Section 2 of the Bill prohibits the consumption of intoxicating liquor on licensed premises in county boroughs between the hours of 2.30 and 3.30 in the afternoon. Accordingly, in a hotel or restaurant to which a licence is attached, if persons were in the middle of a meal in the diningroom at 2.30 it would be necessary for the waiter to take off the table any intoxicating liquor which remained unconsumed at that hour. It is felt that that would be vexatious in practice, and accordingly the amendment is proposed to permit the consumption of intoxicating liquor at a meal in dining-rooms of hotels or restaurants where the liquor had been supplied before 2.30 p.m.
PUBLIC BUSINESS. - INTOXICATING LIQUOR BILL, 1927—FOURTH STAGE.
Government amendment.—Section 13. To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
"(2) Nothing in this Act shall operate to prohibit the holder of an on-licence in respect of premises situate in a county borough which are for the time being a hotel or restaurant permitting intoxicating liquor to be consumed on such premises on any week-day between the hours of half-past two o'clock and half-past three o'clock in the afternoon, provided such intoxicating liquor is
(a) supplied to such person before the hour of half-past two o'clock in the afternoon, and
(b) is consumed at the same time as and with a substantial meal begun before the said hour of half-past two o'clock, and
(c) is supplied and consumed in the portion of such premises usually set apart for the supply of meals."
Amendment agreed to.
I move:—
Section 14, after the word "Friday" in line 58 to insert the words "and St. Patrick's Day."
This and the following amendments are consequential owing to an amendment that was carried on the Committee Stage with reference to St. Patrick's Day. The object is to make St. Patrick's Day in each section the same as Christmas Day or Good Friday.
Amendment agreed to.
CATHAOIRLEACH
The following are the other amendments in the name of Senator Farren, and are consequential:—
Section 15, sub-section (1). To delete lines 9 and 10.
Section 16, sub-section (1). To delete in line 63 the words "or Saint Patrick's Day."
Section 16, sub-section (1). To delete in line 8 the words "or Saint Patrick's Day."
Section 16, sub-section (2). To delete in line 15 the words "or Saint Patrick's Day."
Section 16, sub-section (3). To delete in line 22 the words "or Saint Patrick's Day."
Section 56, sub-section (1). To delete in line 56 the words "or Saint Patrick's Day."
Section 56, sub-section (1). After the word "Friday" in line 50 to insert the words "or Saint Patrick's Day."
Section 56, sub-section (2). To delete in line 19 the words "or Saint Patrick's Day."
Section 56, sub-section (2). After the word "Friday" in line 23 to insert the words "or Saint Patrick's Day."
Section 56, sub-section (3). To delete in line 59 the words "or Saint Patrick's Day."
Section 56, sub-section (3). After the word "Friday" in line 63 to insert the words "or Saint Patrick's Day."
Amendments agreed to.
I move:—
New section. Before Section 11 to insert a new section as follows:—
"11.—A licence for the sale by retail of intoxicating liquor for consumption on the premises shall not be transferred to other premises where any business other than the sale of intoxicating liquor is carried on (in this section referred to as non-licensed business) unless the portion of such premises where such non-licensed business is carried on is structurally separated from the remainder of such premises."
The Minister promised to consider this amendment, and I want to see what was the result of his consideration.
The effect of this amendment would be to put a limitation on the operations of Section 11 of the Bill. Section 11 provides that a six-day licence holder, if he buys out a seven-day licence within the same licensing area, may get a seven-day licence for his original premises that has the six-day licence. If he purchases and extinguishes a seven-day licence he may, himself, get a seven-day licence. I was surprised to find that there are 2,000 six-day licence holders in the State. I see some advantage in holding out an inducement to these six-day licence holders to assist in the process of extinguishing licences. It may not take place on a very large scale, but to whatever extent it takes place it is part of the main purpose of the Bill—the pruning of the redundancy that undoubtedly exists in the matter of licensed houses in the country. I think it is not advisable to put a limitation, such as would be put on by this amendment, namely, that that machinery could only work if the holder of the six-day licence was prepared to undertake structural separation. His premises might be such as to render structural separation architecturally impossible or extremely difficult. In so far as it is a limitation it is a limitation of the free operation of what we seek in Section 11.
There was some discussion on the Committee Stage as to whether a licence could be transferred at all from one premises to another. This is not really so much a matter of transfer as to enable a new seven-day licence to be granted to holders of a six-day licence who buys out another publichouse in his own area. The Act of 1902 lays it down definitely "That thereafter new licences are not to be granted"— making only one genuine exception to that, which is contained in Section 3 where by reason of the expiration of a lease "a licence for the sale of intoxicating liquor for consumption on premises comprised in the lease is extinguished or surrendered the licensing authority may, notwithstanding anything in this Act grant a licence for suitable premises in the immediate vicinity of the premises to which the licence extinguished or surrendered was attached." That is really the only exception to the Act of 1902. We want to make this additional exception, that the holder of a six-day licence if he extinguished another licence in his area may be granted a seven-day licence. I would not like to put an obstacle or a limitation on the operations of that section because, to whatever extent that is availed of, it is an individual coming in to assist something that we are aiming at by means of the provisions of the Bill.
I am quite prepared to agree that there should not be any restriction on the operation of Section 11 of the Bill. The amendment had regard to a transfer to new premises as provided under Section 11 and I wanted to provide that where a lease runs out and new premises had to be provided, if there was a transfer to that new premises and mixed business carried on there should be structural alterations. I think that should not be very difficult. It could be done, I think, if I were to withdraw this amendment altogether and if a new section were inserted to the effect that except where there is structural alteration the premises would not be regarded as suitable within the meaning of the section which has just been read by the Minister. I think that would be quite reasonable. I quite accept what the Minister says in regard to Section 11 and I do not want to interfere with the operation of it in any way.
CATHAOIRLEACH
That is to say that you would confine your amendment to the particular cases mentioned in the Act of 1902, and would provide that no such licences should be granted under that provision unless the premises were suitable.
It says that a transfer may be given to suitable premises. I would suggest that a section should be inserted stating that the premises should not be regarded as suitable unless structural alterations had been made. I think that is really desirable.
The exception contained in Section 3 of the 1902 Act applies not so much to a transfer as the granting of a licence—"may grant a licence for suitable premises in the immediate vicinity of the premises to which the licence, extinguished or surrendered, was attached."
That adds to my case. It is more serious still if it is not a transfer. The suggestion I made was that under that section the premises should not be regarded as suitable, irrespective of whether it is a transfer or a new licence that was in question, unless there were structural alterations.
I have not really very much to urge against the Senator's recommendation beyond this! Take the case of a man carrying on a mixed business whose lease falls in. Section 3 of the Act of 1902 was intended to meet that case and that case only. If it is amended in the direction in which the Senator seeks to amend it, then unquestionably you put that man in a less favourable position than he occupied before the expiration of his lease. You compel him, if he has to get a licence in the vicinity, to carry on his business as a mixed trading business which he was carrying on in the old premises, and then you attach this new condition. If the house was large and spacious and there was no difficulty, say, about the question of the windows, etc., it might not be a very onerous condition, but in certain circumstances it might. There might be an absence of houses in the immediate neighbourhood, adaptable in that way to a dual business, structurally separated. However, my main objection was to the limitation of Section 11.
Might I suggest, although it is not in the strictest sense in order to insert amendments on the Fifth Stage, that if I am able to agree with the Minister between this and the next stage, this amendment might then be taken, or we could adjourn the Report Stage on the understanding that Standing Orders will be suspended to enable the Fifth Stage to be taken afterwards. I am not going to press the amendment now, but I think it is a really important point.
CATHAOIRLEACH
The more convenient way would be to adjourn the Report Stage.
If that is done I will undertake to put down a motion to suspend Standing Orders so that the Fifth Stage can be taken on that or the following day. Meantime I can consult the Minister as to the form the amendment should take.
I am agreeable.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move:—
Section 17, sub-section (1). After the word "officer" in line 38, to insert the words "or (f) a relative of the holder of the licence or of his or her husband or wife."
This is to add another class to the exempted persons who would not be liable to conviction for being on the licensed premises during prohibited hours. I think the Seanad will not object to relatives of the holder of the licence having liberty to visit the publichouse during those hours. It may be urged that the degree of relationship should be prescribed. I am quite willing to meet the Minister if he thinks it wise to provide for a reasonable degree of relationship.
Section 14, paragraph (3) of the Bill reads: "Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to prohibit or restrict (b) the supplying at any time of intoxicating liquor on licensed premises to any private friends of the holder of the licence, bona fide entertained by him at his own expense in any part of such licensed premises other than the part in which the sale of intoxicating liquor generally takes place." I suppose we could strain a point and say that a relative is a friend and that relatives would be covered by that paragraph of the Bill. If that is so I think the Senator's amendment is superfluous.
The sub-section referred to by the Minister is intended to cover the supplying of intoxicating drink. In the case I have in mind, there would be no drink whatever sold to the friends.
The greater includes the less. If 14 (b) covers the providing of intoxicating liquor then I say a fortiori it covers also being on the premises.
I will take the Minister's assurance that it is not intended to prosecute a licensed holder in such circumstances and I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Government amendment.—Section 23, after the word "by," in line 24, to insert the word "registered."
This is merely a drafting amendment. A medical practitioner duly qualified must be registered. His name must be on the general register, and it is well to insert the word "registered."
Amendment put and agreed to.
Government amendment.—Section 23, to add at the end of the section the words "pharmaceutical chemists or registered druggists."
"Chemists and druggists" is a composite term applied to a certain class and it is now obsolescent. The modern term is "pharmaceutical chemists and registered druggists."
Amendment put and agreed to.
Government amendment.—Section 28. To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
"(2) Where a licence is forfeited under this section no new licence shall at any time thereafter be granted in respect of the premises or any part of the premises to which such licence was attached."
The amendment is to make it clear that when a licence is forfeited as the result of three convictions no new licence should thereafter be granted. It is unlikely that any new licence would, in fact, be granted in view of the policy of the Bill in the matter of the reduction of licences, but it seems proper to make it quite clear that when a licence is forfeited after three convictions no new licence can be granted. We have, in Section 41, an analogous provision dealing with the case in which a licence is abolished.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Government amendment—Section 26, sub-section (7). To delete the sub-section and to substitute the following new sub-section therefor:—
"(7) Every sum advanced and paid by the Minister for Finance to a compensation fund pursuant to a requisition of the treasurer under this section for the benefit of an ex-employee or ex-employees of the holder of a particular licence which was the subject of a compensation order shall for the purposes of the next succeeding section be added to and deemed to form part of the compensation money (hereinafter referred to as the original compensation money) actually fixed by such compensation order and shall be deemed to have been advanced and paid by the Minister for Finance to such compensation fund pursuant to the same requisition as that on which the original compensation money was advanced and paid by the Minister for Finance to such compensation fund and to have been so paid and advanced at the same time as the original compensation money was paid and advanced by the Minister for Finance to such compensation fund."
This amendment is merely a redraft of the existing sub-section. There is no change in substance whatever. The present draft is suggested by the parliamentary draftsman.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Government amendment.—Section 55, sub-section (2). To delete in lines 33-34 the words "within the meaning of and for the time being registered under the Registration of Clubs (Ireland) Act, 1904."
This also is merely a drafting amendment. The words which we are deleting are unnecessary. In a purely sports club it is not necessary to consider whether the club is registered or not registered. The idea of registration is a subsequent idea.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Government amendments:— 10. Section 56, sub-section (1). After the word "consumed" in line 44 to insert the words "on the club premises."
11. Section 56, sub-section (2). After the word "consumed" in line 9 to insert the words "on the club premises."
12. Section 56, sub-section (3). After the word "consumed" in lines 32-33 to insert the words "on the club premises."
13. Section 57, sub-section (1). After the word "consumed" in line 8 to insert the words "on the club premises."
These amendments merely make the meaning clear. They are purely drafting amendments, and there is no change in substance.
Amendments put and agreed to.
I move:—
14. New section. Before Section 58 to insert a new section as follows:—
"58. If any excisable liquor is supplied for consumption on the premises of a club registered under the Registration of Clubs (Ireland) Act, 1904, or is consumed on the premises of any such club by any person in contravention of the rules of such club relating to the supplying and consumption of excisable liquor on the premises of such club, every member of the committee of such club shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof, in the case of a first offence, to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds or, in the case of a second or any subsequent offence, to a fine not exceeding forty pounds."
Senator Dowdall raised the matter of making the management committee of a club responsible for breaches of the law. He explained under the present law there is no immediate remedy for breaches. They are merely a ground of objection for cancellation or non-renewal of the registration. The suggestion to impose a responsibility on the club committee seems a sound one, and I put forward this amendment to achieve that.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Would this apply to a member of the committee who is out of the country? It is a criminal offence.
I suppose it is a case of collective responsibility.
CATHAOIRLEACH
There will be no haste to get on those committees.
The point is precisely the one we want it to cover.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Is it reasonable that a member of the committee who is away in America should be fined because someone got drink in the club?
The clubs which will be affected by this section are what I have described as bogus clubs.
CATHAOIRLEACH
It applies to all clubs.
Yes, but the clubs that you and most of us know are clubs the management of which is such that they will be in no way affected by this. The club which is only a bogus organisation to evade restrictions on the licensed trade is only a drinking den. The committee of these clubs stay away so that in case they are prosecuted a conviction cannot be secured against them. This is to prevent that abuse of the law.
I think this is a drastic amendment, and I imagine if respectable clubs knew that it was being brought forward a good many of us would be asked to oppose it. Where a railway company has licensed premises, for example, the person responsible is the secretary. I do not see why the same rule should not be applicable to a club.
I do not see how absence can affect responsibility. The directors of a company may be absent and they have to take the responsibility.
I should like to ask the Minister not to press this. If it is necessary to insert a penal clause, it seems to me the person to get at is the iniquitous person who prevails on the club servants to serve him. Let the Minister jump on him, not a member of the committee. I am quite sure if this amendment had been known about there would have been representation on behalf of certain respectable clubs to have it opposed.
Senators will agree with me up to this point that the position as it existed hitherto was unsatisfactory. No one could be held responsible for breaches. Breaches in sufficient number and of sufficient gravity could be made the basis of a request by the police or the magistrates not to renew the registration or to cancel it, but there would be no responsibility on the part of the committee or any member of it. Senator the Earl of Wicklow says: "Deal with the iniquitous member who corrupts the club servants to the extent of inducing them to serve drink during prohibited hours." It is the responsibility of the committee of the club not to have iniquitous members and corruptible servants, and really the amendment represents an attempt to bring home in some definite way to club committees the responsibility they undertook, and to the individual members the responsibilities they undertook, in becoming members.
People read licensing prosecutions in the newspapers where publicans are heavily fined or have their licence endorsed and they say "serve them right," but they will not accept the case that the committee of a club which allows drink to be served during prohibited hours and allows abuses to take place on the premises ought to be held liable in a similar way. The Senator's proposal was that there should be a provision in the Bill placing a definite penal responsibility for breaches in club premises on the committee and members thereof. I do not see anything iniquitous about this. It is suggested that if respectable clubs were aware of this they would raise a tremendous outcry. It is a question of the interpretation of the word "respectable." I assume respectable clubs are not concerned at all and that no breaches take place in respectable clubs.
The Minister asked for a minimum of £100 for one breach. There might be only five members.
CATHAOIRLEACH
No, that is the maximum.
"In the case of the first offence to a fine not exceeding £20, or in the case of a second or any subsequent offence to a fine not exceeding £40." On the point of making the secretary a beast of burden in the matter that would be all right if he were a paid secretary, but secretaries of clubs are, I understand, honorary.
SENATORS
No.
In the bogus clubs they are as a rule.
The Minister is wrong in saying secretaries are not paid. It would be fairer to penalise the secretary because the onus of the fine would fall on the club. It is more reasonable that all the members should be mulcted. If one member offends against the law, it is not reasonable to fall upon the members of the committee who are in charge and penalise them. They are not paid to do the work. They are asked to do it by their fellow members.
The committee is prosecuted as a committee; members of the committee are prosecuted qua members of the committee. I quite see the burden will fall, not on individual pockets, but on club funds. As to the hardship of people being asked to accept responsibility when they are away the law does not excuse a publican, because he is not on his premises. It says you must accept responsibility for your employees and must have such a type of employee that he will keep the law in your absence and run your establishment properly. Otherwise every licensed trader who goes to Punchestown or elsewhere could plead that he had no responsibility for a lapse that took place when he was away. Apply that to a club committee. A man going on the committee must take his responsibilities seriously. It is part of his responsibility to see that the club is properly run in accordance with such laws as are made from time to time to regulate the sale and consumption of intoxicating liquor, and the servants of that club are the servants of the committee. The committee are the employers of the club's staff. I ask that the employers take their responsibility to the same extent as the publican is compelled by law to take responsibility for his employees.
There is a suggestion I would be prepared to look into on the same basis as we have left over Senator Douglas's amendment, and that is that we insert in the amendment "the secretary or other person in apparent charge of the club."
That is what is wanted. It would be a great pity if, owing to a difference in words, this amendment were lost, because it is recognised that a certain type of drinking club is the cause of more drunkenness than licensed premises.
Furthermore, the House must accept the Minister's view that the club will accept responsibility on behalf of their officials.
Is it the case that all clubs must have a secretary, because if so, there you have the individual?
CATHAOIRLEACH
The Minister has made a suggestion which perhaps would satisfy Senator Dowdall, and that is that he would consider something of this nature: "the secretary of the club or other person in apparent control of the premises."
I am not at all anxious to whittle this amendment down. As regards the suggestion of Senator Guinness, I cannot see, and the country cannot see why the real bona fide clubs should be differentiated in legislation from other clubs. This will only hit bogus clubs.
I have no desire to differentiate, but there is an individual in every club corresponding to a secretary.
There must be an officer and, presumably, this officer should be made amenable. That is what I shall look into. I think the actual Report motion will not be taken to-day, for the purpose of allowing Senator Douglas's amendment to be discussed later and, availing of this, we can look into this amendment provided that it is accepted that the club's fund can be mulcted in respect of lapses by the club.
I hope the Minister will be good enough to provide that the club's funds are not mulcted to the extent provided by the amendment. There might be ten members of the committee. Let us have one fine, not fines, on each member of the committee.
That is a case for small committees.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I think you will abolish committees altogether. At any rate this amendment stands over for further consideration.
With regard to amendment 15, we have already passed the principle of this amendment. Still I had better put it.
Section 60, sub-section 1. To delete in lines 10 and 11 the words "chemist or druggist" and to substitute therefor the words "chemist and druggist, pharmaceutical chemist or registered druggist."
Amendment agreed to.
I ask leave to move another amendment:—
On page 30 to insert before Section 61 a new section as follows:—
61.—(1) The holder of an on-licence (in this section referred to as the on-licence) in respect of premises situate in a county borough or in the County of Dublin or in an urban district may apply at the annual licensing district court next after the passing of this Act or at any succeeding annual licensing District Court that in lieu of a certificate for the renewal of the on-licence there be granted to him in respect of the said premises a certificate for a new spirit retailer's off-licence or a certificate for a new beer retailer's off-licence or certificates for both such new licences.
(2) When an application under the foregoing sub-section is made the Justice of the District Court, if he is satisfied that a certificate for the renewal of the on-licence might have been granted and that the sale of intoxicating liquor for consumption on the premises is not the principal business carried on in the premises to which the on-licence is attached, may, if he so thinks fit, grant to such applicant the certificate or certificates so applied for by him.
(3) When an application under sub-section (1) of this section is granted, a new licence or new licences shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other Act, be granted to the applicant in accordance with the certificate or certificates granted to him in pursuance of such application.
(4) When a new licence or licences is or are granted under the foregoing sub-section no new on-licence shall at any time thereafter be granted in respect of the premises to which such new licence or licences are attached.
(5) When an application under sub-section (1) of this section is refused such application shall be treated as an application for a certificate for the renewal of the on-licence and dealt with accordingly.
(6) In this section the expressions "spirit retailer's off-licence" and "beer retailer's off-licence" have the same meanings as such expressions respectively have in the Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910.
Under the Bill as it now stands there are certain closing hours for all houses with off-licences, and those hours are based upon the time for the grocery part of the business done by the people who have those licences. There are cases where it is considered it would pay a grocer to give up his on-licence and get an off-licence instead so as to be able to open in these hours for his grocery business. Under the Act of 1902 I believe the transfer from an on-licence to that of an off-licence could not be effected, so that if the arrangement that I am now proposing is to be carried out it would have to be put into this Bill by a special amendment, such as I am proposing. The amendment would give the holder of an on-licence who carries on grocery business on his premises as well as liquor business the right to come before the District Justice and to take out an off-licence instead of an on-licence, the on-licence being thereupon ended without any cost to the State.
CATHAOIRLEACH
This is a very far-reaching amendment, and it has not so far been tabled. I was going to suggest that, as the Report Stage was not to be concluded to-day, the Senator could move it when that stage comes up again and, in the meantime, the amendment would be tabled and Senators would be in possession of its contents.
Would it not be as well that Senator Jameson should now explain the amendment and let it come up later on for discussion?
I think it would save the time of the House if the amendment was explained now, but, of course, I am entirely in your hands.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I will not rule you out if you prefer to go on, but it is a strong course to take in regard to an amendment that has not been tabled. It was not mentioned in Committee and it was not tabled for Report Stage. It would be a strong thing to dispose of it now.
I only took this course because I thought it would save time; if the Minister would look into it I would be satisfied.
CATHAOIRLEACH
If you like to move your amendment now, and no member of the House objects, I will let you do so.
It is the Minister really who has cause to complain if I put forward an amendment of which he knows nothing. If he wishes to have it postponed until the Report comes up again I will be quite willing to do so. I do not wish to take the opinion of the House on an amendment about which it practically knows nothing. Perhaps it would be better to leave it over to be considered at the next stage.
I have heard of this amendment. I would like to hear some more about it at this stage, and then, after a couple of days' interval, it could come before the House again. So far as I am concerned I would have no objection to Senator Jameson continuing his case for the amendment. I would like after hearing him to have some time to consider it.
I think, after what I have said, the House will understand the amendment deals with the case where the holders of on-licences also sell groceries. Under the 1902 Act a man cannot get rid of his on-licence and exchange it for an off-licence. It might suit him far better to get an off-licence, the holding of which would not cause his establishment to be shut up during the hours when the holder of an on-licence would have to be closed. He finds his grocery business pays much better than his licensed trade. This amendment would enable such a man to apply for a surrender of his on-licence and the taking out of an off-licence and the ending of the on-licence without any cost to the State whatever. The idea is that those whom it will pay to remain open during hours prohibited for the on-licence trade may give up their on-licences and take out off-licences, perpetually extinguishing the on-licence for these particular premises. It may be suggested that by doing this such people would get out of the on-licensed trade and of their share of the payments which will have to be made to the on-licensed holders whose premises are put out of business. But the argument against that is that they are giving up a very valuable part of their assets in giving up the on-licence which greatly adds to the value of the premises. But their grocery business being of such importance to them, it is for them to consider whether they will do that, and they are doing that with benefit to the community, as far as this Act goes, which intends that as many on-licences as can be should be got rid of without cost to the community. This enables the thing to be done without help from the State, and I think when the House considers it they will probably come to the same conclusion.
I would like to look into this amendment. There were one or two things that struck me in connection with it. First, if we can give facilities of that kind we would probably ask to have it confined to county boroughs, and the second is this: that if we are giving a period in which a choice should be made it should be a short period and there should not be a recurrent opportunity for choice. I think that in part of the amendment there was a reference that this application might be made at the annual licensing sessions for a county. We, I think, would ask for a short period after the passing of the Act in which the choice would have to be made one way or the other. I imagine the amendment, if accepted and embodied in the Act, will not be very widely availed of. I have heard that one or two of the bigger mixed trading places, like Findlater's, who have a nominal on-licence, but do little or no on-licence trade, may wish to avail of the amendment and exchange their on-licence for an off-licence, but I do not think that it will be a matter of any considerable proportion at all. I rather think that, subject to a little examination of the wording and perhaps one or two minor matters, we could perhaps accept the amendment, but I would like a few days to look into it.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Senator Jameson will hand in the amendment and it will be circulated. That disposes of what we can do at this stage at present.
Ordered that further consideration of the Report Stage be postponed.