asked the Minister for Justice if, in view of the fact that a first conviction under the Intoxicating Liquor Acts remains recorded while the defendant retains his intoxicating liquor licence, he will consider amending the Acts and remove the convictions after a fixed period.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Intoxicating Liquor Act Convictions.
44.
All offences, and not just the first one, remain recorded permanently. If, on the other hand, the Deputy is using the word "recorded" in the sense of "endorsed on the licence", the position is that the first offence is not endorsed at all but all subsequent offences are endorsed. Endorsements, however, have a limited life and, moreover, are wiped out where there is a bona fide sale of the premises so that, contrary to what is sometimes suggested, they do not reduce the value of the premises.
I have no proposals for the amendment of the licensing laws.
Is the Minister aware that if a publican is convicted of a technical offence, and is fined 1/-, and that same publican retains the licence, say, for 20 years, the position is that, on a second conviction, there must be an endorsement, even after 20 years? Would the Minister limit the period of the first conviction so that it will not be taken into account in recording a second conviction?
The Deputy is under a misconception. There is no endorsement on the first conviction.
I did not say there was. If a person is convicted of a technical offence for the first time and is fined 1/- and then runs, say, for 20 years, on a second offence, there must be an endorsement.
That is right.
Why not limit the time within which the first conviction is taken into account before endorsement, say, to two or three years?
I do not see the need for that because the first endorsement has no practical effect at all. No forfeiture follows on it. The first endorsement itself lapses after two years. I do not see the point of the Deputy's question.
The Minister will appreciate that the mere fact of an endorsement reduces the value of a business premises. I quite agree that it is wiped out on a bona fide sale. Furthermore, when that first endorsement is wiped out after two years and there is a second endorsement, it lasts for a period of four years and it takes four years to wipe out what, in actual fact is a first endorsement.
I am afraid I do not follow the Deputy's reasoning. There is no endorsement on the first conviction. On the second conviction, there is an endorsement which lapses after two years. Then, if there is a third conviction, there is an endorsement for four years. But the first endorsement following the second conviction has lapsed at this stage and is not taken into account.
But even after 25 years, if there is a third conviction with an endorsement, it takes four years to wipe it out. Does the Minister consider that is fair?
I do.
If the Minister is satisfied, I cannot go any further.