I have a couple of questions in the matter of section 1, which is probably the most important section of the Bill. The Minister, in the course of his contribution, made reference to the fact that the convention centre will be run by a management company. I want him to clarify the position as regards the licence. This is not the licence that will issue in the normal course by the courts and I am assuming it will be for a nominee, for and on behalf of the management company. I am wondering about the exact relationship between the licence and the premises.
I invite the Minister to clarify whether the licence follows the premises. In other words, if the centre closes for a period of time, or even if it was to close, presumably the licence lapses. This is not a licence that can be transferred to any other premises, given the specific nature of it. Perhaps the Minister might clarify the legal position as to how the licence follows the premises.
On the matter of the difference between a convention event and a non-convention event, I suggest that there is an element of overlap because conference meetings, congresses or whatever tend to have definitions that more often than not are not clearly demarcated. Reading the definitions of "convention event" and "non-convention event", one can see a certain overlap. A convention event can be a dinner associated with a convention, while a non-convention event can be a dinner associated with a reception where, presumably, the reception will not of itself qualify as a convention event. I suggest this element of overlap could give rise to difficulties.
"Seminar" does not have the same important ring to it as "convention" or "conference". A seminar can be held with a small number of people. Yet if there is a banquet associated with a seminar, is it a convention event or a non-convention event? Must the seminar have a prescribed number of attendees? A seminar could have 20 attendees while the associated banquet could have 100, or even 5,000. That could be orchestrated to qualify as a convention event, which has a more liberal regime attached. I do not wish to prolong the proceedings, but these are important points that could give rise to some confusion.
The licence that will be granted will be an on-licence for the purposes of section 5 of the 1927 Act. Section 1 states that notwithstanding anything contained in the Licensing Acts 1833 to 2008, a licence issued or renewed under this section shall operate to authorise the sale of intoxicating liquor between certain hours when a convention is taking place. However, I am wondering about the prohibited hours we currently have — for example, on Sundays. It would appear that the sale of intoxicating liquor on the premises can take place irrespective of the day or date and dependent only the time of a convention. I ask the Minister to clarify the situation regarding Christmas Day and Good Friday, which have long been dates upon which the sale of intoxicating liquor is severely curtailed. The Bill does not make it entirely clear. If a convention is billed to take place over three days, commencing on what we would ordinarily refer to as Spy Wednesday — a particular Wednesday in March or April, depending on the moon — what is the position with regard to the sale of intoxicating liquor on the third day, which is Good Friday?
Under section 1(8), the fixed charge payable on renewal of the licence is €500. I would have thought that in the event of there being a general excise increase in licensing, that would also be subject to change. Yet under this legislation it appears to be fixed. Is this normal practice? I cannot really say "normal practice" because there is not a normal practice in this context.
I wonder why we need specific legislation for this. For example, if a new racecourse was opened, there would be no need to introduce a specific Act of Parliament to establish its licensing conditions; that can be done by order of the Revenue Commissioners. Yet for this centre, which, I grant the Minister, appears to be a one-off, there is no provision other than an Act of Parliament, which I find extraordinary.
My final question is with regard to the licence itself. Section 1(9) states that "A licence shall not be issued or renewed by the Revenue Commissioners under this section unless a tax clearance certificate [...] has been issued". This would appear to accord with the situation in licensing generally, in which the licence holder must produce a tax clearance certificate on an annual basis. Whose certificate is required? Is it the secretary of the company? Is it a person who is a nominee of the company? Is it the management company itself? With regard to renewal of the licence, is the tax clearance certificate to be produced on an annual basis or only on renewal?