I welcome the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, and his officials.
Intoxicating Liquor Bill 2003 [Seanad]: Committee Stage.
There are many amendments, as there were to the Immigration Bill. I have spoken to Deputy Costello and wonder whether we could speed up matters a little as we all know where we stand. I will not deliberate forever on each of the amendments. We can get through this easily. The Minister is here for only an hour and a half.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
As amendment No. 2 is an alternative to amendment No. 1, they may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 6, subsection (1), line 10, after "includes" to insert "unreasonable behaviour which is so likely by reason of the fact that the behaviour constitutes or includes one or more of the following behaviours - ".
We must consider the various types of disorderly conduct listed. For example, I have a problem with the word "quarrelsome" being defined as unreasonable behaviour. People can be querulous, quarrelsome and argumentative. It is a difficult one with which to deal. With insulting behaviour, it is new to the list of definitions included in the previous legislation. Rather than automatically qualifying as disorderly conduct, it should be defined as behaviour that could lead to disorderly conduct. The Bill states that "disorderly conduct" means "any unreasonable behaviour by a person on a licensed premises which, having regard to all the circumstances, is likely to cause injury, fear or distress". It should not be taken that quarrelsome behaviour falls into that category, but it could. My amendment would cover that and make the provision more effective.
The purpose of amendment No. 2 is to ensure that the definition cannot be read as exhaustive, as it appears in its present form.
I am of the same view as Deputy Deasy. I do not want it to be exhaustive, and paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) are included expressly in the concept of “disorderly conduct” just in case there is doubt that, while they are there, the list is exhaustive.
Deputy Costello is taking the opposite tack, he is trying to make these the necessary exemplars of such conduct. I agree with Deputy Deasy, it should be a non-exhaustive list because on some occasions singing "The Sash My Father Wore" in the presence of a group of Sinn Féin supporters might amount to disorderly conduct and it would be difficult to put it into one of these categories.
The only problem then is that the provision is so wide it becomes subjective and we are back to square one - it becomes unworkable. It is better to tie it down.
"Quarrelsome" is not an adjective that was thought up by the Department, it is taken from the 1872 Act and has objective meaning.
How is it defined?
It happens here regularly.
It is the way other people behave and the way I do not behave.
Many on this side would say the exact opposite.
Is that a subjective interpretation?
It is precisely for that reason I have tabled the amendment. Being quarrelsome is such a normal part of human behaviour that it is not exclusive to a public house, it happens regardless of whether alcohol is consumed. It is not good to introduce behaviour in the Bill that is broad in its interpretation - "violent", "threatening", "abusive" and "insulting" are more clearly defined. "Quarrelsome" is open to many interpretations inside and outside a public house and it might be better if it was not specified in the legislation. The Minister should think about this because a Minister who gives as good as he gets could be deemed quarrelsome from time to time.
Happily, this chamber and the Houses are not yet licensed premises so no offence is being committed even if offence is given from time to time. I will accept Deputy Deasy's amendment but I am not inclined to accept Deputy Costello's.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 6, subsection (1), line 10, after "includes" to insert ", but is not limited to".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I am concerned about the definition of "bar" in page 6. A great deal of documentation has been received from various sectors, particularly the hotel and tourism industries, about that definition. The manner in which it is defined here could be curtailed.
The definition comes from the 1988 Act and I do not want to change it because I do not know what might unravel as a result. Amendment No. 30 deals with many of the arguments made by hoteliers.
Amendment No. 30 deals with children on licensed premises.
Hoteliers asked what would happen if there is a counter in the corner of a room of a hotel where a wedding is taking place. They wanted to know if that would be considered the bar of the hotel. They said that if that was the case, children attending weddings and functions would be out of the equation. In amendment No. 30, rather than amending the definition of "bar", we are expressly providing for the family issue raised by hoteliers. If children are at a private function in a room in a hotel which would not ordinarily be described as the bar, the presence of a counter will not mean a criminal offence could be committed, whether, for legal purposes, that room would constitute a bar on another occasion.
We have not come to section 14 but will the matter to which the Deputy is alluding be encompassed in that amendment?
To some degree, but the definition of "bar" is extremely broad. I do not know if that is the intention. It means "any open bar or any part of the licensed premises exclusively or mainly used for the sale and consumption of intoxicating liquor". That is clear, it is a fixed place. The section then goes on to include "any counter or barrier across which drink is or can be served to the public;". The Minister may say that is contained in the 1988 Act but, nevertheless, it is very broad.
The problem here is that we are using the same definition for different purposes. If we are describing a bar for the purpose of deciding what is the bar of a hotel, one description applies. Someone suggested, and I considered it fanciful, that the reception desk in a hotel could have drink served across it and it would be considered a bar, but the case law would not follow that line of interpretation.
Taking the first three lines, a nightclub could argue that it is not a bar at all, that the main purpose of the premises is dancing and that drinking is entirely peripheral. In those circumstances we must say that if drink is served over a counter, it is a bar, regardless of the fact that 90% of the activity taking place is dancing.
This is a complex area and I do not wish to get bogged down in it. If I changed the definition of "bar", I would create massive loopholes. Practically any premises which is not mainly used for the purpose of consumption of alcohol could arrange itself on a temporary basis as a bar and escape the law in its entirety. It is a minefield but I intend to address hoteliers' concern with amendment No. 30 and leave things as they are.
There is a place where drink is served within the Minister's constituency, not too far from Orwell Park, where there is no counter and drink is not served over a counter. The whole lounge is set out in such a way, and drink is served in such a way——
I think I know the place.
I am sure the Minister does.
I think it has glass panels where one would normally expect to put one's pint.
That is right. I do not know why that is——
That is because there is no bar licence. A hotel is entitled to hand out drink through a hatch.
To all intents and purposes, as many customers are served there as in a normal bar.
Yes, but if the owners wanted a public bar in that hotel they would have had to buy a licence, but they never did that as they found it cheaper to put up glass on what otherwise would be a bar.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 may be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 7, subsection (4), line 29, to delete "subsection (1)(c)” and substitute “subsection (1)(b), (c) or (d)”.
Most of these offences are listed in previous legislation. I am concerned that an offence should only arise if somebody guilty of an offence effectively within the bar is not prepared to leave the bar. If somebody is presumed, as the Minister put it, to be drunk or has come in off the street, once he or she leaves again that is the end of the matter. I am not sure what the advantage is of imposing fines of €1,500 or €2,000 on such people.
The Bill states that it is a defence to prove that the licensee took reasonable steps to prevent the drunkenness concerned taking place. "Drunkenness concerned" is a rather inelegant phrase, and as we are talking about offences arising out of disorderly conduct, my substitute wording in amendment No. 4 would be more appropriate.
I do not know whether drunkenness is conduct. If one is plastered or inert in a corner, I do not know whether one would describe it as conduct at that stage.
The heading of Part 2 is "Conduct on Licensed Premises."
Yes, but drunkenness is only one aspect of that. I would not be attracted to that amendment. I ask the committee to note that paragraphs (c) and (d), about permitting drunkenness to take place in the bar or admitting any drunken person to the bar, apply to the bar of a premises rather than a hotel or somewhere else on a premises. One could permit a drunken guest in a hotel to go to bed, and it is not an offence to permit, for instance, drunkenness in a private dining room in a hotel. It is only drunkenness in the bar that we are dealing with.
It would be an offence, under paragraph (a) to give more drink to a drunk in a private dining room or to permit a person to consume intoxicating liquor, but the mere fact that somebody is drunk in one’s hotel premises does not constitute an offence. It is only in the bar of a hotel that the more serious provisions, paragraphs (c) and (d), come into effect.
Paragraphs (c) and (d) require people to regulate their bars in the same manner as one would expect a publican to regulate his bar, even if it is a bar in a hotel, and not allow people to be drunk on their premises. I remind people of the definition of drunkenness in the Bill. It no longer applies to somebody whose intellectual capacity is significantly impaired, as it was when the heads were published. One has to be intoxicated to such as extent as would give rise to a reasonable apprehension that the person might endanger himself or herself, or any other person. One needs to be decidedly drunk before this offence kicks in. Just being merry, boisterous or a bit drooly or incoherent of speech is not drunkenness.
This is not precisely germane, but Deputy Devins raised the question of permitting members of the Garda, whether in uniform or not, to enforce the licensing laws. His concern was that there needs to be an oversight here and that there could be abuse. I spoke to him about this last night and his suggestion was that there should be an authorisation from at least a superintendent or chief superintendent before that occurs. I want to be very careful about how I word this, but the committee can see what I am getting at.
This might be relevant to another part of the Bill.
That is in another part of the Bill, but it is something I will consider for Report Stage because a number of Deputies have suggested to me that there is an opening for abuse in allowing gardaí in plain clothes to be in hotels.
It is a fair point. There needs to be some authorisation here.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 4 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."
I have a question on the definition of a licensee. It is determined that the licensee is the licence holder. Yet, as we know, in many cases in public houses the licensee may not actually be on the premises. Can an agent or person appointed to act on behalf of the licensee conduct all kinds of administration within the public house or does this just refer to the licensee? Some of us got correspondence about this only yesterday, when concern was expressed by some publicans, so I would like to hear the Minister's comments on that.
Licensees have been made criminally liable for a long time, and there is a consistent body of case law to the effect that a licensee commits an offence if any person to whom he delegates his functions or his employee acting within the scope of his or her duty does so. One cannot escape one's liability by going off on a holiday and leaving a manager in charge. If, say, a licensed premises was divided into the four zones, the mere fact that the licensee could not physically see what was happening in all of them does not let him off the hook.
This matter was raised in the Seanad and I referred Senators to Mr. James Woods' book Liquor Licensing Law in Ireland, third edition, which contains a long description of the case law in relation to that. This was all ironed out in the 19th century so the Deputy should tell whoever is writing to her to buy the book.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."
I refer to the point Deputy Deasy raised. There seems to be no distinction in section 6 between a person leaving a licensed premises and a person then being charged. Subsection (1) provides that the person leave the licensed premises on being requested by a garda. Subsection (3) provides that a person who contravenes subsections (1) or (2) is guilty of an offence under this section. If the person leaves the licensed premises straight away, he or she is still guilty of an offence and liable to summary conviction. What will happen in that case?
One has to contravene subsection (1) and breach one's duty to leave the premises before one commits the offence.
It does not specifically state that.
Subsection (3) states, "A person who contravenes subsection (1)”. Subsection (1) imposes a duty to do something, subsection (2) is another and subsection (3) says that if one breaches that duty——
That is fine. In all these circumstances the garda will determine whether an offence has been committed and may arrest without a warrant. Must the gardaí request the person before an offence is committed, or if an offence is going to be taken to court, and then make an arrest? How do we link the duty? A licensee must not permit disorderly conduct to take place on the premises. On the one hand the gardaí are operational in regard to section 6(1) and the licensee is responsible for disorderly conduct under section 7(1).
A drunken person who did not leave when requested to do so by the licensee would commit an offence. If the licensee said that the customer refused to leave when asked the Garda could arrest the person because there would be reasonable cause to suspect that an offence had been committed under the section. The same would apply to subsection (2). If the licensee reported to the Garda that a man had tried to get into his or her premises four times and was loitering around the front, the Garda could arrest the person because there would be reasonable cause to suspect him or her of being guilty of such an offence. It is not purely Garda-driven. This applies to reports to gardaí of misbehaviour.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 8, subsection (3), line 35, to delete "(1) or”.
In effect Deputy Costello's amendment would decriminalise a failure to leave a premises on being requested to do so by a member of the Garda Síochána.
The Deputy is talking about section 8 (1) which provides, "A person shall not engage in disorderly conduct on licensed premises".
Am I reading amendmentNo. 5?
Section 8, page 8, we are at line 35.
Yes. It would mean that a person who engaged in disorderly conduct would no longer be committing a criminal offence.
Why would one seek to exclude that from the offence in section 8(3)?
There is the first prohibition, "A person shall not engage in disorderly conduct on licensed premises" and in subsection (2) "a person who engages in such disorderly conduct shall" but they are both offences under subsections (1) and (2). It seems that subsection (1) is a preamble to subsection (2) and that it should not be an offence.
The purpose of section 8(1) is to strengthen the hand of licensees with their customers. They can warn a customer to stop provoking other customers with the threat of calling the Garda and arresting the customer. It is an alternative to saying that the person shall leave the premises on being requested to do so and not re-enter. It enables a licensee to threaten to call the Garda. Maybe in practical terms it is more likely that the licensee would tell the person to get out and the person would leave and that would be the end of the story. If, for whatever reason, the licensee thought that to put a group of football supporters out was not practical in the circumstances he or she might threaten to call in the Garda to arrest the ringleader who was behaving badly.
It is improperly construed. If the Minister wanted to make that a separate offence we should probably have three offences - disorderly conduct, the requirement to leave the licensed premises concerned and not re-entering the premises. It is a bit messy as it is.
It is a matter of semantics.
At the moment it is an offence to behave in a disorderly manner in a pub. The effect of Deputy Costello's amendment would be to decriminalise that behaviour and I do not think that would be a good message to send out.
Take subsection (2) about somebody who engages in disorderly conduct and subsection (2)(a) which provides that the person shall leave the licensed premises concerned on being requested to do so by the licensee. Previously it says that it would be construed as an offence if the person refused to go. Under section 6(3) a person who contravenes subsections (1) or (2) of that section is guilty of an offence, yet in this subsection one is guilty of an offence whether one leaves or stays.
Yes, because in certain circumstances if one starts an almighty row and manages by that behaviour to create a mini-riot in a pub, the question of whether one left might become academic. If one caused mayhem to break out in a pub one should not be allowed to escape one's liability for that merely by saying that one had walked out the door when requested to do so.
If it comes under one of our definitions of quarrelsome and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform arrives in the pub and has a quarrelsome altercation with another member of the Progressive Democrats or of their coalition partner, that is disorderly conduct. The definition is very broad in the first instance.
One could cause chaos in a pub and walk out when requested to do so. To say that there was no offence committed would leave the law somewhat vulnerable.
Deputy Costello is saying if an offence is committed. He is leaving subsection (2) in as being an offence.
The point is that a person who engages in disorderly conduct shall leave the premises upon being requested to do so. For example, if I provoke an almighty row in a pub and it leads to blows and the licensee asks me to leave and I say "certainly" and walk out the door, under Deputy Costello's amendment I have committed no offence. I would have committed an offence if I refused to go, according to his definition.
So subsection (1) has to be there to have a contravention.
Yes.
Will Deputy Costello withdraw the amendment for the time being?
I will have to withdraw it for good. It could have been more accurately phrased there too in order to make it clear.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 9, subsection (5), line 9, to delete "substantial".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 form a composite proposal and will be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 9, subsection(2)(a), line 20, to delete “first” and substitute “second”.
This is an important amendment because it deals with the offences with which we are concerned. If a publican is guilty of one of these offences, it is mandatory that there shall be, in addition to any penalty imposed by the court, an order for the closure of the premises, in this section referred to as a temporary closure order. This means that if, for any reason or under any circumstances, the licensee permits drunkenness or disorderly conduct, or it occurs on the premises and is not dealt with in a satisfactory manner, the premises will be closed for a period. While the length of the period is not important, given the nature of the offences, the effect of this penalty appears to be harsh for a first offence. The same penalty applies in the case of the much more serious and, in my view, criminal offence of serving alcohol to a minor.
The definition of "drunkenness" and "disorderly conduct" is broad. Such offences should not incur the same severe penalty in the first instance. The closure of premises is a serious matter. Notification must be displayed on the premises, making it also a public affair. The penalty of closing a premises because of an offence in the first instance is harsher than it need be. The amendment proposes that a temporary closure order for a period not exceeding seven days should be applied to the second and not the first such offence. Amendment No. 8 follows the same pattern.
The purpose of this section is to bring back to publicans a sense of obligation in respect of intoxication and public order on their premises. It is to make clear that the public now looks to them in a way it is have never done before, even though publicans always had a duty in this area. The public is now serious about them complying with their obligations. There has been a tendency on the part of publicans, especially those with larger premises, to exercise little control over who is drinking the drink they serve through a network of lounge staff and to take little moral responsibility for what happens on their premises or to their patrons.
There was strong support for this measure on Second Stage. Publicans must now realise it is a serious business to allow somebody to be drunk on their premises. If a publican is caught in such a position, there will be consequences. It would be open to the District Court to apply the Probation of Offenders Act where it finds the facts proved but decides not to proceed to a conviction for a trifling and inconsequential offence. I state this in case anyone believes this will produce harsh results, even in cases which are more theoretical than real.
However, if, as Deputy Costello suggests, we provide that pubs will be closed for only the second offence, then those publicans who were not guilty of a first offence would not be deterred by this provision. This would be difficult for me to sustain, especially given the concern expressed about the lack of enforcement of the law. If publicans in Dublin knew that this closure order was never going to happen unless there had been a first outing to court and a conviction, they would regard themselves as having a free run until such time as they were brought to book for a first offence. This would be a serious mistake because if we want publicans to reconfigure their policy on serving alcohol, we do not want them, by the same token, to know that this new measure - which is supposed to be tough medicine - will not apply to them unless they have one fall from grace which has resulted in a conviction by the courts.
The proposal also ignores the reality that the Garda, will on occasion, knock on doors and tell publicans that there have been complaints about drunkenness and that they must get their act together. On many occasions, gardaí will informally advise publicans that if such behaviour continues, they will be prosecuted. While trifling events can be dealt with by the Probation of Offenders Act, the Garda also has the capacity to warn people. If I was to accept what Deputy Costello suggests and what some publicans want, which is to give them a free run on the first offence with no threat of closure, the great majority of them might take the view that no threat applies unless they are brought to court. That would emasculate the provision.
The same sanction also applies to publicans who allow those aged 18 to 21 years on their premises in the absence of an age identification document.
That is right
On Second Stage, I welcomed the introduction of this provision because for a long time the expression, "honoured more in the breach than in the observance" has applied to liquor licensing legislation. Unfortunately, it has been the case that the publican always got a first free bite. The previous sanctions of endorsements and fines were tantamount to a yellow card and were not observed by publicans. The whole thrust of the legislation is that an offence must be met with a sanction. If there is to be a sanction, there must be must be real deterrence, such as a closure order. That is the only thing publicans understand. The Probation of Offenders Act covers minor offences.
It has been suggested that a closure term of seven days is a harsh sanction. That is the maximum penalty. It could be one day. Thirty days is not the minimum term, but the maximum for a second offence.
I would accept the deletion of subsection (2)(a), provided the closure term was not less than seven but not more than 30 days. That would provide for a heavier offence in terms of closure. The important point is the imposition of a penalty of closure, not the duration. I am not pro-publican in this.
They might think so.
The publicans must take responsibility for ensuring their premises are well run. I am concerned at the proposal to impose a severe penalty for offences relating to drunkenness and disorderly conduct, terms that are not clearly defined. The application of the legislation will be open to much abuse. I cannot see how the Garda can tell publicans that too many drunks are being allowed on the premises, or that disorderly conduct is being allowed. Where any instance of such activity occurs, even if it is only quarrelsome disorderly conduct, an offence will have taken place which carries with it a District Court conviction plus the additional penalty of closure, which will apply in the first instance. We should perhaps consider a process involving some kind of counselling or advisory system, as is applied in the United States, where the publican is read the riot act and told what procedures will apply if offences continue on the premises. He or she is warned that closure will take place and that the licence will not be renewed.
Curiously, many publicans who made representations to me, and I presume to other Members, suggested a much stiffer fine, without the disqualification. This makes me believe it is not the fine the publicans fear, but the disqualification. Accordingly, I am more determined to put the penalty in place.
While there is a vagueness in this area, we should try out these provisions. Publicans are worried about this legislation, but we must put the onus on them to bring some responsibility to the matter. In this regard, the legislation could be effective, therefore, I do not agree with Deputy Costello, although I appreciate his concerns. I understand Deputy Batt O'Keeffe pointed to something of which we are all aware, that many of the super-pubs do not exercise any control over their premises. The penalty sanction is needed and the publicans are worried about it for good reason. I support the views expressed by the Minister.
It appears I will not win this argument. We have said as much as needs to be said and I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 8 not moved.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 10, after line 43, to insert the following subsection:
"(14) A court exercising jurisdiction pursuant to this section may direct that the closure order shall commence on a date not later than 6 months from the date of the order of the court.".
I trust the amendment is clear with regard to the commencement of the closure order.
In effect, the amendment proposes to allow the District Court a much longer period before the closure order comes into operation, allowing it to be applied at any stage during the six months following the conviction.
Before Easter week.
This would be used to select the closure period most beneficial to the licensee and to mitigate the effect of the closure, applying it perhaps to some fallow week when, for example, the landlord might take annual holidays.
Is it clear in section 9 that the closure order is going to operate within the 30 days?
Page nine, subsection (5) states that the period of closure specified in a temporary closure order shall commence:
. . . if no appeal is made against the conviction or period of closure concerned, on the 30th day after the order is made, or
(b) if such an appeal is made and the conviction or period of closure it is affirmed, on the 30th day after the conviction or such period is affirmed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 9 agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.
Amendments Nos. 10, 11, 12 and 44 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 11, before section 10, to insert the following new section:
"PART 3*
Regulation and Control of Marketing and Sponsorship of Intoxicating Liquor Products
10.-(1) A person who advertises, or causes the advertisement of, an intoxicating liquor product is guilty of an offence.
(2) The Minister may, upon the application in writing of a press distributor, exempt from the application of subsection (1) advertising of intoxicating liquor products contained in such publications as are specified in the exemption concerned for such period (not exceeding one year) as is so specified, where it is satisfied that-
(a) the publication concerned has a circulation in the State-
(i) in the case of a daily or weekly publication, not exceeding 3,000, or
(ii) in the case of any other publication, not exceeding 1,000,
(b) it would not be practicable for economic reasons to require-
(i) the excision or omission from the publication of an advertisement the inclusion of which in a publication distributed in the State would, but for the granting of an exemption under this section, constitute an offence under this section, or
(ii) the publisher concerned to produce an edition of the publication for distribution solely or mainly in the State,
(c) no part of the publication is printed specially or mainly for distribution in the State,
(d) any advertisement of intoxicating liquor products contained in the publication is lawful in the place where the publication is printed or first published,
(e) the publisher of the publication does not publish an edition thereof that does not contain advertisements of intoxicating liquor products,
(f) the publication is not produced solely or mainly for the purpose of promoting the smoking or sale of intoxicating liquor products, and
(g) the publication is not produced solely or mainly for sale or distribution to persons who have not attained the age of 18 years.
(3) This section shall not apply to an advertisement in a publication in respect of which an exemption under this section is in force.
(4) An exemption under this section shall be in writing.
(5) The Minister may revoke an exemption under this section where, in respect of the publication concerned, it ceases to be satisfied in relation to any one or more of the matters specified in subsection (2).
(6) In this section-
'advertisement' includes, but is not limited to, every form of recommendation of the product to the public, including, in particular-
(a) the statement of the name of the product or of any brand, trade description or designation by reference to which the product is sold, where such a statement may reasonably be regarded as a recommendation of the product to the public, and
(b) the statement of any properties of the product on a label, container, wrapper or package used for the product or in a leaflet, circular, pamphlet or brochure issued to the public or given to a purchaser of the product,
and cognate words shall be construed accordingly,
'press distributor' means a person who carries on the business of supplying newspapers, magazines or other periodicals to persons for the purpose of their selling those newspapers, magazines or periodicals by retail,
'publication' includes a newspaper, magazine or any other periodical.".
The Chairman knows my opinion and that of the Fine Gel Party on sponsorship and advertising. We believe that alcohol advertising is strongly attractive to young people, and not just to the young. If alcohol advertising did not work, advertisers would not be pouring millions of euro into it. I do not believe there is a middle ground here. The Government should take the step of banning advertising completely, along with sponsorship. It is as simple as that.
Deputy Deasy has consistently argued for a blanket ban on the advertising of intoxicating liquor. That is one approach, but, fundamentally, it is a health-driven issue. Two consequences arise from it. First, it is for my colleague, the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, to develop policy proposals in this area, rather than for me to do it. In saying this, I am not trying to shirk my responsibility.
Second, under EU law, I cannot take action which would interfere with EU inter-state trade without consulting the EU Commission and receiving its permission to do so. If, for instance, the EU Commission took the view that it was legitimate for Pernod to try to break into the Irish market to the extent that it has done by advertising, the Commission might say a ban on alcohol advertising introduced by me would be likely to favour indigenous brands, so as to knock Pernod out of the market. I do not say that would be right or wrong, but if it was to be covered by the legislation, it would breach European Union regulations following which, I understand, Ireland would be liable for a fine. We could be told by the European Court of Justice that the entire measure was invalid for failure to notify.
This is not entirely academic. It happened in Sweden, but it also happened in Ireland. Some of the measures taken with regard to smoking by the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, had to be scrapped and devised again from scratch as a result of a failure to notify the European Union. The Attorney General's office has now become much stricter on measures that I might take. Even the regulatory power in this legislation directed at the "Drink as much as you can" promotions had to be watered down to allow for it to be provided for by regulation, so that we would not fall foul of the European Union ban.
Regarding advertising, I fully accept that times change. Yet there was a time when advertisements, such as "Guinness is good for you", were of little significance. I question the notion of advertising per se being wrong, or specific forms of advertising being wrong. Again, this is not academic. RTE, for some reason, has an internal house rule against advertising spirits. I do not believe that it is legally enforced, but one never sees gin, whiskey or Bacardi advertised on RTE, although UTV and Sky broadcast advertising for Irish whiskey into Ireland. One can have the best will in the world, but one cannot keep advertising out any more. I would much prefer for Ireland and the United Kingdom to agree a code of conduct for advertising regulation in that area, so that advertisements would not be directed at young people or suggest that sporting or sexual prowess or status were enhanced by alcohol. Particular products aimed at young people would not be advertised at all. That would be a sounder way to proceed. However, my colleague, Deputy Martin, is responsible for these matters and he intends to put forward his own policy initiatives. While I welcome Deputy Deasy raising this matter as I regard the present advertising situation as unacceptable, it is for someone else to deal with it.
Deputy Costello has tabled amendment No. 44, which is linked.
Amendment No. 44 in my name reads:
In page 22, subsection (1), between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:
(a) prohibiting or restricting the advertising, sale, display or marketing of intoxicating liquor or products connected therewith,”.
My amendment would come under the regulations permitted in this section, so that the Minister would have the scope to make regulations. I am not suggesting that there should be an amendment to the Bill itself whereby he would immediately prohibit items but that the regulations envisaged under section 22 regarding intoxicating liquor in licensed premises and the happy hour in section 20 tie up with the thrust of what he is doing. In the fullness of time, he could use the enabling facility to allow him to restrict the advertising, sale, display or marketing of intoxicating liquor when he has checked everything with the Commission.
I do not agree that the matter comes specifically under the remit of the Minister for Health and Children. It comes jointly under the remit of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Minister for Health and Children. The former has as much responsibility in the matter. It would be a good idea for the Minister to seek a code of conduct on advertising from RTE and other Irish and British television stations. I would like to see it written into the Bill if possible. Young people are being targeted by advertising promoting intoxicating liquor, and the Minister's responsibility comes into play. I would like him to initially examine restrictions - I would say prohibiting - on all advertising that related alcohol to young people or sought to establish a link between it and young people having a healthy, enjoyable lifestyle - and also that between healthy sporting activities and alcohol, which is a misleading form of advertising.
This comes within the Minister's remit, and regulation would be a proper way to proceed. The legislation would provide the Minister with the enabling facility and he could, as circumstances arose and cultural attitudes developed, extend or restrict the regulations regarding advertising while letting the advertising industry know of its responsibility and that he has, at the stroke of a pen, powers to introduce regulations that would enforce such a requirement on it. This Bill should not pass without providing for this, for advertising is a major part of the problem, especially when it is directed at young people.
It is important to make a clear distinction in the legislation between the supply of and demand for alcoholic liquor. Here we are dealing with supply and the regulation of supply is the one area where we have control. We opened the floodgates over the last few years - wrongly, in most people's view. Legislation or regulation dealing with the demand for alcoholic liquor is an entirely different area, albeit a very important one. Practically every speaker on Second Stage made the point about taking a multidimensional and multifaceted approach. To conflate regulation and legislation in this area would only confuse a much bigger issue.
Having said that, I agree with practically everything Deputy Deasy said regarding advertising and with his draft section, particularly regarding third-level education and institutions. In my own constituency, we have a major and growing problem of serious antisocial behaviour arising out of pure drunkenness in third-level institutions. It is a huge problem, and Deputy Deasy touched on it. Advertisers are pumping millions of euro into such institutions every year. They are not doing it for the good of their health - and certainly not for that of the students. The logical conclusion is that they get a huge return on their investment. The problem is that, in doing so, they are creating an environment of pure drunkenness. I can speak about third-level institutions in my own constituency. While I agree with the thrust of what has been done, it would only confuse what liquor licensing legislation is all about.
It strikes me that there are some in the Government who have made careers out of ignoring Europe, the Minister for Finance being one. I know that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform feels that our alcohol abuse problem is terribly serious and that our drink-related street violence levels are off the scale. We must go to the European Commission and fight our corner, explaining that we have a problem. All the Minister need do is show it the statistics, for no one in his right mind would say that we do not have a problem. The Minister can go to the European Commission or whoever and make that argument, saying that we need this as a matter of priority. It is not good enough simply to say that we have got in trouble in this area before. This is radically different, and radical approaches need to be taken, whether with the European Commission or whoever.
My party does not believe there is a middle ground, for it must be banned completely. In fairness, the Minister has talked about this and has addressed the matter, as has the Minister for Health and Children, but it has been going on endlessly. The Minister must take the necessary steps and take on whoever he needs to. Whatever legal or legislative impediment he sees in front of him, he must tackle the matter aggressively. Advertisers will find a way around this if the Minister simply waters it down. They will target not just young people but those of all ages. That it is very effective is one of the reasons that we have such a problem.
My colleague, Deputy Martin, announced, the day after I had made public the heads of this Bill, that he had obtained the sanction of the Government to prepare a Bill containing legislative measures regarding the control of alcohol advertising. He is currently working on that and I do not want to convey the impression that nothing is happening.
On promotional activities, I take the point that advertising is not engaged in for the good of society at large. It is done with a view to increasing market share and, to be fair, some form of advertising is intended to maintain market share within an area. For instance, beer and cider brands advertise against each other to keep up consciousness of the brand. It is important to producers that they have brand identification and so on. I do not want to go over the top and say that all advertising, ipso facto, is bad because that is not a position in which I believe.
I do not see a problem with advertising wine. Wine advertising probably does not serve to produce public drunkenness and the like. Advertising new forms of wine and drawing them to people's attention by saying they can get a case of wine in Superquinn for X euro per case does not worry me very much. I know what Deputy Deasy is driving at and I have identified the individual brands - I do not propose to do so again. He is talking about the "in your face" type of advertising which tells people that if they drink a certain product it will improve their sex life, athletic life and social life. That is pernicious, but allowing Senator Quinn to tell people that Beaujolais is available at €40 a case or whatever is not damaging.
I will give Deputy Deasy one example of unintended consequences in advertising bans. When I was Attorney General, the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, brought forward proposals to prevent tobacco products from being visible in shops. There was to be no promotional material in shops and they were to be put under the counter. That was all very well until two individuals who owned a cigar company in Grafton Street or somewhere in the centre of the city wrote to the Minister to point out that their shop sold only this material and that if the proposed regulations were introduced, it would be impossible for them to have any advertising in their premises. A person would go into an empty room, see a counter and wonder what was sold in that place. Eventually, some arrangement was made whereby shops that were exclusively devoted to tobacco products could allow customers to see some of their produce.
We have to be careful here. We start off with the best of intentions and then find ourselves falling flat on our faces because there is an unreasonable outcome. My view is that wine advertising is not damaging and that old-fashioned, point-of-sale advertising of Guinness or Heineken is not damaging.
The Minister has not addressed my amendment. I agree with his assessment of the situation——
I do not want to do the regulating. I should have made the point that to set up a system, to regulate it and to come up with proposals, public servants and agents will have to examine advertisements that come in and decide whether they correspond to proper standards. We will have to have the whole machinery established. The Office of Tobacco Control, for instance, does that in respect of the advertising of new brands. If I rather than the Minister, Deputy Martin, were to accept the responsibility, I would have to establish a separate unit in my Department to enforce the law. I would have to check newspapers and go to points of sale. To be honest, I would prefer if we left that with the Department of Health and Children.
Is the Minister speaking on behalf of the Minister for Health and Children?
More or less. I am accepting the spirit of the amendment that this area must be regulated, but I am not in a position to do so.
It would provide in both sections that certain aspects could be prohibited and advertising could be restricted as well. There is greater flexibility of approach in terms of dealing with the matter. I accept that some advertising of alcohol is not damaging but the power should be implemented as quickly as possible to prevent certain aspects and restrict others. The Minister said that a certain structure needs to be put in place to deal with it, but that is more urgent than some of the measures he is bringing forward now.
If the Department of Health and Children has not managed to do that by this time next year, I will revisit the codification Bill if it is considered that that is where it should be done. I agree with the Deputy that there is an urgency about this matter, and I am not trying to dump it on the Minister for Health and Children, but since the Government decided that he would do so, it would not be reasonable for me to say I will do it.
Amendment put.
The Select Committee divided: Tá, 1; Níl 10.
Tá
- Deasy, John
Níl
- Ardagh, Séan,
- Costello, Joe
- Cuffe, Ciarán,
- Hoctor, Máire,
- McDowell, Michael,
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda,
- O’Connor, Charlie,
- O’Donovan, Denis.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán,
- Power, Peter.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 11, before section 10, to insert the following new section:
10.-(1) The Minister may make regulations requiring that a package, container or wrapper in which an intoxicating liquor product (or a particular intoxicating liquor product) is packed, consumed, or offered for sale shall bear a notice or statement (in such form as shall be specified in the regulations) indicating the risk to the health of persons associated with the use of the product.
(2) The Minister may make regulations prescribing any or all of the following matters regarding the labels:
(a) the content of the information to be visible thereon;
(b) the form, size, location and colour of such labels;
(c) the form, size, location and colour of the print of such labels.
(3) The regulations may provide that any licensee who contravenes any of their provisions is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding-
(a) for a first offence, €1,500, or
(b) for a second or subsequent offence, €2,000.
(4) Every regulation under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and, if a resolution annulling it is passed by either House within the next subsequent 21 days on which that House has sat after the regulation is laid before it, it shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under it.".
The amendment is self-explanatory requiring that health warnings be placed on alcoholic beverages.
As far as this proposal is concerned, this is a matter which certainly falls within the remit of the Minister, Deputy Martin, because this is a health warning issue. The content of the warnings would be a matter for him, as would generating policy. He is authorised by the Government to generate legislative proposals in this area. There will be many complex issues involved. For example, do we want to put a health warning on a bottle of champagne?
A wealth warning.
I fully accept Deputy Deasy's idea is that this would be done by regulation and one may not have to put the same warning on a bottle of champagne as one would on something else - I presume that is his thinking. The question is what kinds of warnings should be used. Would they be similar to a health warning on a packet of cigarettes? This is something which the Minister, Deputy Martin, will have to carefully consider. What kind of warning should be put on beer bottles and should a warning be put on glasses that are used for draught drink? At what stage does one give up on having warnings in a pub? There are many issues involved. When the Minister, Deputy Martin, goes down this road, he will have to grapple with all these matters.
From an entirely practical point of view, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is simply not equipped to deal with health issues and whether a particular warning would or would not be proportionate or even accurate, which is one of our problems. There are many matters to be decided in that regard. Alcoholic strengths is an issue which the Minister for Health and Children may want to consider in respect of some products. For example, is it absolutely essential that beer should have this or that alcoholic content? When I was a kid sitting on the No. 13 bus going to Gonzaga College, I recall looking at advertisements suggesting that Wincarnis tonic wine was good for one's health. The Chairman will also remember that advertisement. Buckfast and products such as that were prescribed by doctors, especially to little old ladies for their good health. Incidentally, I discovered that Buckfast, which I believe is made by monks somewhere in England, is the favourite tipple among loyalist youths in Northern Ireland. They drink it by the bottle, which is interesting.
Mr. Donovan
The point raised by Deputy Deasy is valid, although it is probably outside the Minister's remit. We have been hearing for the last two decades about the damage alcohol has done to society and about the cost of it to our economy. Research throughout the United States and modern western economies has shown that cost. I mentioned to the Minister some time ago about certain brands of shots. I was discussing this Bill with a hotelier a couple of nights ago and he told me he does not stock those drinks. He runs a good premises. The effect of these drinks is similar to being injected with the alcohol. It goes straight into the bloodstream and has an immediate effect. That is a dangerous type of drinking for youths. While it might not be within the Minister's remit, Deputy Deasy's suggestion is valid. Perhaps the Minister would bring up this issue with his colleague at Cabinet. I intend to do so.
I like a pint but some of the drinks now available can blow the mind of a young person. They are extremely damaging. This is an affluent society whereas when I was a young man 25 years ago we did not have the money to drink. There is plenty of money available now and people are using it to the wrong effect. In ten or 20 years time we will see the results of this imprudent drinking. The reckless amount of alcohol content in certain drinks must be stopped.
I agree with the Minister that this is the responsibility of the Minister for Health and Children because it is a health warning. Something needs to be done in this regard. The health warning is different, however, from the health warnings on tobacco products. Tobacco per se is damaging, not only to the smoker but also to those who inhale secondary smoke, so the health warnings required in this instance would be different. It will require a complicated response from the Minister for Health and Children to get it right. However, it is important that it is done. The Bill that is due to be brought forward by the Minister for Health and Children should provide for a health warning. That Bill should be speedily introduced so something like this can be implemented.
I appreciate Deputy O'Donovan's comments. Many young people are drinking the drinks identified by Deputy O'Donovan without knowing the consequences. It is becoming increasingly clear, and the evidence for this is good, that it causes liver damage in young people. The suicide rate is also increasingly linked to high rates of alcohol consumption among young males. The devastating health consequences of drinking heavily at a young age are finally being recognised by this country.
Some members have made a comparison with cigarettes. Twenty or 30 years ago there was not the same amount of knowledge about or evidence of the damage done by cigarettes. That damage is now verifiable. However, that knowledge still does not exist in the psyche of young people. There must be at least a health warning to counteract the money the advertisers are putting into the promotion of these drinks. There must be something to introduce some element of doubt into their minds about drinking lots of alcopops or other drinks. It has to be something physical they can read which will instil a doubt and make them think that drinking seven or eight of these drinks a night is not good for them. It is a common sense, simple measure. We have done this with tobacco. Now that we know the devastating health consequences that can result from drinking at a young age, it is reasonable to do this.
I will not push the amendment. I accept the Minister's comments about the Minister for Health and Children. However, members of the Government must address the issue; it must be done.
I agree with Deputy Deasy that it is something that must be done. I wonder whether the most effective way of doing it, and this is another matter which the Minister for Health and Children will have to consider, is to stick labels on bottles containing dire warnings or to require the drinks industry to contribute to a fund which would allow him to produce television advertising graphically showing the effects of these drinks. Perhaps there could be a combination of both. These are policy issues which the Minister will have to consider.
What Deputy Deasy has said about liver and brain damage, strokes and so forth must be brought home to drinkers of all ages but particularly to younger drinkers who believe, like with tobacco, that they are invincible and immortal and that nothing can damage them. The Minister will have to consider whether concentrating his fire on putting a label on a bottle of beer which points out that excessive alcohol consumption causes cirrhosis, strokes and heart disease is the right way forward or whether he should consider putting graphic advertising on television showing the real consequences of alcohol consumption. He should also somehow get the drinks industry to counterweigh its advertising efforts by directing this truth at young people. The great advantage of professionally created advertising is that it can be directed at young people and can capture their imagination. If it is just a label on a bottle, it might achieve the same result.
Can I be excused from the meeting? The Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, will take over for the rest of the afternoon.
Before the Minister leaves, I wish to confirm that it is the intention of the committee to complete the Immigration Bill and the Intoxicating Liquor Bill tomorrow. Is that agreed? Agreed. I welcome the Minister of State.
Does the committee intend to deliberate for the rest of the evening?
We intend to conclude with amendment No. 37, if possible.
Is there a time limit? I will have to arrange to have another Minister of State present after a certain time.
We will not go later than 7 p.m.
If the committee wishes to go beyond that time, I can make other arrangements.
It is not our intention to go later than 7 p.m.
Very good. I am happy with that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 49 is an alternative to amendment No. 14 and both may be discussed together by agreement. Both amendments deal with closed circuit television.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 11, before section 10, but in Part 3, to insert the following new section:
10.-It shall be lawful for a court which is considering an application for the grant or renewal of a licence to attach conditions requiring the putting in place of a system of closed circuit television monitoring in or outside the premises and conditions in relation to the operation of such a system.".
This matter has cropped up on several occasions in debates on public order legislation, private security services legislation and, indeed, on this Bill. One way of addressing a problem of public order in the vicinity of, or inside, a public house or off-licence - particularly if it is a flashpoint where such problems have arisen before - is to make the installation of CCTV a condition of the issuance or renewal of a licence. If such flashpoints relate to particular premises, a court considering an application for renewal could impose this sanction whereby, over and above any precautions the licensee might take, they would install a closed circuit television system to ensure monitoring of public order. They should take what the court would regard as all necessary precautions to prevent disorderly conduct taking place there in future.
In the case of an application for a first licence, it might be possible to introduce a similar requirement depending on the size of the premises. The obligation could also be imposed in the case of a super pub or if the licensed premises is in an area traditionally known as a flashpoint for disorderly behaviour. I hope the Minister can accept the amendment.
On Committee Stage of the Public Order Bill, when we asked that a CCTV provision be included in the legislation, the Minister took that proposal into account and said he would come back to it. On a number of occasions I have asked what was the Department's interpretation of the matter and I have heard the Minister express his concern about requiring small pubs to install CCTV. Can somebody explain where the line is drawn in such cases and who will be required to install CCTV under the legislation? Will it be night-clubs or pubs over a certain square footage?
I am sympathetic to the idea of installing closed circuit television systems in licensed premises and the Minister will consider it further in the context of the codification Bill next year. In relation to the matter raised by Deputy Deasy, there is no concept of licensed premises of a certain floor space - we are talking about special exemption orders. Section 11(4)(b) already goes some way towards meeting the issue raised by Deputy Costello in providing that the District Court will have power to require the installation of closed circuit television. It is specifically mentioned that the court may impose such other conditions as it thinks proper, including, as appropriate, a requirement to install a closed circuit television system. We have expressly written into the legislation the option that a court may require the installation of CCTV in the event of an application for a special exemption order. That does not depend on the character or size of the premises, it applies to everyone who is seeking a special exemption order.
In tabling his amendment, Deputy Costello has moved one step further by proposing that:
It shall be lawful for a court which is considering an application for the grant or renewal of a licence [that would be any licence, either at the initial grant stage or at the annual renewal stage] to attach conditions requiring the putting in place of a system of closed circuit television. . .
I am sympathetic to the idea and the Minister will consider it in the context of the codification Bill. As regards this Bill, however, the Minister took the view that special exemption orders needed to be addressed urgently and a principle of proportionality is required. The Minister is not convinced that small premises need closed circuit television and, in the absence of more extended debate on the issue, he fears that the costs involved might jeopardise the viability of many smaller licensed premises in towns and rural areas. While the Minister cannot accept the amendment, he is prepared to consider the issue further in the context of the codification Bill.
The Minister of State referred to the Bill's provisions concerning special exemption orders, which give greater cause for concern about flashpoints of disorderly behaviour. I am not referring to small pubs, most of which are very well run without problems. Situations often arise, however, concerning super pubs which are well able to afford CCTV systems, so there is no reason not to install them. If hundreds of people are pouring out of a pub at a particular time and if complaints have been made about their behaviour and the way in which the premises is run, a court should have such powers, not just concerning special exemption orders but also for normal non-licensing situations. For example, a court might have powers of sanction, including the CCTV system, following a resolution passed by a local authority about a particular premises with a bad record. This might also apply whether it concerns an initial licence application or a renewal and may not necessarily relate to special exemption orders.
I agree with Deputy Costello that the Minister will have to extend this provision beyond special exemption orders. When the smoking ban comes into effect, some people will enforce it by asking customers to step outside the premises. There is a concern that while ten or 15 people are hanging around outside having a smoke it could lead to the possibility of public order offences outside pubs. That will have to be borne in mind in dealing with this section.
There are not enough gardaí to deal with current levels of street crime, particularly in urban areas, so there will have to be some other deterrent. Senior gardaí have been telling me for months that, in many cases, Garda overtime is insufficient to deal with the situation. Therefore, the legislation will have to be extended beyond the special exemption orders. I have sought a written memo from the Department concerning its plans in this regard but the Minister of State should re-examine the matter for Report Stage.
Deputy Costello disavowed any intention of causing any difficulties for smaller licensed premises. He pointed out, as is the case, that many if not most of them are run in a orderly manner. The fact remains, however, that the terms of his amendment apply to all licensed premises on the grant or renewal of a licence. The amendment is universal in scope and is not restricted to super pubs or pubs of a particular character. It is universal in scope and would apply to every renewal at every annual licensing session. It would be a far-reaching provision. I make this point to indicate the Minister's intentions here.
With regard to special exemption orders and Deputy Deasy's concerns about late night activities, all in the nightclub sector and many of the so-called super pubs need the special exemption order provisions to operate, so at least a real start is being made here. Members should remember that this start supplements the provision in the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 2003, to which I think Deputy Deasy referred in an earlier contribution, which expressly empowers the court, on the commission of an offence having been proven and in the context of a closure order, to impose a requirement to install a closed circuit television system. We have already legislated to provide for this in the context of proven misbehaviour.
I have a slight reservation about one matter raised by Deputy Costello, namely, that the local authorities might assume some sort of role or intervention in this matter. We have legislated for the court to have the power in the event of proven misbehaviour. In this Bill, we propose to legislate that it apply to all special exemption order businesses. The Minister has indicated he is more than willing to look at the question in the context of all licensed premises and the codification Bill, but he is not prepared to take that final step in this measure.
There are backup powers in the legislation dealing with the role of local authorities. The Minister has thought fit to allow them have say by way of resolution. I suppose this is an area in which this could operate.
I accept there is already a provision to deal with the special exemption order. I will not press my amendment, but the Minister should take it on board because if we state in the legislation that all these matters will be dealt with by the District Court, all licences should be subject to the court's jurisdiction. A relatively small pub in an isolated area in which all kinds of undesirable behaviour takes place may well be required to install this monitoring device as part of the conditions.
The Decies.
Somewhere like that. It could be located in a part of the country where large numbers decide to assemble because the price of a pint is cheaper, or whatever. In any case, I will not press the amendment but I hope the Minister takes it on board and include it in the legislation next year.
The Chairman mentioned the Decies. A friend of mine owned a pub called the Decies. He was murdered on the street outside it about two years ago. I wish there had been CCTV outside that pub.
I raised the issue of technology in connection with the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Bill and the Minister took my concerns on board. This is progressive and we are moving in the right direction. We talk about gardaí having camcorders and I would like to think that will work, but we need to replace that with what we are doing here to a certain extent. There needs to be video evidence. The Minister needs to push this as far as he can without forcing it on the smaller pubs. It would, however, be effective if he pushed it to the end.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 11, before section 10, but in Part 3, to insert the following new section:
10.-With effect from a date prescribed by order of the Minister, it shall not be lawful to employ a child in an employment which primarily involves work in a licensed premises.".
This is an important amendment. In recent years, there has been a proliferation in the number of children and young people employed in public houses. In many ways, it is adding to the problem, given the money earned and the experience gained. Very often the money is spent in the worst possible way. If we are to introduce legislation in which nobody under the age of 18 years may drink and where publicans have discretion to increase that age limit in terms of access to public houses, it is totally contradictory for a young person under the age limit to supply people with alcohol. If we are to try to keep young people and children out of pubs, they should not be employed in them because it gives the wrong example.
I raised this matter before. I understand the previous Government lowered the age limit for people to work in pubs.
That is not correct. I will set out the position. I will not accept this amendment for two technical reasons. First, the Deputy does not describe what is a child for the purposes of the section. In addition, the matter is regulated by section 38 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 1988, which is not referred to in the amendment.
Apart from the technicalities, it raises an interesting and important issue, as Deputy Costello pointed out. Section 38 of the 1988 Act permits the employment of certain persons, who are under 18 years but not under 16 years, in licensed premises. Children under the age of 16 may not be employed in such premises. The employment of certain 16 and 17 year olds for general duties is permitted. These duties are confined to serving tables and returning empty glasses to the counter. They are not permitted to sell intoxicating liquor behind the bar. That is the strict legal position.
A code of practice specifying the conditions of employment has been adopted and is set out in regulations made by the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and may be found in SI No. 350 of 2001. The regulations provide that a young person may be required to work up to 11 p.m. in such premises on a day which is not a day immediately preceding a school day during a school term where the young person is attending school. The code of practice provides that before employing a young person in a licensed premises, the employer shall obtain the written permission of the parent or guardian of the young person. It also deals with issues such as training, study time and health and safety. As the social partners and the licensed trade have signed up to the code, it would be inappropriate to set it aside without necessary consultation. The amendment would also prevent family members of licensees from assisting in premises at weekends or during school holidays and it may have an adverse affect on young persons considering a career in the sector.
As Minister of State with responsibility for children, I consider that the amendment raises important issues because on the one hand, there is no doubt this is one of the main sources of income for young persons in those age categories, while, on the other hand, it may have to be re-examined if we embark on a new direction in public policy in terms of re-evaluating our attitude to alcohol. Again, I suggest this is not the time to do so in the context of an amendment which is not formulated with exactitude to address the problem and in a context where certain procedures have been put in place in consultation with the trade and the relevant union interests.
It is a case of things being desirable, but not yet - in other words, this is not the place to address them and they should be left for another Minister at another time. The Minister has relaxed the position in amendment No. 30, which states "It shall not be unlawful for such a holder to allow a child who is accompanied by his or her parent or guardian or a person who isaged at least 15 years but under the age of 18 years . . .". The Minister has used the same terminology as me. However, in his amendment the child can come into the bar area only if he or she is accompanied by a parent or guardian, yet this other child, the one with whom I am concerned, can serve drink unaccompanied by a parent or guardian. It is not much use to say we might stunt children's future career in the pub trade by preventing them from working in a bar at 16. We must face up to this inherent contradiction in the legislation. It is not good enough either to say that because children do not pull pints behind the counter, the problem is mitigated. They serve at tables and collect glasses, mixing in the environment and culture of the pub. If they served behind the bar they might be out of the way to some extent. The response to this is inadequate.
There is a simple inconsistency here in that the Bill provides for removing 17 year olds from a pub after 9 p.m. but another 17 year old can work in the pub up to 11 p.m.
The person aged 16 or 17 who is employed by the licensee is not in the pub for the purpose of consuming intoxicating liquor. In fact he is not permitted——
Neither is the other person. The Minister was not going to let them on the premises at all.
Yes, but this person is there as an employee, in a contract of service. He or she receives wages or remuneration for services supplied as a direct employee of the licensee. That has been a well-established feature of our culture.
Deputy Costello should get real here. If he is that concerned——
Are we not trying to do something about that culture?
Deputy Costello would be well advised to consult children on this matter, particularly those aged 16 or 17, as they would be overwhelmingly in favour of this practice. Perhaps that is a bad thing we should be working to change. However, we are not going to change it this afternoon.
We have made a good start——
We have made a good start with the Bill but we do not have to take that step.
The Minister and others in Government are saying we must change our culture in this area. Despite this, there is an inconsistency with the controversial proposal to remove 16 and 17 year olds from pubs after 9 p.m. while allowing them to be employed in that environment after that time.
That is the essential point. One cannot have children in pubs under a guise, whether it is through remuneration or because they are working with family members. Existing legislation sets out the rules governing the position of family members. No restrictions are imposed on their presence in a pub or hotel bar. However, it is not possible to restrict the presence of young people in bar premises at certain hours while turning a blind eye to them working on the same premises. Existing legislation merely provides that they shall not work beyond a certain time, which is around midnight. Given these contradictions, the Minister should reconsider this aspect.
I do not see this apparent contradiction because the employee is under the direct control and direction of, and is in a position of subordination to, his or her employer. There is no equation between a person who is an employee on a premises and a person who is there by invitation or in the society of another customer. There is a fundamental distinction here. The person of 16 or 17 years of age employed for reward in a licensed premises is under the control of the licensee regarding his or her behaviour on the premises.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 47 is an alternative to amendment No. 16 and both may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 11, before section 10, but in Part 3, to insert the following new section:
10.-(1) The Minister for the Environment and Local Government shall, within 2 months of the passing of this Act, propose regulations lowering the permissible level of alcohol in the blood for persons driving on a provisional licence to zero and for other persons to 50 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood, with corresponding reductions for the permissible level in urine and breath.
(2) It shall not be necessary for a member of the Garda Síochána to form any particular opinion before requiring a person to give a sample of his or her breath under the Road Traffic Act 1961.".
This amendment refers to alcohol-related offences, another area where the Minister has reneged on his obligations. There is nothing in the legislation which addresses the continuing serious problem of drunken driving. The Minister has stressed the need to get his proposals through the House, but this area is the cause of many fatalities and other problems. The Minister's proposals will not even bring us into line with the European norm, reducing the amount of alcohol per volume from 50 milligrams to 100 millilitres.
The amendment also provides that it should not be necessary for a garda to form any particular opinion before requiring a person to give a breath sample under the terms of the Road Traffic Act 1961. The Minister may say this is a matter for the Minister for Transport, but it does not require a major response. The Minister has said the Minister for Transport will look at this matter in the distant future under the aegis of traffic regulations in the distant future but if the Minister is not going to do these things, why, if it only involves the stroke of a pen, did he not get commitments that other Ministers would do so? He has said the Minister for Transport and the Minister for Health and Children will do certain things in the future.
Much of the responsibility in this area lies with the Minister. Random blood testing is a Garda matter and the level of alcohol in the blood with which one can drive is also a matter for the Minister. It is a policing matter. It is an offence to have a certain amount of alcohol in one's blood when driving. It is not enough for the Minister to wash his hands and say such matters are the responsibility of other Departments. He should accept this amendment.
The Minister of State probably saw last week that this year, there were 22 fewer road deaths than last year, although the figure will still be well over 300. It is clear the penalty points system has had an effect but gardaí are telling me the message has not come home to many people who still drink and drive.
On the technical side, the amendment is flawed because it refers to the Minister for the Environment and Local Government rather than the Minister for Transport, who is responsible for road traffic legislation. The Government is collectively responsible for devising a strategy to deal with the alcohol problem, which is informed by the findings of the strategic task force on alcohol. It then falls to particular Ministers and Departments to take initiatives which require to be taken. That is why the Minister, who is responsible for licensing legislation, has brought this immediate measure before the Oireachtas. It is for the Minister for Transport to deal with this matter in the context of the road traffic legislation.
The substance of both amendments relate to the road traffic legislation. As the Minister said on Second Stage, a high level official group is reviewing the road safety strategy and the recommendations of the strategic task force on alcohol are part of that review. Some of the recommendations of the task force are embodied in Deputy Costello's amendment, including the zero blood alcohol level for learner drivers, a reduction in the overall limit for blood alcohol levels and random testing. These are the main issues raised by the strategic task force which the review group is examining and which will in due course report to the Minister for Transport. It will then fall to him to take the necessary measures. The Minister does not consider it appropriate to amend what is essentially licensing legislation with a Road Traffic Act provision. While he has always been receptive to the supplementary amendment of legislation as it passes through the Houses, that would be a big step to take with regard to these measures.
It is a transport matter.
I will not pursue the issue because we will not get any further. However, we are still left high and dry on the question of when, if ever, these important amendments will be dealt with. The Minister has decreed he has no say with regard to most of the amendments being tabled here. This is urgent legislation, pending his magnum opus next year, yet these urgent issues will not be included and we do not know when they will.
The Minister does not appear to have consulted with the Minister for Health and Children or the Minister for Transport. There is no commitment to address any of these matters. It is easy to fob us off and say it is not his responsibility, but the Minister has not been able to tell us that the Minister for Transport has a deadline for introducing legislation dealing with random testing, alcohol levels or provisional licence holders. Similarly, although he has spoken about it, the Minister for Health and Children has made no commitments in terms of addressing the health aspect, especially the points raised by Deputy Deasy's amendment.
I agree with Deputy Costello. This is a matter of life and death. In fairness to the Chairman, I understand his position. The matter may be an issue for the Minister for Transport, but if it is not considered germane to this Bill, there must be a conduit to move it on. The message is not getting home to many drivers who still risk drinking and driving.
We are told there will be no traffic corps. A massive problem exists here which has been identified by both Opposition parties and with which I believe most Government Deputies would agree. Will the Minister outline what is the conduit if the issue is not germane to this Bill? I did not think there are drafting errors in my amendment.
There is a drafting error in the Deputy's amendment. The Long Title would have to be changed if we were to amend the road traffic legislation. I do not see an amendment being tabled in that regard.
I am not refusing the Deputy on a technical point. There is a point of substance here. A review group is considering the issue. It will report to the Minister for Transport later this year and no doubt he will bring forward proposals based on its recommendations.
Has the Minister of State an opinion on the matter?
The Government's opinion is informed by the views of the strategic task force on alcohol. We need to tighten up the law in this area, as in other areas, relating to alcohol consumption.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 11, before section 10, but in Part 3, to insert the following new section:
10.-(1) In this section, 'nightclub licence' means a licence granted by the Revenue Commissioners pursuant to a Certificate of the District Court given under this section to a person in respect of a nightclub of which he or she is the owner and occupier authorising, subject to the provisions of this section
(a) the supply of intoxicating liquor for the consumption on those premises, and
(b) the consumption of intoxicating liquor for consumption on those premises.
(2) Where a nightclub licence is in force in relation to any premises, the licence shall be deemed for the purposes of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 1927, and the Finance (1909-1910) Act 1910, to be a retailers on-licence notwithstanding the fact that it does not authorise the sale of intoxicating liquor for the consumption off the premises as provided for in retailers on-licences generally by that Act.
(3) Where a person applies to the District Court for a nightclub licence in respect of a nightclub of which he or she is the owner and occupier, having duly given notice of his or her intention to do so, the Court shall cause a certificate to be given to the applicant entitling him to receive, on paying the Revenue Commissioners the fee specified in this Act, a nightclub licence in respect of the nightclub unless the Court, in consequence of an objection under section 4 of the Licencing (Ireland) Act 1833, prohibits under that section the issue of the licence on the grounds of the character, misconduct or unfitness of the applicant or the unfitness or inconvenience of the premises.
(4) In considering an application under this section for a nightclub licence, the Court shall not grant the license unless the premises comply with any regulations relating to nightclubs which may be made by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and shall also require-
(a) that there be a designated area within the nightclub for dancing and entertainment,
(b) that the sale of intoxicating liquor be ancillary or secondary to the provision of dancing and entertainment,
(c) that the nightclub be managed to a professional standard and that the owner and occupier of the nightclub comply with the reasonable requirements of the Superintendent of the Garda Síochána for the District in which the nightclub, the subject of the application, is situated,
(d) that the nightclub be in compliance with all relevant legislation and regulations, and in particular with planning law, with health and safety law and with the law governing fire safety,
(e) that the nightclub adequately controls the admission of patrons at the door of the club.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Acts, where a person (in this section referred to as the applicant) who is the owner and occupier of a nightclub applies to the Revenue Commissioners in that behalf, the Revenue Commissioner shall, provided that the applicant-
(a) produces to them a certificate of the District Court given to that applicant pursuant to this Act in respect of the nightclub, and
(b) complies with any other requirements specified for the time being in regulations made by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, grant to the applicant a nightclub licence in respect of the nightclub.
(6) Where an application is made for the renewal of a nightclub licence, the Superintendent of the Garda Síochána for the District in which the nightclub, the subject of the application is situated or any inhabitant of the parish or health authority within the meaning of the Health Acts in whose functional area the nightclub is situated may, without prejudice to any other ground of objection available to him under the Acts, objects to the renewal of the licence on the following ground, namely that the premises concerned have not been bona fide used as a nightclub within the meaning of this Act since the grant of the licence or the latest renewal thereof, and if the District Court upholds such objection, the nightclub licence shall not be renewed by the Revenue Commissioners.
(7) It shall not be lawful for any person, in any premises to which a nightclub licence is attached to-
(a) sell or expose for sale, or
(b) open or keep open the premises for the sale of, or
(c) permit the consumption on the premises of, any intoxicating liquor at any time on Christmas Day or Good Friday or on any other day between 10.30 a.m. and 4.00 a.m. on the morning of the following day.
(8) The provisions of the Act of 1927 relating to prohibited hours shall apply to any premises to which a nightclub licence applies as if subsection (7) of this section were substituted for subparagraph (i) of this Act, and the Act of 1927 shall be construed and have effect accordingly.
(9) Any person who contravenes the terms of a nightclub licence shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding €1,000 and the offence shall be deemed, for the purposes of Part III (which relates to the endorsement of licences) of the Act of 1927, to be an offence to which that Part of that Act applies.
(10) A holder of a nightclub licence shall cause a copy of the licence to be displayed prominently in the premises.".
The Irish Nightclub Owners' Association asked me to table this amendment. The more I think about it, the more I agree with it that there should be a separate nightclub licence. Nightclubs appear to fall between the two stools of the on-licenced public house and the special exemption order licences which the bars get. However, they differ from both in that they start late and do not have normal on-licensing hours. They have a strong element of dancing and socialising as well as the consumption of alcohol. They operate at a different time and generally close at a later time.
I understand there are approximately 400 nightclubs in the country which do not give rise to disorderly conduct to any great extent. Often it is the proliferation of exemption orders for late night bars and so on that causes disorderly conduct. Given that the setting at nightclubs is different from the other premises, it would be desirable to consider them specifically with a view to having a designated type of licence. This could follow on from what the Minister has agreed to do with regard to the sporting arena licence, referred to in the Bill, where he is giving his imprimatur to a new type of licensed premises. The Bill provides that the Minister may issue to the owner or owners of a designated national sporting arena a certificate of proof of the issue of a licence in respect of the arena. The sporting arena is now being recognised as an area which is suitable for a new type of licence in a new designated area. Nightclubs should be treated similarly.
I support the amendment, which is well thought out. The Minister should accept it. The nightclub owners have pointed out that in their case, someone attempting to enter a premises in a drunken state is usually refused, whereas in most other cases they can be drinking from, say, 8 p.m. and come out on the streets in a drunken state at 2 a.m. or 3 a.m. There is no check on entry to ascertain if they have a responsible attitude towards drunkenness. Despite problems in the past with nightclubs and so on, an attempt should be made to ensure they are treated separately in the legislation. The Minister should consider the amendment to ensure that some recognition is given to the different role they play, other than being bars or places that sell liquor.
I have considerable sympathy for Deputy Costello's viewpoint but the amendment would effect significant structural reform in the licensing system if it was accepted. For example, it provides for a licence that would permit the relevant premises to remain open as a matter of ordinary routine until 4 a.m. The present arrangement of a special exemption order can ensure the vitality of the premises until 2.30 a.m. That would be a fundamental change to the licensing system.
Special exemption orders are part of the problem because all pubs close at 2.30 a.m. and the extra half hour would mean people would leave at different times. Such orders are made to premises that might be open for long periods anyway. The amendment refers to nightclubs that are not open during the day and specifies a time period.
I will illustrate how far reaching is the Deputy's proposal. Subsection (7) provides for an exemption other than on Christmas Day or Good Friday or on any other day between 10.30 a.m. and 4 a.m. the following day, which, potentially, is a long time. I have considerable sympathy for the proposal that a special form of licence should be instituted for the nightclub industry.
It is hardly a nightclub if it opens at 10.30 a.m.
That should read "p.m.". The Deputy can understand my reaction when I read it. However, when the Government established the Commission on Liquor Licensing, its membership included a representative of the nightclub industry. The commission made recommendations regarding nightclubs in its second interim report. It did not recommend the creation of a new nightclub licence, despite the presence of an industry representative. It was recommended that nightclubs should continue to operate within the general framework of the special exemption order system. The Minister met the nightclub delegation and he undertook to review its case for a specific nightclub licence, even though the commission had not recommended it. He accepts nightclub owners have made a strong case for a separate licence but he believes that will require further consideration and can be dealt with in the codification Bill next year.
Will the licence be included in the codification Bill?
It will be considered and dealt within the codification Bill next year.
Deputy Costello and the Irish Nightclub Owners' Association have made a strong proposal. It is time we grew as a society because the days of the nanny state are over. I am surprised the Minister, Deputy McDowell, is wielding the blackthorn stick in the bushes telling us when to drink and when to go home. One of the major difficulties is the significant volume of people rushing on to the streets in the early hours. By introducing a later closing time, there would be less of a rush to get taxis and buses at the same time. Deputy Costello is proposing a practical measure that would reduce the flow of people onto the streets in the early hours. There would be a more gradual flow onto the streets and people would be able to exercise their own good judgment regarding when they dance and drink. I would like this sensible proposal to go further.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Nil, 8.
Tá
- Costello, Joe.
- Cuffe, Ciarán.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
Níl
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Deasy, John.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- O’Connor, Charlie.
- O’Donovan, Denis.
- Power, Peter.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 11, before section 10, to insert the following new section:
10.-(1) Section 2 (as amended bysection 3 of the Act of 2000) of the Act of 1927 is amended in subsection (1)(b) as follows:
(a) by substituting ’11.30 p.m.’ for all appearances of ’12.30 p.m. on the following day’.
(b) by substituting ’(vi) any other Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday or Saturday between 10.30 a.m. and 11.30 p.m.’ for ’any other Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday between 10.30 a.m. and 11.30 p.m.; and ’.
(c) by the deletion of (l)(b)(vii).
(2) Section 2(1A) of the Act of 1927 is hereby repealed.".
The Commission on Liquor Licensing recommended that closing hour should be changed from 12.30 a.m. to 11.30 p.m. on Thursdays. It has been part of Fine Gael policy for some time that the same should happen on Fridays and Saturdays. The amendment is self explanatory. Without resources and without the presence of gardaí as a deterrent on the streets, the problem is evident. The liberalisation of the drinking laws three years ago has led to an increase in drink related street violence. The hours should be returned to what they were originally before summer 2000.
According to Garda reports the main increase in street violence occurs in the hours after special exemption orders expire rather than in the revised hours provided for in the intoxicating liquor licensing legislation amendment. While I understand the reason the Deputy has proposed the amendment, I cannot accept it. Last year, the Commission on Liquor Licensing sought submissions from the public on the issue of trading hours. A great variety of views were expressed. Having looked at all the submissions, the commission concluded that a balance must be struck between the legitimate needs of those who do not abuse alcohol and the protection of vulnerable persons and their dependants.
The commission was concerned at reports that later opening on Thursday nights was having an adverse impact on young persons reporting for work or training or turning up for classes or lectures on Friday mornings. It considered this a worrying development and recommended a rolling back of the Thursday night opening hour to 11.30 p.m. The Minister agrees with that view and has included a provision to that effect in the legislation. However, he does not propose to extend the roll-back to Friday and Saturday nights. He would be willing to revisit the issue in the context of next year's codification of the licensing laws, but he cannot accept the amendment at this stage.
The Minister of State has made it clear he will look at it and make his judgment over the next year. I find it hard to accept that he can agree to change it for Thursdays and admit that damage is being done in regard to absenteeism or students being groggy in the morning. Young people work on Saturdays also. If the argument is made for Thursdays it can also be made for Fridays. As we have gone through this with the Minister, I will not press it but it needs to be done. It has added to the street violence problem. It was said that gardaí have indicated this is to do with special exemption orders, but the later closing has added to the problem. Every garda on the beat to whom I have spoken has said that, since liberalisation in the summer of 2000, longer drinking hours have exacerbated the problem in urban areas. If we are serious about dealing with drink related street violence, we must revert the closing hour to 11.30 p.m. I know this will not be a popular measure but people will get used to it.
We have thousands of bona fides drinkers, many of whom enjoy having a late drink. However, we cannot have it both ways. We cannot say there is a crisis while avoiding taking unpopular decisions such as this.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 10.
Question proposed: "That section 10 stand part of the Bill."
My argument against this section is the same.
My argument is much the same as the one I made earlier. I accept there is a problem of an increase in street violence and that abuse of alcohol has fuelled it, but I do not accept that curtailing the hours of drinking will lead to a significant reduction. We need to have more gardaí on the streets when people exit from licensed premises and we also need to severely control the number of super-pubs that continue to come into existence in towns and cities. These two measures will do far more to control the amount of violence on the streets.
As somebody who has lived in the centre of Dublin for the last ten years, including in Temple Bar for a period, the most significant change occurred when large pubs were allowed to come into existence. The kind of control that a publican can exercise over a pub that is perhaps 2,000 or 3,000 square feet in size is completely different from the kind of control that can be exercised over a pub of 20,000 or 30,000 square feet. We need to provide more controls over very large pubs. We must also reorganise the Garda Síochána in order to have significant Garda numbers present when people are on the streets. From my knowledge of streets such as Dame Street and South Great George's Street in Dublin 2, there are not enough Garda numbers present to deal with the hundreds, if not thousands of people coming on to the streets from these premises.
Many speakers have referred to the large number of gardaí on the streets to help with the Special Olympics. If even a fraction of those numbers were on the streets when people are exiting licensed premises we would do a lot more to curtail street violence. By getting rid of many of the controls over opening hours, there would be less of a rush to the doors at the same time. That would assist in reducing the amount of violence on the streets. I therefore oppose the section.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 11.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 12, lines 25 and 26, to delete "that is not a public holiday, at 1.00 a.m." and substitute "at 2.30 a.m.".
This amendment relates to the special exemption orders. The section refers to the period the order shall specify. It provides for it to be different on Mondays, when it shall expire at 1 a.m. In any other case it will be at 2.30 a.m. There might be an argument for providing for a special order for Sundays, but it is strange to do so for Mondays. If the normal order applies for six days, why can it not also apply on Mondays?
I remind the Deputy that we are discussing Sunday night. Monday starts at 12 midnight on Sunday, so that is why the Bill is drafted on that basis. The Bill provides that on Monday mornings, a special exemption order has to lapse at 1 a.m. unless the Monday is a public holiday, in which case it is assimilated to the normal position of 2.30 a.m. The general idea is that Monday is the first working day of the week. The amendment proposed by the Deputy would permit special exemption orders to operate until 2.30 a.m. on Monday mornings, on the first day of the working week. I am not disposed to accept the amendment. The issue was examined during the consideration of the 2000 Act and fears about absenteeism from work on Mondays were expressed at the time. The Minister is not willing to reopen the issue in the context of the Bill.
The reason that we do not allow licensing time to go beyond 11 p.m. on Sunday evenings is out of fear that people might drink at 11.30 p.m. or 12 midnight, but a special exemption order can carry on until 1 a.m.
We are considering the whole issue of trading hours and while Deputy Costello made the philosophical point that perhaps we should have none at all, Deputy Deasy has taken a very different view and sees merit in them as habit-creating limitations. If we are to have hours at all, it is reasonable for the Legislature to say that a week has significance as well as a day and that the path of reform can start on a weekly basis rather than on a daily basis.
It is strange that we choose one working day out of the week, especially since people have the weekend in which to relax and stay out longer but still go to work on Monday. Monday morning would probably be the quietest day because the pubs close at 11 p.m. on Sunday evening and there is likely to be less activity about town.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 13, line 6, after "with" to insert "persons who appear to the local authority concerned to be representative of licences in the functional area of the local authority and ".
The amendment relates to the entitlement of the local authorities to pass a resolution. It proposes that before any such resolution is adopted, the local authority shall consult with the officers in charge of the Garda Síochána but also with persons who appear to the local authority concerned to be representatives of licensees. It would seem to be reasonable that the licensee should be included in the consultation as they are responsible and are involved in implementing the law on their premises.
Does the Deputy mean the Licensed Vintners' Association?
I mean the licensing associations, or perhaps representatives of licensees in a particular area. The resolution could be varied, for example, it could deal with expiry times referred to in section 5 or it could be for individual premises or an area. An area could be established that is not in a residential area and local authorities could decide to recommend that the expiry times would be different from other areas. It would cover any consultative process where the local authority might consider passing a resolution - a substantial decision - that the licensees or those directly concerned should also be consulted at some level, along with the Garda.
I am concerned about this issue. The local authority could apply for an expiry time different to what is stated and extend the hours to 4.30 a.m. or some other time. If two adjoining local authority areas sanctioned varying expiry times, it could encourage people to travel from one area to another, which would raise the possibility of drink driving. It would also leave our local authority colleagues open to lobbying by the licensing federations and bar owners to alter the expiry times to suit their business needs. I can understand that a local authority in a tourism area might want an expiry time to be slightly different to facilitate the industry, but this should not be left to the authority. If we are to adopt specific closing times there should be one rule for all across the State or else no rule, as some have suggested.
I oppose the section. I agree with Deputy Ó Snodaigh. The initial idea of allowing local authorities to extend pub closing times in their areas arose about four or five of months ago. This does not go that far. It would allow the local authorities to pass a resolution, which would then have to be considered by the District Court, when deliberating on a special exemption order. It is not a good idea to give this authority to councillors. The Minister understands the very close relationship that local representatives have with publicans in many cases. Local authorities and their members should not be put under this pressure. I have cited cases where five members of a nine-person council drink in the same pub. They will come under undue pressure to make such a resolution and bring it to the District Court.
Deputy Ó Snodaigh is correct in saying the possibility of two local authorities having different closing times will encourage drink driving. At a time when we are grappling with that issue, this is madness. The section should be deleted.
There are a number of Garda stations in my constituency. In one area, the owner of a nightclub received a letter from the superintendent or inspector in charge stating that in future, no special exemption orders that go beyond 1.30 a.m. will be given. This appears to have been done unilaterally without putting a notice in a newspaper or allowing people to make any representations. While it might not be the deciding factor, it has great moral influence with others who are making the final decision. There should be a method whereby the officer in charge of the Garda station could take on board representations and let people know that the whole matter would be considered.
I agree with the Chairman. It seems to be out of line for any member of the Garda to indicate that an exemption order would not be allowed beyond a particular time. I would like to see some clarification on that.
I take a different view to my colleagues on this issue and I support the Minister, largely because I support local democracy on the issue. A local authority is a body that deals with administration and planning in a local area and the councillors are elected to represent that area. It is in the interests of good planning and administration for councillors to adopt a resolution for a variation in expiry times in parts of the area. I do not accept the argument that councillors are in the pocket of publicans or that they are being brought under undue pressure.
I did not state they were in the pocket of publicans. That was never suggested or intended.
I will withdraw my statement if the Deputy takes offence. There was a suggestion that they would be subject to unacceptable pressure from publicans. Publicans lobby councillors, like everybody else.
This is a healthy development. People seek special exemption orders without anybody having a say in the matter other than the Garda. It is proposed here to provide local authorities with a statutory basis to go through the rigorous process of adopting a resolution that will form the basis of a recommendation to the court. The councillors will not make the decision. The can only make a recommendation to the court in the same way as a Garda recommendation.
The local authorities should do this on a consultative basis with the Garda and the licensees to ensure there is a proper and responsible operation of licensed premises in the area. This is not to introduce a heavy handed approach but to provide an extension of the consultative process in the granting of special exemption orders that will involve the local authority responsible for the area's administration, just as the Garda has responsibility for the area's policing.
Does this work in the negative? Can a local authority bring a resolution objecting to a special exemption order?
I will first deal with Deputy Costello's amendment. Section 11 provides that the local authority, before adopting a resolution on special exemption orders, must engage in this publicly announced consultation process. The authority must then consider any views submitted by any person concerning the resolution and any views submitted by a Garda officer and any other persons, including views on any health aspects of granting a special exemption order. I am advised that "any person" in this context includes a licence holder. There is full scope for the relevant local licensed interests to make their views known to the local authority in a statutory way under this provision.
The local authority is required to give one month's notice of an intention to propose the resolution. This notice and the proposed expiry times must be published in at least two newspapers circulating in the area. There will, therefore, be adequate opportunity for the licensed trade and other relevant interests to make their views known.
The wording of the amendment would cause problems, as it is vague. For example, how, can and why should a local authority determine what persons are representative in a particular area? Once the section is broad enough - as we are advised it is - to cover a member of the licensed trade, it is not desirable to have a statutory procedure or machinery for a local authority to become involved in deciding who appears to be representative of licence holders in their functional area.
The section as it stands is wide enough to allow any person with an interest in this matter to make their views known. Those with an interest would not be restricted to licence holders, but would also extend to people who are residents, have businesses or carry on professional activity in the community and who hold a view about how they are affected by an extension proposed to a special exemption order. For that reason I cannot accept the amendment proposed by Deputy Costello, although I appreciate his general support for the thrust of the Minister's proposals.
Deputy Ó Snodaigh asked if this is a restrictive provision or whether the local authority could extend the hours. That cannot happen. The only representation the resolution could contain would be for a restriction of the order. I refer Deputies to subsection (5), in which the times of the special exemption order are set out, allowing for an extension to 1 a.m. on Monday morning and 2.30 a.m. in any other case. The subsection goes on to state: ". . . unless the court, for stated reasons, considers it expedient to grant the order for a shorter period". In effect, the only matter on which the local authority will make a resolution is on whether the order should be for a shorter period.
This raises the question, to which Deputy Deasy referred, as to whether the local authority can oppose the order totally. On my reading it could do so, perhaps on the basis of recommending that the order be extended for only minute's duration, which is tantamount to wholly objecting to it.
Deputies Ó Snodaigh and Deasy canvassed various objections to the involvement of local authorities in this area. Deputy Ó Snodaigh mentioned the dangers of lobbying.
I was referring only to the context of extended hours. I have no problem with shorter hours.
Yes. However, Deputy Deasy made another point which, in a sense, relates to lobbying. In rural areas of Ireland, the licensed trade includes many family owned businesses and the persons concerned are often prominent personalities in local communities, possibly with a close relationship with members of local authorities. That could put a councillor under great pressure in the type of situation to which I assume Deputy Deasy is referring, where there is substantial local pressure to restrict the hours which the licence holder wishes to have fully extended. Those seeking election to local authorities are liable to be put under pressure. It is part and parcel of political activity. Those participating in the local government elections next year must understand that politics involves making decisions and that it is not possible to keep all of the people happy all of the time, or, for that matter, to fool all of the people all of the time.
The Chairman, Deputy Ardagh, raised a particular case. I am not familiar with the facts but, treating it in a hypothetical manner, the Garda has no function in determining the duration of special exemption orders. That is a function for the District Court. The Garda is a notice party in this matter. Essentially, this provision will put the local authority on a similar footing to that of the Garda. However, neither of those bodies can pre-empt the decision of the court, which must decide as to what is appropriate. I do not know if I can assist the Chairman further on that matter.
Deputy Deasy outlined his reasons for opposing the section. The Commission on Liquor Licensing accepted the Garda view that many public order offences take place after 3 a. m. - after the expiry of special exemption orders - and that this problem needs to be addressed. The mechanism proposed by the commission includes a role for local authorities in determining the duration of special exemption orders in their areas. Since the section of the 1927 Act dealing with special exemption orders has been amended on several occasions, this section contains a re-statement of the law regarding such orders. Subsection (7) provides for the proposed local authority role.
The District Court will retain discretion in granting such orders, but the court will now be required to have regard to any resolution adopted by a local authority in the area in which the premises are located. As the Minister indicated yesterday, the secretary of the Association of Municipal Authorities in Ireland has written to congratulate him on the proposal to give local authorities this role. A local authority must consult with the Garda and consider the views of any other person, as I outlined in my reply to Deputy Costello's amendment. That can include views on the health aspects. Accordingly, a view submitted by a licensee in the area must be considered.
We have already discussed the provision allowing for the possibility of the District Court requiring an applicant for a special exemption order to install a closed circuit television system. This need arises mainly with regard to larger premises. It will enable the Garda, which is a notice party, to request the court to attach a condition regarding closed circuit television where it has reason to believe it will be justified or appropriate. It is a small imposition on large premises.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 21 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 11 stand part of the Bill."
I wish to comment on the perfect world of local authorities and councillors. I do not believe the Minister of State considers there to be so many independent-minded, innovative, dedicated local legislators throughout the country. In many cases, they do what the county manager tells them.
I disagree with Deputy Deasy's impression.
The Deputy is entitled to hold a different viewpoint. Councillors would be prone——
The Deputy should visit North Tipperary - he would be better informed.
——to lobbying on behalf of publican interests. Local authorities should not have any role in this matter. It is a function of the courts and the Garda. This provision in the Bill is madness.
The Deputy's point has already been made and acknowledged.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 12.
Amendments Nos. 22 to 24, inclusive, are alternatives and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 13, lines 37 to 46, to delete subsection (1).
This subsection refers to drinking-up time. I was taken aback by the proposal to end entertainment during the specified 30-minute period. The Green Party believes in the right to party and dance - which is more beneficial than drinking - until the time one leaves a premises. It brings to mind that rather brief moment in the evening before exiting when the lights go on and the music. This Bill proposes half an hour of bright lights, while one stares at those around, before leaving the club. That is not the right way to proceed. It is like the scenario in which Amhrán na bFhiann is played and then the hall or pub is silent for half an hour, while people finish their drinks, until it is time to leave. It makes better sense to allow dancing or entertainment to continue during that period. I am perturbed by the proposal to stop the entertainment a full 30 minutes before patrons are expected to leave the premises. Perhaps the Minister should get out more often and see the situation for himself.
I note that Deputy Costello parties two-thirds of the way.
I do not profess to be an expert on the subject, but I am concerned about this provision in the Bill.
I echo some of Deputy Cuffe's comments. I am not sure as to the effectiveness of the provision with regard to drinking-up time if entertainment is not permitted during the period. If, after the serving of drinks ceases at a particular time, one is still allowed to dance and sing, one is less likely to be drunk. Of course, under this legislation, drunkenness is not permissible in any event - one is liable to be thrown out on the basis that it is an offence. The time in which people are dancing is a sobering one and it is not unreasonable that entertainment should be allowed to continue during the last 30 minutes. My amendment proposes a reduction in the period. There should be a 30 minute period following the closure of the bar with a subsequent ten minutes drinking up time. I am attempting reach a compromise to resolve the problem.
My instructions are clear. The Commission on Liquor Licensing recommended that entertainment be prohibited after the expiry of normal trading hours and special exemption orders. The purpose of the section is to implement this recommendation. The commission noted that the purpose of drinking up time is to facilitate an orderly clearing of a premises. The provision of entertainment is not conducive to that aim. On the contrary, if entertainment is under way, the drinking up time becomes part of normal hours and drinking up takes place when it expires. The Minister is prepared to review this change in the light of experience gained during next year's codification exercise.
When the 1962 Act was enacted, the drinking up time was ten minutes. Subsequent legislation extended that period to 30 minutes. It is an interesting example of how we legislate in minute detail to regulate matters of human conduct. I fail to see how 30 minutes is needed to drink up as against ten. The Minister has made this provision to facilitate the orderly implementation of licensing measures.
Of course, the ten minute drinking up time at that time was honoured in the breach only. It was never respected.
I suggest we return to that. With the new arrangements much less drinking will be taking place anyway as one will be deemed to be drunk much more quickly than in the past. It is probably enough to provide ten minutes.
I admire the Deputy's optimism. I will draw to the attention of the Minister to the fact that Deputy Costello is attempting to restore the 1962 position.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 13, line 40, after "provided" to insert "for no more than twenty minutes".
The Minister of State has said the Minister will look at this again.
I said I would draw Deputy Costello's proposal to the attention of the Minister.
I accept that.
Was there something about next year's codification process?
The Minister will review the matter in the context of codification.
Is the same true of amendment No. 24?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 13, line 41, after "(2)" to insert "unless the special exemption order is granted for a period which expires earlier than2.30 a.m.".
The amendment relates to cases where the court prescribes an earlier closure.
There is no drinking up time at that stage.
There is.
If you are given half an hour with a special exemption order, the entertainment stops as soon as it starts. There has to be some rationality.
I agree with the Deputy. The drinking up time does not vary. The same rule applies irrespective of the duration of the special exemption order.
If there is a 1.30 a.m. closing time provided for in an exemption order, is the drinking up time from 1.30 a.m. to 2 a.m.?
Yes.
An extra half hour is provided for drinking up time.
Drinking up time is afterwards.
What about the entertainment?
Entertainment ceases with the order.
I presume this matter will be dealt with during next year's codification.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 12 agreed to.
SECTION 13.
Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 are similar and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 14, line 4, after "person" to insert "(other than a licensee)".
These are drafting amendments, the purpose of which is to make clear that the subsections concerned apply to persons who are not licensees. The law in relation to licensees is set out in section 31 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 1998. Section 32, which we are replacing, makes provisions in respect of persons who are not licensees, but may purchase alcohol for, or supply it to, underage persons. This form of secondary purchasing, possibly by an older sibling or friend, has become commonplace and it makes enforcement of the underage provisions more difficult.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 14, line 11, after "person" to insert "(other than a licensee)".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 14, line 25, to delete "€1,500" and substitute "€2,500".
The penalties already provided for in the legislation are stringent. Increasing them as suggested would not make the provision more effective. One of the tasks to be undertaken in advance of the codification Bill is a review of all penalties under the intoxicating liquor code. We will have an opportunity to review all penalties next year and I am reluctant to make a piecemeal change at this stage.
Will the provision be reviewed next year?
We will review all penalties. As the Deputy is aware, a vast variety of penalties has developed haphazardly through many different Intoxicating Liquor Acts. It is desirable to review all penalties to make them consistent with each other in the context of the legislation as a whole. The Minister believes the review should be part of the codification exercise. He is satisfied that the particular penalties prescribed here are adequate for present purposes.
I have tabled the amendment because I wish to take seriously the problem of underage drinking. The penalties that go with offences in this area should be increased.
The penalties prescribed are an increase on the penalties which currently apply to the provision of intoxicating liquor to persons under the age of 18.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 28 not moved.
Section 13, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 14.
Amendments Nos. 29, 30, 34, 35 and 45 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 14, lines 31 and 32, to delete "subsections (2) and (3)" and substitute "subsections (2) to (4)".
The substantial amendment is amendment No. 30. The other amendments are consequential. Concern has been expressed in both Houses of the Oireachtas and by other interested parties that the provisions in the Bill which prohibit persons under the age of 18 from being in the bar of a licensed premises after 9 p.m. might adversely affect wedding receptions and other private functions. To make the matter clear, the Minister has decided to submit amendment No. 30, which provides that it shall not be unlawful to allow a child accompanied by a parent or guardian or a person aged 15 to 17 to be in the bar on the occasion of a private function at which a substantial meal is served to persons attending. I hope this provision allays the fears which have been expressed on this subject. The Minister does not propose to change the existing provisions of section 35 of the 1998 Act, which prohibit persons under the age of 18 from bars where an exemption order is in force.
I welcome the amendment. The Minister is trying to ensure that young people are not on a premises, though we saw an anomaly a little earlier on. He allows people to work in a premises who are of the same age as those prohibited, but he is ensuring that persons of that age group may only attend a bar if accompanied by a parent or guardian. If a parent or guardian is present, should there be a restriction on any age group in a public house?
How is this provision to operate? Complaints were made in relation to the bar areas of hotels and to function rooms. What provisions are being made to accommodate tourism in the west, where there are many small pubs and hotels? The tourism industry believes that unless children are also allowed in the bar area, this provision will eliminate much of the business anticipated by small public houses. While this is partly addressed in that the prohibition will not apply to the bar area of a private function in which a substantial meal is served, is there any reason a person over the age of 15 years should not be allowed into the bar area where a substantial meal is not served or a function held? For example, will families staying in a rented cottage in Connemara for a week be prevented from remaining in a pub after 9 p.m. if there is a nice sing-song taking place or a group of musicians playing in a corner?
These are some of the reservations that have been made to Members, not only by the Irish Hotels Federation but also by the rest of the tourism industry, which believes it will lose out. How can we marry the different views on the matter? By and large, the circumstances I described present no threat to anybody. There is no threat of disorderly behaviour, nor do any of the Minister's other concerns arise. Concerns have been expressed because visitors from continental Europe expect to be able to go into sessions in pubs in the countryside as a family. This is regarded as a normal experience but does not appear to be permitted under the legislation.
There are no restrictions if the session takes place outside a bar. The provision relates to bars, whether in hotels or elsewhere. However, function rooms, dining rooms and entertainment rooms are not captured by the legislation and children of any age may attend them for a wedding, funeral, traditional music event or other reasons.
The policy of the legislation is clear. We are making a real change. Aside from children who happen to be employed on the premises in question, which we discussed earlier, and the exemption provided for with regard to private functions at which substantial meals are served, many of which are family-type events, our policy is to stipulate that children will not be permitted on licensed premises after 9 p.m. Were we to take the route envisaged by Deputy Costello, we would set aside the policy of the legislation, which is clear on the signal we want to send on this matter.
I understand the Minister of State's concerns and the reasons young people should be discouraged from being in bars after 9 p.m. However, anyone who has attended events such as engagement parties and late afternoon christenings, will be aware that most of them take place in licensed premises, at least in the Dublin region. The definition of a bar in the Bill as a counter or a barrier across which drink is and can be served would, I presume, include most function rooms. Function rooms, whether in a GAA club or even a hotel, usually have a counter. Perhaps the definition needs to be changed. Many pubs are more akin to a lounge than a bar. Should differentiation be applied on this basis? There should be some attempt to facilitate family occasions and tourism. Anybody who has visited the west will have seen sessions at which children sit quietly enjoying the music.
Perhaps we should move towards some of the continental models in which separate children's rooms allow young people to enjoy themselves, whether with PlayStation or in other ways. This is especially important in terms of tourism as it would allow adults to relax. At 9 p.m. most people, especially in rural areas, are getting ready to go out, whereas in Dublin, where the culture is different, most have already gone out by that time.
The Deputy raised the issue of social functions, such as christenings, taking place in the late afternoon. A christening party can conclude by 9 p.m. in many cases and children are free to attend until that time. The prohibition is on children being on licensed premises after 9 p.m.
A week old baby is not included in the legislation.
Is that correct?
No, a week old baby is included and must not be on a premises at 9 p.m.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 15, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following subsection:
"(4) It shall not be unlawful for such a holder to allow a child who is accompanied by his or her parent or guardian or a person who is aged at least 15 years but under the age of 18 years to be in the bar on the occasion of a private function at which a substantial meal is served to persons attending the function.".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 15, lines 38 to 40, to delete the following:
", or
(b) in the circumstances specified in subsection (4)”.
This is a technical amendment. Paragraph (b) of subsection (6) appears tautologous and unnecessary because it is covered in paragraph (b) of subsection (4), which states that subsection (1) of the section does not apply to a person under the age of 18 who is the son or daughter of the licensee. Subsection (6) states the provisions therein will not apply in the circumstances specified in subsection (4), which appears tautologous. It could be a drafting error.
I cannot accept the amendment as to do so would mean that none of the exceptions provided for in subsection (4) would apply. The effect of this would be that a son or daughter of the licensee, or a person under 18 years residing or employed in the licensed premises, would not be permitted in the bar of the licensed premises. A person under 18 years who wanted to pass through the bar solely for the purpose of entering or leaving another part of the premises would not be allowed to do so unless I stand by the formulation in the subsection in question.
Is this not already provided for in subsection (4), which states that subsection (1) of the section does not apply in relation to a person under the age of 18 years who is a son or daughter of the licensee or resides in the licensed premises? Its inclusion in subsection (6) appears repetitious.
As a criminal offence has been created in subsection (6), the circumstances have to be made explicit.
I will accept the Minister of State's word on the matter.
When one is creating a criminal offence, the conditions under which the offence occurs must be defined comprehensively in the section. The section clearly prohibits the presence of a child in a bar and the parent is deemed to be guilty of an offence, except where one of the provisos included in the section is established. The accused has to establish that the circumstances specified in subsection (4) applied because they are matters within his or peculiar knowledge. This must be written into the subsection to protect the accused, otherwise he or she would be guilty of an offence in the circumstances prescribed in subsection (6), even if subsection (4) were to come into play.
That sounds convincing.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 14, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 15.
I move amendment No. 32:
In page 16, line 16, to delete ", being" and substitute "and being".
This is a drafting amendment to the definition of age document.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 16, to delete all words from and including "enter" in line 30 down to and including "document" in line 32 and substitute "be in the bar of licensed premises between the times referred to in that subsection while not having with him or her an age document".
This is a drafting amendment to subsection (3) of the section to make it clear that the requirement applies only to people aged between 18 and 20 who are in the bar of a licensed premises after 9 p.m. This amendment is consequent on the related matter we discussed.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 15 stand part of the Bill."
This section is about the production by persons aged between 18 and 21 of evidence of age, which can be established by a Garda age card or a passport, identity card and driver's licence. There is considerable concern among organisations such as the National Youth Council of Ireland, the National Youth Federation and the Council for Civil Liberties that we are targeting young people and imposing on them the burden of having to produce documentation proving their age. They believe that to be discriminatory.
The section puts on a statutory basis a fairly unworkable requirement. It seems that the compulsory requirement for young people to prove their age coupled with the need to do so using specified documents - we all know from recent statements that these documents can be easily replicated - involves our pretending that we are doing something to address the matter. It is causing anguish abroad that we are operating in a fashion that discriminates against young people. I have some concerns about the section.
I have similar concerns. The section criminalises legal activity by outlawing the consumption of drink among those who are of an age at which they are entitled to do so if they do not carry specified identification. This measure does not exist in any other jurisdiction even though the Minister referred to New Zealand. However, it does not have such a law and specifically rejected a similar proposal in 1999. Under age drinking is best tackled by enforcing a requirement to check people's ages but not by making it a crime to fail to carry identification. A voluntary scheme is already in place, of which almost one third of people have availed. Approximately 30% of publicans found guilty of selling alcohol to people under 18 did not have their premises closed, although this is required under the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2000. Our legal system should implement existing laws.
The requirement that a certain age group rather than another possess identity cards breaches the spirit of our equality law and might be contrary to Article 40.1 of the Constitution, which states:
All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.
This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function.
I ask that the criminalising of young people not be pursued by the Minister on Report Stage so that those who are between 18 and 21 can legally consume alcohol without the threat of a criminal conviction or a fine.
The new obligation to produce an age document to gain admission to bars is intended to assist the licensee to ensure compliance with provisions relating to under age consumption of alcohol and to assist the Garda in enforcing the law. I was intrigued when Deputy Ó Snodaigh referred to "legal activity" but drinking is not so much a legal as a lawful activity, provided that it is carried out in accordance with the legislation - that is a technical point.
The requirement was amended on Committee Stage in the Seanad so it would apply only after 9 p.m. Since people under 18 years must have left licensed premises by that time, amendment No. 33 means that the mandatory requirement will apply only to those between the ages 18 and 20 who are in the bars of licensed premises at any time between 9 p.m. and 10.30 a.m. the following morning.
Several types of document are specifically mentioned in the legislation, including a Garda age card, passport and driver's licence. Provision is made for prescribing other documents by means of regulations. For example, the Minister will consider prescribing a Northern Ireland voter's card as an acceptable age document to facilitate visitors from Northern Ireland.
We must be serious about the manner in which we tackle under age drinking and this section, which I accept weighs on a particular section of the community, has been introduced so we can enforce the law. There is no question of young people being targeted in isolation. The principal people targeted by the legislation are the licence holders, who are being threatened with closure orders in the event that the age requirements of the legislation are breached. A closure order can be issued in the event that the provisions of the Act, in terms of age restrictions, are not being complied with. Furthermore, to ensure clarity of identification of persons in licensed premises, it is necessary, for the greater good, to introduce this provision. While I accept that organisations representing young persons may express reservations about this provision, when the nature and scale of the problem we face is balanced against the infringement of personal freedom that is involved it becomes justified on the basis of the common good.
Amendment No. 33 is a drafting amendment to make clear that the requirement applies only to a person of 18 to 20 years who is in a bar after 9 p.m. The third subsection is being amended to make it clear that the offence can take place only after that time.
Question put and declared carried.
SECTION 16.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 17, line 14, to delete "A" where it secondly occurs and substitute "Subject to subsection (1B), a".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 35
In page 17, line 16, to delete "8.00 p.m." and substitute "9.00 p.m.".
This small drafting change follows the change in the cut-off time for people under 18 years.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 17, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following subsection:
"(1B) It shall not be unlawful for a person who is aged at least 15 years but under the age of 18 years to be in the bar of licensed premises on the occasion of a private function at which a substantial meal is served to persons attending the function.".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 16, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 17
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 17, subsection (2), lines 37 and 38, to delete "knowledge or".
This refers to the consumption of intoxicating liquor near licensed premises or on an off-licence. There is an anomaly in section 17(2), which states:
A licensee is guilty of an offence if, with the licensee's knowledge or consent, intoxicating liquor supplied by the licensee in a closed container for consumption off the premises is consumed in a place which is within 100 metres of these premises.
If this is happening with a licensee's knowledge within 100 metres of the premises, he or she is unlikely to contact and inform the Garda, as it would be to admit an offence. If we were to delete "knowledge or" it would leave consent as an offence and when this comes to the knowledge of the licensee he or she will endeavour to do something about this. That it is with their knowledge does not mean it is with their consent. I do not know why this clause has been included; it should be removed as it does not add to the Bill.
Section 13 of the Intoxicating Liquor (General) Act 1924, is being replaced by section 17 of this Bill. The expression "knowledge or consent" modernises the term "privity or consent" used in the 1924 Act. This is a simple restatement of an existing legislative provision in more modern language.
That it was wrong then does not make it right now - the Minister of State has an opportunity to correct it.
It relates to off-licences and their operation.
This does not improve the situation. There is an inherent contradiction in it. While I understand it is the intention of the Bill that this should be going on with the knowledge of the licensee, the licensee is immediately penalised for knowing about it, irrespective of what action he takes to deal with it. He is immediately in breach of the Act from the moment he has knowledge that it is happening. What licensee is going to telephone the Garda to report this? It should be deleted.
The Deputy's concern is about the word "knowledge" as used in the subsection. While I am not saying I will bring forward a proposal, we should look at this again on Report Stage.
It is a different matter if it is being done with the consent of the licensee.
Is the amendment being withdrawn?
Yes, if the Minister is serious about addressing it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 17 agreed to.
SECTION 18.
Question proposed: "That section 18 stand part of the Bill."
Currently, gardaí are not allowed to enter a premises if they are not in uniform. The Minister is concerned that undesirable behaviour is likely to be discontinued once the person concerned sees a garda in uniform. However, this raises a question about a garda inspecting, examining or observing public houses. How will this work in practice? Is there any precedent for this? Will a garda sit in mufti at a bar and wait for someone to commit an offence or become quarrelsome and then arrest him or her?
Was there also a question about a garda being on duty and having the authority to do this?
The section refers to members of the Garda Síochána, both in and out of uniform. There must be some way in which a garda out of uniform can identify himself or herself as a member of the force. Citizens on the street have the right to ask for identification. If gardaí can enter private premises without a warrant, citizens should have the right to know his or her rank, station etc.
The Minister has accepted there are issues to be examined. The principal questions relate to the modes of identification and whether the garda is on duty.
The Minister will propose amendments to this on Report Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
The select committee adjourned at 6.18 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Friday, 27 June 2003.