I am afraid very little water is consumed in watering places. Perhaps we might be able to get a definition on those lines. The point made by Deputy Gallagher contrasted with that of Deputy Collins and it shows the wide divergence that exists. In their contributions Deputies were reflecting the divergence of views held throughout the country. Any Minister for Justice who proposes changes in this area will not satisfy everybody. Deputy Gallagher raised the point of extra hours for hotel keepers in tourist areas who have a short season but Deputy Collins said there was too much drinking. Certainly there is a divergence between the two points of view.
The question of advertising was raised by many Deputies. The spokesman for the Opposition was speaking personally on this matter as I am and I share his views that advertising is something that has potential adverse social consequences. It is something that must be considered carefully. A Deputy on this side said that there should be something adopted with regard to alcohol advertising equivalent to the anti-smoking advertising of the Department of Health. It was said that if the advertising of drink were to be permitted there should be a balance achieved in advertising features, pointing out the dangers of the misuse of alcohol.
All these matters give an indication of the number of considerations that must be legislated for in due course. It is an area with many social as well as legal implications and that adds to the difficulties of creating a system that will command widespread acceptance. All of these matters have been raised with me from time to time and I have taken them into consideration. I have met the vintners' association and I have had deputions from restaurant owners. In addition, the general public made representations and there are the questions raised in the House. Gradually a pattern is building up of areas where reform is needed and that pattern is beginning to establish itself quite definitely. I have not yet come to a firm conclusion with regard to the reforms needed. At this stage I cannot make any promise to the House that a comprehensive Bill to amend the entire liquor code is likely in the near future. That concerns the general issues made and I am obliged to the Chair for allowing me to make fleeting references to the brief points that were permitted during the debate.
Deputy Collins wondered if the orders granted since 1962 were illegal. The answer is no. The position is that the law is as printed in the statute and as found by the courts. Until the last finding, the courts found that there was power to grant successive or consecutive orders. So long as that was a finding by a court in accordance with the court's interpretation of the Act that was a lawful finding. Recently it was held by the High Court that the interpretation was wrong. When a superior court finds that, the ruling of that becomes the legal position and that is why we are here now to change the law. It is not a question that the orders were illegal.
The applicant for a licence under section 11 (1) must be a publican. He applies to the court and he gets a licence if the court is satisfied that a special event is being held. Deputy Kitt asked for a definition of a special event. It is not defined in section 11 and it is a matter for the court to decide if the event in respect of which the occasional licence is sought is special. The court then grants the applicant a licence and this enables him to sell intoxicating liquor at the place where the special event is taking place. The licence is not granted to the secretary, manager or organiser of the special event. There was some confusion between occasional licences of that type and the exemptions for special events granted on occasions such as the Rose of Tralee or similar festivals. In that sort of situation the licence was granted to exempt all pubs in the area from the licensing laws during the period of that festival. The licence is not confined to the particular venue where a special event is taking place; it is a licence that permits in a town or a village exemption from the licensing laws for a certain period, not exceeding nine days in all in the whole year.
In this case we are talking about a very net type of thing that permits for a race meeting, a sporting organisation, a trade fair or a horse sales. The section also limits the hours in which the licence can operate from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. They are the starting and finishing limits but the court can grant the hours for a shorter period. The court has discretion to grant what hours it thinks fit within those limits. Occasional licences shall not be granted in respect of any Sunday, Christmas Day, or Good Friday. There is no argument in the House with regard to Christmas Day or Good Friday. Indeed, Christmas Day should, in my opinion, and this seems to be a majority view, be always a closed day. Deputy Coughlan in my view exaggerated the position when he gave the impression that there was widespread breach of the licensing laws on Christmas Day. I am satisfied that is not so. Occasional breaches may take place but breaches are not widespread. The licensing laws are honoured on that day as they should be.
The prohibition of granting occasional licences on Sundays affects certain sporting events which used take place mid-week but now take place on Sundays. I refer in particular to point-to-point meetings, coursing events and gymkhanas. They cannot have an occasional licence because of this prohibition. If one were to include sporting events with the intention of confining it to that traditional type of event how does one exclude football matches? The door opens too widely then. For the moment we will have to maintain the restriction on occasional licences for Sundays.
Deputy Luke Belton raised the question of supervision of the licensee in using his occasional licence. He made the point that often temporary staff are employed with the results that standards are not what they should be. I agree that this can happen and, indeed, the rush of business on such occasions is too great for the facilities that are provided but this is not a matter that the Minister for Justice has to deal with. It may pertain to the hygiene regulations but that sort of situation is cured by commercial considerations. If the contractor who undertakes to provide drink for sale does not do it properly he will not be taken on the following year. The public will make their dissatisfaction about unsatisfactory standards known quickly to the organisers of the event. It is up to those people to ensure that a contractor is engaged who will provide services at a proper level. That is the best sanction to ensure standards rather than to attempt to do it by way of legislation.
The same Deputy also wanted to know why this gap in the law was not spotted earlier. That is something that could be asked about every piece of legislation when a court makes an interpretative decision of it. It is a matter of a court's interpretation and it is not a question of there having been a mistake in the Act and it slipping through. Deputy Daly wanted to know if there was an increase in the number of special events. He also asked for a definition of "special event". It is not defined in section 11. It is for the court's discretion to say if the particular event is special or not. Section 10 of the 1962 Act states:
an event...that, in the opinion of the Court, the period will be one during which a considerable number of persons will be likely to be attracted to that locality,
That section deals with the Tralee Festival type of event. There has been an increase in the number of such events and this is not an undesirable development. It brings activity and business to an area and can lift that area considerably in terms of its tourist trade. It is a good thing to see special events of that kind increasing. I am not aware that there has been any extra number of occasional licences for events of the type we are dealing with in this Bill. They are all traditional annual functions. There may be an additional trade show at the RDS but that is something that is desirable.
Deputy Power raised a difficult matter for me when he spoke of the situation in Goff's premises at Kill, County Kildare, when they are used as a theatre. Quite frankly, I do not know what the answer is. I would have sympathy with his point but it would have implications of a far reaching kind with regard to the licensing laws generally if one were to say that a place which is not normally a theatre and does not have a theatre licence should be entitled to get special exemptions or occasional licences in excess of what is now being provided when it is used as a theatre. This is something we will have to look at but the answer at this stage is that it is something that will have to await a general look at the licensing laws. It is not something for which I would be keen on proposing an ad hoc solution. It could well be a classic example of a hard case making a bad law. I would like to look at this in the context of amending the licensing laws generally. It is an anomalous situation but the anomaly arises not so much from the law as from the rather odd use that the premises are put to from time to time. The premises were designed primarily for the sale of bloodstock and the promoters, rightly, decided to turn another penny and use them in this extra way. The licensing law anomaly that arises then does not arise from the laws but arises from this unusual use of the premises.