Seanad debates

Thursday, 22 May 2003

Order of Business. - Criminal Justice (Public Order) Bill 2002: Report and Final Stages.

 

10:30 am

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 5, line 34, after "for" to insert "serious".

I will not speak too long on the amendment. I tabled this amendment because Senators Terry, Burke and I raised concerns about the legislation on Committee Stage. Even though it is worthwhile legislation, it will have fairly serious consequences for food premises, in particular, where alcohol is not served. These premises could get caught up in a situation where they would be subject to a closure order. I am aware that there have been incidents outside take-aways, for example, which must be dealt with. The reason behind this and the following amendment is to temper the circumstances whereby a closure order would be made.

Sheila Terry (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I second the amendment and support what Senator Tuffy said. We raised serious concerns about the legislation on Committee Stage. Most problems associated with public disorder occur as a result of drink and there must be a great onus on owners or managers of licensed premises in this regard. We expressed concerns about how owners or managers of a fast food take-away premises could be held responsible for disorder resulting from the consumption of drink by an individual in a local pub. I would like the Minister to comment on these aspects of the legislation.

Photo of Paddy BurkePaddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I recently made the same case which has been well articulated by the previous speakers. While this country is trying to attract tourists, the vast majority of restaurants now close at 7 p.m. or 8 p.m., apart from high class restaurants which open until late and are regulated by the licensing Acts. Otherwise the only place one can get something to eat is in fast food restaurants. In many instances when families go to town the only place they can get something to eat at a reasonable cost, particularly at the week-end, is in fast food restaurants.

This is a very heavy handed approach which is being taken to these types of premises, when in many cases they are not the root cause of the problem. The root cause of most problems is drink. Many of these premises will have no choice but to close earlier on Saturday and Sunday evenings because it will not be worth the risk of staying open in order to give a service to the public. On the one hand, we are trying to sell this country as a place where people can enjoy themselves and, on the other, we are putting in place regulations which will result in closing down many premises because they will have no other choice.

The root cause of this is drink. I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to the proposed amendment.

Photo of Michael McDowellMichael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have already looked at the proposal. However, we are not simply talking about catering premises in the ordinary colloquial understanding of the term. This phrase includes licensed premises, discos and the like. If one looks at the definition of "catering premises", we are not just talking about fast food outlets or the like, we are talking about all night time activity.

For this section to have any effect, there must be disorder in a premises. It must be disorder that is likely to recur. The Garda's opinion must be that there has been disorder either on the premises or in the vicinity, and involving persons who are on the premises, or noise emanating from the premises, or emanating from the vicinity of the premises and caused by persons who were on the premises, has been so loud, so continuous, so repeated, of such duration or pitch or occurring at such times as to give reasonable cause for annoyance to persons in that vicinity, and such disorder or noise is likely to recur.

In those circumstances a member of the Garda Síochána can go to the court to seek an order. The first thing he must do is request the licensee to take such action as is reasonably in his control to prevent it. A licensee cannot prevent people from behaving in a way which is totally outside his control. One cannot ask people to prevent events from happening if, with the best will in the world, they cannot make people behave.

If a person does not comply with a reasonable request of the Garda Síochána, an officer of the Garda must go to the District Court – there is no problem at this stage – and persuade a District Court judge that it is unreasonable of the person to refuse to comply with the request he has made of him. In those circumstances only, the District Court has discretion to make an order.

The term "serious" in this context either means non-trivial, substantial or something like that. I do not believe that a member of the Garda Síochána not below the rank of inspector will act unreasonably or deal in trivialities. However, if he had a bad-minded garda who would do that, he can do nothing on his own account because he would have to persuade a District Court judge to agree with him that what he was proposing was fair in the circumstances. If it was unreasonable he would not succeed – we must have some faith in our Judiciary. If the owner of the premises was aggrieved by that, they could appeal the matter to the Circuit Court. Before anyone could be badly damaged by this process, it would require a conspiracy of a senior garda, a District Court judge and a Circuit Court judge to bolster the unfair decision made in the first instance.

Perhaps I can explain what I have in mind. If there is a premises which is likely to continue to be the focus of disorder unless something is done, a senior garda can advise the owner that he or she will have to take action. The garda might suggest that the owner install CCTV or, if there are big queues outside the premises, either do his or her business differently or put a security man outside. The owner cannot just ignore the consequences for the vicinity and for public order and say that it is none of their business if the people who come to the premises behave badly. He or she cannot say that they do not intend to do anything because they merely make the chips and hand them out, that they just run a disco or serve alcohol or that what happens between people loitering outside their premises is no concern of theirs.

We are dealing with discos, nightclubs and licensed premises. In some circumstances, such as in Cork, the gardaí have a partnership approach which, in effect, anticipates this legislation. Members of the local judiciary, the Garda and the partners in the entertainment industry, if one can use that phrase to cover the categories referred to in the legislation, have a joint strategy. A superintendent can say to a proprietor of a premises that they need more security people on the door because the situation is getting out of hand and there is constant trouble or he or she might advise the proprietor to get CCTV because people seem to think they are safe to start fights outside the premises. In Cork, gardaí will advise the owner of a disco to tone down the music or lower the pace for the last 20 or 30 minutes so that when people are leaving, they are not coming away from throbbing disco music on to the street. That is the type of advice given.

Under the Bill, the advice has to be given in writing and it has to be reasonable. A district justice must then deem it a reasonable request in view of the evidence presented by the Garda and judge that the owner can reasonably comply with it. In those circumstances, it is not necessary to qualify the provision by the inclusion of the term "serious". I do not believe a District Court judge, a Circuit Court judge or a senior Garda officer will act unreasonably in these circumstances.

We are aware of cases where it has been alleged that gardaí have come down hard on particular premises and harassed the occupiers in an improper fashion. If the Bill proposed to give gardaí the power, as American cities do in some cases, to close and seal premises, it would be necessary to have stringent criteria in the legislation before such action could be taken. However, this process will require written notice to be given to the licensee of the premises and the Garda will have to persuade a District Court judge that its advice to the licensee is reasonable.

If Senator Tuffy tabled this amendment because she fears this will be done on trivial grounds and in respect of inconsequential matters, I ask her to rely on the common sense of a garda not to waste his or her time going to court and also on the sound judgment of District Court judges who will decide if requests are reasonable. If these safeguards do not avail, the person has the right to go to the Circuit Court and make the case that they have been the subject of an unreasonable order. The order can be reversed on appeal to that court.

I do not propose to accept the amendment. It assumes that a District Court judge would close down a premises for something other than serious reasons. I do not believe that would happen.

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

One of the main reasons I will withdraw the amendment is that the provision includes the words "to give reasonable cause for annoyance". I do not expect the legislation to be used in a trivial way, but there must be protection for people who might be unfairly caught by it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, line 43, after "such" to insert "reasonable".

This amendment is more reasonable, to use a pun.

Photo of Michael McDowellMichael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The last one was serious, this is reasonable.

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister said that a garda could request the licensee to take action that is reasonably within his control, which is not in the legislation. He also referred to a reasonable request by a garda. He used the term "reasonable" twice in respect of the section I am seeking to amend. The term "reasonable cause" is used in legislation. How much action could a garda ask the owner or occupier of a premises to take? How far would a person have to go in terms of action? It should be reasonable action. It must be something that the person concerned can do. That is the purpose of this amendment.

Sheila Terry (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I second the amendment. The Minister has dealt extensively with this matter. However, the section also refers to noise. Can we take it that noise will mean the noise that results from music being played in super-pubs which is a serious nuisance for adjoining residences? May we rest assured that it will be taken to be an act of public disorder?

Photo of Michael McDowellMichael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Noise would include music. The proprietor of the premises is not exempt from this and if he or she throws open the windows on a summer evening to ventilate the premises and the result is the music being heard in neighbouring houses in a way that seriously affects the amenity of those houses, particularly in the early hours of the morning, it would be capable of being dealt with on that basis.

With regard to Senator Tuffy's amendment, if the word "reasonable" is to be inserted, I presume it is to avoid steps which are unreasonable. If I must tell District Court judges not to make unreasonable orders, I will eventually get a rude letter from the President of the District Court saying that judges are appointed under the Constitution and they are obliged to make orders which are reasonable. It is assumed that they apply common sense and reason. All law is based on the proposition that it is reasonable.

I appreciate the spirit in which these amendments have been offered. People do not want a draconian, negative or oppressive regime to operate. However, I do not believe the Garda, the District Court or the Circuit Court on appeal will attempt to behave unreasonably or arbitrarily. These steps require much Garda time. In order to invoke this procedure, a garda must visit the premises, set out in writing the steps to be taken, give a notice to the person, note that they are not complying with it and then prepare a case and bring it to the District Court. A garda must persuade a judge, against a licensee who will usually have a lawyer, that he or she is acting in a sensible and fair way.

To be honest, one of our problems is under-enforcement of the law rather than over-enforcement. In the normal course of events, I do not believe these powers are unreasonable. They are fairly standard. The Bill gives the Garda Síochána a statutory basis for what is already happening successfully, particularly in Cork. The Garda is among the stakeholders in this process in so far as it represents all of us in terms of public order.

Incidentally, it is my intention in the Garda Bill to provide for a direct link between local authority members and gardaí, so that they can discuss these matters in a formal way. The stakeholders are the local communities, gardaí, proprietors in the entertainment sector and the local judiciary. They have a clear policy. Discos cannot be run without adequate security staff and the security staff must be of a certain standard because there cannot be thugs at the door. In certain circumstances there should be CCTV, although one cannot demand that every chip van or small pub should have CCTV. It is a matter for reasonable decision by the District Court judges. If there are to be 300 young people in a disco, it is probably in the interests of their safety that there should be CCTV there, in areas where any trouble is likely to develop. These are reasonable steps to take.

My problem currently is that something like what is happening in Cork on a partnership basis might be challenged by someone asserting that it is not within the competence of the Garda to demand a CCTV system for a disco, that a district judge cannot say to the proprietor of a place which is perfectly structurally sound that he or she must have a CCTV in order to continue operating.

I am trying to establish a statutory basis for people to behave sensibly. I am very confident that when this Bill becomes law, as I hope it will in the very near future, it will immediately enable gardaí everywhere to take a partnership approach with the proprietors of these premises to ensure that public order is maintained.

There is always a small minority who think that if there is no power at the end of the day to compel people to do things, if it is going to cost them money to install CCTV and place extra security personnel on the doors, then they will prefer to take risks with people's safety. The purpose of this Bill is to give the Garda and the District Courts some leverage to ensure that the public interest in these matters is addressed. Accordingly I am not accepting the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 3:

"(a)that a licensee has failed to take action requested of him or her under section 4(2)(b),".

I tabled this amendment previously at Committee Stage.

Section 4, dealing with the closure order, does not refer to a strict offence. There is a recognition that there must be some kind of fault on the part of the person against whom the order is made. A Garda notice must be served and the person must be requested to take certain action. Under the section dealing with the closure order there is no such reference. It merely states that a closure order can be made if there is disorder or noise and, as far as I can make out, does not refer to any fault of the licensee or person responsible. If a dispute arose about the serving of such a notice, for example, or the reasonableness of it on the part of the Garda, this is not covered under section 5. If a premises was closed for 30 days, and that affected the person's business in the long term, would that person have an action against the State on the grounds that his or her livelihood was taken away, possibly without that person being at fault?

Sheila Terry (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I second the amendment.

Photo of Paddy BurkePaddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is placing the entire onus on the proprietors of discos, bars, restaurants and fast food outlets. This Bill is demanding that these people alone be responsible for keeping order on their premises – and now on the streets too. There is nothing in the Bill about the responsibility of the individual.

One can go to any of the Irish bars in New York, on St. Patrick's Day for example, and there will be massive crowds there, yet one will not see any bouncers on doors, nor are there regulations in that regard. Neither does one see any trouble.

We can debate what is reasonable or unreasonable, and how the courts and the Garda may interpret things, but at times the law is an ass, and there will be some cases where injustice takes place. There are vindictive people out there who do things out of spite, and we know all about those cases over the years. Senator Tuffy is quite right that these occasions can occur. A person's business might be subject to a closure order for a period of time, and when the premises re-opens, the business may well be gone. That might well be the result of someone acting vindictively or out of spite.

Photo of Michael McDowellMichael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I fully appreciate that not all pubs need a security man. Far be it from me to suggest they do. The great majority of public houses function perfectly well, managed effectively from behind the counter. Neither do most public houses need any form of CCTV. The truth is that most public houses do not pose any public order problems for anybody. In my own area of Ranelagh, some pubs are quiet while others are busy and employ security staff at certain hours, but that decision is made on the basis of the type of clientele they have, and whether or not it is reasonable to do so. I do not know if any of those pubs have CCTV, though I believe some do.

I am not talking about imposing new liabilities on people in the entertainment industry, if I may use that broad term. I am merely putting in place a basis on which, if the Garda visits a premises and says it is causing a nuisance locally, and suggests steps to be taken to reduce or avoid the nuisance, and the proprietor refuses to do so, or ignores the advice given, the Garda can bring the matter before a judge. The Garda may then state it believes certain steps must be taken to help the Garda maintain public order in and around that premises, and may ask the judge for support.

I fully accept the possibility that an individual Garda officer might be prejudiced against an individual proprietor of a premises for some reason, though I deeply regret such possible occurrences. To make an unreasonable order would require a conspiracy between that Garda officer and a judge. If that were to happen, the licensee would be entitled to appeal to the Circuit Court, which could decide that the closure order would not, pending the appeal, come into effect. It is a bit far-fetched to think this legislation will be used in a way which is arbitrary or oppressive towards any individual.

The legislation will certainly make things more difficult for the owners of premises. The intoxicating liquor Bill now coming forward will make it difficult for a premises if it is closed. It will be very difficult for a premises which serves somebody under age to get its business back if it is closed down for two or three weeks, and there will be damage done to it.

In relation to the control of public houses, we can currently either do nothing at all or take the nuclear option of revoking their licences. The number of licences revoked is tiny, because most judges allow even a publican in gross breach of his obligations to sell on the licence rather than extinguish it and prevent the premises from ever being used again. When closure becomes available as an option, it will be like car clamping, with people suddenly focusing on their own responsibilities. There is nothing unreasonable in this Bill.

I would ask Senator Paddy Burke to bear in mind that this Bill is an amendment of the Public Order Bill, which dealt with all the individual misbehaviour he referred to – being drunk or disorderly in a public place, failing to comply with Garda directions and so on. An important provision in the Bill is that individuals convicted of offences under public order legislation will be capable of being barred from being at or in the vicinity of other places. Accordingly, rather than being directed entirely against owners, the Bill is, in fact, being brought forward to help them.

I am not in the business of proposing draconian legislation simply to satisfy public expectations. The Bill has been before Dáil Éireann for more than a year, having been published before the last general election. To my knowledge, nobody has said it is a bad idea. The only criticism offered has been that it is too light and insignificant in present circumstances. In this context and having regard to a later amendment which has a cross-reference to the intoxicating liquor legislation, I will be publishing the heads of a Bill very shortly – in the next few days – if approved by Government, in which I will set out its response to the report on issues relating to intoxicating liquor and the study of public order commissioned by the National Crime Council.

As I said on another occasion, I am reminded of Churchill's description of Attlee as "a modest little man with a lot to be modest about." Similarly, this Bill is a modest little proposal. Rather than regarding it as something terribly oppressive, I ask people to take it in the spirit in which it is offered. It represents a constructive and practical approach to enable the Garda to interact with those involved in the entertainment business with a view to bringing home to them some of their responsibilities. It also provides the capacity to involve the District Court as an ally, if proprietors of the premises concerned refuse to do what is reasonable to ensure their premises are no longer a focus of disorder.

Photo of Feargal QuinnFeargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When I first read the amendment, I felt I should support it. However, having listened to the Minister's comments, I am impressed by one feature of the intoxicating liquor Bill, namely, the ability of a judge to close a premises, or part of it, for a short period. I am reminded of the introduction of the system in rugby football whereby a player can be sent to the sin bin for a period of ten minutes. Previously, if a rugby player misbehaved, the only penalty available was to put him off the field for the duration of the match. Such action usually had a bad effect. Once the sin bin was introduced, a short term penalty became available – perhaps somewhat like purgatory – whereby the player was sent off for ten minutes and could then return. In that way the match was not ruined and, accordingly, referees could use this facility much more frequently.

I understand from the Garda that this effect is now being achieved in relation to licensed premises, as a result of the ability of a judge to close all or part of a premises, even if only for a few hours as might be required. I understand this option is now being exercised by judges to a considerable extent. On that basis, I have to agree that the amendment is not, perhaps, as necessary as I had thought initially. I have changed my position accordingly.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sheila Terry (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 7, line 5, after "it" to insert "unless the proprietor is to close permanently or to close for a specified period".

The strength of the Bill will be best seen in tackling those proprietors of licensed premises who do not manage their premises correctly. It will also deal very well with those who misbehave, either on a licensed premises or in the vicinity thereof. However, as expressed, I have concerns with regard to unlicensed premises, particularly smaller food premises such as local chip shops or kebab take-aways where, although alcoholic beverages are not being sold, they are subject to the terms of the Bill. Such premises are dealing with the result of what takes place at another premises, involving persons who have consumed an excessive amount of alcohol.

We are placing a huge responsibility on fast food outlets in relation to outbreaks of disorder on or in the vicinity of such premises, as a result of which they may be closed down following the normal cautions and procedures. The premises concerned are usually quite small and, often, family owned businesses. Closure would have a severe impact on them if they had to continue paying staff. While I accept there has to be a responsibility on owners to maintain good order in their premises, the inclusion of small fast food outlets in this provision will place a huge responsibility and cost on the owners concerned if they are closed down for any period.

The Minister referred to exclusion orders. I anticipate serious difficulties for a manager of a fast food outlet in implementing an exclusion order against an individual. He or she will be the only person who can tell the individual concerned that he or she is banned from the premises. I can envisage a great furore arising in such situations. My primary concern in tabling the amendment is in relation to the situation of small, individual fast food outlets, in terms of the costs arising from continuing to pay staff for the period of closure. I ask the Minister to comment on this.

Photo of Paddy BurkePaddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I second the amendment proposed by Senator Terry. Unlicensed restaurants are governed by conditions attached to planning permission in relation to opening and closing times. The Bill provides that a judge will have discretion to close a premises for a certain period and that staff will not be at any loss as a result. A situation could arise where a judge might decide to close a premises on Saturday nights, being the busiest night of the week, for, perhaps, a period of six or eight months. Is it the intention of the Bill that, for the duration of the closure order, the proprietor would have to pay the staff who normally work on Saturday nights? If that was to be the case, it would seem very unjust and indicates the need for Senator Terry's amendment. In such circumstances a proprietor might well conclude that it was not worth the trouble and cost of continuing in business and decide to close down completely on Saturday nights, rather than incur the cost of extra staff and security services. He or she might decide to remain closed on Saturday nights and confine operations to regular daily business, in line with pub closing times rather than disco times, having regard to the closure order imposed by the court.

What is clearly spelt out in the Bill is that the staff would have to be paid for the period of the closure and a judge may well make a decision to close a premises on a specific night or part of a specific night for a long period. In that event, is it binding on the proprietor to pay his staff? Staff have entitlements and we agree fully with that, but a proprietor may have to pay staff for a 12 month period or for a longer period during which the closure order would be in place.

Photo of Michael McDowellMichael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A reasonable view has to be taken of any provision and it has to be given a constitutional interpretation. A closure order is defined in section 5 as one which orders the closure of a catering premises at a specified time or between specified times on a specified day or days during a specified period. Let us try to work out what that means. During a specified period and at particular times the premises shall be closed or, alternatively, for a period not exceeding seven days in the case of a first order, or between seven and 30 days in the case of a second order.

We are dealing here with people who have been ordered to close. On a first order, it is in circumstances where they will be told to close for a week. Are Senators arguing that the proprietor of the premises can say that his staff are not to be paid for that week, that if he is going to take the hit they can take the hit too? In other words, he simply sacks his staff and says, "Blame the court, do not blame me." If that were to be the law it would be very unfair. Employers are being told in this context that if they are running a premises and get a notification from the Garda to do something and fail to comply with that order, they should be mindful of the fact that if this results in a closure order on the premises the proprietor will have to pay the staff for the time the premises is closed.

It is a question of deciding where the detriment will fall. It provides that the employer cannot simply pass on or reinsure against the possibility of being closed by saying his staff can take the hammering. While he goes off for a holiday they can lose their money.

Photo of Paddy BurkePaddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Section 5(2)(a) is different from paragraph (b)(ii) which reads: "not less than 7 and not exceeding 30 days.."

Photo of Michael McDowellMichael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, but one is dealing with the commonsense of the district court Judiciary and the Circuit Court on appeal. If an owner was to say he would be bankrupt if he had to close on Fridays and that he would have to issue redundancy notices, it might be that in the fullness of time he would have to contemplate the whole solvency of his business or whatever. This is not designed to deal with cases where companies would run into difficulty and become financially insolvent and ensure that nobody would be prejudiced in that context.

The clear meaning of subsection (8) is to save employees from being victimised by their employer. A brazen employer could say to the District Court judge that he was going on his annual holidays and intended to sack his staff. I want to have a workable law where the employees do not end up being the people who suffer if the premises is closed. It is not designed to hammer poor employers.

If one is running a disco and the premises is closed for a week, it is only because the Garda visited the premises and thought it was a focus for disorder; it is only because the Garda suggested some reasonable steps be taken to make the premises trouble free; it is only because the employer did not comply with that order and failed to satisfy a District Court judge that he was behaving reasonably and the judge ordered that the premises be closed; it is only because that was not an unreasonable order which could be successfully appealed to the Circuit Court. In those circumstances, to provide that the proprietor should pay the wages of his employees for the days they are at a loss is a fair way of deciding where the detriment of such an order should fall as between an employer and an employee. If a barman in a pub works diligently behind the bar but his employer is unwilling to install a CCTV system and refuses to do so, the barman should not be penalised if the District Court decides to show it is serious about what it is doing and closes the premises for a fortnight.

Photo of Paddy BurkePaddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree with that.

Photo of Michael McDowellMichael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is all this is about.

Photo of Paddy BurkePaddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Under the provisions of subsection (2)(a) a premises could be closed for a long period.

Photo of Michael McDowellMichael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It can only be at a specified time or between specified times on a specified day or days during a specified period.

Photo of Paddy BurkePaddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It could be for six or 12 months.

Photo of Michael McDowellMichael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I doubt that it would have that effect. One can appeal it if it is unfair. One can sell the premises if it becomes that onerous.

Photo of Paddy BurkePaddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I appreciate that, but the point I am making is that the proprietor may well make a commercial decision that it is not worth his while.

Photo of Michael McDowellMichael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If he does, the poor employee will lose out.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sheila Terry (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 8, after line 38, to insert the following:

"11. – Any member of the Garda Síochána whether in uniform or not may enter without a warrant any place in respect of which the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 2003 apply, any premises licensed under the Intoxicating Liquor Acts 1883-2000, the Registration of Clubs Acts 1908-2000, the Public Dance Halls Act 1935 and the Gaming and Lotteries Acts 1956-1986 for the purpose of enforcement of the Intoxicating Liquor Code or the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 2003.".

This amendment seeks to provide for the Garda Síochána to enter a premises without a warrant, whether in uniform or not. I understand that on the first day the Minister came to the House to deal with this Bill he said he would deal with this matter in the intoxicating liquor Bill. It would help the Garda to carry out its work more efficiently, resulting from which everybody would benefit.

I seek the inclusion of the amendment in this Bill in order that this provision may be available to the Garda as soon as the Bill is enacted. The intoxicating liquor Bill is awaited and I am not sure how long it will take to get through. This Bill has taken 12 months to get through the Houses. Why not allow the Garda to enter premises as soon as possible?

Photo of Paddy BurkePaddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I second the amendment.

Photo of Michael McDowellMichael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Senator is correct. I did say I was going to do it. I am happy to confirm it is included in the proposal I will bring to Cabinet next Tuesday. The real question – this is where I have to make a political judgment – is whether it would be more in the interests of making the law work to have to bring this Bill back to Dáil Éireann again and join the queue, bearing in mind that it took 11 months to get it through there and that we are coming to the end of this legislative term, or to get this out and follow it up as quickly as possible with the other Bill.

I should indicate that I have taken a close interest in the drafting of the heads of the other Bill. They are drafted to a very high standard. I hope the parliamentary counsel's process in the Office of the Attorney General will be quick. I am still hopeful, it may be an outside hope, that I will get the intoxicating liquor Bill through both Houses before rising for the summer recess.

Photo of Mary O'RourkeMary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the Bill published?

Photo of Michael McDowellMichael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No. It is an outside hope. Given the amount of rhetoric I hear about the fact that I am doing so little and saying so much, I say to both Houses of the Oireachtas, "Here is your chance, help me."

Photo of Mary O'RourkeMary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We will facilitate the Minister as much as we can.

Sheila Terry (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree with Senator O'Rourke. We will facilitate the Minister when he brings forward a Bill that will be of benefit in tackling the problems on our streets. I do not wish to delay this Bill because there are provisions included in it which we do not wish to delay. I withdraw the amendment and look forward to the intoxicating liquor Bill being published.

Photo of Michael McDowellMichael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On a point of disorder, now that the Senator has raised the issue, the question of whether the Bill should be initiated in the Dáil or Seanad is a matter to which I had not given any consideration. If I were to get a promise of fair passage through this House—

Photo of Mary O'RourkeMary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It will receive fair and reasonable passage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill received for final consideration.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Photo of Michael McDowellMichael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Members for their considerate approach to the Bill. In light of the length of time it has taken to pass the Bill, I would have preferred if the debate on it had been more evenly divided between both Houses. I am grateful to Members on all sides for understanding my position in this. It was somewhat egregious that, after 11 months, the Bill had not been finalised by the Dáil and that it would not come into effect until the autumn if it was not passed during this session. I am also grateful to them for their help in ensuring the Bill's passage. I guarantee that it will be followed up with other measures that reflect some of the useful suggestions that have been made by Members with regard to the area of public order.

Sheila Terry (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister for coming before the House. I also thank his ministerial colleagues who were present for part of the debate on earlier Stages.

I welcome the measures included in the Bill, which, in some small way, will deal with the problems we have with public order on our streets. The intoxicating liquor Bill will include wider measures which will go some way to tackling the problem of public disorder.

Photo of Tony KettTony Kett (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister for coming before the House and for dealing, with great clarity, with the amendments tabled by Members. The Bill will clarify the position for the people involved in the trade because they will now know what is expected of them in terms of the requirements it contains and also in respect of their obligations to society. They will also be aware what will be the consequences of their actions if they do not adhere to what the Bill requires of them.

I thank Senators Terry and Tuffy, in particular, for the amendments they tabled to both of the Bills with which we have dealt today. I have no doubt but that they have made their contribution.

Photo of Feargal QuinnFeargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I echo the sentiments expressed by Senators Kett and Terry.

On Second Stage, I indicated my criticism of the Bill and of the length of time its passage was taking. The Minister has explained the reasons for the latter. He also stated that he will take account of some of the worthy amendments that were tabled and will consider them in the context of the intoxicating liquor Bill. His determination to get something done on the issue of public order is evident. We appreciate his intentions and the attention he gave to Members.

Question put and agreed to.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach:

When is it proposed to sit again?

Photo of Mary O'RourkeMary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

At 2.30 p.m. next Tuesday, 27 May 2003.