Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I commend the Minister in general on this Bill and the intention behind it. I do not accept that we could have worked away and asked gardaí to exercise their discretion, particularly when we penalise gardaí when they do exercise their discretion. We cannot ask them not to apply the law in the manner that was proposed by some. I have no problem with the intention behind the Bill.

There is a provision relating to the appointment of extra High Court judges. While it does not necessarily fit well within this Bill, I do not have a problem with it. I actually welcome it because it is important that we have a functioning and properly resourced Judiciary in our democracy. A high-profile case was taken alleging that the right to the freedom of religion had been breached during the Covid restrictions but it was determined by the High Court Bench that there were insufficient judicial resources to hear the matter. That is worrying. If someone's rights can be breached and there are not sufficient judicial resources to hear the matter, we are teetering on the verge of totalitarianism and authoritarianism. I do not believe we necessarily are, but if the appointment of extra High Court judges takes us back from that precipice, then I greatly welcome it. Of course, there has been an inevitable large backlog in cases. While some types of case could be heard remotely, it was difficult for other types of case to be heard.

I wish to raise a specific matter concerning the Bill. The Bill defines an outdoor seating area "in relation to a licensed premises" and gives a long list of criteria. That is all well and good. However, section 6 reads: "For the avoidance of doubt, an outdoor seating area on private land is a public place for the purposes of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994." I have no problem with the general scheme of the Bill or the definition in respect of a licensed premises, but section 6 goes much further. It does not just extend the applicability of the 1994 Act to outdoor seating areas that are used in respect of a licensed premises, but to outdoor seating areas in general. Regardless of whether it is used in respect of a licensed premises, every outdoor seating area is now a public place for the purposes of the 1994 Act. While that might not be the Bill's intention, that is what it does. This is draconian and worrying. It effectively opens up the question of whether my yard at home or someone's patio becomes subject to the 1994 Act if it has a couple of seats, as mine does. I can see that this might not be the Minister's intention, and I certainly hope it is not, but it is the effect of section 6 as drafted. I hope that the Minister will clarify that this is not her intention and that she will commit to looking into the matter for the purposes of a possible amendment in the Seanad before it returns to the Dáil. I submitted an amendment, but I was too late because the Bill was rushed.

I question the way in which legislation is rushed and guillotined. I appreciate this is important legislation but given that only one amendment is in, from Deputy Martin Kenny, it should not have been beyond the possibilities of the House to accommodate another amendment. Be that as it may, it was not accommodated. I would like the Minister to look into this.

I support the Bill and all that Minister seeks to achieve in it, but not the extension of the public order Act to every outdoor seating area, if that includes a patio in somebody's garden.

See this speech in context