We want clarification about the fine. I asked the Minister was it a once-off fine of £500, and whether it could not be increased for a second offence because of the endorsement. Am I right in saying that, if there is a third endorsement, a transfer is allowed in respect of this special restaurant licence, rather than the ordinary liquor licence? In other words, this licence could not be transferred from one person to another without clarification or without agreement with Bord Fáilte and the Courts.
Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1988: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That section 15 stand part of the Bill."
As well as a fine the mandatory provisions of the Intoxicating Liquor Act will apply to any conviction for the contravention under the terms of a special restaurant licence. Under the mandatory endorsement system, the first conviction so recorded on a licence continues so recorded for a period of two years; the second conviction so recorded continues for four years from date of conviction; and in the case of a third and every subsequent conviction so recorded on such licence, it continues so recorded for a period of six years from the date of conviction. Three live endorsements mean that the licence is automatically forfeited.
Regarding the question of whether or not that can be transferred to another person, the Intoxicating Liquor Act provides that on a bona fide sale of a liquor licence in the premises to which is attached, the court should direct that any existing endorsement shall cease to be recorded on the licence. Where a licence is transferred otherwise than on a bona fide sale, the first conviction of the new licence holder is not endorsed on the licence. The reliefs are available where a licence held by a nominee of a company is transferred by the company to another nominee. These aspects of the law relating to endorsement of licences are complex and could not be adequately dealt with within the scope of the present Bill.
I understood that special licences were non-transferable, and that you would not be allowed sell off the licence.
They are transferable. There is no special provision in the Bill about the non-transferability of a licence. If the Senator has a restaurant and decides to sell his restaurant, he sells it as a going concern and the licence is there.
To transfer this special restaurant licence from one person to another there must be agreement. Bord Fáilte and the courts must not object. Is that correct? In other words the person could not just transfer?
That point arises when the licence comes up for renewal in the following September. The sale and transfer could take place in between.
We did say with these licences that for the first year we could be talking about 100 or 120 premises throughout the country. The Minister said there are speciality areas.
I did, yes.
Could a person who had a specialist licence, or a special restaurant licence, sell off this licence to a person who was not a specialist in the business that he was going into? This could create a situation where a premises was being sold to a person who would not have the same facilities or the same knowledge as the person who already had the licence.
I readily accept the concern of the Senator. I can see that he is making a very valid point. That danger is there. It is unlikely that somebody who knows nothing about a particular business would invest heavily in a business where the initial licence fee of £3,000 would only be a very small percentage of the total cost of the whole operation. It is very unlikely that somebody would go into a business unless he had a qualified person to run that business for him. Even if that were so, that licence would come up for renewal the following September. The Bord Fáilte certificate would then be required. The conditions as laid down in the regulations would have to be met.
This is an interesting point raised by Senator Cregan. My interpretation of it is that the special restaurant licence is attached to the premises, whereas a pub licence is granted to the individual. Perhaps the Minister would correct me? This issue is fundamental.
The Senator is right in the sense that a licence is attached both to the premises and to the person; it is part and parcel. There is a question of the suitability of the person and the suitability of the premises. The licence covers both. This is one of the most complicated areas that we have been dealing with in a long, long time.
The Minister answered my question when answering Senator McGowan. The licence is not like a full public house licence where you can transfer it and sell the licence to any other part of the city. It is attached to the premises and cannot be transferred.
This is the difference.
The fact of the matter is that there are very few liquor licences now being transferred to any other premises except in places subject to a CPO or being knocked down and the licence goes for sale elsewhere. It goes for ordinary sale and one gets a particular price for it. It depends on what area it is in. The licence stays with the premises. The vast majority of licences are always with the one premises. Let us be realistic about that. There is a point where you can transfer, I do not deny that, but this you cannot transfer. That is where I got confused.
No.
You could have a restaurant that would cost in the region of £40,000 including the equipment. There is £3,000 for the licence. This person, after a period of nine months, cannot say "I wish to sell to another person for £40,000," He has a licence for £3,000. You could say: "I bought my premises as a publican and the most important part of that premises is the licence that was in that premises in that area at that time". That is the point I want to make. I want to be fair to everybody here. After nine months this person can sell it to Michael Murphy, which he does. Now Michael Murphy has a premises which cost £40,000. We will say he gave Jimmy McCarthy £60,000 for it, so Jimmy makes £20,000. Michael now has a licence which cost £60,000 in a particular area but the pub around the corner will cost £200,000. All I want is to be fair.
May I try to explain the position to the Senator? I am Michael Murphy in this sense and you are Senator Cregan and you have a beautiful restaurant at your figure of £30,000. You provided a first-class high quality establishment which qualifies for the special liquor licence which you get for the additional sum of £3,000 which was 10 per cent or 5 per cent of the total cost. I would say the percentage would be even less than that by the time you had a site bought, the building prepared and everything paid for, the kitchen, and so on. If you want to sell that, and if you find somebody like me prepared to give you 50 per cent on top of what you provided for, I think you are exceptionally lucky. I could do exactly as you have done for the same amount of money and have the same facility, probably better designed because my taste might be somewhat better than yours, for the same amount of money and therefore, you would have no problem.
The Minister said he would be very strict. Now he is saying quite the opposite. He is saying he can do better than I can do because he might have a better idea than mine. He is admitting that it will be quite loose, quite easy. I am not saying that it should not be, but I do not want to discourage anybody else who may put so much into their businesses. Many people have put hundreds of thousands of pounds into their businesses. Now a person around the corner can set up for £50,000 or £60,000. We want to be quite careful about. Can we get clarification? Is there agreement between all of us that Bord Fáilte should be very strict? That is the point.
I am disappointed because the Minister and Senator Cregan are now buying and selling from one another. Has the Minister forgotten about the restaurant he gave me yesterday? He is now buying Senator Cregan's one. Could I just revert back to a previous section? We are giving the guidelines to Bord Fáilte. We set the terms which will be the absolute minimum they can adhere to. If they have less than that, they will not get a licence. If and when anybody gets this special licence and if they want to sell the premises in the meantime, if there is a complaint they will be subject to their licence being revoked even before it is due for renewal.
Exactly.
That is how I read it. It is not a permanent thing. It can be revoked at any time. The power of cancellation of this special licence is there if the standards drop, no matter what the premises are. Even if a person is selling out for economic reasons, the purchaser will know that he has to achieve the same standard as before. If the standards have dropped he is likely to lose the licence. That is my reading of it.
That is my reading of it, too.
I am sorry. My restaurant is still on the market.
If Senator Cregan has a pub in the main street, and Larry Murphy has a restaurant in Canal Stret or Baggot Street, there is no way that he can transfer the restaurant licence to the premises next door in the main street? That is actually the difference, if I am interpreting it right.
There is no way that can be done.
That bears out the point I am trying to make in another way. A person can set up a restaurant, provided Bord Fáilte say it is OK, for £3,000, plus what he has to pay to set up the restaurant, no matter where the pub is. In other words, if there is a pub in Baggot Street and the person next door decides to set up a restaurant, he can do so provided he puts the necessary equipment into it. He can be in competition then with the pub. That is the point. In actual fact, a person can say: "I am in the Educational Building Society and it is not going too well so I am going to open up a restaurant". He can do that for £3,000.
No. I will try to help the Senator. The licence is only obtainable when the restaurant is in existence and when that restaurant meets the standard regulations laid down by this House. It is only then that he can apply for the licence. Our regulations, which we will give Bord Fáilte, will be so strict and so watertight — and that is up to each one of us here — that we will not have a mushroom growth overnight of restaurants of the type Senator Cregan envisages and wants to avoid.
How long has a restaurant to be trading before it can get a restaurant licence? If a person opens a restaurant who has never been in the restaurant business before, how long does it take?
If a restaurant premises opens today and if its primary purpose is to supply food of such a quality as will meet the standards laid down by Bord Fáilte in the regulations which we now are going to give them to comply with, the owners will apply for a certificate to Bord Fáilte. On receipt of same they will go to the court and be given their licence for a 12 month period. At the end of that period, they will be inspected to see that they have complied, and are complying, with those regulations in relation to the question of renewal of the licence for the following year.
If a restaurant opens up for a year and is not complying with the regulations, nothing could happen until the end of that year. Bord Fáilte would not have had any experience of this restaurant previously because it had not been trading as a restaurant——
When the application is made by the restaurateur Bord Fáilte will send their competent staff to see what the position is on the ground. Having had that inspection carried out, they will then decide whether or not the premises comply with the requirements. If they do so, they will issue the licence to sell drink with meals.
They can carry on the restaurant business in the meantime?
They can carry on the restaurant as a restaurant serving food.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 16.
Question proposed: "That section 16 stand part of the Bill."
This is a requirement that the restaurant shall not contain a bar. Could the Minister give a definition of what a "bar" is? The normal definition is a place where you can go up and sit at the counter and look for a pint and have a drink. I can see nothing wrong with an actual counter in a restaurant to which the waiter goes, gets a drink and brings it back to the table. I do not know what a "bar" is. Could I have a definition of a "bar"?
In an effort to help I will read from the definition of a "bar" as in Part I of the Bill:
"bar" means any open bar or any part of a licensed premises exclusively or mainly used for the sale and consumption of intoxicating liquor and shall include any counter or barrier across which drink is or can be served to the public.
That is the legal definition of a bar. We have already dealt with a waiting area in an earlier section. I had to strive very carefully — and God knows it was not easy — to see to it that a waiting area is not a bar. A waiting area is exactly a waiting area where drinks may be partaken of while persons who are legitimately waiting for a meal may sit in company with their friends and have a couple of drinks. It will not be a bar as such.
I appreciate Senator Ferris' concern here. In Northrn Ireland they brought in legislation like that and in a very short time the whole concept — the concept we are trying to introduce here — was totally exploited. There was a colossal growth of a new type of bar overnight and it was out of control in the shortest possible time. Instead of having licensed vintners selling drink in the normal public house style, they had restaurants selling drink in the normal public house style. They had a free-for-all which went out of control up there. That is the experience from which we tried to learn in an effort to give what we call special restaurant licences, the primary purpose of which is to allow ordinary people to have ordinary drinks with their meal when they are out for a night.
I can understand the Minister's worry. Anybody who says to me that you can set up in the drink trade today is not allowing for the way you have to serve it under regulations from the breweries. Facilities have to be provided to ensure that the drink is served at the proper temperature. That happens today although many people may be unaware of it. It is a fact of life.
Did the Senator ever hear of having a half and a half?
The only way you can give a half and a half now is to heat the glass. I do not see Bord Fáilte getting on top of it if a similar situation to that which occurred in Northern Ireland were to arise here. The Minister has put a lot of thought into and emphasis on the fact that these are special restaurant licences — specialist areas. In theory that is excellent, but when this becomes law a person who is not a specialist can use this in his own right.
Would the Senator help me, please, by telling me what he is saying? Is he suggesting that there will be full bar facilities in the waiting area?
Anyone who tells me that there will not be is suffering from delusions, with all respect to the Minister. I serve a lot of drink. You have to have bar facilities to serve drink today. You have to be able to pull from a tap. If I want a pint of our local product, Murphy's, or a pint of some other product, the taps have to be there. You must have the facility. If the person who is drinking does not see the tap he wants to know what he is getting. You, I and everyone will want to know if we are getting the right drink, because we are paying enough for it. It is liquid gold now.
There is a big difference in Murphy's. You would know it was Murphy's.
You must have some facility in front of the person. You must have equipment there. You must have taps. There are many lagers now.
I appreciate that. Let me assure the Senator that there is no intention whatsoever to provide bar facilities in the waiting area. If we are talking about a reputable restaurant — which is the only type of restaurant that will qualify for the special licence — we must accept and assume that we are getting what we are paying for, and probably paying well over the odds for. Otherwise, we can take our custom somewhere else on the next occasion.
I appreciate what the Minister is saying, but the fact is that the breweries will insist on special facilities being provided to serve the drink.
The breweries may be in a position to dictate to the vintners, but the breweries cannot ever dictate to the Houses of the Oireachtas in the enactment of legislation. I am not being smart when I say that. Senator Cregan.
Maybe I could help Senator Cregan here. It is not necessary to have a bar in a waiting area. Most restaurants at present — and I use quite a few restaurants — are selling drink and have been for a number of years. They have what would be called a backroom, or an area away from the waiting area and the restaurant where I imagine they would instal those taps. They do not necessarily have to be out front. I hope this is what this Bill is all about. You might as well hand out full liquor licences to every restaurant if you were to allow a bar in a waiting area. It certainly is not necessary. I do not see that the brewers will be in a position to dictate to the restaurant owners as to where they can put anything. They may do so to some extent with public houses, but I could not see it happening in this case.
I can understand now the Minister's predictions about the number of special licences and why they will be so low. Some of the best restaurants in the country at the moment have a bar in their waiting area.
They are breaking the law.
They have an ordinary licence to sell drink in the afternoon. They are not breaking the law. They can only break the law after closing time.
They will not want this licence if they have the full licence.
The vast majority of existing good restaurants will not qualify for these special licences.
If they have a full licence they will not want these licences at all. There has to be a clear distinction between what we call the "full licence" and the special licence. The easiest thing in the world would be for all of us to destroy totally the monopoly which is held by the vintners' trade if we were reckless and had no regard whatsoever for the investment they made. We could say: "Let us wipe the slate clean; let us do away with the monopoly; let us do away with everything; let there be a pub at every crossroads." That would be the easiest way to do it. We are not doing that.
So the Minister is saying that the existing licensed restaurants which can sell drink are not involved in this at all?
They do not have to bother with this.
Up to what time can they serve drink?
With the restaurant certificate they may sell up to 12.30 a.m.
They may want to apply for this special restaurant licence to enable them to serve a meal with drink beyond the existing closing time. The vast majority of existing restaurants cannot qualify for this licence because of the existing structure of their premises where the bars are in or close to the waiting area. They are in the waiting area. Some of the finest restaurants I have seen in this country run by continental people will not qualify under this legislation for a special licence.
They do not need to qualify. They are already licensed. All they need to do to supplement their existing liquor licence is to apply for a special licence to serve food.
I accept that. They need to apply for the special licence but, because of the structure of their premises now, they will not qualify. They will be excluded, first of all, on the waiting area. Many more of them have drink visibly displayed in the dining area. I do not know if it is for sale or over a counter.
All they need is a restaurant certificate, and no more. Under existing law they do not have to bother with this. If they have a restaurant certificate they can do what the Senator wants them to do.
Up to 12.30 a.m. they can serve drink?
No. They have to serve a substantial meal.
Without the special restaurant licence?
Without this special licence.
I am delighted to hear the assurance the Minister has given about this section of the Bill this morning. He also gave that assurance in his Second Stage speech. The Minister devoted much of his Second Stage speech to this aspect of it. It would destroy the licensed trade as we know it if any element of a bar was to be brought in. The door has to be closed on that straight away.
We open it up to hell and the wide kingdom, or we try to keep it as it is now. That is what I am trying to do. I am sorry for interrupting Senator Doyle. I want to be as liberal as any man but, at the same time, we must strike that balance and it is not an easy balance to strike.
Senator Cregan said people like to see drinks being poured or pulled. That is quite natural, but people who go into a restaurant to have a drink with their meal will have to forego that pleasure.
They will just have to trust the man who is pouring it.
We are on section 16.
The fine of £150 for a first offence in breach of the licensing laws is very small.
The fine is £150 for the first offence and it is £350 for a second or subsequent offence. Senators should please bear in mind that there is also a mandatory endorsement provision, which is worse than any fine, accompanying the fine. People in the trade will appreciate that this is the velvet glove barely hiding the steel hammer.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 17 to 24, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 25.
Amendments Nos, 13 and 17 are similar and amendments Nos. 14 and 18 are consequential on amendments Nos, 13 and 17. We are taking amendments Nos. 13, 14, 17 and 18 together.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 11, line 32, after "weekday" to insert "(excluding Saturday)".
I put down amendments Nos. 13, 14, 17, 18 and 20. I have no difficulty in withdrawing the amendments in view of the Minister's helpful approach which has been of major value to me. After I withdraw the amendments — I was forced to put them down because of my concern about that special area covered here — I would like to enlist the Minister's help, which he has so generously offered, in resolving some of the difficulties I have.
You appreciate that we are taking amendments Nos. 13, 14, 17 and 18 together.
I do. I will be guided by you.
The Minister is advising me that you have not withdrawn them yet.
I very much appreciate the degree of latitude the Chair is allowing in the type of discussion we are having which is very necessary in an effort to understand the complexities of what is involved.
I can understand his concern. I was in the trade so I can understand his concern.
I am not in the trade at all but I feel most competent to go into the trade after this — except in Cork.
I am speaking now not from any personal interest but because I come from an area which has a number of problems. These are brought about because the Border counties, especially Donegal, depend largely on tourism. We have a hotel training college in Killybegs. We have a major investment in the tourism industry and depend largely on it. The tourists who come to County Donegal come from jurisdictions where there are more liberal laws. Clubs are the inthing at the moment in the North. I have a difficulty and I am asking the Minister for guidance and help on how we can satisfy those who have a major investment in the industry in Donegal.
I come from an area very close to the Border. I know people who have major investments in the industry, whether it be in the entertainment industry, the hotel industry, a new restaurant, or a simple pub? On Saturday and Sunday evening they are forced to close down in the hours of daylight when young people are ready to sit down and have a drink in the evening. When every pub, hotel and club in County Donegal must close, if they are not to break the law, you can drive across the Border and have an open door to a club quite close to the Border, run by the Church, which actually has a very strong voice.
Which Church?
Do you want to put me on the cross?
He has been in trouble with more Churches than many.
——and survived. There are recreational centres and clubs. The laws on licensing hours are not being enforced in the North at all. That is a problem for people who have invested heavily in the entertainment business, the hotel business and the promotion of the tourism industry in County Donegal. The drinking hours just across the Border are lax. There are no restrictions, that I can see, imposed by the law. Therefore, young people are being encouraged to cross the Border and do their late drinking there.
I recognise that the Minister has adopted a helpful attitude. The most helpful aspect of the Minister's approach is where he says that he will hold a watching brief, that he will review it, if necessary, in 12 months. I would dearly love to bring in a simple law that would wipe the slate clean and have equitable hours for everybody. That would have been very acceptable.
There is a special problem in the Border areas and in County Donegal, where we depend upon tourism as a major employer of young people. We depend largely on visitors from Scotland, the UK and the North, where the same restrictions on drinking hours do not apply. On Saturday and Sunday evenings centres of entertainment will be hard-pressed to conform to the laws across the Border.
I will take the other questions. It might be easier for the Minister.
My questions are related. I agree with what Senator McGowan has said. There are many changes taking place in society. If we address the problem of under-age drinking, we can have a reasonable approach to what ordinary civilised people are entitled to. Indeed, people who have made a major investment into the sale of drink — there are some legitimate people involved in this trade — are concerned about the hours that are being mentioned.
We will come to under-age drinking later on.
I want to paraphrase what I have said. We cannot make the laws a little more liberal without addressing that problem, and it is a problem. The Minister has gone a long way towards addressing the problem and I agree with his suggestion of optional identification. That is a step in the right direction.
In regard to the closing hours, there is a problem in the Border areas which Senator McGowan has talked about, but there are people in non-Border areas who have made major investments in their pubs and have facilities for dancing and parties. They have even built large extensions for GAA clubs to have their dinner dances, and so on. They comply with the existing law and with the regulations on closing the bar and re-opening it later. This is a crazy arrangement. Suggestions have been made that, with the changing pattern of Mass going — there are still a lot of believers who go to Mass, thank God——
God is still alive.
Exactly, in spite of other people's efforts to remove Him.
It is lovely to know that those who advocate that He should not be are not represented in this assembly.
We have all sorts of people here, but we have no anti-Christs.
Would the Senator get back to the Bill, please?
These hours are relevant to Mass goers because people now go to Mass on Saturday afternoon. There were reservations from the major Churches about people drinking into the early hours of Sunday morning and on Sundays at particular times, and that was related to their obligation to go to Mass and Communion. It is now being suggested by responsible people in the trade, who are also Mass goers, that Saturday night drinking hours could easily be extended to 1 o'clock on Sunday mornings, without doing any harm, because most people have been to Mass and they are out for the evening having worked hard all week. They suggest that is possible without infringing on anyones beliefs, and that 12.30 a.m. should be the absolute maximum on Sunday nights. Otherwise there would be interference with people's ability to go to work on Monday. Those representations have been made by responsible people. Perhaps the Minister would reply to this suggestion. The amendments deal with the opening hours and people who have made a major investment in this industry are worried about them.
The amendments are before the House. The Senator has not withdrawn them yet.
The Senator said he was withdrawing them.
The official withdrawal has not come yet.
He is obliging us by allowing us to have this discussion.
I would like to concur with the remarks made by Senator McGowan and Senator Ferris on this section and, in particular, the social change that has taken place over the past ten years. People go out at weekends. So far as entertainment is concerned, the only nights that are of any benefit to people running functions are Saturday night and Sunday night. For various reasons Saturday night is the big night for running socials or functions and, as the previous speakers said, premises must close at 11 p.m. or 11.30 p.m. and the functions must stop.
To solve the various problems that exist in the liquor trade at present we should allow a Saturday night extension up to 1 a.m. From my experience, people running these functions have to supply drink up to 1 a.m. and 1.30 a.m. The Minister's remarks yesterday on the duties of the Garda Síochána in dealing with serious crime were aired extensively in the media and were received very well. I had three telephone calls last night and one this morning about his reference to the duties of the Garda in the future, which went down very well. We do not want to have the Garda Síochána, as he said, running in and checking these premises, 99 per cent of which are properly run.
Because of the social change, a high percentage of people now go to Church on Saturday night and have a rest on Sunday morning. I would make a strong case for a Saturday night extension. I agree with Seantor Ferris about taking the bar extension back to 12.30 a.m. on Sunday night on condition that the person who has a licence for an extension could run their functions through from, say, 9 p.m. to 12.30 a.m. As proposed in this legislation, you can only have an extension from 12 o'clock to 1 o'clock. On Sunday night a premises must close down at 11 o'clock. There is a half hour drinking up time and then there is half an hour in which the premises must be emptied or, if not, the glasses must be taken off the table. We then expect them all to come back at 12 o'clock to continue with the function. That is unreasonable and unrealistic. It is not enforceable and it is not practical. I agree with Senator Ferris that 12.30 a.m. is late enough on a Sunday night, if a premises could remain open from, say, 8.30 p.m. or 9 o'clock until 1 o'clock. I do not want to be longwinded.
You nearly were.
Not really in relation to some contributions and on such a serious issue as this Part of the Bill. This is the area of the Bill where the law is being broken left, right and centre. We are the people together with the Minister and his officials who can correct this and I await the Minister's reply with interest.
I welcome the change in the closing hours of pubs and places which sell liquor. Since the Bill was drafted I have had several discussions with publicans and with customers in my area and it has been well accepted throughout the country that closing time on Sunday night will now be 11 o'clock, whether it be summertime or wintertime. This has been requested for a number of years and I welcome it. Also, it is important that there should be 30 minutes drinking up time. Ten minutes drinking up time was a little out-dated. That will also give sufficient time to publicans to have their premises cleared. Closing time at weekdays, especially in the summertime, of 11.30 p.m. with a half an hour drinking up time, which means 12 o'clock closing, has been very well accepted.
I take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister on making a tremendous effort to meet all sections of the community and on having had discussions with them about this Bill. In so far as my county is concerned, which is a tourist county, the closing hours——
The best tourist county in the country.
I did not want to claim that but it is a tourist county and, having been in some of the seaside towns during the weekend, I know it has been well accepted by both publicans and customers. When they accept it in Kerry, a tourist area, I think it is pretty well accepted all over the whole country.
I feel I should say again, and say with all the solemnity that I can command, that nobody here should be under any illusion whatsoever about this law being enforced right across the board. I am saying that because of one or two remarks that were made earlier. Let that be clearly understood and let that be the message that will go from both Houses of the Oireachtas by the time this Bill is enacted in the legislation.
I will come back now to the important points raised by Senator McGowan. I appreciate the difficulties the traders have in the border regions. I understand that. I understand what unfair competition is all about in any walk of life. It is very difficult to survive even with normal competition but, when it is unfair, it is practically impossible to survive and naturally then it leads to very serious problems.
I understand, as of now, that the normal licensing laws in Northern Ireland are perhaps even more restrictive than ours but I appreciate that there is a very serious problem in Northern Ireland with the colossal growth in clubs, many of them illegal that has taken place in recent times. I presume the Church club is a legal one, but there are many illegal clubs there. It is no secret that many of these clubs are used as sources of income for subversive organisations.
Uniformity in legislation, particularly in legislation of this type, is of prime importance. I will do what I can with those whom I meet within Northern Ireland on a very regular basis, through the Anglo-Irish Conference, to discuss this problem with regard to clubs and club hours. I do not think it is in anybody's interest to have young people driving helter-skelter at 12 o'clock, 1 a.m., 2 a.m., or 3 a.m. crossing the Border for additional booze. I do not think it is in anybody's interest in the Border areas, in particular, where there are many problems.
Senator McGowan suggests that we should consider making special provision tor Border areas. That would be one way certainly of doing it — that some provision should be made for the Border counties and that they should be given something to compensate for the unequal or unfair competition on the other side. As soon as you do that for Counties Donegal, Sligo, Cavan, Monaghan and Leitrim, you are bringing the liquor border further south. Eventually we will find ourselves down in Cork, and they will be stuck, which would be unfair and wrong and then we would be in serious trouble.
I appreciate that there is a problem there. It is interfering with tourism, although I am convinced that European tourists, — Senator Ferris and I had a very slight but most gentlemanly difference on this yesterday — and most tourists who visit south west Kerry in the summertime are not late night drinkers. They like their good quality meal, and surprisingly enough, from what I know, many of them go to the little B and B's where the fisherman has brought the fresh lobster from the sea, the bit of crayfish or the bit of flat fish, or if he has the licence, a bit of salmon.
Has he a licence?
You can catch salmon if you are properly licensed to do that. I have had occasion to holiday in Donegal and observe the tourists there. The tradition is different. It is a late night affair that goes right through practically to breakfast time. They do not pay for beds. They just have their breakfast. They do not need beds; it is a different thing altogether. There is the problem there.
I want to be helpful and to try to meet public demand — bearing in mind the overall good. For God's sake do not let anybody ever think I want to legislate for morality; I do not. I hope nobody thinks that because nothing could be further from the truth.
In reply to what Senator Cassidy said about those who wish to have a drink, the very great majority of people who go out to have a drink on a Sunday night, I have been assured by the licensed vintners, both city and rural, that an 11 o'clock closing time plus half an hour to drink up and vacate the premises is more than adequate to meet the demands of their customers. I had a certain amount of difficulty with one organisation I met at least a half dozen times because they changed their tune every time I met them. We would agree on something and the next day one of their lobbyists, on a professional basis, would have statements issued turning everything on its heels. It came to a stage in the end where I had to say: "I am now satisfied that this is the position". In summertime on a Sunday night people will be able to have their last drink, and at 11.25 p.m. or 11.30 p.m. they are away.
We must worry about absenteeism which is a serious problem. Let nobody here think it is not a serious problem. I am now putting on my hat as an employer and I am putting on my other hats that I wore in different Ministries over the years. It is a damnably serious problem that is costing the taxpayers a great deal of money and something we genuinely never faced up to. I say that deliberately. We have never genuinely faced up to it. I do not care what statistics are put up by vested interest groups. I reject their accuracy because I am talking from practical experience. Absenteeism is costing the genuine taxpayer of this country a lot of money. The highest rate of absenteeism is on Monday morning. That is a fact. I believe the Sunday night drinking is late enough as it is.
Why did the Minister not do away with the extensions?
The Senator is too helpful to me at this stage. There are young people who want to enjoy themselves, as we all did, and who want to go dancing. Now the pattern has changed, as patterns do over time, and it is almost impossible, it appears — and I do not accept this either — that you cannot enjoy yourself dancing on a Sunday night unless you are steamed to the gills with alcohol that should be readily available at highly inflated prices until 1 o'clock or 2 o'clock in the morning. I do not accept that. I think it is totally unnecessary. It is very wrong that that should be the case. We have struck a fair balance here. If public houses must be vacated at 11.30 p.m. on Sunday night, there is one hour available from 12 o'clock to 1 o'clock for younger people who want to go disc-oing. If that is not sufficient, there is something very radically wrong.
I would not want to say that the clubs I referred to across the Border are being run by subversive organisations. It is quite the contrary. Let me explain. One club, in particular, is being run by the Church and it is an ideal situation. It is serving a major social problem in so far as it caters for people who might otherwise be throwing petrol bombs in the street. It is doing a major social job in the area. Its hours of opening are different and that is the only reason I referred to it.
What are they?
I am not going to say because I do not know exactly but I know the hours are longer. I am not going to give details as the Minister will appreciate.
I appreciate that. I have a sheet here.
Right. It is different now. I will not go on because the Minister is very helpful. The whole area of extensions and exemptions could be tidied up. I believe that, in line with his commitment to this House, the Minister will review and have a very careful look at the functioning of the new Intoxicating Liquor Bill. I believe that the Minister will say: "I will make a clean sweep. I will tidy it up. Exemptions will be out the window" because, looking at it from a distance, it is a jungle of complications.
I agree.
May I come in on a few points and on the amendments that have been agreed?
How long does this debate go on?
About two hours. Could I make a point with regard to the new hours? I have been involved all my life in the drinks trade. Senator Cassidy has made a very good point and I would have to agree as a person who never drank. The Minister answered in a very fair way when he said that there is a concern that there is too much drink in areas where we do not need it. We are given the impression that you cannot go anywhere without drink. It is sad that people who are very dedicated to the music business cannot create an atmosphere where there is happiness between a boy and a girl — a very good and natural thing — without making sure that there is a licence. People will not come unless drink is served. Perhaps dances should start earlier and finish at the same time as the pub is closing, or an hour later. Then people would not be going to the premises for drink. I never went for a drink before dancing. I am glad of that because I think I would be a lunatic altogether if I were drinking. In the vast majority of places throughout the country the accepted way of enjoying oneself is with live music and dancing. I do not think we should be selling something else to the disco scene. Discos are good also. I like a disco even though I am getting on but, at the same time, we must recognise what Senator Cassidy said. I have seven children, from 25 years down to ten years and I listen to what they want to say. I listen to the trend of today. The idea of going to a live dancehall and being content without drink is not "on". It is a packed area with excessive prices, £6, £7, £8 to get in, particularly on long weekends and holdays. This is unfair. If a fire officer inspected the premises there would be total havoc. Can the Minister in some way provide in the next Bill from the Minister for Tourism — if he has a right to do that — that people should get the facility they require and make sure that it can be there without having excessive drinking? The Minister made a point about absenteeism on Monday morning. The Minister was not wrong. I do not deny it.
I want to be helpful to the Minister and I want to narrow the debate down to two points which he did not refer to in his reply. On Sunday night the time of 11 o'clock is a fair time. All are in agreement with the Minister, publicans included, that 11 o'clock on a Sunday night is the correct time in the summer. It is the problem of the hotel trade and the trade that has a special exemption on Sunday night that I want to put to him. Closing for half an hour, when everything has to be off the table for half an hour for a dinner dance or function, from 11.30 p.m. to 12 o'clock is not workable. It cannot be enforced. It is not possible to put everyone out of the premises and drink cannot be cleared off all the tables and then come back and open the bar in a half an hour. Can the Minister let them run the function from 8.30 p.m. to 1 a.m. on a Sunday night?
The other point is with regard to Saturday night. Eighty-five per cent of the dancing premises in the Twenty-six Counties are open on Saturday nights until 1 a.m. and the majority of them are open until 1.30 a.m. serving alcohol.
We are discussing amendment No. 13 to section 25 and this is out of order because we are talking about drinking hours on Saturday night to midnight. There is another amendment to section 20 dealing with drinking on Sunday nights. We are talking about a two hour debate and giving everybody fair play, while we are only on amendment No. 13.
I will certainly deal with Senator Cassidy's point when we come to amendment No. 20 or amendment No. 21, whichever it is.
Is the amendment withdrawn?
Yes.
On the understanding that Senator McGowan is withdrawing his amendment, I will bear what he says in mind and I give a commitment that a further review of the licensing laws must take place at an early date. I hope to start the examination for that review at the fall of the year. The points raised by the Senator in relation to unfair competition in the areas he has mentioned — and this applies to Senator Cassidy also — will have to be looked at in great detail. It is 25 to 60 years since we have had a proper, worth-while look at licensing laws. Seeing the way life patterns have changed that should never again be allowed to happen. I say that in reply to Senator McGowan who kindly withdrew his amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 14 not moved.
We will now discuss amendment No. 15 to section 25.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 12, lines 4 to 11, to delete subsection (2) and substitute the following:
"(2) Every person who——
(a) allows or permits persons to remain on the premises for the purposes of consumption of intoxicating liquor in contravention of this section shall be liable upon summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200, or in the case of a second or any subsequent offence, a fine not exceeding £400 or
(b) in fact sells or exposes for sale any intoxicating liquor or who opens or keeps open any premises for the sale of intoxicating liquor in contravention of this section shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable upon summary conviction thereof, in the case of a first offence to a fine not exceeding £400 or in the case of a second or any subsequent offence, to a fine not exceeding £800.".
This is a questionable area. The Minister was fair when he said he allowed the situation to change in the other House. The definition of roles in this part of this section is very awkward. I am not saying that a person who serves drink after hours should not be fined. I am not saying that a person who wants to keep people on the premises after hours should not be subject to a substantial fine. The definitions of "a person on the premises" and "a person serving drink after hours on the premises" are different. The definition of the person on the premises after hours and the definition of the person selling drink on the premises after hours are totally different. Take a Saturday night when say the gardaí walk in at 12.05 a.m. and 50 people are in the lounge who should have been out of the premises at 12 o'clock because there is half an hour of drinking up time. The person who is most put out is the publican, whether we like it or not, even though the person on the premises will be fined up to £50. The publican must make a case to the local sergeant or garda who will ask why the premises were not cleared. A reasonable argument can be made. I am one person who is not quiet about clearing my premises. The vast majority of publicans lose more friends in the last half hour in clearing their premises than they do all day. There is no doubt about that. How does one protect in this Bill the person who is doing the best he can to clear a premises? It is not easy to do this. The Minister is saying that he should be fined £400. I am not saying that he should not be fined £400 if he sells drink after hours.
If we could do in reverse at 11.30 p.m. what the good Lord did and change liquor into water instead of water into wine, it would perhaps solve the problem.
An Leas-Chathtoirleach
The Senator must be allowed to make his point, Minister.
That is fine but big money is involved now and it is a worry to small publicans. It is a worry to those who are turning over £2,000 a week with the whole family working on the premises. There is a difference between £400 to the average publican in Cork and £400 to the big publican in Dublin who will not worry about £400.
Does the Senator not know that it is a maximum of £400?
If he cannot afford £400——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Minister will have every opportunity to reply.
The Senator will accept a point of clarification. It could not be a minimum fine of £50.
I do not mind the point of clarification. Seeing that the Minister is so good at clarification, would he clarify for me exactly why he should be fined £400.
The situation up to recently is that anybody in breach of the licensing laws had a mandatory endorsement. At the time the thinking was that mandatory endorsements were far too severe a penalty because they eventually affected the livelihood of the publican who continued to break the law and that mandatory endorsements should be removed. I was told by people in the trade like the Senator that £2,000 or £5,000 does not matter. Now we have the mandatory endorsement removed and there is a maximum fine of up to £400 at the discretion of the judge for a first offence.
For what?
For contravening the law.
What law? For serving drinks after hours or for having people on the premises after hours? That is the point. I have no objection to fining somebody the maximum amount. There was not a mandatory endorsement. There may have been an endorsement but it was not mandatory. You may get an endorsement. On a point of clarification, it does not necessarily mean that every person who was fined for serving drink after hours in a public house got an endorsement. He may have gotten an endorsement but if he got a second one it could not be removed and that is what we got removed in the Courts Bill in 1986. The point I want to make is that when there is a person on the premises it does not necessarily mean that the publican who owns the premises wants him on the premises, but he cannot remove him. Physically, he cannot remove him. Why should the publican be fined £400 if he does not want the person on the premises even though he has served drink up to 11.30 p.m. and has given him six pints at 11.30 p.m. as he must do because the law says so.
I am not being given the same latitude by the Chair now as by the Cathaoirleach, so I cannot help the Senator.
Up to 11.30 p.m. on a Saturday night during summertime I must give a person a drink that he asks for because the law says so, provided that I do not think he is drunk. I must give him four pints or three half-ones if he wants them and he is entitled to sit down for half an hour and finish them. This is why the question of half-an-hour drinking up time is of vital importance. Anybody who thinks that the half-an-hour drinking up time is going to be easy is wrong. It will make it harder on people who have to implement the law. It will be harder on the licensee. I want clarification on this. I have no objection to saying that if a person serves drinks after hours he should be fined. If I fill a drink at 11.40 p.m. and the person who is on the premises at 12.10 a.m. is caught by the law and tells the garda: "He gave me a drink at 11.40 p.m." then I am liable to a fine. If I give that drink at 11.30 p.m. or before 11.30 p.m., I should not be fined for doing so if the person wants to sit in the premises after 12 midnight. I want clarification on this.
Senator Cregan has a very good point here. The proposed legislation does not say what the minimum fine is. I know a village very close to me where 57 people were in court last week because they were all drinking one and a half hours after time. The four publicans were fined £10 each and the people on the premises were fined £3 each. This is making a laughing-stock of the law and of the gardaí who are trying to enforce it. While the Bill states what the maximum fine is, it does not state what the minimum fine should be. There should be a minimum fine of £50 per person caught on the premises after hours because, as Senator Cregan says, it is practically impossible to clear a premises. What back-up have the licensees got from the law for this work? As the Minister said — and I repeat it again — the gardaí should not be the people who will try to clear premises for publicans. If there is a minimum fine of £50, it will not be too long until people generally will get the message and then there will not be any trouble in enforcing the law. Unless the law is enforceable, unless the law as fear in it, people will not abide by it.
I mentioned this point on Second Stage of the Bill. It is very important. Now that the drinking up time has been extended from ten minutes to 30 minutes, people will be inclined to have a large amount of drink in front of them after last drinks are served at 11.30 p.m. and they might insist that they wish to stay on the premises until 12.30 a.m. to consume what they legitimately bought. Here the barman is in a very difficult situation as they are his customers. They brought the drink but they have to be out by 12 midnight. The legal obligation should now be on the customer to leave the premises by 12 midnight.
(Interruptions.)
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is the House agreeing to discuss amendments Nos. 15 and 16 together?
Senators
Yes.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator Doyle may continue.
The point I was making is that it is important that the law should now be changed in order to put the obligation on the customer to vacate the premises. We have changed the law in relation to under-age drinking and put more of an obligation on the publican. In this case it should be reversed and the obligation put on the customer.
There is a lot of validity in Senator Cregan's suggestion. I said at an earlier stage in this debate that we must use the change in the licensing laws as a new beginning for publicans. I say that as a publican myself. Having said that, I have no doubt in my mind that publicans will still be serving drink at 11.50 p.m.
That is not so.
I am stating the reality, and I hope this is what debate in the House is all about, realism. On the basis that publicans would accept the new legislation as a new beginning, we should be prepared as legislators also to make it somewhat easier for them in relation to their efforts to run a reasonably good operation. In recognition of the fact that publicans may not sell alcohol after 11.30 p.m. now there is an onus on customers to leave within the restricted time. There is always the danger that if you go to some licensed premises — particularly at weekends — you will see six or eight people with two or three pints in front of each of them. This is going to create difficulty. I would certainly subscribe to the view that the customer will have to take his share of responsibility in this case. The principle is being conceded here but the emphasis will have to be shifted to the customer at this juncture and I think we should accept the amendment on that basis.
I suppose of all the items in the Bill these particular sections have created most controversy in the countryside because of the experience of everybody in the trade in trying to live within the law. As Senator Cregan said, we made changes previously which removed the danger of a licence holder losing his living in spite of his best efforts to try to get people off the premises. Short of physically assaulting people it is quite difficult at times to get them off the premises. The extension of drinking up time will assist provided, as Sentor O'Callaghan said, the emphasis is put on the customer. This is essential and it has been asserted by all the publicans here that none of them wants to break the law or condone people who break the law and would insist on maximum fines for those who are found breaking the law.
At the other end of the spectrum, there are the people who within the law were sold a drink up to the end of serving time and gave the rest of the drinking up time to doing that, but who were still on the premises discussing the match, the winner of the next dog race, or whatever, with no drink. Those people could be fined and the publican could be summonsed. We must address these problems that are arising on the ground. If we are not conscious of them happening, we are not living in reality as legislators. Let us be fair with one another and fair in regard to what we want the publican to do and what we want the customer to do. There must be an area in between where responsibility should not necessarily rest with the publican who had made every effort and that the customer who has complied with the regulations on drinking but who is still on the premises. It is extraordinary that being on the premises is an offence although they might be discussing something legitimate without even drinking or they could be drinking Ballygowan. They could be talking with a cumann member about the intricacies of what was happening in your constituency ten minutes after drinking up time with no drink. The publican could be fined for having people on the premises. He would not lose his licence now. This is happening and we should try to address the problem. The Minister has admitted that this is a very difficult area.
There is a lot of merit in this amendment but at the same time, in regard to the £400 maximum fine, it is provided that if a case is made to a District Justice by a publican the justice will not impose the maximum fine when the publican has difficulty getting people off the premises. We all realise from being in pubs after hours sometimes, maybe five minutes after hours, the difficulty some publicans experience in clearing the premises. If the publican made a case to the District Justice, I feel the maximum fine would not be imposed.
During my 20 years in politics I have heard criticisms from all the publicans in my constituency and, indeed, the hoteliers regarding the problem they had about endorsements. I discussed this Bill for the past four or five weeks with many of the publicans in my constituency. All of them are delighted that the endorsement has gone. There was not much criticism about the £400 fine. Most of them admitted that they would have to be more vigilant in the future to ensure that the house is cleared at the proper time.
I agree with the argument so eloquently put forward by Senator Cregan. The problem of people being found on premises is a bone of contention with practically every publican. I suggested to the Minister the other day that he should look at the system in operation in the UK where they cover the taps with a towel or a cloth. Whatever drink has been purchased prior to that may be finished at leisure and customers may leave the premises almost in their own time. As Senator Cregan said, you cannot physically remove people from the premises. In the old days they could be taken by the scruff of the neck and tossed out onto the street. The position at the moment is that, if you lay a hand on anybody, you are sued for assault. It makes it practically impossible to clear the premises at times. I ask the Minister to look at the system operated in the UK to see if we could bring it into operation here. At closing time a towel or cloth is placed over the taps and, if anybody is caught serving a drink after that time, they should be fined and fined heavily.
I would like to ask the Minister about a publican who has to provide entertainment as nearly every publican in Donegal does. Few pubs will do business if entertainment is not provided for the custonmers. If one pub has entertainment the next must have it. This is an area of major difficulty. I ask the Minister to explain how the publican who priovides entertainment should cope with the situation where a large crowd is on the premises. Does this imply that everybody has to leave once the entertainment is over and that the responsibility lies with the publican?
One of the points made by Senator Bohan which perhaps the Minister might consider is that in the past 20 years we have become a more litigious society. I know from my own experience that you cannot literally look crooked at people now. There was a time, as Senator Bohan said, when you could take a person by the scruff of the neck and put him out the door. You cannot even think of doing such a thing now. It has created an extra problem in relation to clearing the premises. In the context of what has been said here, I know that the Minister has made the point time and time again that this Bill is a watershed, that he is coming back to it. I think, without dragging out the argument — we have exhausted it, as I am sure he will agree — the Minister might in his reply give an indication of his thinking so that when he does come back to review the legislation he might look at this particular element of it.
Senator McGowan made a very valid point in relation to the public houses that provide entertainment. The entertainment should finish when the bar closes at 11.30 p.m. Then they have a half-hour drinking up time to clear the premises. If the fine is severe enough on the customer there should not be any problem in clearing the premises.
We seem to forget a few basics here. We are getting ourselves slightly confused. This amendment is tying up two different sections of the Bill. It is tying up section 29 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act of 1962 which has to do with permitting persons to be on licensed premises during prohibited hours. The amendment is aimed at the substitution for £20 of £300 and the substitution for £40 of £60. That is going back 26 or 27 or 28 years. I could not tell Senators what the price of the pint was at that time. We are also dealing with subsection (2) of section 25 of the Bill which states:
Every person who shall sell or expose for sale any intoxicating liquor or open or keep open any premises for the sale of intoxicating liquor or permit any intoxicating liquor to be consumed on licensed premises in contravention on this section shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof, in the case of a first offence, to a fine not exceeding £400...
These are two different sections. I am not saying anything to Senator Cregan or anybody else for getting the two sections mixed up because the same thing happened in the Dáil.
I agree that if a person wants to sell drink on premises after hours he must be fined. How can I stop——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Senator must allow the Minister to reply to the points raised.
It will be very brief. There is no great difference between any of us on what we have spoken about here, even on this rather thorny financial issue. The publican who decides at 11.30 at night he is not going to break the law by selling drink may do as Senator Bohan suggests, put his towel on his taps and stop serving. Part of the responsibility of the licence holder is to ensure that stockpiling should not be allowed to accumulate to such a degree——
The definition of "to such a degree" is very hard.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Order.
Give me a chance. I cannot legislate for every individual vintner in the country. When I was trying to listen to them in delegations they broke my heart because they changed their minds every time they came near me with what they wanted and what they did not want. I am telling the Senator what we must do. We are enacting legislation that will be in vogue and, if after 12 months, it needs to be reviewed, we will have a look at it and we will see how best we can try to put it right. It is the type of legislation that needs to be looked at on a continuing basis. The publican may not sell drink after 11 o'clock on a Sunday night or 11 o'clock any night of the week during the winter.
(Interruptions.)
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Order.
Please give me a chance. Let me try to make my case as best I can. The publican may not sell drink after the permitted hours winter or summer. There is a half hour there by which time the publican must have his premises vacated. Up to now the publican had little or no clout in getting the customer out because all the onus was on the publican to put the customer out. There was a fine of £2.
I read in a paper in the South of Ireland published in the city of Cork about 104 people who were found in a public house on Christmas Day and each person was fined £2 and the publican was fined £40. That is some respect being created for the law. Let us be reasonable about it. I say the situation must be like this. I go back to what Sentor O'Callaghan tried to say. There has to be a genuine effort by the publican to ensure that the customer has in the drinking up time — he might not want a half hour drinking up time; five minutes might be good enough for him — enough time to finish his drink in comfort and then vacate the premises in the normal way.
Nobody wants to hear the old guys we knew going around in the pubs in Dublin with the coins in the glasses, rattling them and driving everyone half mad, off lights, on lights, opening doors, letting in the cold air and doing everything to freeze people out into the street. None of that should be necessary. If the publican is sensible, if he is reasonable, if he is well-intentioned and running a good house, he will not give the young man who comes up to him at five minutes or two minutes to 11 o'clock six pints on a tray. He should know his business, know that man is down there, that he has two or three people in his company. That is his responsibility as the licence holder.
We will be going into further responsibilities of the licence holder when we get to the under-age drinking problem. The onus there, too, is on the person who is privileged to have that licence, a privilege to be a part of the monopoly which many resent exists to have that licence. There are conditions to fulfil which must be fulfilled if he wants to hold on to the licence; otherwise we would have a free-for-all. I will not accept for a second that any publican can stand up here or anywhere else and say he is going to serve booze illegally at 11.50 p.m. He will suffer the full might of the law if he does that and he will be looking for a mandatory endorsement on his licence. Nobody will have any sympathy for him; I do not care who he is. That is as it should be.
There will be practical problems. I give in to Senator Cregan on this. I accept all the weaknesses of custom and competition. How can you refuse a friend at 11.10 p.m. or 11.15 p.m. — give me one more and I will be gone. That is your responsibility and you have the right to refuse at that time if you want to run your house as it should be run within the law.
I believe that the fines we are talking about are minimum fines. The customer now will be fined up to £50 if he is found on the premises. Up to now he was fined £2. That will make the customer think that he too must vacate the premises. If Senator Cregan or anybody else runs a pub and decides: "I will not sell drink after 11.30 on a Saturday night; I will close down; my barmen will get out from behind the bar as and from closing time", that is one way of doing it. I worked in a bar. You get out from behind the counter. You are not there to fill the glass. There is nobody there. I do not know whether the towel over the taps will stop people from filling their own. It did not years ago but perhaps it might now. If you are not behind the counter you are not tempted. If you are out from behind the counter helping people, you get people out of the way. I believe that very much.
In the event of the gardaí coming in and the house is not vacated when it should be vacated, they will note that there is nobody behind the bar. They will note that drink is not being served and that, in the event of a prosecution, will be conveyed to the judge who will say: "Right. Mr. Murphy was making every effort to clear his bar". The judge then has authority to decide if he will fine you £1, £5 or £6, but he cannot go any higher than £400. If the customers are there and the gardaí take their names, these customers can be fined up to £50 for not vacating the premises when they too have a responsibility to go. There is no other way to do it. If Senators find me another way I will give them a guarantee that in 12 months time I will be back here with improved methods of doing it.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Before I call on Senator Cregan, the Chair would like to point out very clearly that it is not the intention of the Chair to stifle debate or to curb debate. I am endeavouring to have an orderly debate. I am now asking for the co-operation of my colleagues to reduce the repetition.
The Minister made two points. From the start of the debate he has been well informed. He has been very helpful, but he admits that, even though the gardaí may enter the premises and not see a person serving, and that is pointed out in court, the judge may decide what fine may be imposed on the licensee even though no drink was served after hours.
It is part and parcel of the licence.
I know that. On Christmas Day 104 people in Cork were fined £2 and £40.
(Interruptions.)
On that same Christmas Day all the clubs in our city who got money from semi-State and State bodies to set up their organisations were able to sell drink legally and yet a person drinking every day in the same pub may be brought into court. Let us clarify that point. Let us make it quite clear that we must not have a situation where one person is allowed to serve drink and the other is not.
I support Senator Cregan totally and I will certainly do what I can to prevent that situation arising. A semi-State company gave something in excess of £220,000 of public money to a company who were borrowing on a daily basis from the State for survival to start a club which is now putting legitimate taxpayers out of business. I do not accept that as right either.
What I see wrong with the legislation in regard to the customer is that there is no minimum fine. A fine of £50 maximum has been mentioned. What is the minimum fine?
The minimum fine is £25.
That is very welcome. That will go a long way towards allaying the fears of Senator Cregan on this matter. If there is a minimum fine for the customer of £25 on his first offence that will go a long way and it has answered a lot of the fears that we have here on this one.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is the amendment withdrawn?
Could I ask the Minister to discuss with the Minister for Tourism and Transport that part of the regulations.
There is a minimum fine now of £25. I did not think that it was possible under the Constitution to legislate for a minimum fine. I thought all fines were set at a maximum level and then the court interpreted what the person should pay.
If I might refer to a phrase from a person who thought it up but never used it, I am breaking a mould.
(Interruptions.)
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 16 not moved.
Section 25 agreed to.
SECTION 26.
Amendment Nos. 17 and 18 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 26 stand part of the Bill."
I welcome this section on the prohibited hours in clubs. I recognised that there was a severe problem with regard to after hours drinking in club areas. May I congratulate the Minister and his officials on the ongoing discussions and ongoing examinations they have had? Clubs in our society are becoming very big. I do not knock them in any way because in Cork there are excellent club facilities outside the drinking facilities which provide great pastimes for our youth and, indeed, for their parents as well. At the same time it must be recognised that their hours in regard to liquor licences were not in order and I recommend the changes.
I welcome the fact that the clubs that have liquor licences will have to close at the same time as pubs in the future because this was causing a lot of trouble in some areas where clubs were allowed to have their premises open later than pubs. In order to drink in a club you have to be a member of the club or else be signed on by a member. I would like the Minister to explain to us the type of people who drink in a club so that we can explain to our people in the country who they are.
Members only and their guests. There are other restricted measures dealing with clubs that we will come across later on in the Bill which I think the House will welcome generally. We all accept the principle of clubs. We recognise the value of them but they cannot be regarded as licensed vintners plying their trade. Nobody wants that.
I saw in today's paper that yesterday a justice refused to grant club licences for bar extensions because of the definition of the membership. I see in the Bill there are overseas members. There were country members; there were juvenile members; and they had full membership. Is it club membership only or does it specify that there could be overseas membership or country membership?
I do not foresee that but we will see what legislative measures are necessary to put it in order.
So there is no change in the legislation. It is as it stands with the old club licensing laws at the moment to be defined by the justices.
As the Act stands at present.
It still gives them the right to say that they may apply for special licences to have drink on special occasions.
As I have already said, these matters will be looked at.
It will not be in consultation with the Minister for Tourism and Transport?
Not in this Bill. The whole licensing area is so complex and so wide that, in an effort to do what I am doing here to provide restaurants with licences — it looks as if the summer season might be over at the rate we are going — it would need legislation that big to try to deal with the whole problem. I will not wait for a general overall review. I will take it piecemeal because that is the only way I can handle it.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 27 agreed to.
SECTION 28.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 14, line 24, after "meal" to insert "of at least four courses".
The definition of a substantial meal is a worry to many people. A person like myself could give you a double King-burger and you would have more than a substantial meal. It is not easy to define and I know we are talking about the special facility and the special restaurant licence and the emphasis is being put on the type of restaurant we are talking about. I know it is great in theory, but will it work in practice? How can anybody define for me what I am talking about when I say they must be having a substantial meal. I might get a compromise from the Minister. We will be brief with each other. I am quite prepared to say that we should change it from four courses to two or three courses.
It is defined in section 9 of the 1962 Act. I presume the Senator does not want me to read it out in detail. It is there.
What is the definition?
For the purposes of the Licensing Acts and the Registration of Clubs Acts a meal served in any premises after the commencement of this Act shall not be deemed to be a substantial meal unless the meal is such as might be expected to be served as the main midday or main evening meal or as a main course at either such meal, and the meal is of a kind for which, having regard to the prices charged for meals in the premises at times other than prohibited hours or, if meals are not normally served in the premises, having regard to all the circumstances, it would be reasonable to charge a sum that is not less than — in 1962 they did not put in the price but in 1972 they put in £2 for the main meal. I propose to increase that substantially in the near future.
This 150 per cent is too easy. The Minister knows as well as I do that this will not go down that well. The definition of "substantial" was clarified in 1962 at about £2. If it was £2 in 1962 it should be £22 now.
It was £2 in 1979.
The definition should be that it may be a midday meal, an evening meal, or a substantial meal at night. It could be any of these. A midday meal for a judge sitting on the bench at the moment has changed.
It could be a sandwich.
I supply a substantial meal for £2.30.
Obviously that could not be regarded as a substantial meal.
It is costing me in the region of £1.70 and it is a very good meal.
Is that not like a supermarket giveaway to bring the crowd in?
I do not work that way because I do not have big shelves full of drink like the supermarkets do.
(Interruptions.)
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator Cregan without interruption.
The definition will be coming before us in the next Bill. It has to be defined, so we will leave it for now. I would appreciate it if the Minister and the other Minister could define it between them.
I appreciate what Senator Cregan is trying to do and say. There has been unbelievable abuse of this definition over the years. You were handed a bowl of soup, beef strogonoff spelled backwards, the leg of a chicken and a few chips in a plastic container, and that was sufficient to flout the law for the purpose of selling drink at a discotheque. That was totally wrong and we have to try to devise ways and means by regulation rather than by legislation to tie that down. I said in the other House that I am thinking of a price in the region of £5 for a meal. There are people who will say they do not eat soup with a meal or that they do not eat dessert for health reasons. We are trying to work out something there. I want to stop the cowboys from abusing this system.
I am not holding the Minister up. I have not spoken on this at all. I only speak when I have some relevant point to make and I will not keep the Minister. In the context of the £5, could I just make the point that in relation to the live band industry where there are increasing overheads as distinct from a disco, the admission price incorporates the cost of the substantial meal as defined in the existing legislation. If the Minister proceeds as he has proposed with a £5 charge there will be an additional price added onto the admission in order to pay for the overheads caused by the provision of live entertainment, as against a disco, or where you have a man with a couple of records under his arm who only asks a fee of a few bob from the owner of the licensed establishment. In the context of live bands, the price at the moment is roughly of the order of £4 to £5 which incorporates the substantial meal content. In the context of what the Minister is talking about — I know it is by ministerial order — will he keep in mind the live bands end of things? If he includes the £5 with an admission price of about £7 or maybe £8——
That is good food for thought. I do not know how we are going to digest it but we will see.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 28 agreed to.
SECTION 29.
Amendment No. 20 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 29 stand part of the Bill."
On a point of information, is this the section on which I was told by the Cathaoirleach I could make a contribution in relation to Saturday and Sunday nights?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
On section 29.
To coin a phrase, in an effort to be helpful, the Minister knows my views already stated here and I await his reply.
In relation to what Senator McGowan said about the difficulties facing cross-Border and Border county establishments I did not come in on it earlier because I felt the point was being laboured. Could I just make one small point? In a large variety of cases — like Senator McGowan, I come from a Border county — it is not just the liberalisation of the law in Northern Ireland that has motivated people to cross the Border. It is the difference in the price structure between North and South. That is the main reason people go across the Border. There are many successful establishments in the Border counties that are existing very successfully. I suggest at this juncture that perhaps the licensed establishments providing live and disco entertainment in the Border counties might consider upgrading and refurbishing their premises in order to compete more effectively with many of the establishments Senator McGowan referred to in the cross-Border area.
Like the Senator, I look forward to 1992.
This is the section on which we talked about those possible special exemptions that might be applicable to places that have made tremendous changes in facilities and have club dances, live entertainment, a meal, the bar having to close down and then open up again. This specifically says that there will be no special exemption granted at any time on a Sunday or at any time between 1 a.m. and 10.30 a.m. on Monday morning. We are suggesting that, if a licence is applied for for a special function, there should not be this necessity to close down and open up again because it is inoperable on the ground. There are special reasons on a Saturday night for an extra hour or on Sunday night for the extra half an hour which should be allowed when registered, licensed people have a special function. We should not have this sily arrangement of opening and closing because of ordinary bar hours. There is a complication there.
On a point of clarification, on section 30——
We are on section 29.
Amendment No. 21 is more relevant to section 29 than to section 30.
Section 29 has to do with the special exemption orders.
This is the section I am asking to have added at the end of section 29. It is a new section. It is about licensing laws where closing time is 6 o'clock. It is before section 30.
When we finish off section 29, we will take amendment No. 21.
I am waiting for the Minister to reply to my points on sections 20 and 21. Is the Chair moving off that now?
I understood we were on section 29.
My apologies.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 14, Part III, before section 30, to insert a new section as follows:
"30. As and from the next annual renewal of a licence to which section 9 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1927 applies any early closing condition attached to that licence shall be abolished."
This is a particular licence that applies to some people who have licences to sell drink until a certain time. I am asking the Minister to consider giving these people the same benefits and condition as any ordinary licence holder, in other words, their type of licence should be abolished and they should be entitled to an ordinary licence.
I am slightly confused because this has not got to do with section 30 as it stands in my Bill. It appears to be a new section 30.
I mentioned that.
Under the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1960, the conversion of restricted licences, including early closing licences, to full seven-day licences was facilitated. Under this provision an early closing licence can be converted to a full licence by extinguishing one other restricted licence or a full licence. This is a much lighter requirement than the normal requirement for obtaining a full licence.
The effect of the amendment would be that early closing licences would be automatically converted to full licences, without any provision for the making of a payment to the Revenue Commissioners, as was provided in 1960. This raises very complex issues, detailed examination of which would be required before a final decision could be made. It would be difficult to justify special arrangements for early closing licences if they were not also granted for other restricted licences, such as the six-day licences. Full information would have to be obtained as to the location of these restricted licences throughout the country. Existing holders of full licences in the areas affected would have a legitimate interest in any provision which would increase the number of full licences locally.
If a fee were to be charged for conversion, as was done in 1960, the amount then fixed would have to be substantially increased. The 1960 Act made provision for the establishment of a restricted licences conversion fund, into which sums obtained on the conversion of licences were paid. Further consideration would have to be given to the question of whether a similar fund should now be established. This, of course, would require consultation with other interested Departments, such as the Department of Finance and the Revenue Commissioners.
I gave this information very briefly to point out to Senator Cregan that it is an exceptionally complex question and that further study and consultation with interested parties is essential before a property informed decision could be taken in relation to it. This matter was only raised informally on Report Stage by Deputy Carey from County Clare. He accepted my argument that we did not have time, that we would need a long period of study, consultation and examination to see what we could do. I do not see any way to include in this Bill a provision as proposed. I told Deputy Carey that it is something I will examine as early as possible when we are talking about bringing in new legislation or other legislation at the end of the year.
For the record of the House, there was some confusion about where we were. Senator Cregan was asking that a new section be inserted between sections 29 and 30. Under Standing Order 87 we were both right.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 30 agreed to.
SECTION 31.
Amendment No. 22. Amendment No. 23 is similar to——
The Minister said he would come back to the points I raised because I want to have a discussion on them. They are in relation to the half hour on Sunday night and on Saturday night. The law is being broken in 85 per cent of the country in relation to late night drinking until 1 o'clock.
There is no provision in the Bill to allow any drinking to take place after closing time. Public houses have to be cleared between 11 p.m. and 12 midnight. There is a facility available to make application for a special exemption from 12 midnight until 1 a.m. No change is envisaged, as of now. I appreciate the Senator's concern. I understand what he hopes to achieve but, as of now, I am not in a position to provide what the Senator wants. I will certainly look at it at a later stage and see if anything can be done in the later review we have been talking about.
Will the Minister agree to look at it again? We know it is a problem. Only particular functions require this exemption, to continue that hour the Minister talked about. If the Minister agrees to look at it again I am prepared to wait, but it is a problem.
For the information of the House and to show how complex the matter is, please understand me when I say, with all good faith and goodwill, that there are 46,690 exemptions involved on the particular night we are talking about.
I am worried that 70 per cent of the hotel industry is relying totally on one function per week, whether it is on a Saturday night or a Sunday night. Most of us in the entertainment business know that if you have a good Saturday night your neighbour, who is about 15 or 20 miles away, will have the Sunday night business. The Minister says he has made no provision for changing the legislation on a Sunday night, but he has actually done that. He has extended the public house opening hours from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. on Sunday night. He has taken the hotel hours back from a 2 o'clock extension on Sunday night, which I agree with, to 1 o'clock on Sunday night. Therefore, he has started the business of rearranging 50 per cent of the business of people who are dependent for their living on entertainment, whether it is running a hotel or live entertainment, supplying music by bands.
At the moment a person goes into court and looks for a bar extension on a Sunday night for one hour because after 1 o'clock you have to finish your music and close your premises or you are breaking the law regarding a bar extension. A bar extension for one hour, in a union house, is not practicable; it is not possible. It cannot be paid for. If you have a barman pulling pints for one hour, it is not possible to pay him a union rate on the profit you will make. The Minister is totally eliminating legitimately run bar extensions on a Sunday night. The only option a person has in order to survive is to run illegitimate business on a Sunday night. I am not saying that what he has done is wrong. I agree with fixing the time at 1 o'clock. I am asking him to give the extra half hour, from 11.30 p.m. to 12 midnight, where the function can be run earlier. You can bring people in at 8 p.m. or 8.30 p.m. and have the function completely finished at 1 o'clock.
In fact, I was prepared to say here that we could have the function finishing at 12.30 p.m., with drinking up time for this extension until 1 o'clock. It is not an unreasonable request. As a matter of fact, it involves the survival of many people in small family-run hotels. The family-run hotels are the backbone of the tourism industry. The family-run hotels in the final analysis, will have the repeat family business. The family-run hotels do not flout the law; they are the responsible people who are the backbone of society. In a village such as Castlepollard where I come from——
I have allowed you to go back two sections. Would you make your point and let the Minister conclude? I appreciate how important this issue is but when I came back into the Chair we had reached section 31.
With the greatest respect, when section 15 was being taken I was told that you would give me time on this matter. I am only starting my contribution on this point. I have an enormous contribution to make, if I am allowed to make it. I represent the hotel industry and the live music industry.
The section was two to three sections back. I am on section 31. You cannot go back now. I understand your position. I understand your case. Many people agree with you, but I cannot allow Second Stage speeches to go on when we have reached section 31 of the Bill.
I totally agree. I asked to be called when sections 20 and 21 were being taken. I asked for a reply. In an effort to be helpful I said the Minister knew my views and I sat down. I awaited his reply.
Will the Minister make one reply?
On a point of order——
We cannot have the whole debate again, points of order or no points of order. I understand your position but you should have taken it when we were at the relevant section.
What did I do wrong, a Chathaoirligh? Please point out what I did wrong.
I am not saying you did anything wrong. You should watch the sections as they are going through and if you do not understand them that is your problem, not mine.
The Minister was to come back to me on that point.
There was an amendment down in the name of Senator McGowan that was not moved and the effect of that amendment would have been to enable special exemption orders to be granted in respect of the period between 11 p.m. on Sunday and 1 a.m. on Monday. Under the law as it stands, licensed premises generally can supply drink any time between 4 p.m. and 10 p.m. on Sunday. Now we have changed that to 11 p.m. and the 30 minutes drinking up and getting out time brings that to 11.30 p.m. Under this amendment licensed hotels and licensed restaurants would have been able, not merely to supply drink from 4 p.m. to 11 p.m. on Sundays, but where they obtained special exemption orders to continue to supply drink up to 1 a.m. on Monday morning.
This would mean that Sunday evenings would be the same as other week evenings, including Saturday evenings, and could create a tenancy for continuous drinking throughout Sunday afternoon into Monday morning. This would be regarded as a highly retrograde step, bearing in mind the problem of absenteeism that we were talking about. It is regarded as essential that the present break between evening closing time on Sunday and the commencement of a special exemption on Monday morning, which is a half an hour, be continued as an incentive to many people to encourage them to go home. I add that I have the highest regard for Deputy Cassidy but, during the course of my discussions with the Hotels Federation, they made no representations whatsoever with regard to the Sunday night extension for half an hour. I found them the most capable people to deal with. They were most helpful. That is the arrangement as it stands. If it can be proved to me within the 12-month period when I propose to review certain aspects of the liquor legislation that there is a genuine need for it, then I will certainly do something about it.
Also in reply to Senator Cassidy, if bands are engaged to supply music for dancers on Sunday nights and Monday mornings, the bands do not have to stop playing when the booze stops flowing. I danced many a Sunday night in my younger days, and hope to continue to do so, without any booze.
As one who was penalised in a certain Garda station in this city and who met the chief superintendent, I know that everyone must be off the premises the minute the bar extension is finished. I would like to thank the Cathaoirleach for giving me the opportunity to make this point. The bars must be closed, the shutters down and the band——
On the question of any allegations of being penalised by gardaí there is, thankfully, a Garda Complaints Board to which any genuine complaint can be made.
Is the Minister saying that in hotels at 11.30 p.m. on Sunday nights when the drinking up time is finished, the band can play music for a half hour and the bars can open at 12 a.m.?
The licensed premises must be vacated at the appropriate time as laid down in the legislation.
This legislation is closing every hotel in the country on a Sunday night. Will the Minister look at this before Report Stage?
I will have had a look at it by the time I am ready to review the legislation at the end of the year.
That is going to close every hotel on Sunday nights.
The Hotels Federation are obviously quite satisfied.
We are members of the Hotels Federation and very few of their members are involved in the provision of live entertainment and seeking extensions for Sunday night. With great respect to them, their submissions would not necessarily include this. It is in keeping with the Minister's trend to bring it back a half hour.
It will require very careful in-depth examination and study because I have found from experience — and Senator Fennell and others who have served in Government and have been involved in legislation will know — that a quick concession by way of an amendment can cause more harm at the end of the day.
I would ask that, in the light of the Minister's experience over the next few months and in keeping with his stated point of view on extensions, with which I agree totally — Sunday night extensions should be done away with completely; there should be a levelling of the ground; 48,000 extensions over the past 20 years is outrageous——
When members of the Garda Síochána go to the door to get into some of these discos they are denied admission.
Absolutely, the Minister is quite right.
I want to make it clear that I am not representing any disco.
Senator Cassidy, the Minister has given an undertaking.
I have been waiting for two hours to make my contribution on this section and all I want is fair play. The Minister is closing all the hotels on a Sunday night. I represent people who earn their living by playing live music and they are down to two nights on which to do this. This legislation is closing down 50 per cent of that business, an industry that created 8,000 jobs ten years ago before discos ran us out of business. Now we are down to Saturday and Sunday and this Bill is closing down what is left of our industry.
Senator Cassidy, would you resume your seat? In fairness the Minister would have to make a comment on that.
Is it not amazing that under the legislation as it has been up to now, when drink could not be served after 10 o'clock on a Sunday night——
Until 12 o'clock.
I beg the Senator's pardon. Drink cannot be served beyond 10 o'clock on a Sunday night with ten minutes drinking up time. People have to wait until 12 o'clock for an extension to start, and yet the hotels and live entertainment still exist.
Because they can stay open until 2 o'clock.
Senator Cassidy, I cannot allow this to go on.
We had a good discussion under your stewardship, a Chathaoirligh. We are very grateful for it and I want to thank you for it. It is a pity that an industry is going to be closed. The Minister says 1 o'clock but we could go on until 2 o'clock. One could have a hotel open for a special dinner dance for a hurling club until 2 o'clock but not until 1 o'clock.
I will have a look at it before Report Stage.
Amendment No. 22. Amendment No. 23 is similar. Amendments Nos. 24 to 27, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.
Government amendment No. 22:
In page 15, subsection (4), line 25, to delete "a document that appeared to be".
These amendments refer to the proposal that the presentation of an age card will be a defence for a licence in the case of proceedings against him for offences relating to under-age persons under Part IV of the Bill. Having considered the arguments put forward by Senator Manning on Second Stage regarding the wording of these provisions, I accept that they would be improved by deleting the reference to a document that appeared to be an age card and these amendments provide accordingly. I have great pleasure in putting forward these amendments and I presume they cover what Senator Manning has in amendments Nos. 23 and 25.
The worry that I explained at Second Stage was that either the card was a card or it was not a card and the amendment meets that.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 23 not moved.
Government amendment No. 24:
In page 15, subsection (4), lines 29 and 30, to delete "show that a document that appeared to be" and to substitute "prove that".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 25 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 31, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Will this legislation, when it comes into being, also apply to off-licences?
Yes. It will apply to any outlet that sells intoxicating liquor.
I am sure the Minister is aware that a recent survey carried out by the Health Council of Ireland indicated that 50 per cent of 15 to 17 year-olds got their drink from off-licences, 20 per cent at home and only 30 per cent from public houses.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 32 to 34, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 35.
Government amendment No. 26:
In page 18, subsection (7), lines 15 and 16, to delete "a document that appeared to be".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 35, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 36.
Government amendment No. 27:
In page 19, subsection (7), lines 17 and 18, to delete "a document that appeared to be".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 36, as amended, agreed to.
Sections No. 37 to 41, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 42.
Question proposed: "That section 42 stand part of the Bill."
I would like to make a point about the registered clubs. One wonders whether the club regulations were in actual fact implemented to suit people from another country. That is how the clubs have the benefit today of using that type of facility. We are a little bit more broad-minded in many areas than these people, but that is for another day. Entrance to a club by a Garda or anybody wearing a uniform was not allowed unless he had an inspector or a superintendent with him. This points out the type of regulations that were implemented to suit these clubs. We have people who are inclined to say that they should not recognise or play a sport which comes from another country while, at the same time, they are quite prepared to say we should implement their laws and avail of them in clubs, but people outside those clubs do not get the same facility, that is changing and I am delighted that the Minister recognises that problem.
When will we have a situation within these clubs that like another country where the clubs are so strict that there is a person at all times at the door making sure that the people entering are members, perhaps accompanied by friends or guests? There is a difference between a friend an a guest but the definition is questionable. Is there now to be an emphasis on making sure that a person signs as a member and gets documentation accordingly? Are we providing that some documentation will be handed to that person to say that he is legally a member of the club and has a number accordingly? The Minister admitted yesterday that massive amounts of State money have been pumped into these areas.
Squandered.
People who are under age are going into these clubs where there is ongoing drinking. This must stop, for the good of all of us. I make no apologies for saying that I have always questioned whether a person of 18 years should get a drink. In America you cannot get a drink at 18 years of age.
I appreciate that.
We must recognise that our alcohol content in all types of drink is much stronger than in other countries — 1 per cent or 2 per cent is a lot in alcohol content. We can be quite strict with other licensees. Who is the licensee within a club? Who signs for it? It could be a board; it could be a representative; it could be an executive body; it could be a chairman.
There is no licensee. It is registered in the name of the club board.
That is right and the board can change. I come back to the argument which was made by the Minister about Christmas Day. I have seen queues of men outside clubs in my city on Christmas Day and on Good Friday. The rest of the premises throughout the country have to close, which is ridiculous.
And publicans are depending on it for their livelihood.
The one person who will make sure that a person does not get too much drink is the local publican. It is very sad that 5 per cent or 6 per cent of our people cannot drink alcohol. That is why I am so serious about this Bill. I have seen my own people die from drink and I do not like it. We must be very strong-minded in saying that all our people will be protected, particularly from these registered clubs who have the facilities to serve drink at particular times when a person cannot get it elsewhere. The publican is paying taxes, trying to keep people employed. Nobody has had any right to question these clubs or stop them. Not even a garda had a right to question them. It was most unfair and it must not be allowed to continue.
This legislation has a certain amount of urgency, having regard to what we are trying to do about restaurants. First I must compliment Deputy Seán Barrett in the other House who brought in a Bill dealing with under-age drinking. We had a very worthwhile discussion on it which has made this a better piece of legislation. I have accepted amendments everywhere along the line. That will be seen in the records of the other House.
There were a number of things glaringly wrong with the clubs due to the privilege which they enjoyed. I went to the trouble of reading the 1958 Dáil and Seanad reports of the debates of the time and there were strong arguments made against the gardaí visiting clubs and checking up on these gentlemen. Ladies were not there too often at that time; they had their port and their sherry in more refined places. That was the thinking of the time. We have come a long way but we have a long way to go yet. Now we have clubs opened for inspection by ordinary gardaí as they should have been all along to see to it that the law is observed. When this is over I will see if there are other ways and means that I may take upon myself to ensure that other special privileges by way of membership of boards of management will not be a deterrent to proper inspection being carried out at the appropriate time. That I will do, as well as everything else.
With regard to penalties for clubs, there is a section in the Bill dealing rather effectively with them. When I get a chance as a taxpayer, I will see to it that people who invest money and spend their own money will obey the law. Up to now, people were not in a position to object to the renewal of that club licence if they lived outside the immediate area. That has been taken from them. That other pressure is there. We will have fair play right across the board and no unfair competition.
The Minister's approach to this legislation is positive and it is in the interest of society. The abuse of alcohol is well known to all of us. Like many of my colleagues, I devoted a great deal of time on Second Stage to pointing out the various statistics which are horrific.
Section 42 (1) (k) states:
That no person under the age of eighteen years shall be admitted as a member of the club unless the club is one primarily devoted to some athletic purpose...
That seems to suggest to me — and I would welcome the Minister's clarification — that a registered sporting club can allow not only access to people under 18 years of age but that, once inside the club, there is every possibility that they will be served with intoxicating liquor. I am echoing the fears of many people about under-age drinking. If there was a drug available which regularly caused road accidents, damaged health and family life and reduced industrial productivity, this Government, or any Government, would be taking the lead and publicising those dangers. That, in a sense, is what the abuse of alcohol is.
The Minister made the point earlier that he was not legislating for morality. None of us is, but all of us, led by the Minister, have got a responsibility to the people we represent in this House. I am concerned that we may be going down a road where we are talking about the commercial impact of this legislation and about the fact of some business closing. While all of that is very serious, the most serious aspect of this legislation is on the question of under-age drinking. The Minister has made a good start. I am curious about that section.
In reply to Senator Mooney I refer him to Part V, section 42. He quoted subsection (1) (k), but I would like to refer him to subsection (1) (j) which precedes (k) where it states that no excisable liquors shall be sold or supplied in the club premises to any person under the age of 18 years.
I accept that. I read that as well, but I am talking about the practice of it. It has now become common practice, where there are under-age school teams or under-age teams in a parish where there is a registered sporting club to bring them into the club. There was a time when all of us would go into the local sweet shop for orange and biscuits, but I am afraid that day has long gone. They are now being brought into a licensed premises.
It is an offence to sell alcohol to a person under 18 years of age in a sports club.
I am asking if the operation of section 42 (1) (k) means that in practice, once people are admitted under 18 years of age, they can be served. I know it is an offence, but there is a practical difficulty there.
No. Those with responsiblity take upon themselves the seriousness of such responsibility.
Is it not a question of changing the climate of attitude?
Question put and agreed to.
Section 43 to 47, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.
Amendment No. 29 is consequential on amendment No. 28 and they may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 24, before section 48, to insert a new section as follows:—
"—Section 12 of the Act of 1927 is hereby amended by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (1):
‘(1) Where on the occasion of any application for a certificate for a new on-licence or a certificate for the transfer or renewal of an on-licence, the applicant requests the Court to certify that the premises in respect of which the certificate is sought are a restaurant for the purposes of this Act, the Court, if satisfied after hearing the Officer in charge of the Garda Síochána for the licensing area that such premises are capable for use and bona fide and partly used as a restaurant, refreshment house or other place for supplying substantial meals to the public, shall grant to such applicant a certificate (in this section referred to as a restaurant certificate) certifying that such premises are a restaurant for the purposes of this Act'."
These two amendments are of a fairly substantial nature. I would like to take a few minutes explaining the thinking behind them. One of the objects of the Bill is to assist and encourage tourism by providing for the sale and supply of liquor in certain restaurants. Provision has been made for that. The Bill is deficient in that it fails to assist and develop tourism by encouraging the provision of substantial meals in public houses. There is an increasing demand by both tourists and the general community for the provision of meals in public houses at reasonable prices and in surroundings of conviviality. This has a special attraction for tourists.
The Bill, as it is at present, contains no provision whereby a publican who is serving substantial meals as part of his business is also entitled to apply for and obtain a special restaurant licence. In this regard the Bill fails to address the situation whereby publicans can be encouraged to provide substantial meals to the public by giving them the entitlement to have the same trading hours as the holder of a special restaurant licence.
Furthermore, there is no provision under the Intoxicating Liquor Acts whereby the holder of a publican's on-licence is entitled to obtain a special exemption order for a function being held on his premises. In recent years, there has been a great increase in the number of functions being held in hotels and restaurants which also hold restaurant certificates, and which are entitled to obtain special exemption orders, and whose trade detracts substantially from those of the publicans. It is the reverse of the coin which was addressed by Senator Cassidy. Club authorisations can be granted for 15 occasions in each year to a club, and in many cases one clubhouse can be used by a number of clubs which can each, in turn, apply for the 15 authorisations. This also has taken greatly from the publicans' trade which is a point made by Senator Cregan over and over again.
The object of these two amendments is to encourage publicans to provide substantial meals to the public, to encourage them to provide facilities for functions, all of which can be contained in the public house, and to encourage them to upgrade and improve their premises. The amendments introduce a new opportunity for a publican to obtain a restaurant certificate which will enable the holder of a publican's seven-day on-licence to have extra trading hours, whereby he can trade on equal terms with the holder of a special restaurant licence and be entitled to apply for special exemption orders, under which he can trade on equal terms with hotels and the holders of restaurant certificates.
In considering the amendments, reference has been made to the requirements in relation to a special restaurant licence under the Bill. Reference has also bee made to the provisions of the English Licensing Act of 1971, section 29, which provides for a special licence to be obtained in respect of a public house which provides food at functions, whereby the holder of a licence is entitled to apply for an extension licence.
It is proposed to amend section 12 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1927, which provides that a restaurant certificate can only be granted where the court is satisfied that the premises in question are structurally adapted for use and bona fide and mainly used as a restaurant, refreshment house, or other place for supplying substantial meals to the public. The existing provision of section 12 of the 1927 are inappropriate in relation to the average public house in that the entire premises must be structurally adapted and mainly used as a restaurant.
The Intoxicating Liquor Acts also contain provisions for the granting of a limited restaurant certificate which can be obtained where portion of a premises only is structurally adapted for use and bona fide and mainly used as a restaurant for supplying substantial meals to the public.
The requirements to obtain a limited restaurant certificate are inappropriate for the average public house as a radical alteration of a premises would be required, and the limited restaurant certificate applies only to a separate room in the premises and this room cannot have a public bar and must have independent access. The holder of a limited restaurant certificate is not entitled to obtain special exemption orders for functions. Accordingly, it will be noted that the provisions under the existing Intoxicating Liquor Acts for the granting of a restaurant certificate or a limited restaurant certificate and the provisions contained in the Bill for a special restaurant licence are wholly inappropriate and unsuitable for the holder of a publican's seven-day on-licence.
That is the reason this proposed amendment is necessary to meet the present day requirements which publicans feel are due to tourist and public demand and to fill a gap in the existing legislation. If accepted, these amendments will encourage publicans to improve their premises and to provide substantial meals. Under this amendment, before the court grants a restaurant certificate to the holder of a publican's seven-day on-licence, the court must be satisfied by the officer in charge of the Garda Síochána that the premises are suitable to be used for supplying substantial meals to the public ancillary and subsidiary to the principal business of selling intoxicating liquor. There are other reasons why these amendments would meet a gap in the present law. They would restore the balance between the publicans and the restaurateurs and also would be seen to put both groups on a level playing pitch. I would urge the Minister to consider these amendments as favourably as possible.
Could I ask in advance of the Minister's reply if this amendment were to be accepted would it mean that public houses, once they became eligible for a restaurant certificate licence, would then be eligible for all exemptions under the existing law?
There is a certain amount of misunderstanding, with respect to Senator Manning. Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 refer to the provisions in the 1927 Act whereby unlicensed premises can obtain restaurant certificates. These are of two kinds: a full restaurant certificate and a limited restaurant certificate. Both types of certificate enable drink to be supplied with substantial meals up to 12.30 a.m. on weekdays. Any one of the two will allow you to do that. They can do that as they are, and they are very easily acquired.
Under section 12 of the 1927 Act a full restaurant certificate can be obtained for any unlicensed premises bona fide and mainly used as a restaurant, or refreshment house, or other place supplying substantial meals to the public. Where a licensed premises holds a full restaurant certificate it is entitled to obtain special exemptions.
Section 9 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1960, provides for the grant of a limited restaurant certificate in respect of a portion of a licensed premises. A limited restaurant certificate does not entitle the holder to obtain special exemptions. I believe that Senator Manning's amendments would, in effect, combine these two provisions so that licensed premises which are only partly used as a restaurant could obtain a full restaurant licence. This would apply, for example, in the case of a public house, a small portion of which was used to supply meals to the public and, indeed, might apply where substantial meals were only occasionally supplied. The effect of these amendments would be that any such premises could get a full restaurant certificate, could supply drink with meals up to 12.30 a.m., and could get special exemptions.
Apart from other kinds of on-licence, there are up to 10,000 public house licences in this country and the effect of these amendments would be that drink could be supplied up to 12.30 a.m. in such premises and that special exemptions could be obtained even though the premises were only partly used — and "partly" is important there — to supply substantial meals to the public. This would be a distortion of the relevant provisions of the Intoxicating Liquor Acts and would result in a vast increase in the number of special exemptions being issued.
Special exemptions have been issued at the rate of 46,000 plus a year. I do not think any of us would want a further wholesale increase in such exemptions. Because of that, I hope the Senator will understand that it is not possible for me to accept the amendments.
If the part of the amendment dealing with special exemptions were withdrawn, would the Minister be prepared to think again? I accept that this is a very substantial amendment. It is appearing rather late in the life of the Bill. The points made probably deserve more detailed discussion than is possible at this time in the Bill. Would the Minister undertake that, when he is reviewing the operation of the legislation later in the year he would——
I certainly will do that. In the meantime, I want to tell Senator Manning that there is nothing to stop them from going for the ordinary restaurant certificate licence which will allow them to sell drink up to 12.30 a.m. with food.
We raised this on Second Stage. The amendments brought forward by Senator Manning are valid in particular areas. The Minister has admitted that publicans have put an awful lot of money into upgrading their premises and making them into quite fine places. There are tourist towns where a lot of public houses have changed over and have become pubs-cum-restaurants——
The publicans take pride in their premises.
They do; they have to. You do not do business anymore unless you upgrade your premises and if your premises are not looking well, it costs you. There is no question but that you will lose business. For the people who put so much emphasis on doing this, it is unfair to bring about a situation where you are readily admitting that you should be more liberal. The Minister is quite prepared to say that we must be more flexible in the licensing laws. When the Minister is discussing this further — and he appears to be saying that he will consider this within a 12 month period — serious consideration should be given to the fact that it is unfair to say that the person with the special restaurant licence — and the Minister is putting a strong emphasis on this and the Bill is building up around it a lot — cannot serve drink at this time.
They should not be trying to sell drink, and I am not denying that. They are now able to do that until 12.30 a.m. The person around the corner who has probably put a lot more into the premises is there a lot more and is serving drink legitimately. He is very fair and he is the licensee, but he does not have the same facility as the other person. The Minister is saying to me that he can apply for a special license. He can apply for a special restaurant licence. All this is part of the red tape and bureaucracy which do not have to be there. There is no reason why we cannot say that the same person should have the same facility even though he probably put £100,000 more into the business. Yet if the man around the corner pays out £3,000—I am not saying he should not and I know he puts £60,000 or £70,000 into his business and builds up a lovely restaurant business — he is now allowed to open until 12.30 a.m. A person has spent a lot more and he does not have the same facility.
I accept that.
I ask the Minister — I know it cannot be done today — to be more flexible and say that the person who puts a lot into his business is entitled to benefit.
I know of one particular case where somebody built a great, big huge pub — a barn of a place — and was running weekend functions, music functions and live entertainment. He decided that he would go for a restaurant certificate. He built a little restaurant that would not be bigger than the inquiry office where we collect our mail. We want to stop that. No matter what we do here there are many people out there who see it as a licence to print their own money by evading their responsibilities. I would say to Senator Cregan, Senator Bohan and others who are involved in the trade that I have nothing but the highest respect and regard for 99.9 per cent of the people involved in the licensed vintners' trade. They want to run decent, honest business. I do not think any of them wish to break the law. I do not think that any of them wish to offend families of customers by keeping people on drinking. I certainly believe they do not want to give drink to people who have more than enough drink taken.
It is regrettable that at times we get 1 per cent or 2 per cent who are reckless and ruthless, and get the headlines when things go wrong. I, too, see what is going on for myself and I recognise that many publicans are playing a good part. I hope that, when this Bill is eventually enacted, it will be seen as something of an effort on all our parts — totally non-political — to try to improve the situation which has been left hanging for the past 20 or 30 odd years and that, if it needs to be revamped and re-looked at, we will do that in the same way as we are doing it now. We should ensure that — and on this I have had to be very careful and I have taken a certain amount of abuse for it — sectional interests in the trade do not swipe from others for whatever reason. We do not want to have one grabbing or grasping from the others. We must be fair down the middle with them.
I will have a look at the points raised by Senator Manning. I will have them examined in full. In the meantime, there is the restaurant certificate there that should get us over this. There is a little red tape. Unfortunately, there is a lot of red tape in life that we have to deal with every day but, in the meantime, we can live with that until we have a chance to have another look at it.
I appreciate very much and I am very encouraged by the Minister's reply, but I think there is a small sense of grievance there. There is also a very real possibility for development. I am very happy with what the Minister has said.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 29 not moved.
Sections 48 and 49 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Government amendment No. 30:
In page 25, before section 50, to insert a new section as follows:—
50.—Section 4 of the Courts (No. 2) Act, 1986, is hereby amended by the insertion after ‘required' in the definition of ‘licence' of ‘and includes a licence granted under section 13 of the Refreshment Houses (Ireland) Act, 1860'.".
This amendment is intended to bring the procedure for the renewal of wine on-licences into line with the renewal procedure for other liquor licences. Under the existing law, a District Court certificate must be obtained at the end of September each year, before a liquor licence is renewed by the Revenue Commissioners. However, in the case of wine on-licences, the Revenue Commissioners renew the licence without any court certificate and the ordinary objection procedure does not apply. Section 17 of the Refreshment Houses (Ireland) Act, 1860, provides a procedure for objecting to the renewal of wine on-licences. This procedure is so cumbersome that it is hardly ever involved in practice.
The effect of this amendment is that, as and from the date of coming into operation of section 4 of the Courts (No. 2) Act of 1986, it will be possible for anyone to object in the District Court to the renewal of a wine on-licence in the same way as an objection can be made to the renewal of the other liquor licences. Wine on-licences are used by a variety of premises, including unregistered clubs which use them as a basis for obtaining special exemptions, and also by supermarkets which use them for the purpose of selling wine for consumption off the premises. This amendment will facilitate the gardaí in enforcing the law in relation to all such premises by making it easier for them to object in appropriate cases at the annual licensing court. Let those who run establishments that now refuse the gardaí admission for inspection purposes be on their guard.
I do not think that this occasion should be allowed to pass without complimenting and congratulating the Minister on this amendment. It is bringing into the framework of the legislative process people who have unscrupously flouted the law over the past number of years to their own benefit. I am particularly pleased that, apart from the Leeson Street establishments and similar such establishments around the county, the Minister is incorporatiing supermarkets and other outlets into the law. That is the area, as I pointed out earlier in relation to under-age abuse, where a substantial number of young people are buying drink in non-pub outlets.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 50 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Agreed to take Remaining Stages today.