Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 2000: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on Government amendment No. 17:
In page 7, lines 32 to 42, to delete paragraph (a) and substitute the following new paragraph:
"(a) by the substitution of the following for subsection (1) (as substituted by section 8 of the Act of 1960 and as amended by section 3 of the Act of 1962 and section 3 of the Act of 1995):
‘(1)Where any business other than the sale of intoxicating liquor (in this section referred to as non-licensed business) is carried on in any premises to which an on-licence or an off-licence is attached, the opening or keeping open of the premises for the purpose of carrying on the non-licensed business shall be permitted at any time."'.
I express my appreciation to the Minister for accepting the points made on Second Stage. I am particularly impressed by the wording of the amendment as it overcomes the problem. I wear the hat of my business on occasions but, in this case, I was equally concerned that the law was not being adhered to by small shops in the main throughout the country.
The shop in which I buy my newspaper on a Sunday morning has a wine licence and thousands of such shops are open to sell newspapers rather than alcohol. It appeared the law was being broken and I was most concerned about the danger of the law being shown disrespect. I do not only refer to Sundays but also other times, for example, if a shop had a wine licence and opened before 9 a.m. it was breaking the law. I am delighted the Minister understood the case and responded to it. I appreciate the speed with which he recognised the problem and the manner in which he solved it.
I thank Senator Quinn for his kind remarks. If a premises had a wine licence, it was not covered by those restrictions. The intoxicating liquor laws are a legal maze; approximately 55 statutes govern the area. However, if one had a wine licence, the restrictions did not come into force.
I am educated every day. For years I thought the law was being broken. I thank the Minister.
We hope that later the Minister will allow them to sell beer with a wine licence.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 8, line 6, to delete "8.00 a.m." and substitute "7.30 a.m.".
This amendment follows on from Senator Quinn's remarks and also amendment No. 17, which is welcome. My amendment is now redundant because it was postulated on the 7.30 a.m. opening hour which applies to trading premises such as supermarkets. However, they were not allowed to sell intoxicating liquor until 8 a.m. As they will not now open at 7.30 a.m, there are no implications in that regard.
However, one can go into a supermarket that has a licence to sell spirits, wine and beer and buy all the other goods one wants, such as bread and potatoes, but one cannot buy alcohol. This is an anomaly. People who go there usually to purchase goods of that nature should be entitled to do so. The hour of 8 a.m. appears to have been pulled out of the air. Why can one purchase alcohol between 8 a.m. and 10.30 p.m. on weekdays but not at 7.30 a.m. or another time if there is no restriction on the opening hours? The Minister should revisit this area in light of amendment No. 17. I hope he will consider it for Report Stage.
Paragraph (b) introduces for the first time an opportunity for shops with an off-licence attached, typically a supermarket or convenience store, to sell intoxicating liquor outside normal permitted hours. Such shops will be permitted to sell liquor from 8 a.m. on weekdays, when normal opening time on those days currently is 10.30 a.m, for the sale of liquor on or off the premises.
In so far as I am aware, the proposal in the Bill has received a broad general welcome. There is nothing to suggest that the new opening time is not adequate. The addition of an extra half hour as suggested in the amendment has the appearance of mere tinkering with the provisions of the Bill. However, I assume it has been suggested by Senator Costello because it is in line with his earlier amendment relating to the opening times for pubs at 7.30 a.m. As there was a lengthy discourse on that matter, there is little need for me to expand on why I do not intend to accept the amendment.
I understand Senator Costello's case. The hour of 8 a.m. is probably fine for the vast majority of the public. It will be useful because, for example, in the past if somebody wanted to buy the ingredients for a Christmas cake and wanted to purchase a pint of stout for it, he or she could not do so until 10.30 a.m. The 8 a.m. exception is acceptable, although 7.30 a.m. would be fine, as would 7 a.m. or 6.30 a.m. However, the Minister has done much in this area.
My point related to the intended standard opening hour of 7.30 a.m. It appeared incongruous to include 8 a.m. when 7.30 a.m. applied on the other days of the week. In view of the change the Minister introduced in amendment No. 17 to permit non-licensed business to open at any time, it is strange that he will not deal with the licensed business which operates in a similar way under the same roof. Senator Quinn said people are not likely to buy quantities of drink to consume at 7.30 a.m. or 8 a.m. They would probably buy it to drink in the evening at dinner or with the Sunday roast. We should allow flexibility rather than putting in an unnecessary restriction.
I do not mean to be argumentative or confrontational. I agree with Senator Costello who said he doubted if people would buy large quantities of drink at 7.30 a.m. in a convenience store or supermarket. However, he might accept there is something incongruous about his accepting that while, at the same time, asking me to accept an amendment that public houses should be open at 7.30 a.m.
Question, "That the figure proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Government amendment No. 19:
In page 8, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following new subsection:
"(2)Section 4 of the Public Dance Halls Act, 1935, is amended by the insertion of the following subsection:
‘(2)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of this section, a public dancing licence granted by virtue of this Act shall be deemed to be a licence that permits public dancing in the place to which the licence applies for a period not exceeding thirty minutes after any period in respect of which a special exception order (within the meaning of the Licensing Acts, 1833 to 2000) is in force in respect of that place.' ".
The changes being made to special exemption orders by section 5 of the Bill as it stands mean that licensed premises with a public dance licence may obtain a special exemption up to 2.30 a.m. However, it has been brought to my attention that situations may arise where public dance licences may permit dancing only up to 1 a.m. or 1.30 a.m. Such licences would operate for a year and are renewed annually under the annual licensing District Court period. The amendment seeks to ensure that situations do not arise whereby licensed premises which have special exemption orders may find themselves having to end the dancing before the end of the special exemption. This would not make sense.
The solution I propose is that where a special exemption order is in force the dance licence will be deemed to be a licence that will permit dancing for a period beyond the period of the special exemption, that is, up to the end of the period of drinking up time that will now be permitted at the end of a period of a special exemption. This will have the effect of ensuring that the status quo obtains in relation to dancing and extended opening hours and that future situations will not be created where there might be an anomaly as between the dance licence and the special exemption or where the dance licence might serve to limit the time to which a special exemption might be granted. It is for these reasons that I recommend this amendment to the House.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 5, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 9, lines 12 and 13, to delete subparagraph (iii).
I tabled these amendments because I am not sure it is practical to include these subparagraphs in the Bill. No one wants a restaurant or hotel to turn into a pub but we must introduce practical restrictions. I thought the time at which people can consume alcohol in a hotel or restaurant was covered by subparagraphs (i) and (ii) which state that intoxicating liquor is "ordered by that person at the same time as a substantial meal is ordered by him or her" and "consumed at the same time as and with the meal". The latter could be difficult to implement.
Subparagraphs (iii) and (iv) state that intoxicating liquor is "supplied and consumed in the portion of the premises usually set apart for the supply of meals" and "paid for at the same time as the meal is paid for". It could be easy to run into difficulties, particularly if a person decides to leave the table in the restaurant and move to the waiting area. Could they fall foul of the law if they move to an area adjacent to the restaurant? Amendment No. 21 relates to paying for the meal. If a meal has been paid for and someone offers to buy brandies for everyone a quarter of an hour later, will they fall foul of the law?
This is becoming complicated and it would be easier to delete these two subparagraphs. I do not know people who have tried to use a restaurant as a pub. These subparagraphs do not add to the Bill and they will only cause grief to those trying to enforce the law.
I support Senator Henry. The Minister has been flexible and rational during these discussions. I do not know what he does on Christmas Day but a person can have alcohol with a meal in a restaurant on Christmas Day "between 1.00 p.m. and 3.00 p.m.". However, what happens if a person is asked if they want a drink at 3 p.m.? There may be reasons why this is so tightly controlled. Subparagraphs (iii) and (iv) state that intoxicating liquor is "supplied and consumed in the portion of the premises usually set apart for the supply of meals" and "paid for at the same time as the meal is paid for". That is between 1 p.m. and 3 p.m. on Christmas Day but it also applies to other days. Is the Minister flexible enough to admit that is a little stiff and straight and to waive it?
It is difficult to understand why alcohol must be consumed "in the portion of the premises usually set apart for the supply of meals" and that it must be "paid for at the same time as the meal is paid for". At least one restaurant which I go to frequently has a large dining area but people usually retire to other rooms beside it for a drink. People could break the law by leaving the dining area and going to an ante-room, such as the antechamber, for a drink. I do not understand the rationale behind this provision. I support Senator Henry's amendment.
Under existing legislation hotels and restaurants enjoy more liberal hours of trading than public houses where alcohol is supplied in conjunction with a meal. The laws contained in section 13 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1927, as amended by the Act of 1988, provide that a premises which is a hotel or restaurant is entitled to supply intoxicating liquor in conjunction with a meal to persons on the premises for up to an hour later than it is permitted to remain open for the sale of alcohol only. Alcohol can be served in conjunction with food between 2 p.m. and 3 p.m. on Sunday afternoons and between 1 p.m. and 3 p.m. or 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. on Christmas Day. In addition, more liberal trading hours are permitted subject to the conditions that any alcohol served is served in conjunction with a meal, is ordered and consumed at the same time as the meal, is supplied and consumed in the portion of the premises set aside for meals and paid for at the same time as the meal. I ask Senators to forgive me if that sounds like an obstacle course.
Section 6 further amends section 13 of the 1927 Act. The purpose of the new section is to provide for an alteration in the permitted hours with regard to the serving of alcohol with a meal in a hotel or restaurant subject to the conditions which already apply. It extends permitted hours in these circumstances by one hour over and above the time in which these premises may lawfully sell intoxicating liquor. This section is necessary to maintain the differential which exists for the hotel and restaurant business in relation to the sale of alcohol in conjunction with a meal. However, those parts of section 13 of the 1927 Act which specify the conditions under which alcohol is to be served in hotels and restaurants remain unchanged.
Senator Henry's amendments propose to delete the provisions which specify that intoxicating liquor must be supplied and consumed in the portion of the hotel or restaurant usually set apart for the supply of meals and paid for at the same time as the meal is paid for. I appreciate that her amendments are well intentioned. However, they do not take into account those provisions in law which distinguish the restaurant or hotel business from the public house business. The existing law is specific. It is based on the premise that the sale of alcohol is ancillary to the main restaurant business. A certain relaxation of permitted hours is provided to allow restaurants to operate in line with public expectation and demand, but this is contingent on certain conditions regarding how and where alcohol is served and paid for.
Were I to accept these amendments, alcohol could be served anywhere in a restaurant or hotel to all comers, not just diners in a restaurant or paying guests in a hotel, during times when other licensed premises would be obliged to remain closed. The effect of the amendment, were it to be accepted, would be to create an anomaly regarding the circumstances under which one could obtain intoxicating liquor. The licence which permits the hotelier or restaurateur to sell intoxicating liquor would be open to abuse.
This provision has worked well and I do not detect any demand, from the restaurant or hotel trade or the public, for change. There is nothing in existing law or by virtue of section 6 that precludes patrons from splitting the bill for a meal between them in such a way that one person pays for the drinks and the other for the meal. What is not permitted is for persons to use a restaurant as if it were a pub for the purpose of obtaining after-hours drinks only. In short, I do not want to bring about a situation where people leave a public house and decide to go to a restaurant and drink there instead.
That is not what I suggested. Section 13(i) and (ii) as inserted by section 6 are sufficient to prevent that. They state that drink must be ordered by the person at the same time as a substantial meal is ordered. I have a great deal of sympathy for restaurant owners who say that pubs are competing with them in the restaurant business. The amount of food now consumed in pubs, some of it very good, is nearly of the same order as that consumed in restaurants. I would bet that more money is taken in for food at lunchtime than is taken in for drink. Could a survey be done on that? I believe it to be so.
What would the Minister describe as that part of the premises which is usually set aside for the supply of meals?
The part of the premises which would be set aside for meals would be the restaurant in a hotel, for example. The restrictions would apply in the restaurant part of the hotel. That is one example and there are others of which I can think. Furthermore, under existing legislation there is a question of providing a specific portion of the premises for the sale of intoxicating liquor in a restaurant and various rules govern that.
What about the waiting area? Will that be covered? What if a few tables are on the street outside the restaurant? Will they be covered? Will it be all right to drink at them?
Those areas will not be covered.
That is the problem. If staff are trying to clear tables and settle up the premises, they cannot move people to outside seating, so that impedes business. That is what I thought, so I am glad I tabled the amendment. Business will be hampered. Often proprietors will not want to keep staff hanging on within the restaurant area while people are finishing up, yet such people cannot go out to the waiting area. That is what I suspected.
I support Senator Henry. This is well covered by section 13(i) and (ii) as inserted by section 6. In one case the intoxicating liquor must be ordered by a person at the same time as a substantial meal is ordered by them. That covers the Minister's point. In the other case, it must be consumed at the same time as and with the meal. That appears to be sufficient. The other requirements are additions which came from nowhere. I would love it if the Minister accepted our point and allowed them to be deleted.
There are anomalies in the intoxicating liquor laws and I would be the last to defend the indefensible. We will deal later with the issue of credit cards. One cannot use a credit card to buy intoxicating liquor, for example. Other restrictions also exist. In due deference to what both Senators said, I will re-examine this and return to it.
That is splendid. I would not like anyone to be arrested in Caherciveen because they were sitting in the waiting area.
No one is ever arrested in Caherciveen.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 21 not moved.
Section 6 agreed to.
Amendment No. 22 not moved.
Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 are alternatives to amendment No. 23 and all may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 10, lines 29 to 34, to delete paragraphs (a) and (b) and substitute the following new paragraphs:
"(a) in subsection (1) by the deletion of ‘: provided that, where the period aforesaid exceeds nine days, the exemption shall be limited to such times and days as it thinks fit during a period or periods (not exceeding three) comprising in all not more than nine days' and substitute ‘provided that the period aforesaid shall not exceed 12 days.'
(b) and by the deletion of subsection (4).”.
This seeks greater flexibility in what are called "area exemptions". The House will know that, during a local festival, licensed premises in the area can apply to the court for an exemption for late drinking to cover the period of a festival. There have been restrictions to that, perhaps rightly so. Heretofore, nine days in the year could be given in area exemptions. The Minister has decided to extend that to 12 and that is welcome.
We are trying to change the inflexibility of having to seek them in groups of three. Where a local festival is organised, the practice is that it is usually held over a weekend and that late exemptions are given from Thursday night to Saturday night or Friday night to Sunday night. I am seeking flexibility for small villages such as mine where a local race meeting is held on one night once a year and where there would be a demand for a late exemption on that one night. Unfortunately we cannot obtain it and we must apply for a group of three. The requirement of considerable prior notice being given could be included. If people know a local race meeting is being held on a date in July, for example, there are months of notice. Therefore, organisers applying for an exemption could be obliged to give three or four months' notice to the court.
That is all we seek. It is reasonable and the Minister should look at it reasonably. Perhaps there could be a compromise in that there would also have to be a certain number of groups of two or three, but there should be sufficient flexibility to allow for one or two night exemptions on a number of occasions during the year and not just in these groupings of three.
Allowing one night exemptions would mean that there could be one late night per month. I am not in favour of that. I may have a vested interest in not allowing it, but groups of three for a festival or something similar is adequate. I would be against the Minister changing that to 12 singles or six doubles. Late night exemptions are a move in the right direction as they give business people and publicans a certain opportunity, but I would be against changing the current arrangement to Senator Connor's proposal.
Section 9, as it stands, provides for an increase in the number of area exemption orders from nine to 12 days. The 12 days may be divided into not more than four periods consisting of one or more consecutive days. Area exemption orders are granted under section 10 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1962, only to places outside the Dublin city borough boundary. They are granted where there is a particular local area need identified and it is accepted by the court that the area exemption order is necessary in order to accommodate an influx of persons visiting an area because of some period of special festivity.
The effect of the amendments would be to see the provision relating to area exemption orders further amended so that these can be granted in respect of any 12 days and not as groups of three days. This would run counter to the idea behind an area exemption order, which is to cater for a special event that is unusual and which takes place infrequently, as well as making the order neces sary for the accommodation of the extra persons on the occasion of the special event. Typically, these events would run over a number of days, such as a festival and not on a single day. Section 9 as it stands is a useful concession in that it extends in effect the number of orders that can be made while retaining the character of an area exemption order. I am not disposed towards accepting these amendments.
The other kind of order is a general exemption order, which differs from an area exemption order in that it can be applied for in court and can be granted in respect of events such as a market or fair. I am the first to accept that the intoxicating liquor laws are labyrinthine in complexity and are spread over almost 55 Acts. Some of the provisions can be quite archaic, but this provision, although it goes back to the 1962 Act, has allowed for orders to be availed of successfully and those orders work. Senator Connor said that we should perhaps look at the concept of people having to accept four groups of three days, which is an interesting idea, but the argument against that is that this provision is meant for a special event that brings people to an area. A special event is not something that occurs, in the context of this provision, for one or even two days.
If a person wants an exemption for a special event he or she must apply for a special exemption order provided he or she has a public dance licence. From here on in one will not need a restaurant certificate for a special exemption; one will need just a publican's licence and the dance licence. The latter is not easy to get as there are various fire regulations and so on attached, which is as it should be given our experience of tragedies in Ireland.
Senator Connor's point is well made, but my difficulty is that a person seeking a special exemption should have a dance licence just like anyone else seeking such an exemption. In other words, would the effect of Senator Connor's proposal be that pubs with no dance licence would be able to avail of the area exemption order to circumvent the necessity for a special exemption order? I do not want that to happen for many reasons. We will look at this and come back to it.
I am grateful to the Minister for his flexibility. Rather than six groups of two I would be willing to agree to grouping the exemptions in threes, but there should be a small cohort, maybe three or four, that could be applied for singly. That flexibility should be brought in. In practice, the 12 area exemptions will not be sought for 12 different days throughout a year. Most festivals last for a weekend – we are talking about three days, usually from Friday to Sunday. We should have flexibility in that at least three days could be applied for individually, although I do not want to compromise my amendment.
If there is a wedding or 21st birthday in an area, will that afford publicans the opportunity to claim a special occasion once a month if we award these exemptions singly? The Minister was generous in moving towards four groups of three per area, as we all know most towns require special concessions for festivals and so on. However, we could create special occasions if we take this route and those special occasions might not be created for the right reasons.
There are always a few nights in every year.
Maybe if the All-Ireland hurling title is won.
The last thing I want to do is to stop people enjoying themselves in a reasonable way. That is not the intent of the legislation. At the same time I have stressed the need to be responsible and sensible in relation to the Bill.
Senator Connor has a point. Often a festival in a rural town may run for just a weekend. The festival may be on Friday and Saturday but publicans are obliged to take another exemption – for Sunday or Thursday – when they may not have as much business. That said, I do not want area exemption orders to be used as a way of circumventing the requirement for a special exemption order. If I allowed that I would be saying there is no great requirement for a public dance licence and all the stringent conditions attached to it.
Senator Moylan referred to 21st birthday parties. I do not think that a young person of 21 will have a drinking party in a pub – at least I hope not – for his or her 21st birthday. I do not think they would want to. Young people want music and dancing and the music would be loud as possible as far as I am aware. I am conscious of Senator Connor's point and would like to look at the possibility of allocating exemptions in six groups of two.
My objective is to facilitate the House and Senator Connor in a reasonable way in order to benefit the greater good. Let us have another look and return to this on Report Stage.
These related amendments refer to the 12 area exemptions to be allowed in the course of a year. What the Minister has said is a movement in the right direction but if we are to allow a public house to apply for 12 area exemptions for a festival or whatever function that is appropriate, it seems terribly restrictive to say they can only be applied for in groups of three. There should be some flexibility in relation to the number of days for which the area exemption would be allowed, either two by six or whatever, to allow the courts to decide on the matter. An application will have to be made anyway and it should be a matter for the courts to decide what is appropriate. I would have thought that the legislation did not need to specify in this area other than to give some guidelines.
As a matter of courtesy to Senator Costello, I acknowledge that he has put down an amendment also in relation to this matter. I have indicated to Senator Connor, in regard to his amendment and indeed that of Senator Costello, that we will examine the possibility of being more flexible in this respect. I want to give the matter more consideration and we will come back to it on Report Stage next week.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 not moved.
Section 9 agreed to.
Sections 10 and 11 agreed to.
Amendment No. 26 not moved.
Section 12 agreed to.
SECTION 13.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 11, line 45, to delete "shall" and substitute "may".
It is with some trepidation that I move this amendment because I understand what the Minister is trying to do, that is, impose a mandatory closure of a premises if an under age person is found to have been consuming intoxicating liquor on the premises. It is a general principle of criminal law that mandatory sentences are not imposed "cold"; they have to be taken in context. The offence may have happened for the first time, yet a mandatory sentence is being imposed. We are really talking about habitual offenders. If somebody is known to have committed this offence the full rigours of the law should apply to them, and that should be reflected in the legislation. Including the word "shall" rather than "may" is probably not that helpful. It would be better to leave it to the discretion of the courts as to how the offence will be punished, rather than providing for the mandatory closing of a premises for a first offence.
There may be many cases where people get through the process by a nod or a wink or whatever. They may be habitual offenders in this regard and they may be able to escape the net. It would be better to apply the full rigours of the law to people who are shown to be flouting it.
I agree with Senator Costello. These matters should always be left to the discretion of the court hearing the case. I do not agree with making it a form of edict, by saying that it shall be rather than it may be done. I do not agree with it in that context. I have little to add to what Senator Costello said, other than to say that there should always be discretion in relation to these matters and the wording of the Bill should be seen to be open to the discretion of the courts.
I agree with Senators Costello and Connor in relation to mandatory sentencing. We all know that we must provide for special circumstances and to impose a mandatory restriction is taking it too far in this context.
We are now coming to the part of the Bill that concerns people most, that is the whole question of under age drinking. We have to take a firm stand here and do whatever can be done to discourage anyone who is tempted knowingly to serve people who are under age. We know that under age drinking is going on.
The Minister has thought out this aspect very well. When I first looked at it I thought it was a very heavy weapon to use but what the Minister has done seems to be acceptable. He has given the power to the courts to decide and he is also limiting their powers, to a certain extent, by including "not exceeding seven days in respect of a first offence". He is also limiting their power in another way which I have not seen before. In addition to any penalty imposed, an order will be made for the closure of the premises concerned or any part thereof. The Minister is giving the judge a lot of flexibility and I cannot oppose that. I said earlier today that we should allow the courts make decisions in their own area rather than have the Minister decide everything for all offences.
On balance this is acceptable. It says "shall" rather than "may" and I understand the reason Senator Costello is making the case. That would give more flexibility to the judge rather than the other way around. The judge has the flexibility to close part or all of the premises but not for more than seven days on the first offence. On balance we need a strong hand if we are going to provide for tight controls, to the extent of scaring those who may run foul of this measure.
In my own business some years ago, we found the danger of serving alcohol in a supermarket such that we were afraid of breaking the law. We upped the age limit to 21 years and would not serve anyone unless they could prove they were 21 years old. We have now upped it to 25 years because some 16 year old males with a beard can look a lot older and some efforts were made to find people who were breaking the law. The words we use in our sign are, "If you're lucky enough to look under the age of 25, please have your ID with you". It is a clever and rather subtle way of getting around the issue.
The onus of responsibility is definitely on the seller of alcohol to make sure that alcohol is not sold to somebody who is under age. On balance the Minister has probably got it right in that it is fairly tough. I have no problem with giving more freedom to the judge in this case. This is a strong weapon in the judge's hands and it should scare the living daylights out of anybody who is ever tempted to take a weak attitude towards the sale of alcohol to people who are under age.
This is a very important section. There is a real problem with under age drinking and we see the results of that among our young people. I am involved with young people in sport but we often have a problem where, as a result of drink, no matches are held on Sundays. Under age drinking also affects church and even work attendance.
I would be concerned about the temporary closure of a premises in the event of false ID being shown because it is often difficult for the publican. If an ID is shown, there is a tendency to serve them. Unfortunately, the IDs can be false. This is an important section but it should be examined in more detail.
Senator Costello was anxious that the word "shall" should be replaced by the word "may". It is probably better to leave the section the way it is worded by the Minister. Judges are given a great deal of discretion. The section provides that the closure of the premises concerned or a part thereof shall be for a period not exceeding seven days in respect of the first such offence. Such a premises could be closed for half a day or for whatever number of days a judge decides. A minor reprimand could be given to ensure that if a publican is taken in by false identification papers, he or she will be more careful the next time.
Legislation such as this has been in place in America for decades. It has been important in ensuring young people have not been served intoxicating drink in what we would describe as bars. I do not know why anyone would want to go to an American bar where one could break one's neck without any drink taken having to make one's way in the dark even at noon.
The Minister is right in what he has provided in this section. We may have been slightly amused by Senator Ridge's descriptions of what happens when teenagers have consumed intoxicating liquor. In the case of an enormous number of teenage pregnancies, teenagers will say drink was involved. We know it is a factor in many traffic accidents. It is better that the section remains as it is worded.
Senator Quinn must have had for a few years that sign displayed in his premises stating that people under the age of 25 will not be sold alcoholic drink and it has not resulted in his business going to the wall. If such a sign was displayed in other premises, I am sure it would not result in their going to the wall. It is worthwhile retaining the wording of the section.
I have little to add to what I said on this section on Second Stage. I am concerned about the provision that a court could impose a mandatory seven day closure of a premises for a breach of the law in this respect. The publicans I represent, and I can speak for publicans through out the country, would have no time for a publican who serves alcohol to under age customers. It is extremely difficult for a publican to determine whether girls especially are aged 17 and half, 18 or 19. Most publicans would be happy if the imposition of a penalty for a breach of law in this area was left to the discretion of the judge rather than a court imposing a mandatory seven day closure of a premises.
The Garda know the houses that abuse the law by serving alcoholic drinks to under age persons. If a garda can prove that in respect of a public house, I would have no problem with a penalty imposing the closure of such a premises. In a case where six, seven or eight people are drinking at a table in a pub where there are 200 to 300 on a Saturday night and one person at that table orders drinks for the group, it is impossible for the person serving to distinguish which of those people is aged 17, 18 or 19.
Many fictitious identity cards are used. There is no national identity card. If there was, it would solve the problem but it will be some time before the State issues such a card. As I said on Second Stage, I know of a case where the owner of a premises in which a function was being held, which no one under the age of 19 was allowed enter, had two people on the door checking ID. A bit of a fracas broke out on the premises and a girl was brought to the local Garda station. She had an ID card stating she was 19 years of age and the gardaí involved admitted she looked 19 years old or more, but it transpired she was only 16 years old. That highlights the dreadful pitfalls in this area for the licensed trade.
I ask that the imposition of a penalty for a breach of the law in this respect be left to the discretion of the court. I do not deny that some pubs serve alcoholic drink to those who are under age. Senator Quinn mentioned the abuse of the law in this respect in a premises in the Malahide area of which I am aware. I do not approve of it and neither does my association. While there are black sheep in the trade who should be dealt with, 99.5% of publicans in the country do not tolerate under age drinking.
This penalty is a draconian punishment to inflict on somebody who unknowingly serves alcoholic drink to a person who is six months under the age of 18. In such a case a garda would be able to prove to a court, without any shadow of doubt, that a particular house was abusing the law in this area. A number of such houses are well known and judges have threatened not to renew their licences in recent years. Those houses should be closed permanently. A publican who is doing his best to run a good house and not serve anyone under age can have his premises automatically closed for seven days if, through some misfortune, a person who is under age slips through the net and an ambitious sergeant or inspector discovers that person on the premises.
I ask the Minister to reconsider this provision when the Bill is taken in the lower House and to leave the automatic seven day closure of a premises for such a breach to the discretion of the court and allow it to determine if a publican is guilty. If the law in this area is abused, my association would have no time for that type of operation. It is draconian to close a premises for seven days for a first offence in this respect and for 14 days for a second offence, but if the law is being abused on an ongoing basis I have no problem with the imposition of such a penalty.
This is a good Bill. I congratulate the Minister and his advisers on the work they put into it. It seeks to cater for everyone. Senator Costello referred to Sunday night closing.
The Senator must stick to the amendment before us.
I would favour a closing time of 11.30 p.m. rather than 12.30 a.m. With regard to the imposition of the mandatory closure of a pub for a breach of the law in this respect, I ask the Minister to reconsider that penalty and to leave the imposition of a penalty to the discretion of the court.
I support the sentiments expressed by Senator Bohan and others. It is necessary to change the law to ensure the scourge of under age drinking is dealt with properly as there have been difficulties and technicalities in terms of reasonable doubt. People knowingly sold drink to under age youths and got away with it. I have no sympathy for those who knowingly continue to do so. It is only right and proper they should be penalised where it hurts them most, in their pockets, by the imposition of a temporary closure of their premises for seven days.
There is reasonable doubt that a decent and genuine publican who is running his business properly could unknowingly serve an under age youth and his premises could be temporarily closed for seven days. The fact that the imposition of such a closure is mandatory would make it extremely difficult for a judge in a court of law to have discretion.
Some people will attempt to use fake IDs or other means to get a drink on a licensed premises by, for example, asking someone who is not under age to purchase it. If that happens unknowingly to a publican, it is very harsh that such a publican's premises could be temporarily closed. It would be preferable if there was a system whereby due process took place and such a publican could go to court and prove beyond reasonable doubt that he or she unknowingly served alcoholic drink to an under age person. We must also remember that the imposition of such a penalty will not only affect the publican but the staff who may be out of work for seven days. That is another factor we should consider. As other Senators have said, this issue needs to be looked at. This problem will arise occasionally and the penalty will be very severe on publicans that are caught in that position.
It is significant what can be achieved by changing a single word. Depending on who utters it, the whole world can be changed by a single word. The effect of the amendment proposed here would be to kick away what I regard as not just a significant strengthening but a desirable one in tackling the under age drinking problem by targeting those who engage in this trade. I assume that most Members would support strong sanctions against those who engage in a criminally irresponsible act.
The report of the sub-committee of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights made specific reference to the problem of under age drinking. It called for stiffer penalties, including increased fines and the temporary closure of premises. All of these suggestions have been taken on board in the Bill. The granting and renewal of a liquor licence is on the basis that the person is of sound character, otherwise he or she would not have received a licence in the first place or continue to hold one.
The amendment may wish to protect those who make a mistake. I have no doubt that that is its intention. The reality is that licensees cannot use as a defence against their actions or omissions the excuse that they made a mistake. Otherwise the question will arise, "When do they stop making mistakes?" If this provision appears tough then it is meant to be so. The message needs to be got across that supplying liquor to under age persons is unacceptable in any circumstances. The message that should go out from this House to licence holders is that they should ask for proof of age if they are in any doubt about a young person. That is the best defence open to the licensee.
The amendment would have the effect of diluting the strength of section 13. It would lead to a situation where the section would not operate to any particular effect. That could defeat the purpose of the section and it would depart from the policy suggested by the Oireachtas joint committee and endorsed by the Government.
The present law under which a person may lose a licence is largely inoperable because it is draconian. The provision in the Bill would be a workable solution. That much may not be said about the amendment and I do not think it can be supported. I will illustrate precisely what I mean. If it were the case that every person charged with this offence could go into a court and say that the premises was crowded on the night in question, then this section would not be worth the paper upon which it is written. I accept and admit that this provision is the toughest legislative provision that has been brought into force against the scourge of under age drinking in our society since the foundation of the State. This was done for a very good reason. Under age drinking is a serious problem that is growing, not slowing down or dissipating, and it must be tackled. The easiest thing for me to do would be to come here and pay lip service to the problem. If I accepted this amendment I would be doing that.
There is a national identity card scheme in operation which I introduced in April 1999.
At that time I stated that it was important for people to apply for the card and that publicans and anyone involved in the supply and sale of intoxicating liquor should get used to asking for the card. If a licensee has any doubt about a young person's age I would strongly advise them to ask for an ID card. If they do not have a card then the licensee should not serve them.
I accept that this legislation is tough. I am not saying it is not. In coming to a determination regarding the length of the closure it is specified quite clearly at section 13(3):
In determining the duration of a temporary closure the Court may seek from a member of the Garda Síochána involved in the investigation of the offence a report on the circumstances in which it was committed and any other information which the Court may consider to be of assistance to it in dealing with the case.
The court takes into account the circumstances under which the sale to the young person took place. I have been extremely careful to ensure that there is no minimum period which the court is bound to impose by way of closure. It could be an hour, one day, three days or seven days.
A minority of people are involved in the sale and supply of intoxicating liquor who have no compunction about serving children. This practice must stop. It will never be prevented entirely but it is incumbent on the Legislature at this period in our history to do what is necessary and right by young people. Parents of teenagers all around the country are horrified at the prospect of their children coming home helplessly drunk on the night the junior certificate results are announced. It is happening before our eyes. There is a duty on the Legislature to tackle this problem. This provision is unyielding and uncompromising. It will not be changed and I do not say that with any degree of smugness.
The Minister has been very convincing and trenchant in the views he expressed. It is not often that I would side with the vintners in putting an amendment forward. I introduced this amendment with some degree of trepidation. I have always espoused the principle that we should not have mandatory sentences because they make bad law. They create more problems than they resolve. Once a judicial process is in place then that is the way to deal with this matter.
We have many laws on the Statute Book but questions arise about how they will be implemented. There is a context in which drinking takes place. Guinness is a major sponsor of young people's sports, from surfing to Gaelic football and soccer. That is allowed with impunity. Other people have responsibilities in this area.
We have an epidemic of people drinking in public parks. The law is not being implemented either by the local authorities who are responsible for the regulations or the gardaí within whose jurisdiction this drinking takes place. Off-licences are quite clearly selling intoxicating liquor to young people who then consume it.
I am aware of clusters of public houses in the city where young people are served. I agree with the PTAA's proposal for the Minister to establish a special unit to deal with the public houses that have been flouting the law with impunity. When young people get their junior certificate results they know which public houses to go to. I am concerned that the Minister is just focusing on public houses in this provision. It covers off-licences to a degree. The pub is the only place where a young person under 18 years of age can be found, perhaps in a group of people, with a pint in their hand. I would like to see this provision broadened so that we do not have one area of prescription.
The other areas I talked about are neither properly regulated nor policed. I have no doubt this will not be properly policed and I would like to see the Minister focusing on the areas which can be identified. A positive statement to the effect that there will be a proposal to set up a special unit within the Garda Síochána to police the abuse of alcohol and prevent under age drinking would be worthwhile.
I agree with the Minister in sticking with what he has done. He correctly referred to the situation where we see drunken junior certificate students at the top of Grafton Street. I do not know where they get alcohol, except in pubs—
—because there are no off-licences there from which to purchase drink. It is important to remember that Professor Anthony Clare has frequently written that we talk continuously about the drug problem, vis-à-vis ecstasy, heroin and so on, but he said that the abuse of alcohol by teenagers is a far greater problem. He deals with alcohol abuse in St. Patrick's Institution far more frequently than with hard drugs.
The Americans have managed to recognise people's age by employing more staff. This helps in that those selling alcohol and serving it can take a good look at the person who orders drinks for a group of people and those who will consume it. The Minister is right to stick with this. There is huge flexibility here. The judge can decide to close a pub from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. and so on.
It is obvious the Minister will not be swayed on this amendment even with the promptings from the Government side. On a point of clarification, there is confusion on mandatory closure. We assume seven days is the maximum imposition. The fact that the District Court has discretion to impose a lesser mandatory sentence or punishment is acceptable in so far as the Minister will not move on the major issue of the mandatory question. We agree that publicans who disregard this principle should be punished.
Senator Bohan made an important point about loss of business. If the ultimate sanction were imposed, a publican, in losing trade for seven days, would effectively lose half his business because his customers would not wait for him to reopen. They would have gone elsewhere and many of them would not return. It is an extreme sanction and we must recognise that the District Court has discretion to impose a lesser mandatory punishment.
I compliment the Minister and it is great to see him standing firm on this section. Reference was made to young people doing the junior certificate and the problems associated with them regarding alcohol. Children are drinking much younger than those doing their junior certificate and they are able to get beer. There is a problem in respect of off-licences.
I would like the Minister to comment on the penalty on young people using false ID to purchase alcohol in a premises. Tied into this, there must also be a deterrent on those who do so. The problem of publicans selling alcohol to young people has been taken in hand, but there must be a deterrent in respect of young people who go out with false ID with the sole aim of purchasing alcohol.
All that has to be said has been said, with a few exceptions. I will try to reply briefly. On the question of identity cards and young people using forged cards, the discretion to introduce the cards was first provided for in the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1988. The Minister for Justice was given the power under that legislation to introduce, by way of regulation, a system of national identity cards on a discretionary basis. That power was not exercised until I did so last year when I gave the advice that those involved in the drinks industry should get used to asking young people for ID cards. If that did not happen, with all due respect to everybody, it is not my fault, although I must admit, accept and stress that I am satisfied the vast majority of those involved in the drinks industry do not want to supply young people with drink and do not do so. That might explain why there was not a great take-up in terms of applying for the ID cards. The vast majority of people do not become engaged in supplying drink to young people anyway.
The position is that a young person can go to a Garda station, fill out a form, the form is sent to the Phoenix Park, Dublin, and in so far as it can be fault proof, the details on the card, including the photograph of the young person, are sent back to the Garda station. Obviously, the young person will arrive at the station with his birth certificate and photograph. I cannot make it mandatory on people to have ID cards. Why should I make it mandatory on a person, for example, of 16 or 17 years of age to have an ID card if he-she has no intention of seeking alcohol? I do not think a young person should be penalised or obliged in that way. Having pointed that out, in reply to Senator Moylan, if a forgery occurs, the person concerned will be subjected to serious penalties. Abuse of the ID card attracts a fine of up to £1,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or both. This is to prevent forgery of the cards, which, incidentally, is an offence under the 1988 Act. However, the scheme was not introduced until last year when I activated the section in question.
The cards are not so easy to forge. There are security features which include a hologram that is incorporated into their design and, obviously, that is a major security feature. It is obvious that if a person over the age of 18 looks younger and he wishes to purchase alcohol, he should get a card. It is straightforward. There is no need for anybody under the age of 18 to get an ID card because he should not be seeking alcohol anyway. For the person supplying alcohol the situation is very clear. One should make certain that if there is any doubt about a person, the ID card should be produced. If it is not produced and the doubt remains, my strong advice is not to serve him.
On the issue of enforcement, a matter referred to by Senator Costello, I indicated at the publication of the Bill that hand in hand with the relaxation of the opening hours, greater ease of access to the trade and other liberalising measures, there would be a crackdown on abuses of the law. On enactment of this legislation, I will be asking the Garda Commissioner to pursue vigorously those who persistently flout the law, particularly those who engage in the criminally irresponsible trade of supplying intoxicating liquor to persons under age.
Senator Henry is correct in that there is absolutely no doubt that alcohol is unquestionably a far greater threat in terms of the quantity of young people abusing it than controlled substances or illegal drugs. To dilute this legislation in the manner suggested would result in letting down the parents of teenagers. There is no easy way to do this – either we tackle it head on with legislation or we forget about it. Dilution of this measure in the manner suggested would render the provision inoperable as it could not be applied with any confidence.
I am convinced that the section as drafted will be a major weapon in the fight against under age drinking. It will not eliminate the practice. Other factors, such as education and parental responsibility, must also be taken into account. In the final analysis, it is important that we attempt to cut off the supply at source. Let us see how it works. My view is that it will be a significant weapon in the fight against under age drinking.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is the amendment being pressed?
No, but I may re-enter it on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 28:
In page 13, line 9, to delete "during the period of closure under the order" and substitute "by reason of the order during the period of closure under it".
I am proposing a minor amendment to subsection (8) of the new section 36A of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1988, as inserted by section 13 of the Bill to clarify the position relating to the protection of persons employed in the licensed premises that is the subject of a temporary closure order. The amendment makes it clear that by reason of the order during the period of closure under it the employee must not be disadvantaged in his or her employment. I recommend the amendment to the House.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 29:
In page 13, line 14, to delete "Workers" and substitute "Worker".
This amendment is intended to reflect in full the title of the legislation referred to in subsection (9) of the new section 36A of the 1988 Act. I recommend the amendment to the House.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 13, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 14.
Government amendment No. 30:
In page 13, subsection (1), lines 45 and 46, to delete "(exclusion of children from bars of licensed premises)" and substitute "(sale of intoxicating liquor to under age persons)".
This is a technical amendment which makes it clear that section 31 of the 1988 Act referred to in section 14(1) relates to the provision of liquor to under age persons and does not exclude children from bars.
It is a great deal more sensible than what was contained in the original Bill. It at least means children will not be left outside in the rain.
Amendment agreed to.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendment No. 32 is an alternative to amendment No. 31 and they may be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 14, lines 1 to 11, to delete paragraph (b).
The amendment seeks the deletion of paragraph (b). While I agree with much of the section, it needs to be overhauled. Section 14 places the responsibility on the licensee to determine the age of a person. It is also the licensee who will bear responsibility for an infraction of the law. That is unfair.
I am strongly against under age drinking and I have spoken in favour of compulsory ID cards. Consider the example of a customer who buys a round of drinks and serves an alcoholic beverage to a person under 18 years of age sitting at his table. Is it fair that the licensee will be held responsible for that person being served alcohol? The licensee would have no reason to believe any of the drinks would be served to an under age person. The Minister is placing absolute responsibility for such action on the publican. I believe it should be shared.
The Minister mentioned that a person who forges or interferes with an identity card is guilty of a criminal offence and will be held responsible. The age of criminal responsibility – I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong – is 14 years.
No, it is 7 years of age. I am changing it to 12 years of age.
A young person of 14 or 15 years of age ought to know the law. It is an offence for such young persons to purchase alcohol. They ought to know they are breaking the law by going into pubs and representing themselves as more than 18 years old. Why does the Bill not take account of that? Young people would have to be accompanied by their parents in court because a person under the age of 18 years cannot appear in the District Court without them.
If we are to do everything we can to fight the scourge of under age drinking we must place some of the responsibility on young people. Children mature much earlier nowadays and have reached the full use of reason by the time they are teenagers. They know when they are breaking the law. They may misrepresent their age to obtain alcohol. We should delete this section or revise it to include a provision to place the burden of responsibility on the under age person requesting alcohol. These people know they are in breach of the law. It is unfair to place all the burden of responsibility on a licensee who may, in the circumstances I outlined – and there are many others one could think of – have been fooled by the customer.
The 1988 Act governs the supply of intoxicating liquor to persons under 18 years of age. It is a clear interdiction. The Minister said that Act set the framework for a voluntary ID card scheme. I spoke on the debate on that Act which put in place the framework for a national statutory identity card scheme to be used by young people but it was not activated by this Minister or his predecessors because it was felt that it might be an infringement of civil liberties.
We have reached a point where we must do more than place the responsibility for under age drinking on publicans. We must place some of the responsibility on those who know what they are doing. Young people between the ages of 15 and 18 years who knowingly go into pubs seeking alcohol are aware they are breaking the law. If we are to make it a serious offence for a person to forge identity cards, we should make it an offence for them to demand the sale of intoxicating liquor to them knowing they are under age.
In my contribution to the debate on the intoxicating liquor Bill on 14 December 1999 to allow for late opening on New Year's Eve I said:
Under age drinking is very prevalent in this country. A greater number of young children are starting to drink at a younger age and a high percentage are regular drinkers by the time they reach 18 years of age.
Many of them even abuse alcohol at that age.
Surveys are a bit patchy but those conducted among post-primary pupils at both national and regional levels indicate that at least 63% of students and in some regional surveys close to this city 83% of young people under 18 years of age drink and that up to 30% of them can be abusing alcohol by the time they reach 18 years of age. That is how serious the problem is. That is why I am calling for more draconian measures to deal with it, a term which I do not mind using. Sanctions should be applied heavily to licensees who knowingly break the law, as we said in the sub-committee report, but all the responsibility should not be placed on them. Other actors are breaking the law and know it.
The Garda ought to enforce the law more rigorously. They would say that the law was rather grey prior to the 1988 Act because the identity cards were never introduced. The reasonable belief defence which a publican had, that is the reasonable belief that the person was 18 years of age or over, could be used and contributed a great deal of uncertainty to any prosecutions. If one looks at the figures, the number of prosecutions for under age drinking in any year can almost be counted on the fingers of one hand and one might not even achieve anything. My views on it are even stronger than those of the Minister and I advise him to take note of them.
My amendment has somewhat the same effect which is that we substitute an age card with evidence of a person's age. The information I have is that the national age card is unknown to most people countrywide despite what the Minister has said and there is no such thing as a national card. There is no obligation on anybody to carry identification with them to prove age in a public house. It depends on whether there is a bouncer outside the door, which is increasingly the case in city centre pubs, or if anybody checks them on the way in but there is not a check after that. There is no requirement relating to identification. The brave way to have progressed on this was to seek a mandatory card. If the Minister wants to take the mandatory route, as he has in other areas, then he should have provided for a mandatory card, rather than an age card which nobody has or knows about. No such card exists. At least I am giving the Minister a little more scope in this area and saying that there should be satisfactory evidence of a person's age. An ID card is often forged and is not the best way but at least it should give some satisfactory evidence of age. Alternatively, it must be a mandatory national card.
It is very difficult for a publican in some situations. For example, in the circumstances where a group of people come in who are around the same age, a publican has some chance. If a family group comes in and buys a few bottles of wine or a few drinks and an under age member is given a drink, how can this be policed? It is a complex area with which it is very difficult to deal. I return to the point that there are off-licences and pubs throughout this city and countrywide where the absence of policing is the problem. They are known to the young people who use them. Everybody else seems to know about them but there is not specific implementation of the law.
I return to the point I made at the end of my last remarks, which is that the Minister has not told the House that he is taking action other than speaking to the Garda Commissioner about the effects of this legislation. He does not intend to set up any specific unit within the Garda to seek to implement it. If the Minister does not have provision for it in this legislation because there is a cost factor involved, then we can argue here forever and no action will be taken regarding the concerns we express or the very desirable effects that we all want. The heart of the problem is to ensure that there is not under age drinking, that the publican or off-licensee does not facilitate it, that no elder sibling or other person enables it, but how does one come up with the formula? If we do not have the proper policing structure, then there is not much sense in passing the legislation.
An area which the Minister might examine is the constant responsibility of the publican or licensee. A group of young women may come into a public house, one or two of whom are over 20 or 25 years of age but a few of whom are under 18. They order an orange or a cola and they have a half bottle of vodka in their handbag. They serve themselves, one might say. What happens then if those people are arrested and they find that they are over the limit or whatever the case may be, even though the publican has only served them a cola or an orange? There could be an off-licence next door or in the immediate vicinity. This is a serious problem currently. One cannot search their handbags on the way in or one would be in trouble with the law. The Minister might look at placing greater responsibility on the people committing the offence.
Under current law, the Act of 1988, it is a defence for a licensee to claim that he or she had reasonable grounds for believing that a person to whom he or she sold intoxicating liquor was of a legal age. By removing this defence, which I am doing with section 14 of the Bill, a greater onus will be placed on the licensee to ensure that intoxicating liquor is supplied only to those who are legally entitled to purchase or consume it on licensed premises. Licensees have been facilitated in this context by way of the age card scheme to which I have already referred and which, as I said, I introduced with regulations made under the Act of 1988. The scheme has been in operation since April 1999 and it has been availed of by a number of persons. My understanding is that approximately 9,000 cards have been issued to date. I have no doubt it will continue to grow further as persons become more acquainted with the scheme.
Amendment No. 31 would leave us with the status quo because it seeks to retain the defence of reasonable grounds relating to offences arising from the sale of intoxicating liquor to under age persons. In other words, the amendment is seeking to indicate that if the licensee can go to court and say that he or she believed on reasonable grounds that the person concerned was over the age of 18, then the court would be obliged to dismiss the charge.
That is not the intention and the Minister cannot make a ruling—
It is the effect of what is being proposed. That is what it means. I have an obligation to tell the House precisely what the amendment means. I suggest to the House that this would go against the thrust of the Bill which seeks to introduce a modern code of law and to strengthen the existing provisions regarding the supply or sale of intoxicating liquor to under age persons. The problem of under age drinking must be addressed and it would be negligent of me to ignore this problem in this Bill. As I have indicated already, I am determined that the Bill will result in a considered approach to the sale of alcohol to under age persons.
The reasonable grounds defence in current law make it difficult for the Garda to obtain successful convictions against the small minority of licence holders who are engaged in the criminal behaviour of selling alcohol to minors. Section 14 of the Bill will help to remove that difficulty. Licence holders who uphold the new law in this regard will have nothing to fear but those licence holders who continually and consistently flout the law who will feel the full force of its effect. The incidence of under age drinking is, as I indicated, of major concern to parents of teenagers. I am convinced that section 14, together with the other measures which I am introducing in this Bill and the voluntary age card scheme which I introduced in April 1999, will go a long way towards addressing the problem. Following the introduction of this Bill, for the first time in the history of the State, no defence will be acceptable for the sale of alcohol to minors. Garda authorities, parents' groups and youth organisations sought this tough provision and they firmly support it. This provision is warranted if the scourge of under age drinking is ever to be addressed. In those circumstances it will be clear that I do not intend to dilute the provisions of the section in any way.
Amendment No. 32 would render the age card scheme redundant by substituting a system based merely on evidence of a person's age. The age card scheme has the professional backing of the Garda Síochána and it is now up and running. The scheme makes forgery of cards difficult, thereby ensuring the age card is a reliable form of identification. It is an offence under section 41 of the 1988 Act to forge an age card and it is punishable by a fine not exceeding £1,000 or 12 months imprisonment, or both.
What is meant in amendment No. 32 by "evidence of age"? If a person brings along a birth certificate, will that suffice as evidence of age? Will it still constitute evidence of age when the birth certificate does not belong to the 16 year old who brought it along but to the 23 year old brother or sister of that person? Some young people carry passports to verify their ages before publicans. I do not encourage that practice given the value of that document. We have been down this road before and it just did not work. The age card is an effective way of determining proof of age. It gives the licensee and staff adequate protection against persons who attempt to procure alcohol unlawfully.
While the proponents of these amendments wish to retain the reasonable grounds defence and do away with the age card in relation to offences under section 31 of the 1988 Act, they have no difficulty with removing the reasonable grounds defence or on relying on the age card in respect of offences committed under sections 35 and 36 of the same Act. I am not being confrontational in asking what logic is being applied.
Senator Connor said young people seeking to purchase drink should be criminalised as much as the licensee. That is already the position. The Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1988, provides that it is an offence for any person under 18 years of age to purchase alcohol, or for anyone else to purchase alcohol for any person under the age of 18, whether in an off-licence or on-licence, or to consume it in any place other than a private residence. It is also, incidentally, an offence for a licence holder to sell or deliver alcohol to a per son under 18 years of age, or to permit consumption of drink by or the supply of drink to such a person under the 1988 Act. It is also an offence for intoxicating liquor to be in the possession of a person under 18 in any place other than a private residence and it may be seized by the gardaí. Persons under 15 years are not allowed into the bar of a licensed premises unless accompanied by a parent or guardian. No person under 18 is allowed in the part of a licensed premises where an extension under a special exemption order is in force and under 18s are not allowed on off-licensed premises unless accompanied by a parent or guardian.
I have already indicated my opposition to making the card scheme mandatory. The age card scheme is designed for people who wish to purchase alcohol. A mandatory scheme would have to apply to all persons, even those who do not wish to enter licensed premises. The age card scheme is for persons who are already legally entitled to consume alcohol on a licensed premises. If I am obliged to make the card compulsory under the legislation, where would it all end? It would mean that a person of 85 would require the card as much as a person of 18 years and one day. That would not make sense. The voluntary scheme assists both consumers and licensees where doubt exists. It does not, however, convey any special right to be on a licensed premises or to be served alcohol.
Senator Connor referred to the fact that there were hardly any prosecutions for under age drinking. It is true that the number of prosecutions for under age drinking in the State has been low to date. The adoption of the amendments in his name – I say this with all due respect – could only lead to a situation where there could not possibly be a successful conviction without painstaking investigations and a degree of evidence which would be impossible to obtain in most cases. I am not suggesting the Senator is not well intentioned, I accept he is opposed to under age drinking, but the difficulty is that since the foundation of the State, in both Houses, speeches have been made about under age drinking. No representative has ever said he or she was in favour of under age drinking. Every speech was against it, but little, if anything, of a pragmatic nature was done to tackle the scourge of under age drinking. Very little was done to assist the parents of teenagers in their fight against under age drinking from a legislative perspective. From now on the situation will be different. Everyone knows what the law is. There is complete clarity.
I will take on board Senator Costello's point that many people do now know about the availability of the cards. I will engage in a publicity campaign if necessary.
Senator Bohan mentioned young people on premises who had purchased alcohol somewhere else and consumed it with a bottle of orange which they bought from the publican. My reply is that it is an offence to permit an under age person to drink alcohol on licensed premises, irrespective of whether the alcohol was supplied on those premises. There can be no equivocation or doubt. That amounts to lip service. I am not saying the legislation is perfect but it is a cogent attempt, with considerable support from those with an interest in the subject, to tackle the problem.
The Minister tried to convey that, by moving this amendment, I was trying to weaken the fight against under age drinking, but I was trying to do the direct opposite. I asked for the entire section to be deleted so the legislation could be strengthened. A scenario was outlined where a youngster surreptitiously brings drink into a licensed premises and mixes it with a soft drink which he or she purchases there. It is unfair, by the terms of natural justice, to place the responsibility on that licensee. I am not making any great argument for the principle of reasonable belief, I never liked it because I always considered there should have been a much stronger approach to the identity card scheme. I am pleased to hear that the 1988 Act places the responsibility on the under age person but I have never yet heard of a prosecution under any section of that Act.
Perhaps what we need is a new anti under age drinking Bill where all these matters would be brought together and specifically set out in a single Bill, which has little to do with licensing or other aspects of the intoxicating liquor industry. It is singularly the greatest scourge which parents of teenagers face. It is incumbent on us, as Members of this House, to do everything possible to outlaw it but we should not at the same time place an unduly onerous burden on a licensee. That is unfair and is not an answer to the problem.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 32 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 14, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Will the Minister make a statement on young people working in public houses given that, under this Bill, those between the ages of 16 and 18 can work on general duties but cannot sell intoxicating liquor? How will that be policed? How will it operate within the law?
I assume the Senator is referring to the whole issue of legalising the position of persons between the age of 16 and 18 acting as lounge boys or girls. The objective is to regularise the position. Persons of that age should be allowed to work in lounges and so on. Obviously the policing of any provision of our intoxicating liquor laws or our criminal laws is a matter for the Garda Síochána. Clearly, it will be the responsibility of the employer to ensure everything is in order. I do not envisage any difficulty. It is something that will be broadly welcomed. It seeks to ensure that publicans who wish to take on young people for this type of work can do so, especially in the summer months, without fear of prosecution.
While the hours of trading are being extended from 11.30 p.m. to 12.30 a.m. on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays, there is also drinking-up time of half an hour, bringing the time to 1 a.m. Following this there will be tidying up and so on, yet young people between the ages of 16 and 18 are performing general duties which include serving and tidying up but not the sale of intoxicating liquor. This means young persons could be out at unearthly hours under the new legislation. That is against the law. Therefore, how will it be policed? There is no attempt to ensure that young persons work within the law. What about the proposal from the Pioneer Total Abstinence Association for a special police unit?
I shall deal with the first point first. Regulations can be made under the Protection of Young Persons Act which provide for the times at which young people can work and the hours at which they must stop. The Senator can take it there will be no young persons in public houses at all hours of the night. That will not happen because the regulations provide for that. With regard to the question of a special Garda unit to police pubs, young people drinking and so on, it is possible to have a Garda unit for every single Act but it would not be feasible. The Garda Síochána will be expected to enforce this legislation.
I have had intensive discussions with the Garda Commissioner and the deputy commissioner of the Garda Síochána on this legislation. We had a considerable debate on the old legislation and it became clear to me, as it had been in any event, that so far as under age drinking was concerned it was extremely difficult for the Garda to operate it. If a licensee said that he or she thought the young person was over 18 years of age, that was a reasonable ground defence. Therefore, the Garda would be wasting its time. There were cases where it might have been possible to get a prosecution, but it was extremely difficult. The clarity with which the Bill is presented gives to the Garda Síochána an opportunity to ensure its under age provisions are enforced. I hope that explains the position. There is no question of the Bill allowing young persons to work as lounge boys or girls in public houses until all hours of the night because there is protection under regulations made under the Protection of Young Persons Act for which the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment is responsible.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 15.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
There is a minor correction in that an asterisk should appear before amendment No. 33 in the name of Senator Quinn. I understand the Government has also tabled this amendment. I call Senator Quinn.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 15, subsection (1), line 13, to delete "a licence" and substitute "a full licence".
I shall not go into detail on this matter. This is a technical amendment. I recognise that the intention of the section was to provide for "a full licence" and I have attempted to correct that.
This amendment is proposed for the purposes of clarity. It takes into account the point made by Senator Quinn on Second Stage and I wish to be associated with it. Section 15, as framed, does not intend to preclude a person who has a premises in respect of which a retailer's on-licence or off-licence is attached from applying for other off-licences, for example, a beer retailer's off-licence. The insertion of the word "full" before the word "licence" as proposed will remove any doubt on that point. A full licence is defined in the Bill as a publican's licence. Under section 15 it is such a licence that can be offered up when applying for an off-licence but only in respect of a premises to which a licence was never attached. I am sure all Senators will support this amendment and I thank Senator Quinn for tabling it.
I thank the Minister for responding to my amendment. I would also like the little bit of kudos that my amendment was accepted, rather than sharing it with the Minister.
Amendment agreed to.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendment No. 34 is in the name of Senator Costello. Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 are related. Amendments Nos. 34, 35 and 36 may be discussed together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 15, subsection (1), line 13, to delete "was never" and substitute "is not".
This amendment seeks to delete a premises to which a licence "was never" attached in substitution for a premises to which a licence "is not" attached. Why does it not relate to a situation where there is not a current licence? Why does it exclude the fact that there may have been a licence in the past? I am unclear about the need for the provision.
Amendment No. 35 relates to absolute discretion. I am wary of the word "absolute" in legislation. The provision states ". . . unless the court in its absolute discretion prohibits the issuing of the licence" on various grounds. I presume the usual phrase would be "the court in its discretion".
Amendment No. 36 is more substantial. It states: "The Court may waive the requirement for the surrender of an existing licence if it is satisfied that it would be proper to do so having regard to the population in the area where the premises to be licensed are situate and the scarcity of licensed premises in that area." One of the great bones of contention during the debate has been that there are too many licensed premises in one part of the country and totally inadequate provision in other parts. This relates largely to shifting population. This was manageable up to the end of 1980s because of emigration but there are now bulging populations in many towns and cities. Although the Minister has made provision for the transfer of licences from rural to urban areas, which is welcome as one licence must be substituted for another, there is no provision for extra licences. The amendment provides for the issuing of new licences if the level of population warrants it.
I do not understand why that would not be welcomed by vintners. There is a fear among taxi owners and publicans of deregulation. However, in an area where there is increased population, the last thing anybody would want are pubs which are hangars or barns. For example, Ballymun has two pubs for a population of 20,000. It is madness. A similar position applies in Tallaght and other expanding areas. Places for small intimate social gatherings are required. A pub should be an attractive, gregarious place where there is not a large number of people leaving together at the end of a night's drinking. Amendment No. 36 is most important and it would resolve many of the problems if it was taken on board. It would provide for proper regulation of new licences in areas that warrant them, of which there are many.
I cannot accept amendments Nos. 34 and 36 which seek to undermine the basis on which a certificate of the court for the granting of a new licence can be issued. Amendment No. 34 would mean that, in respect of premises whose licence had been taken away by the court for good reason, a person could apply again at some future date, perhaps the following year, for restoration of the licence.
That is not the intention.
There can be good reasons that section 15, which introduces a new, less restrictive licensing regime, would not permit the relicensing of a premises. The premises in question could have been licensed in the past and the court may have declared the licence forfeited. This might have been because of the unsuitability of the premises in terms of its location etc. There would be no point attempting to relicence such premises. The substance of the section is correct and the amendment would in no way add to it. It would open the possibility of acquiring a new licence in an unacceptable way.
I will accept amendment No. 35. The matter has been discussed with the parliamentary draftsman and it is clear that the words in question do not add to the substance of the section. I thank Senator Costello for bringing this matter to my attention.
Amendment No. 36 would waive the requirement for the surrender of an existing licence based on a set of factors which do not make sense. Such factors as the population of the area where the new licence is to be located and the scarcity of licensed premises in the area are demographic factors which should attract persons to set up new premises there by moving from areas where there is an oversupply of licences. Section 15 as it stands will have the effect, for example, of inducing existing licensees, persons experienced in the trade, to move from areas where they may or may not be operating in a commercially viable way to areas where there would be greater opportunities for them to provide a service to the public. It would also help new interest in the trade by making access to licences easier.
I would prefer to see how the new law performs in practice. I have gone far enough for the time being in opening up the licensed trade. I would prefer to see the effect of the new law before going any further. Moreover, section 15 introduces new provisions in relation to access to the market by creating a nationwide single licence area and a standard requirement of the extinguishing of one licence in any part of the State when applying for a new licence. The effect of the Senator's amendment would be to create a different and uncertain standard in some cases. This would not be satisfactory.
In addition, the Government has approved my proposal regarding the establishment of a commission on licensing. It will have ample scope to deliver quality advice to me and the Government in relation to such diverse areas as access to licences, the nature of premises which can or should be licensed, the distribution of licences and the licensing system. For these reasons I cannot support amendments Nos. 34 and 36, although I will accept amendment No. 35.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 15, subsection (1), line 29, to delete "in its absolute discretion".
I thank the Minister for agreeing to accept this amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 36 not moved.
Section 15, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 16.
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 16, subsection (2), lines 25 and 26, to delete "within one year after the commencement of this section".
I cannot support the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 16 agreed to.
Sections 17 and 18 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 17, before section 19, but in Part 4 of the Bill, to insert the following new section:
19.–A person residing in the vicinity of a licensed premises may object at any time where he or she has reasonable grounds to do so to the continued holding of a licence by a licensee.".
This matter was raised at the sub-committee regarding inflexibility in terms of the ability to object to a licence where there is clear delinquency in relation to how a licensee is conducting his or her business and where it has, for example, an impact on the neighbourhood. The only time a person adversely affected by the way a licensed premises is run can object is at the annual licensing court which is held on 30 September. The amendment would allow a person, who has reasonable grounds, to make an objection at any time during the year. Problems can arise quickly, for example, if there is a change of ownership or if a citizen is rightly concerned about under age drinking in a licensed premises. That would be excellent grounds for objecting to the operation of a licence and this should be possible at any time during the year.
I understand Senator Connor's point. The current law is that a person can object to a licence renewal at the annual licensing session in the District Court, which is held in September. The difficulty is that if people were allowed to object all year round, there could be vexatious claims. In any event, objections heard together, if there are a number of them, will give the court a much better picture of the position in relation to the overall performance of a public house over the year rather than judging it on one event. The current position, which is akin to making a tax return every year, is the right way to proceed. Unfortunately, I cannot accept Senator Connor's amendment although I understand his position.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 39 is out of order.
Amendment No. 39 not moved.
Sections 19 to 22, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 40:
In page 19, before section 23, to insert the following new section:
"23.–A person who is the holder of a wine retailer's on-licence (within the meaning of the Act of 1910) or a wine retailers off-licence may offer beer for sale for consumption off the premises".
Amendment No. 39 was ruled out of order but I would have withdrawn it in view of what the Minister said about setting up a licensing commission.
Amendment No. 40 seeks to allow a person who has a licence to sell wine in a supermarket to sell cans or bottles of beer for consumption at home. It is motivated by the fact that the Minister has liberalised the law for restaurants which hold a wine licence and they can now sell beer. I ask the Minister to extend that concession to supermarkets which hold wine licences.
If 20% of a restaurant must be made available as a waiting area where alcoholic drink is served, will people who cannot wait an hour for a meal be able to drink there and leave? Perhaps the Minister could clarify that.
We are talking about supermarkets, not restaurants.
There is a ban on a bar in a restaurant. I have already explained the position in that regard.
Senator Connor's amendment seeks to permit the holder of a wine retailer's on-licence or a wine retailer's off-licence to offer beer for sale for consumption off the premises. It seems it was prompted by section 22 which permits the serving of beer with a meal in a restaurant holding a restaurant certificate and a wine retailer's on-licence. The section reflects consumer demand and it will also facilitate both the restaurant industry and the tourist trade.
The position in relation to the off-licensed sale of beer is different. Any person who wishes, subject to meeting certain conditions, may apply to the District Court for a certificate leading to the grant of a beer retailer's off-licence. In common with all other such applications, that is, an application for the grant of a certificate for a spirit retailer's off-licence or a full publican's licence, it is a condition that an existing licence or licences are extinguished. No such requirement exists for the grant of a wine retailer's on-licence or off-licence. Under the Bill, as it stands, in section 15 the condition relating to extinguishment is relaxed in that the licence may be sourced from anywhere in the State and only one extinguished licence is required in all cases. In addition, a publican's licence can be offered directly in substitution for an off-licence.
I cannot support a proposal which would permit the holder of a wine on-licence or off-licence to sell beer for consumption off the premises on foot of such a licence. It should be remembered that wine licences are granted without the need for a certificate of the court. There is, therefore, no examination of the character of the applicant for a licence and no opportunity to examine the fitness of the premises in terms of its location or suitability. It would be an error to compare the relaxation of the restriction on the sale of beer with a meal in a restaurant with what is proposed in this amendment. The commission on licensing will examine as part of its remit a system of additional licences. The nature of the off-licence is something that might be considered further by the commission. I regret that for the reasons I have outlined I cannot accept the amendment.
In view of the Minister's statement that this matter will be submitted to the commission on licensing when it is set up, I will withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 23.
Amendments Nos. 41 to 43, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
Government amendment No. 41:
In page 20, paragraph (c), line 33, to delete “standards) and” and substitute “standards),”.
These amendments are proposed for completeness.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 42:
In page 20, paragraph (c), line 34, after “certificate)” to insert “and subsections (2), (4) and (6) of section 17 (display of Bord Fáilte certificate)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 23, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Government amendment No. 43:
In page 20, before section 24, to insert the following new section:
"24.–Section 4 (grant or renewal of intoxicating liquor licences without court certificates) of the Courts (No. 2) Act, 1986, is amended by the deletion of subsection (9A) (special restaurant licences), as inserted by section 18 of the Act of 1988.".
Amendment agreed to.
Sections 24 to 26, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Government amendment No. 44:
In page 21, before section 27, to insert the following new section:
"27.–Section 47 of the Act of 1988 (sale of intoxicating liquor in supermarkets, etc.) is repealed.".
This proposed amendment concerns provisions relating to the sale of intoxicating liquor in premises which have an off-licence attached and are also engaged in the grocery trade, that is, supermarkets and convenience stores. Section 47 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1988, provides that "intoxicating liquor shall not be sold by self-service methods and shall not be sold otherwise than from an intoxicating liquor counter". This provision, which has not been commenced, bans the sale of alcohol by self-service methods. It was originally intended to combat under age drinking. The section applies only to off-licensed premises in which mixed trading is carried out, namely supermarkets. Some anomalies have arisen, for example, pure off-licences which also now sell tobacco, matches, confectionery and non-alcoholic beverages on a self-service basis, do not come within the scope of section 47.
The lack of certainty about the operation of section 47 has resulted in different approaches being taken by supermarkets when building new or refurbishing existing premises. Some owners, at considerable expense, have catered for the possibility that the section may at some stage be applied by locating the licensed alcoholic products in a special across the counter section. Others, instead of sectioning off part of their premises in that way, have located the alcoholic products in a particular way so as to cope with the hours when the sale of alcohol is not permitted. There is natural unease for supermarket or convenience store owners in relation to section 47.
The Bill provides for strict penalties where there is a breach of the law relating to under age drinking. The most potent weapon is the removal of the reasonable belief defence and the accompanying provision that a premises or portion of a premises can be closed temporarily. These are workable provisions which should provide adequate instruments in the fight against under age drinking. The retention of section 47 is not now justified. It offers no real further protection against under age drinking as long as it remains merely as a possible threat. I am satisfied that the new provisions relating to under age drinking offer better safeguards and more than compensate for the repeal of section 47. They will have the effect of targeting and penalising transgressors and not the entire supermarket sector which cannot be held collectively responsible for the actions of any rogue elements among its number.
I am confident Senators will see the merit in this proposal and will support the amendment on the basis I have suggested.
Amendment agreed to.
Sections 27 to 29, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Government amendment No. 45:
In page 22, before section 30, to insert the following new section:
"30.–Section 2 of the Beer Licences Regulation (Ireland) Act, 1877, is amended by the deletion of "; nor unless upon the production of a certificate that such rated premises, wherever situate, have been in the exclusive occupation of such person for a period of three months at the least immediately preceding the date of such certificate.".
Under section 2 of the Beer Licences Regulation (Ireland) Act, 1877, there can be a three month delay following acquisition of a property by, for example, supermarkets before a beer retailer's off-licence can be granted. In certain circumstances, for example, where the entire premises is licensed this means the outlet cannot begin to engage in even its non-licensed business for a period of three months after it is ready to open its doors to the public. This is an anachronistic provision which should not have a place in the modern code. The removal of this restriction will bring a beer retailer's off-licence in line with the spirit retailer's off-licence and a publican's on-licence, neither of which have a prior occupancy requirement. This will remove a certain amount of red tape and facilitate persons who are developing new outlets.
I am confident Senators will be able to support this amendment as a means of further facilitating the development of the off-licence sector and the provision of retail grocery outlets to the public. We are dealing with a provision which is 123 years old.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 30 agreed to.
SCHEDULE.
Amendment No. 46 is out of order.
Amendment No. 46 not moved.
I move amendment No. 47:
In page 23, to delete lines 5 to 19.
I question the doubling of fines for people found on premises during prohibited hours. As I am not pleased with the changes the Minister made to those hours, which were unsatisfactory in the first place, I do not like the fact that penalties will be doubled when the conditions are unsatisfactory.
This amendment seeks to restore to 1988 values the fines payable on conviction for a number of offences under the licensing laws. It is a form of devaluation. The new range of permitted hours provided for in the Bill carries with it certain responsibilities for publicans and others who are found on licensed premises outside licensing hours. Some would argue and others would disagree that I have not gone far enough in relation to increasing the range of fines or penalties which should apply where persons wittingly break the law and engage in activities which could have harmful consequences.
What about Senator O'Toole on Good Friday when we find him down in Dingle?
I am not prepared to accept this amendment. I am sure Senator Costello knows that Senator O'Toole appreciates his efforts on his behalf.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule agreed to.
TITLE.
Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 are related and may be discussed together.
Government amendment No. 48:
In page 5, line 18, to delete "AND".
These are technical amendments to the Long Title of the Bill. The draftsman has advised that they would cater for certain amendments to the Bill relating to dance hall licences.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 49:
In page 5, line 20, after "1999" to insert "; AND TO PROVIDE FOR CONNECTED MATTERS".
Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
I wish to record my sincere thanks to the Opposition parties for facilitating us and wish the Minister a speedy and successful journey.
I also express my deepest appreciation to Opposition Members for facilitating us in this way. I realise they could have prolonged deliberations on what were reasonable amendments. I am deeply grateful for their assistance, especially that of the Opposition spokespersons, and for the assistance of the Chief Whip and Members on the Government side.
Bill reported with amendments.
When is it proposed to take Report Stage?
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 17 May 2000.
When is it proposed to sit again?
