Seanad debates

Thursday, 19 June 2003

Intoxicating Liquor Bill 2003: Committee Stage.

 

10:30 am

Photo of Michael McDowellMichael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

I have an open mind on this but the word "substantial" is included because anybody availing of this can say there was a risk. If it is a tiny risk, is that to be a reason for refusing admission? It has to be one of substance. What worries me is that if we do not have something of substance, we might have a pretext whereby people would mask discriminatory behaviour by saying a person was convicted 30 years previously of a violent offence, or whatever, and say there was a risk. Obviously there is a risk but is it a mathematical one? Is it a real risk? The term "substantial" is designed to prevent people from engaging in a refusal on a pretext that there was a risk that somebody would misbehave. It has to be a substantial view.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.