SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT debate -
Tuesday, 14 Jan 2003

Vol. 1 No. 1

Licensing of Indoor Events Bill 2001: Committee Stage.

Chairman

I welcome back all the members after the Christmas recess and hope that we have a productive term in the months ahead.

This meeting has been convened for the purpose of the consideration by the committee of the Licensing of Indoor Events Bill 2001. I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Pat the Cope Gallagher, and his officials. There are 74 amendments so I suggest we consider the Bill until 6 p.m. and we can decide at that stage whether to conclude or resume our consideration of the Bill tomorrow morning.

I want to bring some matters to the attention of members. A number of errors occurred in the publication of the list of amendments and they are as follows: the footnote to amendment No. 3 should refer to amendment No. 6 and not amendment No. 7; the footnote to amendment No. 6 should refer to amendment No. 55 and not amendment No. 56; and in amendment No. 66, the double quotes should not appear at the beginning of subsection 11. I am sure most members would have noticed those inaccuracies. We will proceed to our consideration of the Bill.

Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Chairman

Amendment No. 1 is consequential on amendment No. 43 and, therefore, amendments Nos. 1 and 43 can be taken together by agreement.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government (Mr. Gallagher)

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 5, subsection (1), between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:

" 'Act of 2001' means the Local Government Act, 2001;".

Amendment No. 43 refers to the Local Government Act, 2001. We have included it to ensure that people are clear about the types of arrangements referred to in order to avoid any confusion. Following consultation with the local government section of the Department, we were advised that this reference should be included to ensure that people are clear that provision for such arrangements already exists under local government legislation and that this Bill is not introducing any new set of arrangements.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Gallagher

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 5, subsection (1), to delete line 23 and substitute the following:

" 'building' means any building, structure or erection (whether permanent or temporary) of any kind or of any materials, or of any part of such building, structure or erection;".

In relation to this amendment, it was decided to repeat fully the definition of building in this Bill for the purpose of providing clarity for promoters and people using the licensing system and also for the purpose of ease of reference. This amendment will make the Bill more user-friendly. People will be able to see at a glance the definition of building without having to cross-reference other legislation.

The definition of building, as set out in this amendment, is defined under the Fire Services Act 1981, and incorporates the amendments to the definition contained in Part 3, section 23 of that Act. In short, the amendment is included to provide clarity, ease of reference and to avoid the need for cross-referencing. A person reading the Bill will not have to obtain a copy of the 1981 Act to establish what the word "building" means.

Amendment agreed to.

Chairman

Amendment No. 3 is consequential on amendment No. 6 and amendment No. 4 is related and, therefore, amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 6 can be taken together by agreement.

Mr. Gilmore

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 6, line 2, before "a", where it firstly occurs, to insert "subject to section 4(2),”.

One of the difficulties with the Bill is that it requires people who are organising indoor events to apply to a fire authority for a licence to hold those events. This legislation was prompted by concerns about safety at large commercial indoor events such as major concerts and so on. I do not have a disagreement with that. I am sure we are all in favour of ensuring the highest standard of safety applies and that there is regulation for the holding of such major events.

The problem with the legislation before us is that we do not know what it is that we are proposing to licence. This Bill does not tell us which events will fall within the licensing remit and which will not. Two definitions of an indoor event are given. One states that a major event is a performance which takes place wholly or mainly in a building and comprises music, singing, dancing, displays of entertainment or any similar activity and in respect of which members of the public may or may not attend an event. An alternative definition states it is an event which takes place wholly or mainly in a building and is prescribed under section 4(2).

I understand that after the Oireachtas passes this legislation the Minister will make regulations setting down the events or the types or classes of events for which it is proposed the people concerned will have to seek a licence. We have no idea what events the Minister has in mind. The definitions given of an indoor event could encompass events ranging from a large commercial concert in The Point to a school disco to bingo in the parish hall. It could even be construed to mean a private party in somebody's home.

The remit in the definitions is wide. It covers a performance comprising singing, dancing or displays of entertainment to which the public may or may not attend. It does not even have to be a public event, it merely must be an indoor event of some kind. In enacting legislation to require that indoor events are licensed, we must be clear about what it is we are licensing. If someone asks one of us on leaving this committee room what we have decided requires a licence, the truthful answer would be that we do not know because it is not stated in the legislation.

I propose to address this matter in two ways: first, by way of this batch of amendments, which is my fallback position and, second, by way of amendment No. 7, which requires certain provisions to be met before regulations are made. Due to the order in which we are taking these amendments, the fallback position is the one we are addressing first. In that regard, I propose that the Minister would be able to make regulations which would exclude the types of events I mentioned. I would like to hear the Minister of State's view on this.

If a large school decided to have a disco in a school hall, to which it would be envisaged 500 or 600 young people would attend, would the holding of that event require a licence? If a local community organisation decided to have a charity concert in the local community centre, would a licence be required for that event? Where will the threshold be set? We need to know that. I trawled through the Bill a number of times and that is not stated in it. The Bill contains a framework for licensing, but we do not have a clue what is proposed to be licensed. We need clarity on it.

I will strongly argue for acceptance of amendment No. 7, which I want to press in relation to this matter. This batch of amendments is the fallback position from what is proposed in amendment No. 7, namely, widening the way and the circumstances in which the Minister may make regulations. I would prefer if we had a formula whereby the Minister would bring before this committee or the House the list of events that will be subject to licensing. Apart from the absurdity of a relatively small community, school events or events of that type being subject to this type of licensing, it would be utterly unworkable. The fire authorities are quite hard-pressed at present.

It will be difficult for them if, on top of everything else with which they must deal, they must operate the type of administrative regime the Bill will place on them, such as keeping a register of every event held, requiring people to apply for licences and having to make a decision four weeks in advance. We are getting into an area of big brother over-regulation which will become an unworkable nightmare. The Minister must clarify where the line will be drawn between events for which licences must be applied and those for which licences must not be applied.

Another amendment proposes a different way of dealing with it. Perhaps we should licence the venue rather than the event. I do not understand why that would not be a better arrangement. I will take The Point as an example because that is where big commercial concerts and events take place. Rather than every event having to apply for a licence, perhaps it would be better if the venue was the subject of a licence and there was categorisation on the basis of seating arrangements and the number of people allowed into it. Much of what will be covered by the licence, such as fire and safety arrangements, drill procedures, supervision and security, will be provided by the venue rather than by the operator. That is perhaps another way of doing it.

We all support the idea of the State legislating to ensure that when people buy tickets to go to an event or concert they have a degree of comfort that it will be well run and that standard regulations will apply to it. However, I fear that the proposal in the Bill is over the top and is unworkable and impractical. Now is the time for us to face up to that, rather than when we pass the legislation. We are all in favour of safety at concerts, but we do not want the fire authorities coming back to us in six months' time and telling us they cannot work it.

Mr. Allen

I support Deputy Gilmore's point because the type of event is not defined. I refer the Minister of State to the code of practice for safety at indoor concerts which was published in 1998. Perhaps the Minister of State could confirm that the code applies to indoor concerts. I know we are talking about indoor events, but for this purpose an indoor concert may be defined as an event held indoors where music is performed by an artist before a live audience. Will the Minister of State confirm that the legislation does not include smaller events, such as public house events, discotheques, night-clubs and, as Deputy Gilmore said, school concerts and discos?

Mr. Gallagher

Deputy Gilmore referred to private indoor functions in homes. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure public safety at indoor events. The Bill will give effect to the recommendations of the Hamilton report on crowd control in respect of large-scale indoor events. That is what is appropriate. It would be foolish to try to legislate for smaller events, such as private indoor parties, provided they do not exceed the threshold. The threshold we are considering is 1,000 adults and 750 people under the age of 16 years. We believe that is realistic.

As regards Deputy Gilmore's amendments, the purpose of the subsections is to enable the Minister to prescribe events by regulation which come within the definition of an indoor event. We are referring to music, singing, dancing, displays of entertainment or other similar activity. The purpose of section 2(1)(b), which states, “an event which takes place wholly or mainly in a building and is prescribed under section 4(2)”, is to give the Minister the power to regulate. We cannot look into the future. The purpose of the definition is to enable the Minister to prescribe other classes of events, such as large-scale indoor sporting events in excess of 1,000 people, seminars, conferences or exhibitions - for example, the recent Young Scientist Exhibition in the RDS and the Ideal Homes Exhibition. If we accept the Deputy’s amendment, it would limit the Minister’s scope to prescribe events in the future. It would restrict the licensing system to music, singing or dancing performances as defined in paragraph (a) which defines an indoor event. The proposal is that the threshold should be 2,000 for seminars and exhibitions. These thresholds are realistic.

Reference was made to venues, such as The Point. We must remember this is not the only legislation. We have other legislation, such as the Planning Acts 1963 to 2000, and the Public Dance Halls Act. This legislation deals with a fire control threshold of 1,000 adults, 750 people under the age of 16 years and 2000 people for exhibitions. If I accept Deputy Gilmore's amendments, it would limit the Minister's scope. Senior fire officers are part of the advisory body which is currently drafting the regulations and advising the Minister. We will take that advice into consideration as it will come from those at the coalface.

Mr. McCormack

The Minister of State indicated that this proposal is for large scale events and that there is a threshold of 750 people under the age of 16 years, 1,000 adults and 2,000 people for seminars. Are those guideline figures or will they be included in the Bill?

Mr. Gallagher

It will be prescribed by regulation.

Mr. McCormack

We are back to regulations. If those figures were included in the legislation rather than being decided by regulation, it might be more acceptable. Everyone would then know the Minister was bound by the guidelines and that he, or a future Minister, would not be able to introduce new figures in regulations.

Mr. Gallagher

That is reasonable. It seems the figures of 750, 1,000 and 2,000 will be included in the regulations initially. If they are included in the Bill, threshold numbers above which a licence will be required may need to be changed or amended. We are talking in Part 3 of the Bill about amending the Fire Services Act 1981. It is important that the Minister of the day is in a position to act by way of regulation if it is found necessary to increase or reduce the threshold numbers depending on the circumstances. Those are guidelines and we will be quite close to them. If it is done by way of regulation, it will be statutory. It is a question of public safety and if we wanted to change them it would take too long. They can be changed by way of regulation after 21 sitting days before the Houses.

Mr. Gilmore

My main concern is that there is clarity about what we are legislating for. I echo the point made by Deputy McCormack. If the Minister is suggesting certain thresholds, those thresholds should be provided for in the legislation. Otherwise we are giving the Minister power but we do not know its extent. We have been given an indication of where he proposes to draw the line and that is helpful. Whatever limits or thresholds are used should be a known quantity. We should not pass primary legislation which leaves to the Minister's discretion the decision on where the thresholds will be placed. We should be clear about the aim of the legislation.

I wish to raise some questions about the thresholds indicated by the Minister. With regard to the seminar or exhibition type threshold, would a large political meeting, such as the Árd-Fheis of a large political party, be covered by that threshold? Would it require a licence? With regard to the thresholds that would apply to musical events, for example, a school disco, there are not many schools where the number of students would be larger than the numbers that are included here. However, let us take the example of a large school. Many schools hold weekly assemblies where all the children in the school are assembled into a large room and the principal lays down the law and so forth. I can think of schools where the number of students might exceed 750. Will they have to apply for a licence for that?

Look at the third level sector. There could conceivably be a large meeting of students held indoors on the concourse of one of the university buildings where the numbers might exceed 2,000. Will the university have to apply for a licence? If the students union organises lunchtime concerts in the college restaurant, which they often do, where the number in attendance might well be more than 1,000, will it have to apply for a licence?

Mr. Gallagher

It is possible. The largest second level school in the country is in Carndonagh. If the numbers attending an indoor event are in excess of 750, it will require a licence. It is in the interest of public safety. With regard to the Ard-Fheis of a political party or a national conference——

Mr. McCormack

Or a European convention.

Mr. Gallagher

Yes. If the attendance is in excess of those numbers, they will have to apply for the licence. Schools would be covered by the fire safety requirements. All members of this committee are working in good faith and in the interest of public safety at indoor events. People attend these events to enjoy themselves but if the numbers are more than 750 in the case of under 16 year olds, the event will require a licence. The same applies to political parties.

Mr. McCormack

It has not happened recently but it often happened previously that the Dáil was dissolved on a Friday night and conventions were held on a Sunday. How quickly could people get a licence in that case? In our party there is one vote per person so there would always be more than that number of people at a convention. The convention would have to be held within a couple of days of this situation arising. What procedure is to be adopted for acquiring a licence to hold such an event at which there would be more than 1,000 people in attendance.

Mr. Gallagher

I cannot think of many of our party conventions where there would be 1,000 people but it could happen. It is possible to deal with that by way of multiple licences for the hotels or halls where the convention would normally be held. None of us knows when a Government will fall but in such a situation and if the attendance is over 1,000, which is unlikely, it is actually a seminar or exhibition so the 2,000 threshold would cover that. However, it is highly unlikely.

Mr. Cuffe

Safety is paramount but I am concerned that the regulations might be too bureaucratic. Given my background as an architect and town planner, I am well aware of the stringent requirements of the legislation in those areas. Perhaps we should be looking at some fairly simple changes, such as stating the maximum occupancy for the room. It is commonplace abroad in rooms of public assembly to have a large notice on the wall stating the maximum occupancy of the room. That gives any member of the public a simple rule of thumb as to whether there is a safety problem within the premises. This legislation, while worthy, may well impose a strong layer of bureaucracy that might make it difficult for individuals or promoters to organise an event in the first instance. I wonder if we should look at other approaches that would improve safety for the public and remedy the faults that exist at present but would do so in a simpler way.

Mr. Gilmore

In a later amendment, No. 8, I propose that the licensing regime should attach to the venue rather than to the event. That would make more sense. One can provide that a particular venue might be licensed for particular types or classes of events up to a certain capacity. The Minister referred to multiple licence applications but my understanding of the legislation is that each event will require a licence.

We are getting some degree of clarity. We now know that if a meeting exceeds the threshold of 2,000 which the Minister has in mind, it will require a licence. There are not many meetings held where the numbers might exceed 2,000 but there are occasions when there might be an extremely large indoor meeting. Often large indoor meetings, apart from obvious ones such as political Ard-Fheiseanna and the like, tend to be organised at short notice. Take the example of a large farmers' meeting or a large trade union meeting. If there are more than 2,000 people this Bill would require them to apply for a licence for that meeting. Those involved would have to apply to the fire authority and there are four weeks for the application to be considered. There is another three weeks for an appeal to be lodged - I do not know if there is a provision for third party appeals.

Even if the fire authority makes a decision on time, notice must be given to it two months before the meeting. A trade union dispute involving a large number of employees, such as a public transport dispute where more than 2,000 people might be involved, might have to accommodate a large meeting and it would be absurd to say the organisers would have to apply two months in advance.

Also, some entertainment events are of a kind that do not lend themselves to this type of long-term planning. Appearances by big acts in well known venues are planned well in advance and giving notice to a fire authority two months beforehand is not a problem but there are indoor entertainment events which are arranged at much shorter notice. I refer to concerts organised in a university, for example; there would be many such events in the course of a year and in many cases there would be more than 1,000 people involved. It is absurd that they would have to apply for a licence two months in advance of each one, probably for the same venue that has been used for years.

The Bill is impractical from that point of view also and this comes back to licensing the venue rather than the event. However, we need to know what we are doing here, as the Bill is handing the Minister the power to decide which events will be subject to licence. We need some clarity on this because as a legislative body we need to be clear about what we are doing.

Mr. Gallagher

If we licence the venue as Deputy Cuffe suggested regarding the room occupancy, then that can vary from one type of performance to another, which could create problems. I fully appreciate what has been said about the short notice but the bigger venues will in practice, apply for a multiple licence to hold a number of events and the legislation provides for such a licence. It is not necessary to apply every time, as such a licence carries a number of events or types of events. The fire adviser to the Minister is here today and he has looked into the safety issues involved, along with senior fire service officials in a number of local authorities. We agree with their suggestions that crowd safety and control is paramount.

I also take Deputy Gilmore's point about the time factor and constraints. The 28 day period is the maximum from receipt of a valid application and in exceptional circumstances, the fire authority, having assessed the overall situation, would try to facilitate people to the best possible extent.

Mr. McCormack

Does assembly apply to sporting events also? In the case of a multiple application, if an All-Ireland final is a draw how would a licence be granted within 28 days for a replay?

Mr. Gallagher

That is an outdoor event.

Mr. McCormack

Some stadia are almost indoors. It does not apply?

Mr. Gallagher

No. This applies to indoor events, such as those in the basketball arena.

Mr. Gilmore

What is the maximum capacity of the National Basketball Arena? Is it 12,000 or 1,200?

Mr. Gallagher

It is 2,500.

Mr. Gilmore

So it would have to apply for a licence?

Mr. Gallagher

It would have to apply for a multiple licence.

Mr. Cuffe

And a replay?

Mr. Gallagher

The capacity would be the same if it is indoor. A multiple licence would cover it. It is not a question of having to apply every time there is a tournament as the multiple licence would cover that.

Mr. Gilmore

Where does the Bill allow for multiple applications?

Mr. Gallagher

Section 5(6)(a).

Mr. Gilmore

The life of a multiple licence would still be one year, is that right?

Mr. Gallagher

It is 12 months.

Mr. Gilmore

So even in a case where the basketball arena applies for a multiple licence for its events, it still has to go back to South Dublin County Council every year.

Mr. Gallagher

Yes.

Mr. Gilmore

We all agree that safety must be our uppermost concern and we know the genesis of this legislation was the tragedies and difficulties that occurred in the past. Nobody wants to see those happening again but as it stands, unless the Bill is amended sensibly, the legislation will create a situation where events which now happen in the ordinary course of events will require a licence. I gave the examples of spontaneous musical events in a university and large public meetings such as a ballot on the resolution of a strike. People will ask us as legislators in 12 months: "Who came up with the idea that one cannot have concerts in a university concourse because one has not applied two months earlier to the fire officer?" We will look pretty ridiculous and we should not pass legislation which will ban events which are now quite usual.

Also, we should not subject the fire authorities to an administrative workload which will be enormous. Even multiple applications will only have a life of one year and if we think we have a problem with planning applications clogging up local authorities with objections and appeals and so on, one can only imagine the volume of applications which will go into chief fire officers for holding concerts and meetings. That is what the Bill proposes and it is daft. There is a simpler way, which I have suggested, to deal with this problem. It arises in a later amendment. In the case of the basketball arena, for example, one basketball game or series of basketball games will not change and concerts will not change dramatically from one event to another. The problem should be dealt with in a more sensible way which will not involve an impossible workload for the fire authorities, clog up the system and result in the legislation being amended within two years.

Mr. Gallagher

There is no intention of banning fun but we want to assure the general public that where there is indoor fun people will be safe. We want to assure parents that young people attending large-scale indoor events will be safe, which is the view of everyone.

Deputy Gilmore referred to the pressure on fire authorities. The fire authorities are anxious to have legislation introduced which will ensure crowd safety, which was a recommendation of the Hamilton report. The question of licensing each year is not new. In August each year applications for renewal of public dance hall licences takes over pages of the print media. There are approximately 3,500 applications throughout the country. These venues are visited by authorised fire officers who make recommendations under the Public Dance Halls Act 1935. In practical terms, many of the venues that will apply for the proposed licence will have been visited from time to time by an authorised fire officer to make a recommendation to the local authority. I do not believe this requirement will add greatly to the responsibility and workload of the chief fire officer or any of his authorised officers.

Mr. Gilmore

Up to now the dance hall applied for the licence. One did not have separate licences every time there was a céilí or dance, which is the difference. This does not relate to licensing the dance hall it relates to licensing the dance.

Mr. Cuffe

Is there an exemption for religious services because even Sunday mass could involve music, singing, dancing and so on? It raises the significant problem of a large church having to apply for a licence for a considerable number of services or masses during the year.

Mr. McCormack

People might begin to go again.

Mr. Cuffe

This may involve everywhere from the Pro Cathedral to Christ Church. While a church may be happy with the numbers that would be needed for a licence, would it have to apply for a licence?

Mr. Gallagher

That would be the case if the numbers exceeded the prescribed number. I believe the only church that might be affected would be Christ Church.

Mr. McCormack

Would that apply if 2,000 people attended and there was no dancing?

Mr. Gallagher

It would apply in the case of an exhibition or seminar.

Mr. Cuffe

I made the point in relation to coming at this issue from another angle, as Deputy Gilmore said, that is, licensing the venue. It would be appalling if a religious institution had to be put through the hoops, jigs and reels the Bill involves. From a common sense point of view and given the existing planning legislation, there is a common sense approach to dealing with large numbers of people. I worry that it might be made difficult to organise events involving a significant number of people in venues that have been proved to be safe and which have not presented significant problems over many years and centuries.

Mr. Gallagher

The priority is crowd control and safety. While there may not have been problems in the past there is nothing to suggest there will not be problems in the future. If a licence were issued and there was room occupancy, the activity could vary from music, singing and dancing to an exhibition or seminar. It is absolutely essential to apply for a licence. If a number of events are taking place, this would be covered adequately by the multiple licence undersection 5.

Mr. McCormack

What will be the cost of the licence?

Mr. Gallagher

That will be decided by way of regulation. We want to ensure there will be no cost on the Exchequer or local authorities.

Mr. McCormack

That is a different ball game altogether. If the regulation specifies that the person applying for the licence will now pay for everything, it will give practically a blank cheque to make events much more expensive for everyone. No cost to the Exchequer means the applicant will have to pay for everything, including fire inspections and so on, which will involve very big money.

Mr. Gallagher

It is proposed that events should be self-financing. Applications under the Public Dance Halls Act or the Registration of Clubs Act would be the same as that which will apply to outdoor events, which will just cover administrative costs.

Mr. Gilmore

To follow on from Deputy McCormack's point, the administrative costs will be quite significant. Each fire authority will have to maintain a register of applications, licences granted and so on. There is also a procedure in the Bill which will involve an amount of administrative work. An obligation is being placed on fire authorities to make a decision within four weeks of receiving an application, or where they cannot make a decision within four weeks, to notify the applicant. This is what happens in regard to the planning regime, where the planning authority must notify applicants if they are not being granted planning permission. Any of us can reflect on the number of events in our constituencies. Given what we have now discussed, the number of events which will require licensing will be significant.

Therefore, the fire authorities will have to have considerable administrative backup to carry out these requirements. If one takes into account staff costs, administrative costs, the costs associated with inspections and the costs incurred by the Department in overseeing these regulations - the Minister of State referred to advisory committees and fire officers who will make the regulations and so on - this will be a costly regime, which is fair enough because public safety is costly. However, as Deputy McCormack pointed out, if the Minister of State thinks this will be done on a cost-neutral basis as far as the Exchequer and local authorities are concerned, the costs will have to be borne by the applicants. This will mean that running a concert, public meeting and so on will be a costly business. This difficulty will have to be dealt with. If the applicant has to submit an application fee to meet the real cost, one is not talking about a nominal fee of €20 or €30. One is probably talking about a four figure fee for making an application.

Mr. Cuffe

It would be useful if we had a rough indicator of the cost of such applications. I would hate to see a parish priest, for example, being put to the pin of his collar trying to organise a novena. This emphasises the possibility of taking a slightly simpler and less bureaucratic approach by licensing the venue rather than the event.

Mr. Gallagher

The intention is that the process be self-financing by way of a fee and fines to the district court. District court fines, of course, go to the local authority.

Deputy Gilmore referred to the inspections and to keeping a register. Fire authorities already keep registers for planning and building control. In the case of large buildings, once one applies for planning permission a file is sent, within the planning authority, to the fire officers to make recommendations. If there is such a venue it must have planning permission so that much of the information will already be on file. The authorities have, in fact, a register for planning and building control.

In addition, there will be provision for a local authority to refund all or part of the fee. If a school applies, the local authority may refund all or part of the fee. In the case of a novena, as referred to by Deputy McCormack, where there might be more than 2,000 people in attendance, that would be at the discretion of the local authority.

I draw members' attention to the fact that those applying each year for public dance hall licences pay a fee of between €500 and €600. It is difficult to say exactly what the fee will be but the scheme must be self-financing. Those who apply are to provide detailed information. The cost to the local authority will be in the processing of the application and in visiting the venue.

Mr. McCormack

If we pass the legislation as it is, I fear a future Minister for Finance who is short of money could put pressure on a Minister for the Environment to increase the licence fee. We are losing control of everything if we pass the legislation as it is proposed. We will have no control over the level of the licence fee. Is there to be a licence fee apart from the cost of investigating the application? We must also take account of the extra cost of preparing the application which, given the way the Minister is talking, would have to be done professionally. The application for a licence for a once-off event would run into four figures, at least. This will eliminate much activity which is currently taking place quite safely.

Mr. Gilmore

Are these provisions constitutional? The Constitution guarantees freedom of assembly and freedom of religious worship. Is it constitutional to require, for example, a church which is organising a novena or something at which a large number of people will attend, to apply for a licence? Would it be constitutional, having regard for the constitutional protection of religious freedom, to refuse such an application?

The same thing would apply to the organisation of a public meeting. For example, a meeting might be called in a local community because the Minister for the Environment and Local Government proposes the building of an incinerator. Such a meeting could easily attract an attendance of more than 2,000. If the meeting were called at short notice and no licence was given, the fire officer might arrive and order the chairman to wind up the meeting. What has happened to freedom of association and freedom of assembly guaranteed by the Constitution?

Mr. Gallagher

If such a meeting were held indoors in a venue which could accommodate such numbers then I presume any business person who owned such a venue would apply for a multiple licence.

Deputy Gilmore has asked about the constitutionality of the measure. I can only answer indirectly by saying we have a constitutional responsibility to ensure that people mingle, for enjoyment or other purposes, in the utmost safety. It is for someone else to check the constitutionality of the legislation.

Mr. Gilmore

I genuinely think we have problems with this Bill, not in relation to its objectives but in relation to the way it is presented to us. Those problems have been fully aired. The amendments we are discussing at present are one way of addressing these problems.

Is it the Minister's intention to press ahead with the Bill as it is presented? If that is his intention we are going to have a repetition of this discussion on several further amendments. If, on the other hand, the Minister is of a mind to accept some of the amendments, that would address the difficulty.

I know we have strayed and I assure you, Chairman, that we will not be repeating this entire discussion on amendments Nos. 7 and 8. If, for example, the Minister were to accept amendments Nos. 7 and 8 there would be no necessity for me to press amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 6, which I indicated earlier constituted my fall-back position. They happened to come up sequentially, earlier than the issue of principle.

Chairman

Maybe we will jump the third fence first. Is the amendment being pressed?

Mr. McCormack

Could we have a short reply from the Minister of State?

Mr. Gilmore

What is the level of the Minister of State's determination to stick with the Bill as drafted? Is he willing to accept amendments? Several amendments have been tabled. I do not wish to hold up the committee with repetitious debate on every section. If the Minister of State were willing to address the opposition amendments it would be very helpful. Otherwise we will have lengthy discussions on costs, venues and other matters as we debate each section. What is the state of the Minister of State's determination?

Mr. Gallagher

It is not a question of being difficult and not accepting amendments. I must emphasise that the purpose of the Bill is to licence events and not venues. We are implementing a recommendation and the Bill gives full effect to the recommendation of the Hamilton report. We must differentiate between event and venue. We are not deviating from practice. It is absolutely essential that public halls make application for dance licences. I do not believe this will add greatly to any pressure on local authorities, fire officers or authorised officers. What is paramount - I am not suggesting this view is not shared by members - is public safety and crowd control. We are taking on board a very serious recommendation from Hamilton to address the event and not the venue.

Mr. Gilmore

I will not call a vote on this amendment but I propose to do so in regard to later amendments. The matter of principle is what is at issue.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. Gilmore

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 6, line 6, after "event" to insert "of a nature similar to events described in paragraph (a) of this definition”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. Gallagher

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 6, subsection (1), to delete lines 8 and 9 and substitute the following:

"other than an event for which a licence is required under the Planning and Development Act, 2000;".

This amendment is necessary as a catch-all provision to ensure that our definition of indoor events covers events not included in the Planning and Development Act 2000 and associated regulations. When drafting this Bill, the paragraph was included to avoid a situation where a promoter might have to get an indoor and outdoor licence for the same event, for example, an outdoor rock concert with a marquee. The licensing regulations for outdoor events applies to events attended by more than 5,000 people. This could give rise to a potential gap in the legislation as to whether an outdoor or indoor licensing system applies where an event is held in a temporary structure, such as a marquee, with an audience of more than 2,000, as recommended by Hamilton or less than 5,000 as prescribed for an outdoor licence. Under the Planning and Development Act, 2000 the definition of "event" specifically includes a tent and a licence is required, under that Act, for an event with an audience of over 5,000 taking place in a tent.

A promoter might look at the definition in the Planning and Development Act and decide the event he or she is organising is being held in a marquee and is open to the public and that it therefore meets the requirements under that Act and legislation regarding indoor events does not apply. To provide absolute clarity and to ensure there is no ambiguity, events with less than 5,000 people attending are covered by the indoor events legislation. It was considered necessary to amend the wording to read: "other than an event for which a licence is required under the Planning and Development Act 2000;".

Amendment agreed to.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

Section 3 agreed to.

SECTION 4.

Mr. Gilmore

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 6, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following subsection:

"(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), the Minister may by regulations prescribe any activity or class of activity which otherwise comes within paragraph (a) of the definition of ’indoor event’ in section 2(1) to be an event which shall be deemed not to be an indoor event for the purposes of this Act.”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. Gilmore

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 7 lines 13 to 19, to delete subsection (7) and substitute the following:

"(7) Regulations under this Act may not be made unless a draft has been laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas and after the expiry of a period of 3 months for consideration thereof, resolutions of both such Houses are passed approving such a draft.".

I will not repeat the debate we have just had but it points to the reason this particular amendment should be made. The Bill is silent on all the issues we have discussed such as the thresholds being set: the 2,000 set for seminars and meetings; the 1,000 for adults where music is involved; 750 where the audience is under 16 years of age and issues such as those relating to fees for making applications. It is the Minister's intention that those fees will be sufficiently high as to cover the whole cost incurred by the local authority in administering the system. The Bill gives the Minister the power to make regulations on those issues in which the real meat of this legislation will be included. I do not think we should pass legislation until we have seen the Minister's regulations. That is why I am proposing in this amendment that when the Minister drafts such regulations he should lay them before the House and that there would then be a three month period within which the House would examine those regulations and make a decision about whether to accept them.

I have only become aware of the thresholds today and while they are reasonable in terms of numbers, we need to reflect on them. The regulations associated with this legislation should be put before the House. It is bad to pass law about which we do not know enough. We will not know what this legislation is about in practical terms until the regulations have been drafted. The current provision in the Bill is that those regulations will automatically take effect and remain law unless they are annulled within 21 days. I am proposing that the regulations be laid before the House in the first instance, to be examined in all probability by this committee after whose scrutiny they would come into effect.

We have had a long debate on other issues. I indicated earlier, Chairman, that if the Minister persists in putting through this Bill, unamended we will have to divide on it. I intend to press this amendment unless I get a positive response from the Minister.

Mr. McCormack

I strongly support the view that either of two things should happen now. We should either include the reasonable figures which have been suggested or we should insist the regulations are scrutinised by this committee before they are adopted. We would be failing in our duty if we gave a free hand to future Ministers to introduce by legislation matters concerned with this Bill.

I am also concerned about costs. Apart from administration costs involved, will there be a set fee for the licence? It is remarkable how simple administration at local authority level can cost money, for example the registration of landlords' property, which simply involves the landlord filling in a form and lodging it with the local authority costs €60 per annum. That is what it costs the person to comply with the law. I fear that the costs involved here where a person has to comply with the law and ensure he or she has a licence for an event would also be high. I support the amendment that a figure should be included. I differ from Deputy Gilmore in that I would be happy if the figure was enshrined in legislation or if the regulations were brought before the House before adoption.

Mr. Gallagher

I do not propose to accept this amendment on the basis that what we propose will ensure that the licensing system we hope to put in place will be a flexible one. We considered this important when regulating for public safety and crowd control. The intention of the Bill is to protect public safety. It is not possible to predict or envisage every type of performance or future audience activities whether crowd surfing or moshing or to prescribe for whatever threshold levels will be in the future. It may be necessary to change these levels. Threshold numbers above which a licence would be required may need to be changed or amended in the light of experience. Fixing such details by way of regulation and requiring it to be considered by both Houses and adopted by a positive resolution of both in a three month period would not allow the threshold set to be amended at short notice to cater for public safety at particular events and would make the licensing system inflexible.

Deputy Gilmore's proposal would mean that instead of dealing with immediate public safety issues, with possible consequences for large numbers of people attending events, that a period of three months would have to pass and the Dáil and the Seanad be given time before the matters could be dealt with through regulations or amendments to such regulations.

What the Bill proposes is a standard 21 days provision of regulations to be laid before the House. Deputies would be afforded an opportunity within the 21 days to annul any such proposed regulation. A three month period is considered too lengthy for dealing with immediate issues and has the potential for reduction in control powers for fire authorities. The existing range of legislation and regulation, which under section 7 also applies to such events, should reassure Deputies that positive regulation by the Houses would not be required in this case.

Senior fire officers of fire authorities are part of the advisory committee on the drafting of the regulations so that when they are introduced they will be workable. All we are doing is a mirror image of what is happening generally. In allowing 21 days, Members will have an opportunity to annul a licence. Three months is too long if we are to act promptly in situations that could be difficult to envisage now. Whichever Minister or advisers are responsible in the future will ensure that if regulations are to be amended the changes will be in the best interests of public safety.

Mr. Gilmore

The Minister of State is concerned that three months is an excessive period of time to allow for consideration of an important issue such as public safety. This Bill was published on 11 April 2001. It has been almost two years before coming before the committee for detailed consideration. The Minister of State may remind me about the length of time before the publication of the Bill that Hamilton reported or of the number of occasions prior to that where issues of public safety and the need for legislation were brought to the attention of the Minister. The Minister of State's argument about the need for urgency would be more convincing if there was evidence of urgency in dealing with this issue.

A fundamental question that members of this committee must ask is "Who makes the law in this country?". Is it those of us elected by the people and accountable to them who make the laws or do we pass it over to the Minister and his Department to decide behind closed doors? As a legislator I do not agree that we should hand over our constitutional powers to make laws to any committee which would then present it to us as a fait accompli and say it is law now unless within 21 days we decide to annul it. That is the wrong way to make law.

We have a Bill before us which says nothing. It says the Minister can make regulations for what can be licensed and it provides a general framework for that. The Minister has, in fairness, given us an indication of what is on his mind in terms of the types of events he proposes to regulate and which will require a licence but we have no certainty about the matter. We cannot leave this meeting this evening and tell anybody what will require a licence. We do not know. We are leaving it to the Minister and his Department to make that decision for us.

This amendment seeks to let the committee of experts and departmental advisers prepare the regulations. Let them do so and then bring before us the list of events and types of events that will require different kinds of licences. We will examine and scrutinise the list as we have done with the Bill today. Based on common sense and knowledge we will then make the decision. I am not game to leave that decision to the Minister as we are asked to do in the Bill.

Members who have contributed during the course of this relatively short debate this afternoon have identified several flaws and areas where the legislation presented is defective. It does not make sense if, for instance, the anti-incinerator group would have to apply for a licence seven or eight weeks in advance to hold its public meeting in the GAA hall. Let us by all means have the Minister present the draft on behalf of the experts but let it be tested here against our practical understanding as public representatives of what goes on in the real world. My amendment would do that. We must anticipate that some day something will be banned under this legislation and somebody will turn around and ask what group of fools made that legislation. Some of this is over the top and some of it will strangle activity which nobody wants to see strangled. Now is the time to anticipate that. If the Minister wants to keep the Bill intact as presented, then at the very least the regulations which he will make under the Act should be brought before the House for scrutiny.

Mr. McCormack

I was taken by one word which the Minister used. He says he will be "flexible" in the matter. I do not know exactly what he means by that. Does he mean he will flex his muscles? I am not speaking personally about this Minister because if we allow any change or introduction of regulations when passing legislation, we allow it for all future Ministers as well. It is quite reasonable to expect that when the regulations are ready they will at least be brought before this environment committee in the first instance. We are meeting today when it says in the newspapers that we are all on holidays until 29 January. We can convene at any time to examine whatever regulations are arrived at as a result of the expert advice given to the Minister. It is very reasonable to say that the regulations should be vetted by this committee before they are adopted. We would be failing in our duty if we did not insist on that.

I am not clear on what the Minister means when he says that Deputies can annul parts of the Bill. There is no possibility of doing that because it is quite clear that the large Government majority will ensure that the Bill will go through as it is. If we do not insist on our rights here as we deal with the Bill on Committee Stage then we will have missed any opportunity of giving this the necessary attention it deserves. I will be supporting the amendment that at least the regulations would come back before this committee.

Mr. Gallagher

Deputy McCormack referred to my use of the word "flexibility". What I mean is that the Minister needs flexibility to prescribe at short notice and depending on circumstances. What is being done here is a standard proposal of regulations laid before the House but it is possible to annul that. I take the Deputy's point about the Government majority but the fact is that the provision exists that the regulations can be annulled within a period of 21 days. On Deputy Gilmore's proposal that a period of three months be given, I can envisage a situation which hopefully will never arise where it would be absolutely essential to increase the thresholds and the Minister of the day would be forced to act swiftly and prescribe regulations. This is the only way that it can be done. The question of control is paramount. I take Deputy Gilmore's point about time. Both the Minister and I made it a priority when we were appointed to ensure that this Bill be enacted as quickly as possible in the public interest. It was a question of finding Dáil time. Thanks to this committee we hope to deal with this aspect of the Bill and ensure that the Bill is enacted as quickly as possible.

The Hamilton report was published in 1991 and this Bill closes the circle on the recommendations made by Hamilton. I refer members to other recommendations such as the code of practice of 1998 and there have been several other codes as a result of Hamilton's recommendations. If every piece of legislation and every regulation pertaining to every Bill had to be debated in the House there would be no time available for primary legislation. Ministers will act responsibly and introduce regulations on the best advice available to them from senior fire officers. I believe that the 21 days regulation is absolutely essential and the proposal of three months is much too long.

Mr. McCormack

The Minister of State conceded in his previous contribution that this was a mirror image of what really would be there. I want to see the initial regulations first; we see nothing in what is before us and that is our difficulty. It may be all very fine to say that future Ministers should have the right to introduce regulations if they need to but I am concerned that we have not even seen the initial regulations.

Mr. Gilmore

Was the Minister of State hinting broadly that he would accept a period of time of less than three months if the amendment were to state that?

Mr. Gallagher

To increase the 21 days would be moving on from a practice I believe has served the Oireachtas well over many years.

Mr. McCormack

What if some of the regulations were to break down?

Mr. Gallagher

If it is going to be brought before the House, then the 21 days should be sufficient. It is sufficient in relation to other regulations pertaining to other Bills and Acts. I apologise if I gave the wrong impression to the Deputy.

Mr. Gilmore

The first problem with an annulling provision is that the regulations are in place once they are made and the annulling provision can only be exercised by the Opposition. To be fair to everybody, it effectively excludes Deputies on the Government side of the House from any role and essentially can only be exercised by the Opposition using its own Private Members' time, which is limited. If that time were to be used for every regulation that we would like to see annulled or amended, we would probably do nothing else. If the Minister will not tell us what he is licensing in the Bill and will do it by regulation, he should bring the regulation before us for positive approval so that we know what will require a licence. I am not hung up over the three months. If needs be we could stick with the 21 days provision, which might be 21 sitting days, although it could be very tight in terms of your own work, Chairman.

However the regulations must be brought before us for positive approval. If the Minister were agreeable to it, we could narrow down the regulations to those that relate to specifying the events or classes of events and matters relating to fee, etc. - in other words the major issues. I am not necessarily suggesting that regulations for every little item should be made and an operational basis brought before us. If the Minister agreed to bring before us for positive approval the regulations which set down what requires a licence and the fee to be paid, I would settle for a reduction in the period from three months.

Mr. Gallagher

By and large these will be the major regulations. I have given an indication of the thresholds. We have covered the type of events and have given the Minister some flexibility and empowerment. The fee is self-financing. It is only reasonable that we should let the Minister introduce regulations concerning the information, which will be required to be submitted to the authority. It is intended to introduce regulations on the day the Bill is signed. The initial thresholds, fees and other regulations, to which I have already referred, will be clear to the House. These regulations will give to the Minister for the Environment and Local Government and his successors the flexibility required. I do not believe Ministers will abuse this.

Mr. Gilmore

Did I hear the Minister correctly? Is it his intention to introduce the regulations on the day the Bill is signed?

Mr. Gallagher

That is the intention.

Mr. Gilmore

Does that mean the Minister has the regulations already drafted?

Mr. Gallagher

No.

Mr. Gilmore

He has them pretty well ready. If it is the Minister's intention to introduce the regulations on the day the Bill is signed, I submit that those regulations are 95% ready and we should see them and know what we are talking about here.

Mr. McCormack

We might surprise the Minister and agree with him.

Mr. Gallagher

I have indicated broadly what will be in the regulations and the main one will be the threshold. I assure the Deputies we will not deviate too far from those figures of 2,000, 1,000 and 750. At present we are working with the local authorities and senior fire officers in relation to the fees. We have indicated broadly the type of event leaving flexibility for the Minister. The information to be supplied with an application is fairly general and only covers the event to be held in a particular venue. We are working on them and are anxious to have the Bill enacted as quickly as possible. There is no point enacting the Bill if the regulations are not introduced. Although the officials in the Department have done considerable work with the senior fire officers from the local authorities, it is not yet finalised.

Mr. Gilmore

This is not a television game called "guess the Minister's mind"; this is a legislative committee. We are discussing a Bill, which does not tell us what will be licensed or give us the figures. None of the thresholds we have discussed this afternoon are in the Bill. The level of fee is not in the Bill. As I understand it, this is pretty well ready and we should know what we are talking about here. I have suggested to the Minister many different reasonable ways, whereby he might accept if not the amendment before us, some variation of it. I am not getting any positive feedback. To come here with a skeleton and ask us to leave it to the Minister to fill out the rest of it is not an appropriate way to make law and I will not co-operate with that.

I cannot speak for other members of the committee. This is not a Bill over which I envisaged political controversy. It is an area on which we should agree, but I will not co-operate with making law on the basis of guessing the Minister's mind. The Minister is suggesting leaving it to him and he will make the regulations in his own good time. I want to know what we are doing here. People who have an interest in this, some of whom are people who organise events, have a right to know what laws the legislators are making that will govern them. The public have a right to know what events will in future require licences and the local authorities, whose staff will have to work this, have a right to know what is covered. The idea of making legislation on the basis of leaving it to the Minister is no way to make law.

The Minister has used the word flexibility a few times, but he has not shown any evidence of flexibility so far and if he is not prepared to reconsider his position and approach, this committee will take considerably longer to deal with this Bill than all of us had hoped.

Mr. Cregan

To be fair to the Minister, he has been as precise as he can be in the absence of the regulations having been drafted. Many of my colleagues have raised different examples of events and the Minister has indicated whether they will be covered. He has been explicit in saying the fee will be self-financing and he has been explicit in the threshold figures. It is unfair to expect him to be more precise at this point.

Mr. Gallagher

I do not have much to add. What we are doing here is no different to what has been done in the past when it was important to empower the Minister to introduce the regulations and lay them before the House for a period of 21 days. We need to empower the Minister with that kind of flexibility, as we cannot say what kind of performances may take place in future. We are doing this to give the Minister flexibility in the best interest of Irish citizens. It is in the interest of the citizen to ensure there is public safety and crowd control. It is not a question of empowering the Minister for the sake of empowering the Minister. It is a question of empowering the Minister to act in future in the best interest of Irish citizens in relation to crowd control and safety. It involves nothing more or less than that. I met those concerned on three occasions to indicate our anxiety to proceed with this.

The Minister will introduce the regulations. It is not a matter of circumventing or hiding anything. The regulations are not yet finalised and in the meantime I can only give a general indication. Everybody has a fair idea as to what information will be required by a local authority when an application for a licence is being submitted. I believe the requirements are reasonable.

Mr. Allen

It is in the interests of all concerned that we adopt a positive and reasonable approach to legislation in this committee, as I believe we are doing. If the Minister of State were to give a commitment to give sight of the regulations on Report Stage, that would go some way towards meeting our worries in that regard. I ask him consider that proposal.

Mr. Gallagher

If I can be more specific on Report Stage I will certainly do so. If the draft regulations are available at that time, they will still be subject to completion after the Bill is enacted. That flexibility must be retained. However, I will certainly go as far as I can to give an indication of what will be in the draft regulations.

Mr. Healy-Rae

That is reasonable.

Mr. McCormack

This Bill was published almost two years ago but we are still waiting for the regulations. What is the urgency in relation to the Bill at this stage, as compared to two years ago or three months from now? Am I missing something? What is the immediate urgency, since no action has been taken on the Bill before now?

Mr. Gallagher

It is a matter of having time allocated in the House. We were anxious to have the Bill taken prior to the recess. I appreciate the agreement of this committee to take it during the recess of the Dáil with a view to having it enacted as quickly as possible. I am not responsible for what may have happened in the past. As I said earlier, it is a priority for the Minister, for me as Minister of State and for the Department to have the Bill enacted as soon as possible. The ideal situation, of course, would be to have a Bill taken immediately it is published.

Mr. McCormack

In view of the long delay since the Bill was published in April 2001, I fail to understand the urgency of proceeding with it now, in advance of the draft regulations being almost completed.

Mr. Allen

The Minister of State has given a fair indication, a commitment to give sight of the draft regulations on Report Stage. I regard that as helpful.

Mr. Gilmore

If the Minister of State is prepared to circulate the draft regulations before Report Stage, I will re-enter this amendment on Report Stage rather than dividing the committee on the matter at this stage. However, there were three "ifs" in the Minister of State's reply to Deputy Allen. In my experience, settling for conditional replies from Ministers is a very unwise practice for Opposition spokespersons.

Mr. Gallagher

I am sorry, I missed the Deputy's point.

Mr. Gilmore

There were three "ifs" in the Minister of State's reply. He said that if certain things were ready, he would consider circulating the draft regulations but that was subject to a few other qualifying clauses. If he states that he will circulate the draft regulations in advance of Report Stage, I will not press this amendment today, pending Report Stage.

Mr. Gallagher

If I may suggest a compromise, I may not be in a position to circulate them but I will be as accurate as I can in giving a verbal report. Even if I can circulate the draft regulations, they will have no statutory basis and may have to be amended subsequently and, of course, changes to the Bill may have a knock-on effect on the regulations. However, I will go as far as I possibly can at that stage, on the record of the House. If I am being criticised for my honesty, I take that as a compliment.

Mr. Gilmore

I made no comment whatsoever on the Minister of State's honesty.

Chairman

Does the Deputy's smile indicate his acceptance?

Mr. Gilmore

No, I do not accept that. The relevant provisions should be in the Bill, in the first instance. If they are not in the Bill, we should have some certainty in the matter. Perhaps we can resolve the matter in another way. Since the Minister of State has said he is willing to put the position as accurately as he can on the record of the House, or of this committee, I ask him to circulate a briefing note to the committee on what he proposes to include in the regulations. It is accepted that the draft regulations will not be the final word. If the Minister of State agrees to circulate a briefing note, prior to Report Stage, on the major elements of the proposed draft regulations, I will settle for that, withdraw the amendment and re-enter it on Report Stage.

My position on the matter would obviously be conditioned at that stage by the contents of the briefing note which I have suggested. The Minister of State's offer to put his position on the record of the House on Report Stage greatly restricts the scope of Opposition spokespersons at that stage, operating "on the hoof" on the floor of the House within the constraints of time and rules of debate. If the Minister of State accepts my suggestion to circulate a briefing note on what he intends the regulations to encompass, I will withdraw the amendment on the basis of his undertaking to that effect, pending Report Stage.

Mr. Gallagher

We will prepare a briefing note on the intention of the draft regulations.

Mr. Gilmore

I withdraw the amendment, pending Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 4 agreed to.

SECTION 5.

Chairman

Amendment No. 9 is an alternative to No. 8. Amendments Nos. 10 and 14 are related. Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 14 may be discussed together, by agreement.

Mr. Gilmore

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 7, subsection (1), line 22, to delete "holding" and substitute "any place in which it is proposed from time to time to hold".

This amendment relates to the issue already referred to in earlier amendments as to whether it is the venue or the event which should be licensed - the dance hall or the dance. I argue that it should be the venue as that would avoid the complications which we discussed earlier. Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are supportive ofNo. 8. However, No. 14 is slightly different in that it addresses the issue of specifying the relevant dates. The Bill refers to the grant of a licence by a fire authority authorising the holding of an indoor event on a specified date or dates. Anybody who has organised events knows circumstances can arise which could lead to a postponement or cancellation. For example, a performer may become ill. It is not always 100% possible to fix with absolute finality on dates. There needs to be flexibility in that regard.

Mr. Gallagher

While amendments Nos. 8 to 10, inclusive, and No. 14 are linked, we might be able to differentiate between amendments Nos. 8 to 10, inclusive, as a group, and amendmentNo. 14. With regard to Deputy Gilmore's amendment, the Bill is designed to licence indoor events with regard to the safety and crowd control issues surrounding such events. As discussed earlier, the licensing system has been developed to implement the Hamilton report recommendation with regard to crowd control and safety issues at large scale indoor events.

The Bill is concerned only with crowd control and safety issues surrounding the holding of such events. It is, therefore, considered that venues or places which already have planning permission to carry out indoor events would only require a licence when events of the scale requiring a licence, which would have numbers above the threshold, are to be held. Venues are already covered by a multiplicity of laws including the Fire Services Act, building control and other licensing requirements, such as the Public Dance Halls Act 1935. The Hamilton committee considered that smaller events and venues were already well regulated, but the Bill intends that promoters will be made responsible in law for the running of larger indoor events.

With regard to amendment No. 10, to satisfy the fire authorities that the proposed indoor event could take place safely, the promoter or operator would still have to supply documents - including layout plans and a safety management plan - so that the fire authority is assured that the operator could run the proposed event safely. This is what the licensing system requires. For the fire authority to make a judgment call on the safe holding of any proposed event in the absence of the licensing process would be unacceptable in so far as public safety is at risk. It would also leave the fire authority open to approaches from both well-meaning charity fundraisers and promoters to approve events. If a tragedy occurred at such an event permitted by a fire authority, that authority would be in an extremely vulnerable position. It would involve a fundamental shift of responsibility from the promoter or operator to the fire authority. The net effect would be to delay the licensing procedure. The Minister proposes to provide in regulations that the fire authority would have discretion to refund all or part of these fees, as appropriate, while checking event safety under the licensing procedure.

If amendment No. 14 can be divorced from the others, I would consider accepting it. It may be possible with regard to the dates, and it is important that the fire authority would know the dates so that it could monitor developments and events. If this amendment was accepted, dates could be regulated by putting as a condition of a licence that the fire authority be notified of the dates on which an event will go ahead. It is preferable to have a licence for a particular event on a certain day or dates. If an event goes on over a number of subsequent days or if there is a multiple event, it may not be possible to provide exact dates, but it could be a condition when the licence is granted that the fire authority is advised in advance. The holding of events needs to be monitored by fire authorities and it is only through this mechanism that they can monitor them. I can accept amendment No. 14 and will deal with this matter by way of regulations regarding the conditions of a licence.

Mr. Gilmore

I thank the Minister of State for responding positively to amendment No. 14. I understand that the fire authority would have to be notified of the dates and I accept the distinction made. We have debated the issues surrounding events and venues and I do not propose to prolong that discussion.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 11 and 13 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.

Mr. Gallagher

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 7, subsection (2)(a), line 28, after “class” to insert “or classes”.

These amendments are essentially to ensure that there are adequate powers in the primary legislation to enable the Minister to cater for details which he intends to prescribe in regulations.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Gallagher

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 7, subsection (3), line 43, to delete "attending" and substitute "likely to attend".

This amendment is included primarily for clarification of language. The way the Bill was originally drafted made it appear that the licence would only relate to the exact number of people attending an indoor event. The position is that the licence prepared in advance of the event would cover those likely to attend and this amendment merely clarifies this point. It would not be possible to give the exact number who would attend and the amendment, therefore, deals with the number likely to attend an event.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Gallagher

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 7, subsection (3), line 44, after "event" to insert "and different numbers may be prescribed for different indoor events or classes of indoor events".

The amendment is similar to amendment No. 11 and is to ensure there are adequate powers in the primary legislation to enable the Minister to cater for details which he intends to prescribe in regulations.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Gilmore

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 8, subsection (6)(a), line 6, to delete “on a specified date or dates,”.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Gallagher

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 8, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following subsection:

"(7) A person to whom a licence has been granted shall display at each entrance to the indoor event concerned a notice specifying such information in respect of the licence as is prescribed in respect of that event.".

The thinking behind this amendment is to ensure that information about the licence is displayed by the holder of an indoor event for persons attending. It would also assist an authorised officer when inspecting an event. These notices will be in a format required by the fire authority and will be displayed at each entrance to the indoor event. Anyone attending the event will be able to see at a glance that there is a licence and see the important details pertaining to the licence, such as the maximum attendance number, the layout of the building, the emergency assistance and, of paramount importance, public liability insurance. The authorised officer will also be aware from his or her records of the existence of a licence, but having the notice displayed will assist the officer in giving instant access to details which he or she can inspect on the spot. On the Second Stage debate, Deputies referred to the necessity of having this type of information displayed.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Gilmore

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 8, subsection (7), line 13, to delete "one year" and substitute "two years".

One of the things that struck me about this provision, which says that the validity of a licence granted under the section shall not exceed one year from the date on which it is granted, is how this will impact upon big international acts, for example, or not even international acts, whom it is necessary to book over a year in advance. The big tours of international acts would be planned more than a year in advance. If we had a licensing regime here that says the licence only lasts for a year, I wonder whether promoters of events would be willing to run the risk of booking a big, expensive act that would require them to commit more than a year in advance and whether, unwittingly, we might find Irish venues disappearing off the tour schedules of major acts.

I have not received advice or talked to anybody in the business about this, but I wonder if the Minister has had any consultations with event promoters about the implications of this. It seems that there needs to be some flexibility because if a promoter is trying to attract a big international event, for example, one year may be cutting it a bit fine. I know the Minister may say it can be renewed but the reality, when one is talking about big expensive events, is that it would be quite risky to commit to an event without some certainty on the licence front.

Mr. Gallagher

The legislation is trying to get the balance right and if the period set was not right there is much scope for changes in the intervening period. When tickets are being printed it would be normal enough that they be subject to licences. The promoters were consulted when preparing the code of practice and at the draft stages. All promoters are extremely responsible and would want to ensure that their licence would be issued each year. They will have a clear knowledge of the criteria that will be laid down. There is no hidden agenda here, it is just a matter of safety. A one-year period is the norm for other related licences, and I am thinking in particular of the Public Dance Halls Act 1935. I see the point the Deputy is making about major activities or events but I do not think the one year provision will hinder these.

Mr. Gilmore

I am not an expert in this area but when the legislation if passed we do not want to be hit with a controversy whereby some Irish venue cannot be included as part of somebody's tour because nobody can commit themselves as there is no licence for more than a year. I ask the Minister to take a rain check on this before Report Stage. I will leave the amendment until then but it is something that should be checked out. If the licensing period is too tight, are we running the risk of losing acts or events because of an unwillingness on the part of promoters to commit for longer in the absence of a licence?

Mr. Gallagher

In talking about major events we are talking about venues such as the Point Depot. I do not see any great difficulty there. The Deputy has asked that I take a rain check on this. I will do that and come back to it on Report Stage, but this should not be taken as an indication that I will come back with a positive response. On balance I am fairly sure that I will come back to the Deputy and say "no". I have an open mind on this and will take a rain check, but the Deputy should not get the wrong impression.

Mr. Gilmore

I understand that.

Mr. Gallagher

I know the Deputy is thinking of Daniel O'Donnell, who can attract thousands of people. I will take a rain check there also.

Mr. Gilmore

Maybe, on reflection, it is the performer we should licence rather than the venue.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 17 and 19 are related and may be considered together, by agreement.

Mr. Gallagher

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 8, subsection (9)(f), line 30, to delete “application.” and substitute the following:

"application, and

(g) information concerning any other application or applications for a licence under this Act by the person making the application.”.

This amendment introduces a new paragraph (g) to section 5(9) providing for a procedure whereby a fire authority can have regard to the applicant’s history of holding indoor events in determining whether to grant a licence. For example, an applicant with a poor record of holding indoor events who has been in breach of licences or found to be non-compliant may decide to move on from one fire authority area and organise an event in another fire authority area. It is important, therefore, that a fire authority should have access to all relevant information when assessing an application, particularly in view of the public safety issues involved. It is vitally important that that information should be made available, is relevant to the application and will assist the fire authority in deciding.

Amendment No. 19 inserts a new subsection (12) providing power in the Bill to enforce the provision of the previous amendment. In view of the seriousness of the issues involved and the decisions that have been made in relation to public safety, it is important that penalties will accrue if information is omitted or falsely applied to a fire authority. It indicates to the applicant that this is a serious matter and there will be consequences in the event of a false or misleading declaration, with penalties identical to those provided later in section 15 subsection (1).

Mr. Allen

The amounts should always be a deterrent and I will be moving a number of amendments on later sections with regard to fines. I have tabled an amendment which seeks to provide that the fine is indexed linked to maintain it as a deterrent. Too often in the past, we have seen fines left untouched. I do not wish to see the fine being used as a revenue generator, but it must be realistic enough and relevant enough to deter. I ask the Minister to consider amending the legislation to index link the fine.

Mr. Gallagher

I may be able to deal with that under section 15. While I may not be able to respond positively today, I will be able to give the Deputy information regarding legislation through the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform which will take care of the matter and ensure that the fines will be index linked.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Gallagher

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 8, subsection (11), line 35, after "who" to insert "owns, occupies or".

This textual amendment seeks to ensure that the Act defines clearly who is liable and responsible when an indoor event takes place without a licence or in contravention of a licence. The Bill, as it stands, refers to a person in control, but this is not considered sufficient to encompass all those with responsibilities. Leaving the Bill as it stands and failing to include others besides the person in control could leave a potential loophole whereby unscrupulous promoters might try to shift responsibility in order to avoid prosecution. By spelling out with this amendment that the person who owns, occupies and is in control of the building is liable, we clarify matters for all involved and improve this aspect of the legislation. There is no question of an owner passing on responsibility to another person.

Mr. Gilmore

There is provision in the Bill for a fire authority to withdraw a licence. Is the owner, or the person in control of the building, notified by the fire authority that the licence is being withdrawn? I can envisage a person turning up and producing a licence without notifying the owner and controller of the building that the licence has been withdrawn subsequently.

Mr. Gallagher

It is intended that the amended Bill will empower an authorised officer to submit a notice to either the applicant or the owner as the applicant may not be there. It will have to be submitted and subsequently dealt with by the District Court. We will be dealing with that more specifically on section 14. This amendment seeks to ensure that there is no opt-out clause which there would be if the Bill were left, as it stands, to state that the person in control is the only liable person. Anyone who owns, occupies or is in control will be responsible. The matter to which the Deputy refers will be dealt with on section 14, with a view to ensuring that the owner will be made aware of the withdrawal of a licence.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Gallagher

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 8, between lines 38 and 39, to insert the following subsection:

"(12) A person who, when making an application for a licence under this Act, provides false or misleading information shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable-

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding €3,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both, or

(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding €1,300,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to both.”.

This amendment regarding penalties was referred to by Deputy Howlin. It seeks to enforce the provision of amendment No. 17. In view of the seriousness of the issues involved and the decisions which have been made regarding public safety, it is important that penalties accrue when information is omitted or falsely supplied to the fire authority. This amendment will improve the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 5, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 6.

Mr. Gallagher

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 9, subsection (3)(e), line 22, after “provision” to insert “and maintenance”.

The intention behind the inclusion of this amendment is to ensure that public liability insurance is in place for the duration of an event. Our attention has been drawn to particular cases in respect of applications for other licences where people could produce an insurance policy when applying for a licence, but could also cancel it once the licence was granted. It is conceivable that such things might happen and, if they did, there would not be any public liability insurance in place when the event was happening. This amendment is required to prevent such circumstances arising and to tighten up the legislation.

I take this opportunity to clarify that it will not be a matter for the fire authority to assess whether an insurance policy is adequate to cater for an event. The onus will be on the applicant to supply the insurance policy and to ensure that it is properly certified by the insurer, indicating that the cover provided is adequate to cater for the event. This amendment, therefore, seeks to ensure that there is insurance cover at the time the event goes ahead and to ensure that it is maintained.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 6, as amended, agreed to.

Section 7 agreed to.

SECTION 8.

Chairman

Amendment No. 69 is related to amendment No. 21 and they may be discussed together by agreement.

Mr. Gilmore

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 10, subsection (1), line 12, to delete "3" and substitute "6".

The Bill provides that an appeal to the District Court regarding the refusal of a licence must be made not later than three weeks from the date on which the person receives notification of the decision. I seek to extend that to six weeks. If somebody receives a refusal, they will have to reflect on whether they are going to appeal it and obtain legal advice. Three weeks is a very short period of time in which to do that.

Mr. Gallagher

The period of three weeks provided for in the Bill is not only adequate, it is longer than the 14 day period which is permitted for an appeal to the District Court against a fire safety notice under section 20 of the Fire Services Act 1981. It is preferable for the fire authority to know within three weeks if an appeal is to be launched. In any event, the District Court may set a later date. We have changed the period within which an appeal must be made from 14 days, as provided for in section 20 of the Fire Services Act, to three weeks, which should be sufficient.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Chairman

We move to amendment No. 22. As amendment No. 71 is cognate, both amendments can be discussed together by agreement.

Mr. Gilmore

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 10, lines 36 and 37, to delete subsection (4).

Section 8(4) states that "No appeal shall lie to the Circuit Court from a decision of the District Court under this section." We should not include this kind of provision in legislation as it prevents people from exercising their rights in court. If someone is refused, he or she turns to the District Court and if it upholds the decision to refuse, the person in question may wish to take a chance by proceeding to the Circuit Court. I see no reason to prevent them from doing so under the legislation because to do otherwise constitutes a denial of the freedom to vindicate one's position in the courts. The decision on whether to pursue one's case through the courts should be left to individuals and the law should be silent on this matter. If a person, on the advice of his or her legal representative, believes he or she has grounds which would vindicate his or her position in the court, it is his or her entitlement to do so.

Mr. Allen

I agree with Deputy Gilmore. This provision is a serious infringement of the right to decide on the strength of one's case. One should be allowed the flexibility to test one's case in a higher court.

Mr. Gallagher

The intention of the provision is to provide a right of appeal to the applicant and a third party appeal does not arise. The promoter will be entitled to appeal a decision taken in the first instance by the fire authority, an expert, in the interests of public safety to the District Court. If the fire authority makes a decision regarding the withdrawal of a fire safety notice and the District Court independently confirms this decision, why permit a further appeal to the Circuit Court? It could lead to fire authority personnel spending lengthy periods preparing court papers and appearing in court cases.

This provision does not set a precedent. I draw the Deputies' attention to section 21(7) of the Fire Services Act 1981, which allows no further appeal to the Circuit Court following service and confirmation of a fire safety notice. This provision is identical to that contained in section 21(7) of the 1981 Act. Furthermore, an opportunity to appeal to the District Court is provided for. The fire authorities are experts in this field and will act in accordance with very strict criteria.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Section 8 agreed to.

Section 9 agreed to.

SECTION 10.

Mr. Gilmore

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 11, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following subsection:

"(3) Subsections (1) and (2) are without prejudice to any duty which arises apart from this section.”.

This is a technical amendment. My advice is that it is required in order to provide legal certainty as to other tort duties which may exist. I refer, for example, to duties which might arise from the Occupiers' Liability Act 1994.

Mr. Gallagher

I propose to accept the amendment and, subject to the legal opinion of the parliamentary counsel on its effect, include it on Report Stage.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 10, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 11.

Mr. Gilmore

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 11, before section 11, to insert the following new section:

"11.-Sections 36 and 37 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 1989 shall apply to the service by a fire authority of improvement or prohibition orders with any necessary modifications.".

The legislation as presented allows a fire authority - generally a fire officer will give effect to this provision - to order that an event be stopped if he or she finds during an inspection that not everything associated with an event is in accordance with the licence. However, the fire authorities do not appear to have the explicit power to give an instruction to take a certain course of action. If, for example, a fire officer finds that the fire doors of a premises are locked during an event, the obvious solution is to direct whomever is in control of the building in question to unlock the doors and thus address the problem.

Sections 36 and 37 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 1988, contain provisions allowing a fire authority to give a direction for a specific action to be taken which falls short of closing down the event in question. I propose that there be a similar provision in this legislation to give the fire authority power to give a direction for a specific course of action to be taken in the event of non-compliance with a condition of the event licence, rather than taking the nuclear option of closing down the event. This could occur, for example, where notices alerting the public to fire exits have not been put up.

Mr. Gallagher

While I understand the Deputy's point, we consider cessation orders, as proposed in section 11, to be the most appropriate way to deal with an event which poses a grave risk to public safety, that is, empowering the authorised fire officer. I refer the Deputy to amendments Nos. 25, 26 and 28, which will allow an authorised fire officer to issue a cessation notice to close the event on the spot. AmendmentNo. 67, which relates to Part 3 of the Bill in regard to the Fire Services Act 1981 will provide fire inspectors with the power to close premises where it is found that a building or premises poses, or is likely to pose, a serious risk - including a risk of fire - to the safety of persons. The authorised person may serve a closure notice with immediate effect. This is, in effect, the same power as is assigned to inspectors under the prohibition notices in section 37 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 1989 to which Deputy Gilmore referred. I respectfully suggest that he consider withdrawing his amendment on the basis that the Bill, when my proposed amendments are made to it, will cover this situation.

Mr. Gilmore

I understand that under the Minister of State's amendment the officer who is inspecting the event can exercise the power of the fire authority to make a cessation notice. This means the officer does not have to go back to the fire station to consult the chief fire officer or whoever is in charge to have the notice issued. What about a problem which is possible to remedy on the spot and in respect of which a cessation notice is not required? It may not be necessary to stop an event and tell everybody to go home. If a problem is remedied on the spot, there is no further reason to close down an establishment. This may be done in practice anyway, but in the interests of everybody concerned - including the officers who have to operate it - it should be explicit that they have the power to do that. For example, if a particular door in a premises is locked then an officer can ask for it to be opened. If it is not opened then a cessation notice would come into play. My understanding is that those powers or analogous ones are available in the health and safety legislation.

Mr. Gallagher

The authorised officer will have the power under this legislation if he or she is of the view that it is not in the interests of public safety to close a premises on the spot. We will be dealing with that at a later stage, but that will be the situation if the Bill is enacted. I presume that common sense will prevail if there is a minor problem that can be resolved on the spot. This would be at the discretion of the authorised officer.

Mr. Gilmore

There is provision in the health and safety legislation for an improvement notice where if an inspector is of the opinion that a person is contravening any of the relevant statutory provisions, he or she can serve an improvement notice requiring that particular actions are taken. I am aware that the authorised officer will have the power to issue a cessation notice. Most officers would probably outline the necessary steps to be taken such as unlocking fire doors and so on in preference to risking a riot situation when everyone is told to go home.

It is only fair to the authorised officers that they should have this spelled out in the legislation so that there is no dispute about it and they can assert their authority in the face of a particularly trenchant event operator who refuses to comply with the opening of a door which would lead to the venue being closed down. We should ensure that the authority is there and it is in everybody's interests to do so. We can rely to some extent on common sense, but this is an area where the authorised officers must be concerned about litigation. We live in an era where those who operate the legislation must be mindful of what they will say if called to give evidence explaining why they made their decision.

Mr. Gallagher

In the event of a minor problem that can be resolved on the spot, I do not see how any great difficulty could arise. I refer the Deputy to section 26(b)(c) which states that the authorised person “may include recommendations, orally or in writing, to such persons concerning fire safety measures and procedures.” I expect that if it was a minor issue that could be resolved on the spot without impinging on public safety that there would not be any difficulty. It would be at the discretion of the authorised officer to resolve it there and then.

Mr. Gilmore

That relates to the amendment of the Fire Services Act generally. While there is an overlap, it does not specifically relate to the licensing regime.

Mr. Gallagher

If an application is submitted to the fire authority for a licence to hold an indoor event and the fire authority considers that improvement works need to be carried out, they should attach a condition that the work be done in advance of the event without which the application would be refused. There is a timeframe of 28 days for the authority to make a decision, during which improvement notices can be issued for the carrying out of works.

Mr. Gilmore

My understanding is that it is proposed to make a distinction between events where seating is provided and those where it is not. If there is a proposed event and although the licence is for 1,000 seats the authorised officer discovers that there are only 900 seats which would leave 100 people standing, the only option open to him or her is to make a cessation notice. The logical move would be to order that 100 extra seats are provided. The officer needs to have the authority to direct such a move and in the case of non compliance then the issue of cessation would arise. The problem is that there is only one option open to the authorised officer. There should be authority to do something less than that where it makes sense rather than just using his own good common sense and relying on the co-operation of the operator or the owner.

Mr. Gallagher

There are a few scenarios that must be considered. If the licensing conditions stipulate that an operator must seat 1,000 people, but there are only 900 seats and 100 people are left standing, the authorised officer could decide not to close the venue if he is satisfied that it would be safe if another 100 seats were provided or if 100 people were removed - an option which might not prove easy. On the other hand, if the fire officer feels that this will not happen or if it does not happen immediately, he can close down the venue on the spot.

Mr. McCormack

I think Deputy Gilmore was trying to establish that if there is no provision in the legislation, the fire officer, in carrying out his duties, will go by the letter of the law. The only option officers will have, according to the legislation, is to tell the managers that they have to issue prohibition orders. A simple common sense response, if not provided for in the legislation, will not be an option for officials because of insurance and other factors. They will be cautious about making any decisions themselves if those decisions are not covered by the legislation.

Mr. Gallagher

In this case, the responsibility lies with the operator. There is a danger of transferring the responsibility from the operator to the inspector in the likely scenario to which Deputy Gilmore referred. An operator who obtains a licence on the basis of his having to seat 1,000 people, but who has only seated 900, is not acting responsibly. If the authorised officer is of the view that this presents a danger, he has the right to close down the venue. We do not want to take that discretion from him.

Mr. Gilmore

I am not trying to take it from him either. I am simply referring to circumstances in which an authorised officer discovers that there is a shortage of seats. The Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, is suggesting that the authorised officer should say to the operator "I counted only 900 seats. I am going to go for a cup of tea now and I will be back in 20 minutes and I will count them again. If there are still only 900 seats, I will close you down.", and then leave matters in the hands of the operator rather than giving direction.

Mr. Gallagher

The problem in that respect is with the operator and not the inspector. If, for some reason, the operator decides to proceed in contravention of the recommendations of the authorised officer, the authorised officer can prosecute the operator afterwards. That would be dealt with by the courts. Is it not the job of the authorised officer to take responsibility and have responsibility transferred from the operator?

Mr. McCormack

Is it not the responsibility of the authorised officer to close down a venue?

Mr. Gallagher

It is if the operators are contravening the recommendations——

Mr. McCormack

What we are trying to——

Mr. Gallagher

We are trying to make provision for circumstances in which a place is closed down for a frivolous reason because, to be on the safe side, the officer takes the ultimate decision. I do not know how that can be catered for in the Bill.

Mr. Allen

What is the position on the Fire Services Act at present? If somebody from the fire service goes to a premises and sees a danger, does he not have to make a report? If the event takes place over a weekend he would have to wait until Monday until a manager's order is received to order closure? Will this still be the case under this legislation?

Mr. Gallagher

That is the current situation. We are taking the opportunity to amend the Fire Services Act. In section 27 of the Licensing of Indoor Events Bill 2001, we have proposed amendment No. 67, designed to give that power to the authorised officer rather than his having to operate under the cumbersome structure, to which the Deputy referred, that was in place. We are using this Bill as a vehicle to amend that.

Mr. Allen

To what section is the Minister of State referring?

Mr. Gallagher

I am referring to section 27, amendment No. 67. We are inserting a new section.

Mr. McCormack

Is the discretion with the fire officer——

Mr. Gallagher

The fire officer or the authorised officer.

Mr. McCormack

——or the operating officer?

Mr. Gallagher

He need not necessarily be a fire officer as long as he is authorised by the local authority.

Mr. McCormack

In what manner is it worded? Does the officer have discretion or is it the case that he must serve a notice of cessation?

Mr. Gallagher

It states that "he may" serve a notice of cessation. He can threaten to do it.

Mr. McCormack

He may or may not.

Mr. Gallagher

That is better than saying that he must do it.

Chairman

Where stands the amendment?

Mr. Gilmore

I will withdraw it until Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Chairman

Amendment No. 26 is related to amendment No. 25. Amendment No. 27 is an alternative to amendment No. 26. Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 are consequential on amendment No. 25. Amendments No. 25 to 29, inclusive, may be discussed together, by agreement.

Mr. Gallagher

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 11, subsection (1), line 35, after "authority" to insert "or an authorised officer".

Amendments Nos. 25, 26 and 28 provide for an authorised officer of the fire authority to act on behalf of the authority. This will mean that an authorised officer of the authority will clearly have the power to issue a cessation notice immediately if he is of the opinion that an event is in contravention of the conditions of the licence or if no licence exists.

On Second Stage, Deputies echoed the concerns of senior fire officers regarding the need to serve immediate cessation notices in high-risk situations. These amendments were not included. If an authorised officer had grave concerns about safety issues at an indoor event, he would have to obtain the city or county manager's order to which Deputy Allen referred. Alternatively, he would have to get the gardaí to close down the venue, leading to delays in dealing with the issue on the spot. The amendments are necessary to provide authorised officers with sufficient powers to discharge their functions under the Act urgently and where necessary.

After amendment No. 25 is made, section 11(1) will read:

Where a fire authority is of the opinion that an indoor event in respect of which a licence is required under section 5 is taking place or is likely to take place-

(a) without a licence, or

(b) in contravention of a condition attached to or the terms of a licence,

the fire authority or the authorised officer may serve a notice of cessation on the owner or occupier of the building concerned or on any person who in the opinion of the authority or the authorised officer is holding, organising or is otherwise materially involved in the organisation of an indoor event.

Mr. Allen

That meets my requirements.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Gallagher

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 11, subsection (1), line 41, after "authority" to insert "or an authorised officer".

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 27 not moved.

Mr. Gallagher

I move amendment No. 28:

In page 11, subsection (1), lines 42 and 43, to delete "its opinion" and substitute "the opinion of the fire authority or the authorised officer".

Amendment agreed to.

Section 11, as amended, agreed to.

Section 12 agreed to.

SECTION 13.

Mr. Gallagher

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 13, subsection (1)(d), line 8, after “Síochána,” to insert the following:

"or

(e) an authorised officer,”.

This is a drafting amendment. It is important to ensure that an authorised officer is also covered by the limitation of the civil proceedings section of the Act. The Bill, as it stands, does not include an "authorised officer" and following consultations it has been advised that such an officer should be expressly provided for in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Gilmore

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 13, lines 13 to 15, to delete subsection (2).

Section 13(2) states that "A person shall not be entitled to bring any civil proceedings pursuant to this Act by reason of only of the contravention of any provision of this Act, or of any regulations made under it." This is an extraordinary provision. We are being asked to pass legislation that deals with a serious issue. I accept that it provides for penalties that can be applied when offences are prosecuted. However, it precludes one from taking legal action in one's own right where the Act has been breached. If, for example, someone holds an unlicensed event at which somebody is injured, the person cannot sue on the basis that the event was unlicensed. They may be able to sue on other grounds, but it might be more difficult to prove in court.

It might give rise to legal difficulties if a licence contained certain conditions that were not complied with. It is my understanding that the person suing could not pursue a successful case on the grounds that the licence was not complied with. The hardest item of evidence that such a person would have is to point out where the conditions of the licence were not met. However, that cannot be introduced in an action because civil proceedings cannot be brought by reason only of a contravention of a provision of the Act or the regulations made under it. It renders the Bill meaningless in law. This subsection should be reconsidered.

Mr. Gallagher

The parliamentary counsel has advised that subsection (2) should be retained. This subsection is a standard provision, as in the Planning and Development Act 2000. It requires that a person may not take a civil action solely for contravention of this Act or regulations. Persons do not have enforcement powers. If someone wanted to sue the holder of an event they could not rely on the duties raised in the Act to, for example, be vexatious or cause delays. This does not prevent a person from taking a civil action for damages in respect of injuries received at an indoor event where the issue of the contravention of the Act would be material to the action.

The power to prosecute offenders is given to the fire authority under section 16. Individuals cannot take civil enforcement procedures because this is a function of the fire authority. For example, in a road traffic accident, the Garda will prosecute for a breach of law but it does not deter the individual from taking a civil action for damages.

Mr. Gilmore

I understand the first part of the section where no action can be taken against the public authorities. That is a standard provision. If, for example, a venue is seriously overcrowded and somebody suffers an injury, can that person take an action against the promoter of the event? Including this provision makes it more difficult for someone to pursue a civil action. The promoter could argue against an action where the only grounds on which it is taken are covered by a condition of the licence. If such grounds are covered by a condition of a licence, a person is prohibited from taking a civil action by this subsection.

Mr. Gallagher

It is the responsibility of the fire authority to take a case where the conditions of the licence are breached. This does not prevent a person from taking a civil action. Section 10 states that it is the duty of those attending an indoor function to conduct themselves in such a way as to ensure, as far as possible, that they do not expose any other persons to danger. That does not mean an injured person was responsible, but they can take a civil action for damages. They cannot take an action for a breach of regulations, that is a matter for the fire authority.

Mr. Gilmore

Fire officers are not going to inspect every event that takes place. I presume they will do so on a random basis. Let us consider an event that is licensed for 1,000 people. Those attending know the venue is overcrowded but no inspection has taken place. The fire authority probably would not succeed in bringing an action because no inspection took place. This may be the case even where those who attended an event know it was overcrowded. The Minister seems to suggest that if there is a crush one can sue the person who started the crush but not the owner or operator on the basis they let in too many people.

Mr. Gallagher

In the event that the owner or organiser did not provide reasonable safety measures, the injured individual can still take a civil action for damages under public liability insurance. I agree with what the Deputy says——

Mr. Gilmore

They cannot do it on that basis. For instance, if the case is going to turn on whether too many people were let into a hall, the owner-operator can use subsection (2) as a defence because one cannot take civil proceedings on that basis. The only people who can are the fire authority but, because they did not inspect the premises, there will be no prosecution. The only thing that will happen if a civil action is allowed is that the injured party can introduce witnesses to testify that the venue was manifestly overcrowded and that there was no check on the numbers. Lawyers for the owner or operator could demand the case be struck out of court because one cannot take civil proceedings based on the Act. The only issue is whether too many people were let in and the only thing that governs that is the condition in the licence.

Mr. Gallagher

An authorised officer does not have to be in attendance. Evidence can be given that a person, to whom a licence has been granted, has contravened it and it would be a matter for the courts to decide that.

Section 10(1) provides that a person to whom a licence has been granted shall take all reasonable measures to ensure the safety of persons attending the indoor event and prepare and provide appropriate safety procedure for protecting persons and ensure that the measures referred to are applied at all times. There is an onus and responsibility on the person to whom the licence has been granted to take all those measures.

Mr. Gilmore

That may be, but the only sanction available is a prosecution brought by the fire authority and if they have not inspected it, there will be no prosecution. For example, a child may be injured at a concert and say, along with his friends, that the place was overcrowded but the fire authority may not have inspected the venue on the night which may be fair enough since every single venue cannot be inspected. Evidence of the overcrowding may be brought to the fire authority but it may be still unwilling to bring a prosecution. The parents of the child may believe they have grounds for a civil action but cannot take one because they are prohibited from doing so by this Bill. The Bill ought to be silent about whether civil proceedings can be taken rather than preventing those based on grounds other than provided for in the regulations, i.e. the conditions of the licence. If the licence is good enough, it will be hard to find such grounds so civil proceedings are prevented. It is better to have the legislation silent on this issue and allow people who believe they have a strong enough case to take one because to prevent people doing so seems unfair.

Mr. Gallagher

That is not the intention of the Bill. Section 10 relates to the civic duty of care and I am still convinced that a person can take a civil proceedings against the licence holder, although not necessarily under section 30 with which we are dealing, but under section 10. The Occupiers' Liability Act can also be used to take civil proceedings. I am convinced this issue is covered by the Bill but I will ensure we examine it further. I appreciate the Deputy's point but my best advice from the parliamentary counsel is that the Bill provides adequate cover.

Chairman

Is the amendment being pressed?

Mr. Gilmore

The Minister said he would examine it on Report Stage so I will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 13, as amended, agreed to.

Section 14 agreed to.

SECTION 15.

Mr. Gallagher

I move amendment No. 31:

In page 13, subsection (1), line 36, to delete "section 12(3)(c)” and substitute “paragraphs (a), (b), (c) or (d) of section 12 (3)”.

This amendment provides that offences committed under section 12(3)(a), (b) or (d) can also be prosecuted as summary or indictable offences. It is considered that all offences are serious enough to warrant this provision rather than just section 12(3)(c), which refers to an assault on an authorised officer or a member of an Garda Síochána. The offences provided for under section 12(3) are: (a) refusing to allow an authorised officer or a member of the Garda Síochána to enter any land or building in the exercise of his or her powers; (b) obstructing or impeding an authorised officer or member of an Garda Síochána and (c) assaulting an authorised officer or member of the Garda Síochána or wilfully or recklessly giving information which is false or misleading in a material respect.

Following acceptance of the amendment, section 15(1) will read:

A person who is guilty of an offence under section 5(10), section 5(11), section 11(4) or paragraphs (a), (b), (c) or (d) of section 12(3) shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding €3,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or both, or, on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding €1.3 million or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or both.

Prior to this 12(3)(c) was an indictable offence, whereas now all of them - (a), (b), (c) and (d) - are either indictable or summary.

Amendment agreed to.

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 48, 50, 52, 53 and 54 are cognate and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Gallagher

I move amendment No. 32:

In page 13, subsection (1)(a), line 38, to delete “(£2,362.69)”.

These ten amendments remove references to punts from the Bill which was published in April 2001, prior to the introduction of the euro. It was a requirement at the time that references to money in legislation be expressed in both punts and euro and, since the euro is in operation since 1 January 2002, there is no necessity to have the amounts expressed in both currencies.

Amendment agreed to.

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 33, 35, 37, 39, 41, 49 and 51 are cognate and may be discussed together by agreement.

Mr. Allen

I move amendment No. 33:

In page 13, subsection (1)(a), line 39, after “both,” to insert “fine to be index linked,”.

I have already expressed my views on my amendments. The fines need to be index linked in order to retain the deterrent factor. The Minister said he would respond.

Mr. Gallagher

I fully understand the amendments and the point made by Deputy Allen, but the indexation of fines is the responsibility of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I understand the Department is at a very advanced stage of preparing a new fines Bill which will, I am assured, deal with the issue of indexation and summary conviction cases. The Department's advice is that we await the enactment of its legislation. Our Bill includes the current €3,000 maximum for summary fines in the District Court. Even if the Bill called for indexation it would be unlikely that any fine could pass that limit. Deputy Allen may wish to note that in Part 3 of the Bill, we have updated the fines in the Fire Services Act 1981, to bring them into line with current fines. I am assured that the fines Bill will deal with the issues raised and the amendments tabled by Deputy Allen.

Mr. Allen

When will that Bill be introduced?

Mr. Gallagher

I am told it is at a very advanced stage. When it is ready, it will be a question of when we can get it into the House. What the Deputy is proposing is quite laudable, however.

Mr. Allen

I will take the Minister's word for it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Chairman

Amendment No. 34 has already been discussed with No. 32.

Mr. Gallagher

I move amendment No. 34:

In page 13, subsection (1)(b), line 41, to delete “(£1,023,833.20)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 35 not moved.

Mr. Gallagher

I move amendment No. 36:

In page 14, subsection (2)(a), line 2, to delete “(£393.78)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 37 not moved.

Mr. Gallagher

I move amendment No. 38:

In page 14, subsection (2)(b), line 9, to delete “(£10,238.33)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 39 not moved.

Mr. Gallagher

I move amendment No. 40:

In page 14, subsection (3), line 17, to delete "(£2,362.69)".

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 41 not moved.

Section 15, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 16.

Mr. Gallagher

I move amendment No. 42:

In page 14, lines 20 and 21, to delete all words from and including "fire" in line 20, down to and including "committed" in line 21 and substitute "relevant fire authority".

The intention behind this amendment is to clarify the position on the prosecution of offences by fire authorities. The Bill as it stands states that summary proceedings for an offence may be brought and prosecuted by the fire authority in whose functional area the offence is committed. However, there is a provision in section 20 whereby fire authorities can make arrangements to carry out licensing functions jointly or provide assistance to other fire authorities. There are also provisions under section 86 of the Local Government Act 2001, which replaces section 59 of the Local Government Act 1995, under which local agreements can be entered into. One fire authority might carry out functions for another fire authority, so that one authority might deal with a licensing application for an event taking place in a different fire authority jurisdiction. If any prosecution arose from such an event it would not be appropriate for the fire authority in whose functional area the offence was committed, but which had not been involved in the licensing process, to prosecute the case. It is therefore necessary to include this amendment, which tightens up the legislation and clarifies the position of fire authorities.

To give a brief example, Dublin City Council could process an application on behalf of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council or Fingal County Council, and if an offence is committed in the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown area it makes sense that the city council, which was responsible for processing the application, should be responsible for dealing with any charges. Another example is Galway city and Galway county.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 16, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 17 to 19, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 20.

Mr. Gallagher

I move amendment No. 43:

In page 15, subsection (1), line 8, after "arrangement", to insert "pursuant to section 86 of the Act of 2001".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Gallagher

I move amendment No. 44:

In page 15, subsection (2), line 12, after "may," to insert "in respect of its functions under Part 1 or 2 and”.

This amendment is included primarily for clarification of language. As the Bill was originally drafted, it did not make clear what type of services were being referred to. Our parliamentary counsel advised that this be included in the interest of clarity and to avoid any doubt. Section 20(2) should read "A fire authority may, in respect of its functions under Part 1 or 2 and by agreement, provide services for or avail of the services of any person other than a fire authority.”

Amendment agreed to.

Section 20, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 21.

Mr. Gallagher

I move amendment No. 45:

In page 15, subsection (4)(a), line 28, to delete “any person or”.

This is merely a drafting amendment, included primarily for clarity of language.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 21, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 22.

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 46 and 73 are cognate and may be discussed together by agreement.

Mr. Gilmore

I move amendment No. 46:

In page 16, subsection (3), line 37, to delete "1999" and substitute "2001".

There are Companies Acts up to 2001, are there not?

Mr. Gallagher

I accept this amendment. The Bill has been updated and the collective citation is now the Companies Acts 1963 to 2001. I thank Deputy Gilmore for bringing it to our attention.

Mr. Gilmore

I will pass on the compliment.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 22, as amended, agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Mr. Gallagher

I move amendment No. 47:

In page 16, before section 23, but in Part 2, to insert the following new section:

"23.-(1) An indoor event for which a licence is required under section 5(1), and which is proposed to be carried out by a local authority (in this section referred to as the ’proposed indoor event’), shall be carried out in accordance with this section and any regulations made under subsection (2).

(2) The Minister may make regulations providing for the holding of an indoor event by a local authority and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing such regulations may provide for the submission of information to the fire authority in respect of such proposed indoor event and-

(a) the notification of and consultation with any prescribed person or persons by the fire authority, and

(b) the making of submissions or observations to the fire authority within a prescribed time with respect to the proposed indoor event.

(3) The information submitted to the fire authority in accordance with regulations made under subsection (2) shall be made available to the elected members of the council of the local authority in whose functional area the proposed indoor event is to take place.

(4) The elected members referred to in subsection (3) may make submissions to the fire authority regarding the proposed indoor event within such time as is prescribed and the making of submissions by such elected members shall, for the purposes of this section, be a reserved function.

(5) The fire authority shall, after the expiration of the prescribed time for the making of submissions, consider any submissions or observations made to it and shall-

(a) prepare a written report in relation to the proposed indoor event and the safety management plan for the proposed indoor event,

(b) specify the proposed indoor event and any condition, as provided for in section 6(4), to which the holding of such proposed indoor event shall be subject,

(c) specify the person or persons consulted in respect of the proposed indoor event in accordance with the regulations made under subsection (2),

(d) summarise the issues raised in the information obtained in accordance with this section and the regulations made under subsection (2), and

(e) decide that the proposed indoor event-

(i) can be held as proposed,

(ii) can be held subject to conditions, or

(iii) cannot be held.

(6) A proposed indoor event for which a licence is required under section 5(1) shall not be held other than in accordance with subsection (5).

(7) In this section 'local authority' has the meaning assigned to it by the Act of 2001.".

The reason behind the inclusion of this new section is to ensure that there is an open and transparent mechanism in place to cater for indoor events being organised by a local authority. Precedents from previous planning and Local Government Acts provide that a regulatory procedure should not result in a situation whereby a local authority is applying to itself for a licence. It is important that the process has an independent status and that the public can see that the local authority is in compliance with the licensing system. That is the principle behind the insertion of the new section 23. The proposed process for the local authority is set out in a new subsection, 23(1), and will provide for the holding by a local authority of a proposed indoor event, including the putting in place of a consultation process with prescribed persons, health boards and the Garda. In this case elected members will be advised.

The elected members of the local authority promoting the event referred to in section 23(3) and (4) will have access to the same information, as well as having an opportunity to make of submissions to the fire authority in respect of the event within a prescribed time period. When that period has elapsed, the fire authority will be required to consider such submissions and observations and to prepare a report under section23(5)(a) in relation to the proposed event in the safety management plan.

Under section 23(5)(b), (c) and (d) the fire authority will specify the event, any conditions to which it will be subject, the prescribed person or persons consulted under section 23(2) and summarise the issues raised therein. The fire authority then makes the decision that the event can or cannot be held subject to conditions set out in section 23(5)(e), (a) and (c).

Section 23(6) states that the event may only be held in accordance with the licence. This will require the local authority promoting the event to hold it only in accordance with the fire authority's decision under section 23(5).

Section 23(7) defines local authorities under the Local Government Act 1921. While there are 114 local authorities, there are only 37 fire authorities. Town and borough councils wishing to hold an indoor event will have to apply to the relevant county council as the fire authority for their area and the Bill will allow elected members' input to the fire authority's decision making process.

Mr. Gilmore

Does this section apply only to those local authorities that are also fire authorities or does it apply to all local authorities?

Mr. Gallagher

It applies to all local authorities. The application will be made to the fire authority. Galway City Council would apply to the county council. Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown would apply to Dublin County Council.

Mr. Gilmore

I could understand the logic of this where the local authority is the fire authority. Where it is not, why is there a necessity for a procedure different from that of a vocational education committee applying to a fire authority? The local authorities that are not fire authorities should simply apply to the fire authority which would then decide. They are not applying to themselves, they are applying to a different authority, although there might be some commonality of management.

Mr. Gallagher

Normally they have the same manager, as would be the case if Arklow applied to Wicklow County Council. If it did not do that, who would process the application? Would the applicant have to go through the chief fire officer of the fire authority?

Mr. Gilmore

That is where it goes under this arrangement anyway. Is this a softer route? The chief fire officer makes the call at the end of the day. His report to a director of service or county manager is available as a public document.

Mr. Gallagher

It is similar to outdoor licensing. It ensures the local authority is not exempt from applying for such a licence. It would not happen too often - maybe for a major civic reception or team homecoming. It ensures there is a responsibility on the local authority. This is the only time the members will be involved and this information must be made available to them. The process ensures a proper paper trail is in place that ensures openness and transparency. Our local government division, which is expert in such issues, is anxious to put this process in place. It is advantageous.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 23 agreed to.

Chairman

We agreed to assess the situation at 6 p.m.

Mr. Allen

I propose that we resume tomorrow morning.

Mr. Gallagher

We are no more than half way through the Bill.

Chairman

We have completed Part 2 of the Bill. We will be going on to the subsidiary purpose of the Bill, strengthening the enforcement procedures of the Fire Services Act. It would make sense to adjourn here.

Debate adjourned. The select committee adjourned at 6.10 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 15 January 2003.