staff in recent times that they should have the manpower available to process the large numbers of requests coming in. That is probably a matter that can be addressed when it happens, but I am concerned.
I understand that somebody somewhere along the line said the other day there were a few civil servants available here and there who had not been slotted into jobs. Maybe we might find someone there. I would take a few myself if I could get them. I did not realise that my own personal office staff complement was down compared to that of my predecessors. I must do something about that one of these days.
We lay down the regulations, Bord Fáilte give a certificate and then the court gives the licence. The thrust of Senator Manning's amendment is that there should be a court of appeal in the event of that licence not being granted. We had a long discussion on this matter and there were a number of amendments in the other House from all parties. In the end we came to a solution which is as near perfect as one can get. Section 8 (5), which was added to the original Bill states:
If, in any case, the Board refuses to grant a Bord Fáilte Certificate it shall as soon as may be, by notice in writing, inform the person who applied for the Certificate of the refusal and of the reasons therefor.
He has an opportunity to put his house in order. If he is told, for instance, that his kitchen lacks (a), (b) or (c), his toilet facilities are not up to standard, his waiting area is too big, his dining area is not as it should be, his cloakrooms are not as they might be, he can put his house in order and he will stand a chance.
Will he not have a common law right if there is an injustice?
Of course. It is in an effort to be helpful that we have asked the board to tell him exactly where things are going wrong and to spare him expense. I, too, resent deeply officialdom and bureaucrats coming to any part of the country and wham, bam, slam you are in, you are out, good luck to you, you can pack your bag and go away just because he is in a hurry to go off and catch up on a golf game in some other part of the country. I detest that as much as anybody. He now has to explain to the intending applicant who is prepared to pay a fee of £3,000 why he may not qualify and what he has to do to qualify.
We went a little further than that to meet genuine cases made. I refer to section 13 (1) which states:
Where it appears to the Board that a restaurant in respect of which a Bord Fáilte Certificate is in force no longer complies with the standards specified in section 8 or, as the case may be, under section 12, the Board shall give or send by post to the holder thereof a notice—
(a) stating that it appears to the Board as aforesaid,
(b) requiring the holder to take specified steps within a specified period in order to bring the restaurant into compliance with the standards aforesaid, and
(c) informing the holder that, if the requirements in the notice are not complied with, the Board will cancel the Certificate.
That means that if somebody holding a licence gets a little slipshod, a little lazy, he will be told to put his house in order if he wants to keep his licence. That gives him every chance to meet what is required. After all, this is his way of life. I deliberately mentioned these two amendments which I accepted from the other side of the House — I think it was from Deputy Barrett — because they are good and necessary. Above all, I feel that the ordinary citizen is entitled to know and must be told when he does not meet what is required and must not be left guessing by some little fellow with a rolled umbrella and a briefcase who is in too much of a hurry to bid him anything other than the time of day because he has to get back to Baggot Street Bridge to do whatever is required of him next.
I am satisfied that the Minister has answered all the questions. I was just a little concerned about any suggestion that perhaps Bord Fáilte were not the competent body. I have a great deal of sympathy with what Senator Manning said. A lot of the hotel and restaurant guides that are used throughout Europe, with the honourable exception of the Michelin Guide, are commercially operated and in many cases the establishments listed in those guides pay for the privilege or in some way make a monetary reward to the publications concerned. I say the Michelin Guide is an honourable exception. In this country Bord Fáilte could never be accused of being involved in any sort of monetary association with the establishments concerned. Perhaps it is outside the Minister's brief but, as the whole thrust of this section of the Bill is related to tourism and restaurant certificates, are there any plans at all within his Department to bring under the umbrella of legislation or regulation the several hundred unlicensed bed and breakfast establishments? Senator Cregan talked about the difficulties publicans may have in coming up against unfair trading competition from licensed restaurants. It is a valid point that every area is now under regulation but this one area is not, which means that anybody can put a sign outside his door, set up in bed and breakfast and there is a considerable loss to the Exchequer as a result.
If the Senator would, at his convenience, make appropriate suggestions to the powers that be that he knew a suitable person who could do an excellent job as Minister for Tourism, I would be glad to deal then with the points that he raises.
They do not call the Minister "Stonewall" for nothing.
An appeal procedure might look fine in theory but the people who intend to get involved in building a new restaurant or equipping a building to qualify for a restaurant licence must be aware that the appeal procedure will not result in their going on a limbo-like waiting list, as in the case of an appeal to An Bord Pleanála. I do not wish to knock the Senator who conscientiously put down the amendment, but it would be better to rub out an application which had failed and have another run at it. The same would apply as in the case of a planning application. I see that as the best procedure.
You are up, you are running, you are fast, you know exactly what is required of you, you know what you must do. If you are not up to standard, they will tell you what is wrong. You then put your house in order and you are in and once you are in you behave yourself.
I am very satisfied with the reply given by the Minister and the legislation probably does go as far as we can go to meet the problem. Will there be provision for a speedy re-application by somebody who has been turned down on specifics? Somebody might be told that he needs a new waiter here or he needs to have a smaller waiting area. That person might start off in good faith at the beginning of the season, discover that he is in trouble, spend four weeks and a lot of money getting it to rights and I would like to be assured that he would not find himself in the limbo situation the last speaker referred to.
I am grateful to Senator Manning for raising that question because it was not raised specifically in the other House. I want to be able to put on record in the Official Report that somebody who has to make some little improvement to qualify for the licence will have his reapplication dealt with immediately. There will be no delay. It will be dealt within a matter of a week or two from the time everything is put in order and the application is resubmitted.
I thank the Minister for that clarification and assurance. We need to know that there will be sufficient manpower available in the relevant section in Bord Fáilte to ensure that this can be done speedily. If the system is seen to break down because there are not enough personnel, no matter what assurances we get from the Minister today the person who is waiting in Donegal or Kerry for the go ahead may well find himself getting letters back and TDs and Senators will start getting involved, trying to put pressure on to see that this person gets a fair hearing. That is the key to making this work.
The point is well taken. I understand the need to have sufficient staff available because if we do not then everything gets bogged down. I accept that.
As regards the application for a special certificate, a case has been put to me very strongly by the licensed vintners regarding a person running a highly recommended Bord Fáilte-approved guesthouse. He might have, for instance, ten, 12, 18 or 20 rooms and would have to have excellent restaurant and kitchen facilities to be recommended by Bord Fáilte for bed and breakfast. What is the position if that person wishes to apply for a special licence to serve evening meals? In order to do so it would be necessary to comply with the standards laid down by Bord Fáilte. I know the Minister will say I am taking a different line and that the Bill deals with particular restaurants which cannot serve a drink at this time. When the law is implemented such a person who puts in the facilities needed for a proper restaurant in his guesthouse will have the legal right to ask for the same licence as is relevant to a restaurant on the outskirts of the city or in any town? I see no reason why an argument cannot be made by such people. In Killarney, Tralee, Athlone, Ballinasloe, Bray or Dún Laoghaire, a person living up the road from any public house or any certified licensed restaurant could claim that by paying £3,000 he is legally entitled to the same facility.
I refer the Senator to Part II of the Bill, section 6, line 25:
"Restaurant" means any premises which are structurally adapted and used for the purpose of supplying substantial meals to the public for consumption on the premises at midday or in the evening, and in which any other business carried on is ancillary and subsidiary to the provision of such meals.
Basically that means these special licences are applicable to bona fide restaurants only, where the main business is supplying meals to the public. Anything else is ancillary or subsidary to that. Ordinary bed and breakfast establishments will certainly not qualify, but if it can be shown, bearing in mind the regulations which this House will be asked to approve reasonably shortly, that their main business is supplying food to the public and that they meet the other requirements, they may, in the ordinary sense, make an application to Bord Fáilte for a certificate. They would be entitled to do that, but there is no question whatsoever of anybody with a B and B sign getting a licence to sell booze.
In theory the Minister is right and I am not denying that, I have been in bed and breakfasts in the Killarney area which resemble a mini-hotel, places where there are excellent restaurant facilities and excellent kitchen facilities. I am involved in kitchen equipment and food and I know what I am talking about. Legally, people have the right facilities. If the Minister is saying it must be a bona fide restaurant which only provides food, how can we make that argument to a person who is already providing drink and is now providing food facilities? In the vast majority of cases in Kinsale the pubs have changed over to restaurants, but they still serve drink. We cannot object to them. We cannot tell them they are not supposed to be serving drink because they are serving food. That contradicts the whole argument.
A person may have a facility of 200 or 300 square feet which is excellent for morning breakfasts. There is no reason at all why he cannot say to his guests that he is now providing an evening meal, an open restaurant for anybody to come in and sit down, even though he is giving room facilities as well. Is it not the case that a person can pay £3,000 for this licence and have a pub in between two genuine public houses?
There is no way Senator Cregan is going to convert a bed and breakfast establishment into a public house. We will not allow him to do that. Breakfast is of no relevance whatsoever in terms of the requirement to provide substantial meals. It does not come into it at all.
If you had an evening meal, a bed and no breakfast, would you get a public licence?
No. It has to be a public restaurant. I appreciate Senator Cregan's point that there are some very fine bed and breakfast guesthouses around Killarney. They are almost as expensive as hotels. I presume they are all paying their taxes. These guesthouses do not give a public service in providing substantial meals. The point the Senator is making will give food for thought when the regulations to be approved come here in a couple of weeks. These regulations will have to be approved before they go to Bord Fáilte, outlining the conditions which will have to be met. In my opinion the answer is that they will not qualify because they do not provide a public service in providing substantial meals generally. They provide a bed and breakfast service. In some instances evening meals are provided but in a very limited form. Bearing in mind the regulations which are there, if through their own enterprise they can expand their business and then build up from there, they can take the opportunity to see if they qualify for a special restaurant licence for the purpose of selling drink with meals to the public at large, other than those who come and stay for the purpose of sleeping overnight.
Bord Fáilte-recommended bed and breakfast houses would have an advantage. People who are already approved by Bord Fáilte could have an advantage over others who would wish to take that line. If they have the required facilities and apply for a licence, they cannot be disallowed. We must ensure that every second guesthouse that is Bord Fáilte-approved for bed and breakfast will not take advantage of this. The Minister for Tourism and Transport should be informed before the regulations are brought before us.
We look forward to a good discussion on the regulations. I accept the point the Senator is making. The restaurants which qualify for consideration for the special restaurant licences are those that are in the business of supplying substantial meals.
I agree in theory but in practice that will not work.
There is no argument between Senator Cregan and me in this matter. The Bord Fáilte inspectorate responsible for inspecting bed and breakfasts guesthouses should not be the same people who will be inspecting restaurants. Dealing with high quality restaurants which apply for special licences to sell drink with high quality meals is a different matter. We must be on our guard against the kind of practice Senator Cregan describes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 6 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 7 and 12 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 7, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following subsection:
"(6) In the event of a refusal by the Board, of any application for a Bord Fáilte Certificate to grant the said Certificate, an appeal against that decision by the Board shall lie at the suit of the applicant to the District Court.".
The Minister and I in our discussion on the previous section both agreed on a person's civil rights in the event of his application being rejected. This amendment is to provide for the right of an applicant, in the event of a refusal by the board of an application for a Bord Fáilte certificate to appeal to the District Court.
There is, of course, a precedent for this in existing legislation. I mentioned the Abbatoirs Act, which was the most recent legislation in which the Government insisted on having a court procedure for an appeal. I believe there should have been some other means of appeal. If a butcher was refused a licence to have part of his premises as an abbatoir and had to go to court to appeal, it could ruin his business. The same could apply here. Therefore, I am anxous to ensure that a person's legal rights are protected.
There is also a precedent set in the Betting Act, 1931, under the Minister's own jurisdiction, where one can appeal to the District Court against the decision of a superintendent of the Garda Síochána to refuse an applicant a certificate of personal fitness or a certificate of suitability of premises. It is quite usual in legislation to have such a clause written in. It allows applicants some rights in law to have an over-riding view if they are of the opinion that they have complied with all the regulations. In some cases there may be an agreement between the applicant and Bord Fáilte that, if certain improvements are carried out, they will qualify. If an applicant genuinely believes that he has complied in every way with the regulations and still fails to get a licence, I want to ensure that there is a procedure available to which he can resort. I mentioned the District Court so that the application would not have to go to a higher and more expensive court. For that reason, in this amendment and in the other, I mention specifically the District Court and I want to enshrine in legislation that right which is already enshrined in previous legislation.
This is the same area we discussed on other amendments. While it might appear useful to have the right of appeal to the courts, it would involve court proceedings, legal structures, and witnesses from Bord Fáilte giving explanations as to why they had to decline to grant or cancel a licence. I would see it as heading for a jungle. We are trying to co-operate with the Minister and the Department in streamlining this Bill and I would not see this as a helpful amendment.
I note that these amendments do not appear to relate to an appeal on legal grounds to the court but rather seem to envisage that there should be an appeal to the court in relation to a finding by Bord Fáilte as to whether or not the restaurant in question complied with the requisite standards. Provisions of this kind would probably have the effect that there would be an appeal in every case, as Senator McGowan said, against a refusal by the board to grant a certificate or its decision to cancel a certificate when already granted. This would mean the court would have to become an inspecting body in such cases so as to decide whether the restaurant in question was well equipped, providing a high standard of catering, etc. and, in effect, would mean that the court would supersede the functions of Bord Fáilte. This would not be an appropriate function for the court and would clearly be a matter that should be left for a decision by Bord Fáilte on the basis of the professional expertise available to them.
Under section 8, where Bord Fáilte refuse to grant a certificate, they must inform the applicant of the reasons for such refusal. We had a discussion earlier on this with Senator Ferris and I think the point was taken. I should point out also that under section 13 the holder of a certificate for a restaurant which no longer complies with the standards required in the regulations gets a second change to bring his premises into compliance with the regulations. Thus, where it appears to Bord Fáilte that a restaurant's standards have fallen to a point where it no longer complies with the regulations, the inspector must notify the holder of the certificate as to what steps must be taken within a specified period to bring his premises into compliance with the regulations. It is only when those steps have not been taken in the specified time that the certificate is cancelled.
I should add that the applicant for as well as a holder of a special restaurant licence can continue to avail of any recourse to the court which is available under the existing law in relation to the activities or decisions of the board. Senator Ferris has already acknowledged this and I thank him for it. It is important that there is recourse to the courts where a decision is not arrived at properly, or an improper decision is arrived at through negligence or whatever. There is then the right of appeal to the court and that is as it should be. That is something we all cherish.
Having regard to the safeguards in the provisions which were suggested to me from the other side of the Dáil, I have more than adequately catered for the genuine concern which Senator Ferris had in this instance.
When Senator Manning was suggesting another procedure — he was suggesting the Ombudsman and then realised that that might not be the correct method to follow — I suggested that this common law right was available, which the Minister immediately acceded to. Therefore, I presumed that the Minister would immediately accept my amendments because, if he reads the arguments made by one of his Cabinet colleagues on other legislation he will see that the very same procedure was used in the granting of abattoir licences. The Minister insisted on writing in a section which gave the right of appeal to a court when the licence was refused. I argue that a man's reputation is at stake if he has to go to court to get his rights. I was looking for something between the official, the bureaucrat the Minister dislikes so much, the man in a hurry, the man that comes down on us for all sorts of reasons——
I have to live with them on a daily basis.
The Minister was very vocal today in his analysis of some of their functions and roles. I am extremely concerned, all things being equal, that genuine applicants who have achieved all their standards should have some common law rights as well, at all times. Is the Minister confirming that they have?
Yes.
The Minister is concerned that we should write it in so that everybody can use it. They would want to be out of their cotton picking minds to use it if they failed to reach the standards because they would be subjecting themselves to critical public analysis in court. A Bord Fáilte official or any other witness may come in and say: "I could not give them a licence because the kitchen was filthy, the food preparation area was unclean, or whatever." There is no question of my asking an applicant to appeal to a court in areas like that but I want to ensure that there is a right to do it. A Minister previously insisted that that right should be given in another Act. I wanted the granting authority, who in that case were the local authority to have an interim procedure. Eventually the Minister and I reached a compromise period of 21 days within which the applicant had the right of appeal to the licensing authority. In this instance, I am anxious to write in — as have been previously written into other legislation — ordinary rights to appeal against the decision of officials, or bureaucrats, or inspectors from Bord Fáilte or whoever.
We hope all applications will be dealt with impartially and fairly and that all applicants achieving the standards will get their rights and will get their special licence. I hope that is how it will operate on the ground. If the Minister confirms that this right is written into ordinary common law, that is all right. I am sounding a warning. I hope all applicants who achieve the standards set down by regulation will get the special licence. I hope that is the only criterion and that numbers and all the other things will not come into it, for example: "we cannot give you a special licence because Mary So-and-So has one down the road" and all the other reasons Senator Cregan referred to.
I agree wholeheartedly with the thrust of what Senator Ferris is trying to say. We are all trying to protect innocent people from becoming victims of a bureaucratic system. It is our intention to ensure that that does not happen. The principle of the Bill is that we leave the facts to Bord Fáilte as the professionals. We define through Bord Fáilte what these facts must be, what the conditions and requirements are, and we leave them to deal with the facts. In the event of negligence on the part of Bord Fáilte, or undue delay, or anything in any way which denies the applicant the licence, he has the full right of recourse to the law to protect himself.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 8, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 7, subsection (1) (b), lines 28 to 30, to delete "or such other amount as may stand specified for the time being in regulations made by the Minister,".
I wonder what the Minister's response is to that. I will not press this amendment very much, but I am anxious to have a clear statement on the Minister's view on this section.
I thank Senator Ferris for the way he proposed his amendment. The effect of the amendment would be that it would require a new Act of Parliament to amend the fee for a special restaurant licence. Clearly there are many considerations influencing the size of this fee, including, for example, the depreciation in money values with the passage of time. Because of this, it would be inappropriate that a procedure like an Act of the Oireachtas should be necessary to amend the fee. Any such change would be best made by ministerial regulation. I would point out that under section 24 of the Bill, any such regulations will require a resolution by each House of the Oireachtas approving them in draft before they come into effect. Senator Ferris will probably agree that I am fairly safeguarding the fee here because we would not want anybody at any stage to come in and shift it from £3,000 to £6,000 or £9,000 or £12,000 overnight. That would not be good at all.
Amendment No. 9 has been grouped with amendment No. 8.
As regards amendment No. 9, I should say that any regulation made under section 9 varying the amount of the fee for a special restaurant licence will be made by the Minister for Justice as the Minister with primary responsibility for intoxicating liquor legislation. However, the Minister for Tourism and Transport also has a particular interest in special restaurant licences since one of the main objectives of these licences is to help meet the demand from tourists for the supply of a full range of drinks with substantial meals in good quality restaurants. It is appropriate, therefore, that the Minister for Tourism and Transport should be consulted in relation to any variation in the amount of the fee, and amendment No. 9 is proposed accordingly. May I go further and say that in matters like this. Senators can rest assured that the Government have a big say in what the fee is?
One of the reasons I put down this amendment——
He is riding to instructions at the end of the day.
I am surprised that the Minister for Finance is not also written into the amendment because he usually insists that he is consulted. I have a chequered history on this type of amendment. I felt it was appropriate to put it down for discussion. This Government have been using every method to ensure that they can get funding from various sources. I have been trying to index link charges, licences, everything, to try to ensure that the Exchequer would not use every method of funding as another tax procedure. That is why I want to have it excluded here. If the Minister excludes it, he will have to come back to the Oireachtas. I was waiting for the Minister to tell me that, if there was an increase in the fees outlined in this section, after consultation with the Minister for Tourism and Transport, maybe at the request of the Minister for Finance, he would have to bring it back to the House of the Oireachtas anyway without new legislation. This section gives the Minister the power to do that without new legislation.
It is by regulation and even then it says that the Minister of the day, in consultation with some other Minister for some other different reason — these things are decided informally by the Government, particularly when regulations have to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas.
It depends on the voting strength at any time in the Houses of the Oireachtas. It depends on the amount of influence the Oireachtas might have on the decision of the Government. Any sector who, for the first time, have to pay something are worried out of their lives in case this will be raised every year for other purposes outside the reason for it here. That is my only worry.
The Minister thinks I should just sit down but I am genuinely concerned and all the legislation I have spoken on over the past six months in this area indicates that continuing concern. I must respect the Minister's right to be able to make changes so long as he brings that right back down to democracy, back here for discussion. I will be happy enough with that. I will argue with it. If the Minister raises this to £4,000 next year, I will tell him next year what he said today, that is, if both of us are still here and the Cathaoirleach hopes that we will be.
We will be here, but I hope our roles will not be reversed.
Unless the Minister goes into the restaurant business instead.
Senator Ferris has raised a point about the charges. Would the Minister not be prepared to consider the idea that charges should be indexed? Senator Ferris gives the impression that prices are jumping above the price that should be charged and that sometimes prices are being increased substantially when they should not be. I do not disagree with that. For instance commercial rates are being charged above the consumer indexed rate. The amendment recognises that a consumer indexed rate should be allowed. I would have no objection if there was a consumer indexed rate across the board on everything. Perhaps the Minister would consider broadening that.
I hope the Senator will not take offence when I say thank God it is outside the scope of this Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 9:
In page 7, subsection (1) (b), line 30, after "Minister", to insert "after consultation with the Minister for Tourism and Transport".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 9, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Question proposed: "That section 10 stand part of the Bill."
I have an observation and two questions for the Minister. I think we are back to the point the Minister made very forcefully and eloquently earlier about the role of the Garda Síochána in this legislation and where there was an objection by them to the renewal of the special licence. I am concerned about this because I believe we could have a variation acrosss the country in the use of this section of the Bill.
In some areas the Garda may feel they are too busy to scrutinise the operation of this legislation in the way in which it may need to be scrutinised if it is to be effective. In other parts of the country, members of the Garda may feel very strongly about it. In the past it was common knowledge that in certain parts of the country there was a great variation in the severity and the degree with which the drunken driving laws were applied. The Minister may not have been aware of that and the Department may not agree it happened, but it was common knowledge that in certain parts of the country the zeal of particular officers ensured that there was a much more stringent application than in other areas. There may have been operational reasons also. The superintendent in a particular area may feel more strongly than one somewhere else and objections may be more numerous.
Arising from this section are two questions. Is it open to other groups to object to the renewal of a licence? Is it open to those, for example, who may be in competition or those who may be discommoded in some way and may have reason to feel that the spirit or the letter of the law is not being observed? Has a person the right to go to court at that stage to object to the licence, or is it solely the Garda who have this right? Is there any procedure available to people who feel, for whatever reason, that the bona fide provisions are not being fully carried out? Is there any mechanism open to these people to make their point?
First, I should say to Senator Manning that in relation to the enforcement of any law, it is the statutory function of the Garda Commissioner to see that it is done fairly and squarely across the board. Nevertheless I will bring the Senator's views to his attention because we would have equal views on this. I remember when I was Minister for Justice in 1977 and 1978 I saw some statistics from Garda divisions on people about to be charged for drunken driving. In some divisions they were very high and in others they were very low and obviously there was something wrong. Another time I asked for information on the operation of illegal slot machines — not all of them in licensed premises, but in other areas — and the statistics from some divisions were ridiculously low and other were very high. There is the human element. I will bring the Senator's views to the attention of the Garda Commissioner because a guiding principle which I had in trying to bring this package of licensing liquor changes together was to try to have uniformity as far as possible. If you have uniformity in legislation, you make it a little easier for those who are trying to enforce it. If we have certain provisions to allow for special occasions at seaside resorts it is practically impossible to enforce them and, after a while, the law is held in total disrepute. The liquor law, as it stands now, is not held in the high repute we would like it to be held.
With regard to those who may object, I understand that any inhabitant of any parish or health authority within whose functional area the restaurant is situated may object. That is there as a result of an amendment by Deputy Seán Barrett being accepted in the other House. That covers that one.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 11 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 8, before section 12, to insert the following new section:
"12.—The Minister for Tourism may make regulations prescribing the inspection and certification of restaurants for the purpose of the granting or the renewal by the Board of a Bord Fáilte Certificate.".
The effect of this would be to remove the existing section 12 of the Bill. One of the reasons we are concerned about the section as it is written is that it is very specific in the areas in which the Minister for Tourism and Transport can lay down regulations for Bord Fáilte. We want it to be within the jurisdiction of the Minister to make the regulations prescribing the inspection and certification of restaurants for the purposes of the granting or the renewal by the board of the certificate. If any other area which concerned the Minister or Bord Fáilte after the enactment of this Bill was not included in the list of requirements in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e), the Minister would have to bring in new legislation whereas accepting the wording we have suggested would allow for the inclusion of other such areas that may not necessarily be specified here. That is why we were anxious for a debate on this section.
May we recommend that paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) be accepted and that we do not accept "any other area". Can this be implemented? Could we say the maximum waiting area in such restaurants is 20 per cent; standards to be complied with in such restaurants in relation to the maximum accommodation in such restaurants are such an amount; and 20 per cent is a waiting area? Is it possible that we could insert something like that to cover the point Senator Ferris has made?
The amendment by Senator Ferris would necessitate the deletion of the existing section 12 and, as it stands, section 12 is clearly a necessary provision because it enables standards to be prescribed for restaurants which will qualify for the new special licence. That has to be there. The wording of the amendment is very general and it is not clear whether it would entail the making of any such regulations.
Section 12, as it stands, provides that the consent of the Minister for Justice will be required for regulations fixing standards for the premises in question. This is clearly necessary since all these provisions relating to special restaurant licences are made within the scope of the Intoxicating Liquor Bill for which the Minister for Justice of the day has responsibility to the Oireachtas. I do not see the need for the amendment. We need regulations and they are there. We expressed the opinion earlier on in the course of the debate that the Minister for Justice would have to be consulted and give his approval to these regulations and that these regulations would come before the Seanad for approval before they would be implemented.
May I ask the Minister if these regulations, as they are being proposed, currently apply to the licensed trade and also who will be responsible for the implementation of the regulation under "hygiene"?
These regulations apply to the applicants for these new licences and do not apply to the licenced trade, unless they want to get into that area?
Quite so; these involve new licences.
Exactly.
I am happy with the requirement that the Department should be consulted by the Minister for Tourism and Transport I take it then that the regulations will apply within the specified areas only and if anything else turns up at the end of 12 months outside of this area the Minister will have a problem.
I think I get the Senator's point. If regulations have to be amended at the end of the 12 months period, they must come before the House for approval.
These are fine, but something else may happen.
If any additional regulations are required, they can only be put into operation, having been approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas.
Will all restaurants be up for reapproval every 12 months or will they be examined only on an ad hoc basis?
It will be on an annual basis.
Each and every one of them?
Very definitely.
Will they be checked on an annual basis?
Most certainly.
Each and every one of them?
Most certainly.
There are a substantial number of public houses that do not, for whatever reason, adhere to the standards that are being proposed here for restaurants. I wonder if the regulations as proposed here apply to an existing public house? Also who will be responsible for backing up and implementing the hygiene aspect of this? Will it be Bord Fáilte? Will it be the Minister for Tourism and Transport or will it be the health authorities?
I do not want to interrupt the House but I would like to get amendment No. 10 out of the way. We are on the section now.
In fairness to Senator Mooney, I should have answered his question earlier on. Sanitary problems in public houses are matters for the health authorities. Health authorities will not be involved here. It is Bord Fáilte who will be involved here because regulations will be laid down very clearly and, if they are not complied with, the licence falls. They will not be issued with a licence if they are not up to standard but, having qualified on the first occasion, if the standard is not maintained at the proper level the licence will fall.
The health authority will have no input.
It is Bord Fáilte who will decide.
I congratulate the Minister on this Bill. I believe it is a very good Bill. He has tried to be fair to everybody and he has succeeded in being fair. One cannot please everybody with new legislation but I think the vast majority of the people I represent are happy with the Bill. The waiting area is an area about which Senators have been concerned. I am happy enough that, if it is policed and controlled it will not cause any great problems. I do not know if I am wandering here.
No, you are not wandering. However, if I could dispose of amendment No. 10 I would let you back in on the section.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 12.
Question proposed: "That section 12 stand part of the Bill."
There is great concern in the trade about people being found on licensed premises even though they are not being served any drink. Would the Minister have another look at this area and operate on the basis of pubs in the UK where, when it comes to closing time, they put a towel over the taps. They serve no more drink but people are allowed to sit in comfort and peace and the staff are not out rapping on tables and one thing and another. Of course I would have no sympathy for anybody found serving drink after the time, and I do not think anybody else would. It seems that half an hour is an improvement on ten minutes but it is still very hard to clear out a large house in 30 minutes.
I think we have gone a bit past that.
There is one area I would like to mention.
It is like giving a girl a diamond ring, Senator. The bigger the diamond the better one she wants next time out.
There is an area where we take a lot of stick and that is serving people under age. I agree with the section of the Bill which brings some control into this area. I ask the Minister if he, and through him the Government, would consider seriously making some funds available, perhaps from the national lottery, to educate young people in our schools and areas like that and show them the evil of under-age drinking. I ask the Minister to pursue that if it all possible and he would certainly have the full support of the licensed trade. Certainly, we in the licensed trade do not want to supply drink to under-age people and it would be a easier if they were educated at a younger age in the schools. I welcome the Bill. It is a very fair Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 13.
Amendment Nos. 11 and 12 not moved.
Section 13 agreed to.
SECTION 14.
Question proposed: "That section 14 stand part of the Bill."
On section 14, I seek clarification from the Minister on "prohibited hours in premises having special restaurant licences", a point made also by Senator Bohan. Does this mean, in effect, that if I am having a meal in a restaurant when it comes to 12.30 a.m. I am entitled to finish what is on the table but I cannot buy any more drink? If I had bought two or three pints before 12.30 a.m. and I had only started my meal——
Two things could happen — the Senator would either be caught for drunken driving on the way home or he would be breaking the law by drinking booze after hours.
I want clarification on a very important part of the legislation. We must get absolute clarity on this. There is no provision for drinking up time. Therefore, is a person obliged to have finished drinking all alcohol at 12.30 a.m.? Is that absolutely the law?
That is absolutely the law.
Then it will not work. All drink apart from one?
That is the question and that is the answer.
We have no provision for a drinking up period?
Senator Manning has made a very valid point. I know the Minister is caught. If we are going to be broad-minded — and we are doing exceptionally well here — we must be realistic about this. If a person gets his first course at 11.45 p.m., it is possible——
(Interruptions.)
It does happen. It is possible that a person could have a drink on the table after 12.30 a.m. A person may get a drink at 12.10 a.m. We may feel that he needs two pints instead of one. I know that because I serve them. He thinks he cannot get enough because closing time is coming. What is the answer to this? Further on in the Bill we deal with it from a pub's point of view. We want to try to create a contended atmospheres in our restaurants. We are now saying that, come 12.30 a.m. nothing should be on the table. I agree with that. I am not saying that it should be, but this is a fact of life. We are saying that a person is entitled to stay on the premises and is entitled to have a meal an hour after any pub closes but, come 12.30 a.m. he is supposed to get out. We will have big trouble. The Minister has been very broad-minded about this and I congratulate him. Never has he been so broadminded before on the legal side of things.
In reply to Senator Cregan there has to be a cut-off point. If the time comes in two, five or ten years time where there is a cut-off point, I will not be offended personally. I would like to see a stage when a person can go in for a drink at any time of the night and he can drink in moderation. It seems to me he should have his drink if he wants it. As it is now, drink is being served up to 12.30 a.m. with at meal. I am not a great frequenter of restaurants, even here in Dublin, but most people have their meals finished by 12.30 a.m. Perhaps at weekends it might be somewhat different. As it is, there must be a cut-off point because, if not, there would be the usual stock-piling and the whole thing would mushroom along the way. I could make the same argument the Senator is making as to why on a Sunday, say, there is no drinking after 11 o'clock. I could say: "Why have we no drinking after 11 p.m. on a Sunday night?" You could make the same argument anytime. That cut-off point is there too. When he spoke on Second Stage Senator Ross felt that we should look forward to the time when we would not have a cut-off point. The restaurateurs are not anxious for Jatenight drinking. They did not make representations to me that they should be allowed to sell drink to be consumed on their premises after 12.30 a.m.
I am going from that point. I understand the people in this area eat out on Christmas Day in restaurants. Down the country we stay at home. I will be bringing up the club issues and I will be looking at it from a pub point of view. I shall always remember a time when I had a business, a hot food take-away or fish and chip business and there was a club opposite me. On Good Friday and on Christmas Day outside that club the number of people who were looking for a drink was unbelieveable. I am talking about pubs now. I do not want as a publican to be open on Christmas Day or Good Friday. Giving these benefits to restaurants on Christmas Day and on Good Friday could create a situation where people who normally would not go to these places on any other day would go on those days to get drink which they could not get in pubs. Even the clubs are open. I do not understand why everybody is not getting the same facility. Why are we now allowing a restaurant to open on Christmas Day — I do not say it should not — and on Good Friday? Where is the logic in saying that restaurants in, say, Kinsale, and probably Cork are open on Good Friday and every pub is closed. The regulations are there for clubs to open on Good Friday.
Good Friday is a closed day.
At the moment?
Yes.
Excuse me, I am afraid——
I think you may be informing the Minister of something he would not like to be informed of.
For clarification purposes under section 26 (1) (d), "at any time on Christmas Day or on Good Friday". So Good Friday is out. That is definite.
But what about the clubs?
The Senator might give me the names of the clubs, if he feels this is needed.
I have to clarify this matter. Under the laws we were speaking about earlier as regards particular licences you can apply for, clubs can have facilities to apply for a certain number of licences per year, for opening hours or for extra hours as a club. In actual fact one of these is that they can apply to serve drink on Good Friday. They do so. This happens throughout the country.
On exemption. They can apply to the court for an exemption.
They apply for a licence and then they charge a fee to go into the club. Drink is served and everybody who wants to can sign his name in the club. If he does not sign, it is up to the law to ensure that he signs.
The Senator will appreciate that the area of exemptions and extensions requires immediate and indepth examination with a view to putting it back on the rails. I will devote my time and effort to do so. We will be talking later on about the curse and scourge of under-age drinking. If we are serious about doing something worthwhile here, we better turn our minds to that area.
I would like to ask the Minister if disco restaurants, the night clubs in Leeson Street, will have to close at 12.30 a.m. or have they a special licence?
Very briefly to go back to the point raised before Senator Ferris's or Senator Cregan's points on the question of the dead stop at 12.30 a.m. — like the Minister I do not have all that much concern for people who find themselves in restaurants but I am worried because, right throughout the Minister's speech and right throughout this debate, there has been one big concern on all sides, that the law should not be brought into disrepute. It was accepted that certain sections of the existing laws were more honoured in the breach than in the observance and that it was necessary to have credible laws that did apply.
I have a great worry that, if we insist on the 12.30 a.m. close down, the law simply will not be observed. You will find people going into restaurants at, say, 12.20 a.m. ordering a meal and knowing that they can order, say, a half-bottle of whiskey or three or four pints, they may do that. The drink is on the table and the law is being broken. I do not know what the answer is. I would not like to see raids on restaurants at 12.30 a.m. to see if the tables were clear of drink. It may well be that there is some way around this, some accommodation that would get us out of that bind. Perhaps, after consultation on Report Stage, we may have some amendment to propose to the Minister on this.
Senator Manning has just expressed the problems I have with this section. We want to make sure that this new legislation which is fairly controversial and has been finely-balanced between the different sectors can be operated. Senator Manning and I have agreed that there are many subsections in this section that will be inoperable. There is no doubt that they will bring the law into disrepute. One of them is "permitting the consumption on the premises of" drink which could have been ordered, bought or even paid for before closing time but would be part of the meal. It says here, "any intoxicating liquor," so I take it that could be a half-bottle of wine which was bought an hour before that. It might not be sufficiently chilled and could be left and at 12.35 a.m. you could be pouring the last glasses and you are technically in breach of the law.
If the Minister says that the Garda Síochána will not be standing on duty outside the restaurants, he is putting a tremendous emphasis on the responsibility of restaurateurs to say to people: "You must finish your drink before 12.30." We have to presume these are continental tourists. Some Irish people might also be involved in Dublin in particular. They all talk about these "nice places", even on Christmas Day or Good Friday. I am concerned that subsection (3) of section 14 will be inoperable. I have a feeling that it will be inoperable. It is unreasonable to expect people who are serving to insist that something that is part of the meal must be finished, whereas you can finish the rest of the meal at 1 o'clock or 1.15 a.m. when, in fact, wine might be considered to be a necessary part of the meal all the time.
The other thing is "to sell or expose for sale". This could be bottles on the shelves and may not necessarily be sold but, given the fact that they are up there, how can you say: "They are up there but they are not for sale". Is that exposing them for sale? There are two paragraphs that I am extremely worried about. Certainly, on Report Stage, apart from all the other subsections written in here about various days and various times, including Christmas Day and Good Friday, I have worries about paragraphs (a) and (c).
With regard to section 14 (1) (a), "sell or expose for sale", we are talking about licensed restaurants and this is the law as it applies at the present time. You are not allowed to expose alcohol for sale. You are supposed to serve it at the table. You are not supposed to have a great display. You are supposed to bring drink and serve it. When you bring your menu, you let people select what they want and bring it from the wine cellar.
Obviously, the Minister has not frequented some of these restaurants.
I am not a late night person at all. I have to be up very early in the mornings.
Most restaurants display wines in the restaurant. They are visible. They have them on a rack in the restaurant.
It is "expose for sale" during the prohibited hours that matters. If the Senator wants to consider an amendment for Report Stage, we will give him every opportunity. In fairness, I want to say that restaurateurs do not want it. They have not asked for it. They feel there is no need for it. This is after a whole series of consultations. Secondly, the amount of business that the bona fide restaurant does after midnight by way of serving meals is not significant. They have no interest in that sort of thing. I am talking about the restaurant that qualifies for this special licence. They are not interested in keeping a full staff on at 12 o'clock at night on the chance that somebody will come in, probably having had more than enough to drink at that hour of the night, to order a substantial meal.
I do not want to labour this point but there is a genuine problem here which could perhaps, be overcome reasonably easily. I believe that the words "expose for sale" are redundant. I believe that the rule will not be observed. Why have it there if it is not going to be observed, especially in restaurants where they have the wine on a shelf? It is visible. It is exposed for sale. Almost all restaurants that serve spirits will have the bottle exposed with the measure beneath it. Again, if people are ordering "Paddy" they want to see that they are getting "Paddy" and not some inferior brand. So, I think that that clause could be excised on Report Stage.
Secondly, the Minister might think again about some nominal drinking up period here. We will be putting forward an amendment to this effect. It could be ten minutes or 15 minutes but something which would allow people to order drinks up to 12.30 a.m. and then to have to gulp them down. Clearly, if people are allowed order up to 12.30 a.m. they will order up to 12.30 a.m. and it is unreasonable to expect them to have everything gulped down within one minute of getting it. Some sort of drinking up time, maybe 15 minutes or so, is absolutely necessary.
You stop them selling drink at 12 o'clock and give them half an hour drinking up time? That is one way of doing it. I think that 12.30 in the morning is more than time enough and we have to draw the shutters down sometime, somewhere. I have spoken to restaurateurs who are running very high quality restaurants in this city and they have no interest in anybody coming in at 11 o'clock or 11.30 p.m. It is no good if they come at that hour and it is only costing the owners money. They do legitimate business and if there is to be no drink on the table at 12.30 a.m. it causes them no problems. The arguments that are being made by Senators Manning and Ferris are equally applicable to whatever time of the night you stop serving drink because you will have the person coming in on the night of a bull show, the night of a horse show, the night of a spring show. He will come in from somewhere to a restaurant and be "elephants," in his cups, and he will want a substantial meal because he will want more booze. You will have to draw the line somewhere.
The Minister has made a fair point and I can see that the restaurateurs would agree with what he is saying about 12.30 a.m. but to give half an hour drinking up time the same as in the pubs could be another way of handling it. It would be unfair because we have people coming in for three months of the year whom we need in the country very urgently, certainly from a business point of view. The restaurateurs have made the point that after 11.30 p.m. they do not want to see anybody coming in. The reason is that we see too many people with too much drink looking for a substantial meal. If you are able to say to them that you are not giving them any more drink after 12.30 a.m., after a short period of time these people would not be visiting these places.
Talking from my own experience — and I have visited restaurants in many parts of the country over the years — the tourists, the people we are catering for, will not be in any restaurant after 10.30 p.m. They are first in; they are waiting for the restaurants to open.
What about from Kerry and Galway.
They are not tourists. Everybody here knows this to be true in regard to the legitimate tourists, whether they are Europeans or Americans and more particularly the Americans. I visited the Great Southern in Killarney last Saturday week to attend a business function. There were several Americans there and when the 10 o'clock meal was over these people were interested in going to bed because they were golfing in Ballybunion the following morning at 7.30 a.m. Let us be realistic about it.
I have to join in the Minister's comments on all of this. The only experience we have at the moment in regard to the drinking up time is in relation to public houses. The only experience we have where you have no drinking up time is where there is an extension and that law is working but it is being abused and flouted. I welcome the Minister's train of thought. Perhaps he might be considering having a drinking up period by reducing the hours of the restaurant back from 12.30 a.m. I would not necessarily agree with what Senator Cregan was saying. I agree that most of the tourists we are aiming this provision at would be out of restaurants by 10 p.m. or 10.30 p.m. Even as things stand in this country at the moment, you cannot get a meal in most restaurants after 9.30 p.m. or 10 o'clock. Therefore, I assume that, when these new restaurants are up and running, the tourist will be out of them early enough. I would ask, perhaps, in the context of not having the law abused, that we make sure that there is no outlet for the law to be abused. The Minister might consider having a drinking up period in restaurants, if necessary, putting it back to 12 o'clock or 12.15 a.m. I support the Minister's thinking on those lines.
The Minister has offered to give an amendment.
I will be brief in bringing this to a conclusion today. I will be putting down two amendments on this. Perhaps the Minister could think about them overnight and they could be taken up on Report Stage.
I will, but I would not wish to be unfair to Senator Manning. He would have to work very hard to convince me.
I will be putting down these amendments with Senator Manning and I can assure you that we will not be unreasonable. We will be doing this from what we consider is the experience on the ground. I am not a bit worried about Americans who come in buses and are shepherded around the country and must be here, there and everywhere. These package people are not the kind of people these special restaurateurs will be catering for. We are talking about continental tourists in particular who are used to this kind of facility. We are not providing any right for people from Europe that they do not already enjoy. We want to emphasise that, if there is a law that prohibits the sale of drink with a meal in a special restaurant at 12.30 a.m. and it is part of the meal, it would be unacceptable and physically impossible to have the drink consumed within minutes of being seved as part of the meal. That is all we are saying. We feel there should be some little leeway.
I would like to ask the Minister if he could confidently say that the regulations will be so drafted that they will prevent those who want to drink, whether they are in a hotel, a bar or a restaurant and the drinking time is finished, from easily going into a club or being guided into a club. A club has a very wide connotation and this will be pretty difficult. Life will be very difficult for all of us if regulations are not specific and clear in this area and clubs are brought in under some provision of the law.
Senator McGowan has put his finger on the key to the whole thing. If we had uniformity in our drinking laws right across the board there would be no problems. Where we have one section penalised for not closing at one time, another for some reason being given a half an hour extra, and another being given an extra half hour, whether it is drinking up or drinking down time, and somebody getting an exemption on Good Friday, are we not eventually getting ourselves into a chaotic situation?
I have spoken to many people involved in the trade at different levels. They, too, are mainly family people who would like to be able to say that after 10 o'clock, 12 o'clock, or whatever time it is, there will be no drink for anybody, across the board. They can close the door at 12 o'clock. The customers cannot get drink anywhere else and therefore they do not lose trade. The competition for trade is so keen now that, if one breaks the law, the other breaks it, and so on. I have heard Deputies and Senators say that the gardaí were very severe. We should try to keep a clear time for closing right across the board. That is why we have taken some decisions to tighten up in the clubs. Perhaps there is room for more tightening up. It would not be in order to go into the details of it right now, but we should try to keep uniformity in mind as best we can. If we keep that in mind we will be doing a great day's work.
I agree with the Minister's remarks on the half hour drinking up time for the restaurants. I know he only promised to have a look at it. He has stifled discussion for today.
No.
(Interruptions.)
I do not mean that. I withdraw that. Will the Minister tell me if with the special restaurant licences you can have a dance licence?
No, you cannot have a dance licence with the special restaurant licence. The special restaurant licence is primarily for the purpose of supplying drink with substantial meals. You can dance all the night through without any booze if you want to.
Can you get a dance licence, in any circumstances to run a dance on the same premises as the special restaurant licence operates?
Dance licences are separate matters altogether. They are not tied in with this legislation, I do not think the Senator will find the phrase used in any part of this Bill.
That is what concerns me. When it is not there it is not prohibited; nor, probably, is it allowed at the same time.
When we come to the section of the Bill in which the Senator has a specific interest where dancing would be included, we will have plenty of time to debate it. Before the Senator arrived I said that I would be having a very serious look at exemptions, extensions, clubs etc. Members are aware that we have had something like 46,000 special exemptions for late night disco-ing in 12 months alone for week-ending. It is primarily youngsters who are going there. From my own limited personal knowledge of what goes on, I think 99 per cent of them should be closed down.
I am very glad to hear the Minister say disco-ing. I am totally in favour of live music, creating jobs and keeping people employed at home. I am glad to hear that he is not including live bands in it. I represent those people who earn their living by the sweat of their brow entertaining people on the stage. As a former musician I represent them here and I strongly oppose any inclusion of a dance licence with these very special restaurant licences. They are a very good idea. That is the only way that a certain category of people, who have the exploitation of this very good idea and very progressive legislation put forward by the Minister and his Department——
May I just clarify the point for the Senator? Section 9 (2) states:
Upon the grant of a special restaurant licence under this section, any licence, and any existing restaurant certificate, held or granted under the Acts, in respect of the restaurant to which the special restaurant licence relates, shall cease to have effect, and no other such licence or restaurant certificate may be granted in respect of those premises while the special restaurant licence is in force.
That clearly satisfies the Senator's point in his favour.
For instance, say, in the case of No. 6 O'Connell Street the basement had a special restaurant licence and a different person owned it, and the ground and upper floors had a dance hall licence, would a special restaurant licence be granted in the one building for the same address, No. 6 O'Connell Street?
No.
Definitely not? Even if two different people owned the two different parts of the one building?
No, and we have precedents to quote for that.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 15.
Question proposed: "That section 15 stand part of the Bill."
With regard to the fine not exceeding £500, is there any increase in the fine where the person is charged with a second offence?
I should explain to the Senator that it is also a mandatory endorsement there.
In other words, the first time offender receives a fine not exceeding £500 — it can be £100 or £50 — but he gets an endorsement and the second time around he gets another endorsement. Are we saying that after three endorsements he is in trouble?
The licence falls.
It is relevant to the same argument which goes on regarding endorsements at this time.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
In accordance with the Order of Business agreed by the House this morning we now move to item No. 1.