Limerick East): I move: “That the Bill be now read a Second Time.”
The provisions of the Bill are generally technical. I imagine that most of the provisions will hold little interest for those not directly involved. However, the aim underlying the Bill is of general interest. That aim is the simplification and streamlining of procedures in the District Court in a number of respects, of which the most important relate to a new procedure for the renewal of intoxicating liquor licences. In regard to this new procedure it is important to ensure — and the proposals in the Bill take this into account — that no person's rights are infringed, that a full and proper hearing is accorded in every case where necessary and that no injustice is effected by the modification of existing procedures. The Bill is also designed to facilitate the introduction of revised comprehensive Rules for the District Court that have been in preparation for some time but whose promulgation must be preceded by the changes in the law that the Bill proposes.
It may be that, in the light of what I have just said, Deputies may want to come forward with suggestions for more simplification and improvement in District Court procedures than is catered for in this Bill. I would say two things in that regard; first, that if we are to wait until we can update everything, we may end up producing nothing; second, that the Bill is framed in the light of the proposed new District Court Rules that I have mentioned — many of which will themselves further improve other District Court procedures, though without the need for statutory changes as a preliminary — and that it would be better to await the promulgation of the new rules, to see how the District Court operates in the light of all those changes and then to think again about further changes.
An explanatory memorandum has been circulated with the text of the Bill. Having regard to the technical nature of a number of the proposals and to the fact that the purpose of any particular proposal may not be readily evident from a reading of the Bill itself, I believe that this explanatory memorandum will prove particularly useful. Since the Bill and the explanatory memorandum, taken together, make it reasonably clear what is being proposed, and why, I think I need not here discuss the proposals in detail. I propose to confine the burden of my remarks to one or two matters of particular interest.
The main change that would be brought about by section 1 of the Bill is that, where enforcement of a judgment debt is being sought, a single sitting of the District Court will normally suffice to settle the matter: the preliminary hearing to order lodgment by the debtor of a statement of his means and to order his attendance for an examination as to his means is being eliminated. Elimination of that preliminary hearing will work no injustice against the alleged debtor since, under the law as it stands, he does not in any event appear and is not represented at that hearing.
Section 2 of the Bill provides a new scale in relation to the periods of imprisonment that may be imposed, on summary conviction, in default of payment of a fine and any associated costs, compensation, or expenses. It reduces the present maximum period of one year to 90 days and makes reductions of much the same order at other levels of the scale. While the reductions appear to be sweeping, I should say that the scale that is being replaced is for the most part contained in a statute of 1851 whose relevant provisions have little bearing on the circumstances, outlook and practice of the present day. In setting this proposed new scale, I have been concerned to see to it that the District Court remains in possession of a sanction adequate to ensure that fines will be paid. Revenue offences as such, that is, revenue cases apart from ordinary motor taxation cases, will continue to carry their own penalties. I may remark in passing that the machinery for collecting fines is being separately studied: that question is not one that concerns us here.
The amendment of section 3 of the Enforcement of Court Orders Act, 1940 that is proposed in subsection (2) of section 3 of the Bill is consequential on the proposals in section 1 of the Bill. The other changes in the Act of 1940 that are proposed in section 3 represent improvements in that Act with which I think members of the House will agree.
I mentioned that the most important feature of the Bill is the proposed new procedure for renewing intoxicating liquor licences. At present, an applicant for a renewal must obtain a court certificate before the licence is renewed by the Revenue Commissioners. Now, in accordance with a recommendation made by the Committee on Court Practice and Procedure and the District Court Rules Committee, I am proposing in section 4 that intoxicating liquor licences may, except in certain exceptional cases, be renewed annually by the Revenue Commissioners without the production of a certificate of the District Court. The main exception will be where objection to the renewal has been lodged with the court. The other exceptions will be: first, where there has been structural alteration of the premises concerned; secondly, in certain cases where the licence has expired and application for renewal is made within one year after expiry by a person other than the holder of the licence; and, lastly, where any change is proposed in the nature of the licence or in the conditions attaching to it. Where one or more of these exceptions apply, an applicant will still have to obtain a court certificate, as heretofore, as a prerequisite to renewal of a licence by the Revenue Commissioners.
Section 4 (11) places the onus on the applicant for renewal of a licence to inform the Revenue Commissioners if there has been any structural alteration of the premises concerned since the licence was either granted or last renewed. It will also be up to the applicant to inform the Commissioners of several other specified matters, where applicable, such as whether any change is proposed in the nature of the licence. Failure to comply with the provisions of section 4 (11) could result in the court ordering the forfeiture of the licence. It will of course be the function of the court in every case to decide whether there has, in fact, been a failure to comply.
There is no doubt that removal of the need to get a court certificate for most renewals will make it easier to renew a licence. It will amount to automatic renewal in all but a few cases. The safeguards I have mentioned will ensure that there will be no weakening in the control of liquor licences. In addition, to guard against the new streamlined procedure being used to gain a renewal fraudulently, I have provided for a fine of up to £300 for anyone found guilty of obtaining a licence on the basis of giving false or misleading information to the Revenue Commissioners. Anyone convicted of such an offence may have his licence forfeited by the District Court.
The amendments and repeals of the Intoxicating Liquor Acts proposed in the Schedules are either consequential on the provisions in section 4 or are changes of a procedural nature being made in the light of recommendations of the District Court Rules Committee. One significant change proposed in the First Schedule is the amendment of the Registration of Clubs (Ireland) Act 1904 which will ensure that all club certificates will be renewable on a common date, in practice the date of the annual licensing District Court.
In relation to section 4 perhaps I should make it clear that the section represents no change in principle in the procedure involved in the renewal of liquor licences. As I have said, a court certificate is required in every case before a liquor licence can be renewed. In the majority of cases there is no objection and the court certificate issues accordingly. So far as licensees are concerned the new procedure simply means they can apply directly to the Revenue Commissioners for renewal of the licence and a court certificate will be required only in the cases mentioned in subsection (5) of section 4. These cases represent a very small proportion of the overall cases. Subsections (10) and (11) outline particulars which must be furnished by the licensee in applying to the Revenue Commissioners for a renewal of his licence. This material will be relevant only in a minority of cases. In those cases also there will be no new burden for the licensee because at present these particulars must be furnished to the court in any case.
So far as the court staff are concerned, the removal of the necessity for a court certificate in the great majority of renewals of licence will mean a considerable reduction in the demands on staff time.
While the section therefore facilitates both licensee and the court administration it contains safeguards to ensure that the new arrangement is not abused and cannot give rise to fraudulent or illegal renewals.
The change that is proposed in subsection (1) of section 5 of the Bill is procedural. The change proposed in subsection (2) will mean that where a person is remanded on bail in accordance with Part III of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1967, and there is no sitting of the court on the day to which he is remanded, he will be required to appear, not at the next sitting in the District Court District concerned, (which might be in a relatively distant location), but at the next sitting in the same District Court area. The provisions of the 1967 Act in relation to persons remanded in custody are not being amended.
