Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Michael McDowell, to the House.

Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Derek McDowell (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 6, subsection (1), line 10, to delete "includes –" and substitute "includes unreasonable behaviour which is so likely by reason of the fact that the behaviour constitutes or includes one or more of the following behaviour –".

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

The present definition states:

"disorderly conduct" means any unreasonable behaviour by a person on licensed premises which, having regard to all the circumstances, is likely to cause injury, fear or distress to any other person on the premises".

It must be that it is in the light of all the circumstances that it would be likely to cause these things. For instance, in the boisterous aftermath of a football match something might not amount to disorderly conduct, whereas if it was a quiet afternoon's trading and a person was shouting and roaring at the television it might turn out to be disorderly and likely to cause harm. We must bear in mind that the District Court judges are reasonable and must have regard to all the surrounding circumstances before this particular condition is met.

That is one meaning for disorderly conduct. It is extended to mean all the other things included in paragraphs 4(1)(a) to (e) in the definition. The proposed amendment suggests including "quarrelsome or insulting behaviour". There can be occasions when this does amount to disorderly conduct. The running of a bar or a pub – people here are more experienced in this matter than I am – is a skilled occupation requiring an experienced manager. Different approaches must be taken to situations, depending on the circumstances. On a quiet occasion, behaviour which would not be noticed on another occasion could amount to disorderly conduct.

I am trying to strengthen the hand of the licensee in these matters. Licensees should have a greater capacity to remove people, to bar them or to ask them to leave the premises. I want to make people understand that they go into pubs to drink and that the management lays down the policy and if, in those circumstance, behaviour is disorderly they can be asked to leave. This is what I seek to bring about.

Derek McDowell (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not want to detain the House because where the Minister and I differ on this matter is really down to the drafting of the definition. As currently drafted, the test of reasonableness in all the circumstances effectively does not apply to the subsequent definitions. As the definition is currently formulated, one can be quarrelsome or boisterous in the aftermath of a match and by virtue of that fact be deemed to be disorderly. I do not think that is what the Minister intends, but that is what comes across in the legislation.

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

The amendment includes "unreasonable behaviour which is so likely by reason of the fact that the behaviour constitutes or includes one or more of the following behaviour" to cause injury, fear or distress. Why should conduct causing damage to property have to be contingent on its being likely to cause injury, fear or distress to any other person?

Derek McDowell (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Virtually all of those, from (a) to (e) would automatically be likely to cause injury, fear or distress to people. The only two words in which one might find some leeway as to how they are defined are "quarrelsome" or "insulting" behaviour. For example, someone might be having a disagreement in a loud voice, which would not necessarily be such as would cause fear or distress to anyone else. It is not difficult to imagine circumstances where that might happen. This refers only to the word "quarrelsome".

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

This Bill is intended to operate until I introduce the major consolidating Act in 2004. If between now and then I think the law needs to be changed, I will do so. The phrase "quarrelsome", as it appears in the Bill, is in the existing law. It was not thought up one afternoon and written on the back of a beer mat in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform in recent times.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Say the word.

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

If it was so devised, it took place 131 years ago.

The purpose of this section is to save the existing law and make it more workable. Quarrelsome behaviour is already an offence in a public house. Therefore, I am not introducing some new standard or draconian measure.

Derek McDowell (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The law, as applied by the sensible district justices, to whom the Minister referred, already applies the test. I ask that we make it explicit that the reasonableness and in-all-circumstances tests apply to "quarrelsome" behaviour. The Minister and I actually agree on this matter, but I urge him to do something about it at a later stage in this House or elsewhere.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 6, lines 25 and 26, after "person" to insert "is incapable or".

We must carefully examine the tests of the terms "drunkenness" and "drunken". It struck me that one might be of the reasonable apprehension that a person was intoxicated and also be of the view that the person would not be a danger to himself or herself or others, but would be utterly incapable of doing anything to himself or herself or others and should not under any circumstances be served any more drunk. I am concerned that the interpretation of the term "drunken" would require a person to conclude that a person might endanger himself or herself, whereas a person could be completely incapable without there being a risk of endangerment.

The amendment seeks to change the provision in order that it should read, "A drunken person means a person who is intoxicated to such an extent as would give rise to a reasonable apprehension that the person is incapable or might endanger himself or herself or any other person in the vicinity and "drunk" and "drunkenness" are to be construed accordingly". The amendment is self-explanatory and seems a sensible suggestion in this prohibitive legislation.

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have some sympathy with this amendment because drink has a different effect on different characters of people. Some get aggressive, while others lie back and fall asleep. An argument could be made that if the person was not considered to be a danger to himself or herself or others, although he or she might not be able to sit up straight – and people can get messy but may not be endangering anyone else or himself or herself – it comes down to the fact that he or she has consumed too much alcohol which has given rise to their being drunk. We do not want to go around pubs with breathalysers. However, if we gave a little more scope to the licensee, where someone might be no danger but not a nuisance, the publican might deem that he or she has had sufficient drink and should vacate the premises. Perhaps the Minister could examine this issue, if not now, then on Report Stage.

Mary Henry (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I support Senator O'Toole's amendment. Some people just go asleep and if someone is out of his or her mind with drink and asleep in the corner of the pub, surely he or she is a drunken person too.

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

In this context, we are dealing with people committing an offence of being drunk, but we are also dealing with the question of the publican committing an offence by permitting a person in this state to be on the premises. If anyone thinks they are doing a favour to publicans, they may be doing the exact opposite. The benign, smiling fellow snoozing in the corner may, if I extend this definition, turn out to be the occasion of a prosecution when he is doing no harm to anyone. I accept Senator O'Toole's point that he should not have been given drink to bring him to that point. However, bearing in mind that closure orders are floating around in this context, gardaí do not want to get involved. I am concerned with public order and the like and I do not want to close a pub because some fellow falls asleep in the corner and the gardaí cannot arouse him from his slumbers. I do not want to go down that road unless I am forced to do so.

Senator O'Toole's phrase "incapable" begs the question – incapable of what? The Senator may think the term "incapable" is a free-standing adjective, however, I do not think it is. The first question that would be asked of me if I left this place having accepted this amendment is, "What does this mean?". Does it mean incapable of standing, sitting, speaking or keeping one's eyes open? If someone got to the point where he or she was incapable of standing, he or she would be a danger to themselves and would satisfy the other proposition. On the other hand, if they are quietly ensconced in a corner of the pub, having had one too many, it is not my great priority to get at those kinds of people. I and the public are more concerned with someone who is going to hit someone, damage someone else or damage him or herself or be so incapable that, in the cases of young men, they could be mugged or, in the case of young women, they could be the victims of sexual assault. I do not want to widen this definition to increase the liability of publicans to be prosecuted for having the old josser in the corner falling asleep over his pint. That is not what I intended to outlaw.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have listened to the Minister and bow to his superior knowledge on the definition of "incapable", which I mistakenly understood to be a well-established and understood legal term. It is obviously just a journalistic term. What concerns me is how section 4 and others sections are interpreted. Section 4 provides that a licensee shall not supply or permit any person to supply intoxicating liquor to a drunken person or permit a drunken person to consume intoxicating liquor or permit drunkenness to take place in a bar or admit any drunken person. Section 5 provides that a person shall not purchase intoxicating liquor for supply to or consumption by a drunken person and so on.

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

I have explained that the terms "drunk" and "drunkenness" are to be construed according to what is meant by the term "drunken person". That may assist a little. When I presented the heads of the Bill to the Oireachtas joint committee, I provided a different definition which included the words "significant impairment of intellectual ability" and such like. That was a cause of much disquiet.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The members of the committee did not like the IQ test aspect.

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

That is correct. Academics said I would have to administer breathalysers and such like. The definition of "drunken person" is derived from the definition of the term set out in public order legislation. If a person is arrested for being drunk and disorderly, that test of drunkenness will apply. In view of this, I would prefer to maintain the definition.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I accept the Minister's point and will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 6, lines 26 and 27, to delete "in the vicinity".

I am at a loss to understand the reason the words contained in lines 26 and 27 are included. Perhaps I am missing a point but the words "in the vicinity" are not germane to the definition. It almost suggests that if it was considered that a person was to behave in a certain manner, it would be acceptable, provided it occurred beyond the vicinity. The wording implies a leeway not contemplated by the Minister. I recognise that the publican should and cannot be held responsible for something a person might do beyond his or her premises. That would be wrong. However, I fail to see the reason the test should be based on the possibility that a person might do something in the vicinity. No reasonable person would accept that is a proper or necessary provision. It adds nothing to the Bill, nor does it address the Minister's concern.

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

I will accept the amendment.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister.

Eddie Bohan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I, and those I represent, welcome the Bill which is excellent legislation in many respects, although we would be concerned about a few aspects. On the question of drunkenness, we would like to see stiffer penalties applied to those who are drunk. We had a dreadful occasion recently in Swinford where people visiting a pub refused to leave when asked. They wanted more drink but were refused. The publican is caught in such circumstances. If he or she serves drink, he or she breaks the law but if he or she refuses to serve because he or she considers the patrons may have taken too much drink when they say they have not, he or she will be in trouble with the Equality Authority. The penalty should be increased from €300 to perhaps €1,000.

Senator O'Toole referred to disorderly behaviour within the vicinity of a pub. Where a number of pubs are grouped together, the committal of a crime by a person within a few yards of one premises does not necessarily mean he or she has been in it. It may be possible to prove it in court but that is an expensive business. CCTV cameras are installed in most venues, which means that if a person had been drinking somewhere else but was at the centre of a problem outside a pub, the publican could be in trouble. Apart from these concerns, this is a good Bill. We are happy the Minister is dealing with the problem of drunkenness, including those who refuse to leave a pub when asked and cause a row when they are refused further service.

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister's indication that he will accept the amendment.

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

When a person is in a drunken state, he or she can be very contrary and obstructive and will generally not accept he or she is drunk nor take kindly to being asked to leave a premises. He or she may have been getting drunk but not causing any trouble, yet when asked to leave, he or she could become troublesome. How does the Minister envisage publicans coping with such individuals? How long would the publican wait for the arrival of the Garda if he or she decided to call for assistance in effecting an eviction? Does the Minister consider that publicans will be able to enforce this measure?

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

Section 6 deals with this aspect. A drunken person is required to leave a licensed premises on being required to do so by the licensee or a member of the Garda Síochána and shall not seek entry to the bar of a licensed premises. Sections 5 and 6 create criminal offences punishable in accordance with section 5(2) and section 6(3) and arrestable by a member of the Garda Síochána.

As matters stand, the licensee of a premises faces a difficult situation where somebody becomes inebriated and is requested to leave. It is one of the reasons we have monopolies, pub licenses and the present law. It is not an easy task. Children cannot carry it out. Those of infirm psychological constitution should not be behind the bar of a pub because this kind of situation sometimes requires the licensee to lead people out of the premises.

Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 4 to 8, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 7, subsection (1), line 19, to delete paragraph (c).

When I spoke to this legislation last night I was very agitated, but the thought struck me that I would hate people to think I was approaching this matter from an academic perspective. Not only do I enjoy a bar, but I learned well the way in which to tap a barrel of Guinness with a metal tap and a wooden mallet before I was a teenager. I have served my time in that territory and I have had to make judgments on fair days in Dingle. I am not speaking from a purely intellectual or academic viewpoint.

John Minihan (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Section 4 places responsibilities on the licensee, but I am concerned that we are not providing formal recognition of the licensee's right to remove a person from a premises. While the right was provided in section 18 of 1872 Act, according to this legislation, the most a licensee can do is call the Garda.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Sections 6 and 7 allow the licensee to remove a person.

Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Allow Senator Minihan to continue without interruption. Senator O'Toole will have an opportunity to respond.

John Minihan (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is no formal recognition of the right of removal provided for in section 18 of the 1872 Act. Regardless of the restraints placed on the licensee in terms of what he can or cannot do under law, it would be beneficial if he had the formal right to remove a person from his premises. Like Senator O'Toole, I have served my time. I remember that when there was a bit of trouble in my grandfather's pub in west Cork, he had only to appear at the door and order somebody out and they would go. I realise times have changed, but the formal recognition of the right to remove existed then and I am concerned it is not repeated in this Act. I ask the Minister to comment on the matter.

Derek McDowell (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The two amendments tabled by the Labour Party seek to make more or less the same provisions as those sought by the amendments of Senator O'Toole. They are phrased completely differently which is why I am not sure the effect of Senator O'Toole's amendments would be the one he intends. That is for the Minister and his officials to tell us.

Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On a point of clarification, I announced that the amendments were related and could be discussed together.

Derek McDowell (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I accept that they are related. They deal with the same issue, though they approach it from different angles. I am happy to have the amendments taken together.

The Labour Party amendments seek to apply the reasonable steps mentioned in section 4(4) to all of section 4 rather than simply to section 4(1)(c). The problem arises from the definition of "drunken". While the Bill defines "drunkenness", to make it an offence to supply drink to a drunken person demands that the supplier knows the person is drunk and is a danger to himself or herself, according to the definition in the Bill. It is fair to say, as Senator O'Toole has pointed out, that one would not necessarily know that. If a person approaches a bar, an instant judgment must be formed as to whether a person is drunk to the extent that supplying him or her with drink is an offence. It will not always be terribly clear that is the case.

It is not unreasonable in those circumstances to assert that is a defence for a publican to prove he took reasonable steps. He should be provided with some defence, rather than, as appears to be the Minister's intention, subject to an automatic offence. As it stands, the section provides that if a person is proven to have been drunk, the publican has no defence.

Eddie Bohan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree with the comments of Senator O'Toole. It is very difficult to prevent drunkenness on a premises. No sane publican wishes people to get too drunk, but if a person enters a premises sober to have a pint while minding their own business and not causing problems, where do you draw the line? When do you say he has had enough if he has done nothing wrong and insulted nobody? Nobody would go out of their way to make a person drunk and it would be a bit unfair for a publican to be charged with allowing someone to get drunk on his premises. It is something the Minister should examine.

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

We are in danger of tying ourselves in knots. I agree with Senator O'Toole's comments in relation to this amendment. In the case of a licensee who is unable to eject a drunken person and asks for the assistance of the Garda who arrive to find that person still on the premises, can the licensee be held accountable for having served drink to that person? Both the licensee and the drunken person could end up being charged. We are getting ourselves tied up in knots and I am not sure how it will be sorted out.

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The essence of the Bill is probably the definition of drunkenness, something which has engaged the minds of the Minister and the Department for some time. We expressed ourselves reasonably happy yesterday with the definition in the Bill but the more information we elicit from the Minister in this debate, the more clarity there will be. If we are debating it here, it will obviously give rise to considerable debate among solicitors and barristers in the courts. Taking the definition to mean the person is a danger to themselves or others, it can mean a person who has become obstreperous in a pub, even to a limited degree. The definition would also apply if the person appeared to be so intoxicated that they were a significant danger to themselves from falling.

I have one concern about the definition. One could have a definition of a danger to oneself which would be compatible with the drink driving regulations. If somebody drinks three or four pints and they have a motorcar outside the door, could the court assume that the person was allowed to consume too much drink and become a danger to themselves under the definition? I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments in that regard. Does the definition need to be refined further? I am not a lawyer so I do not know. The more clarity we can bring to the legislation, the better.

A judgment call will have to be made by publicans and that imposes a significant responsibility on them. There is an onus on the House, therefore, to make the legislation as clear as possible to ensure that the judgment call does not have such wide parameters that they will be interpreted differently by district justices.

Mary Henry (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to Senator Terry's question as to whether the licensee would be incriminating himself by calling the police. Senator Minihan's concerns are covered by section 6 which gives the licensee the power to request a person to leave the premises.

John Minihan (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

But not to remove the person.

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

I will examine Senator Minihan's point. The law at present provides that if a licensed person permits drunkenness on a premises, he is liable to a penalty under the 1872 Act. The phrase "permitting drunkenness" is already in use. We are not dealing with a novel concept. Subparagraph (c), therefore, is an existing offence and the defence provided for it in subsection (4) is reasonable. It provides that if somebody comes across drunkenness on the premises, "It is a defence to prove that the licensee took reasonable steps to prevent the drunkenness concerned taking place". That is a complete defence.

There are subtleties in section 4 which some of the amendments do not take on board. It is an offence for a licensee on licensed premises to supply drink to a drunken person or to any person for consumption by a drunken person or "(b) to permit a drunken person to consume intoxicating liquor" on the premises. There is a distinction between subparagraphs (a) and (b) and (c) and (d) which should be noted by the House. Subparagraphs (c) and (d) refer to the bar. This is of particular significance to hoteliers. If one is running a hotel and somebody returns drunk to the hotel, the hotelier cannot forbid the person to come into the hotel. He can allow the person on to the premises, bring the person to their room or even allow them into the residents' lounge to sleep off their condition.

Likewise, if somebody was found falling down drunk in a public house, it would be permissible for a publican, rather than throwing them out onto the street, to bring them to a room and avoid an offence in regard to the bar of the premises. A number of people from outside the House had asked if publicans would be throwing people out on the roadside in a state where they were a danger to themselves.

I am happy with the way the section is drafted. It is subtly drafted to distinguish between hotels and other premises and between bar situations and non-bar situations. It provides a defence for somebody who is accused of permitting drunkenness. The person can say: "I did not permit it; I run an operation which takes all reasonable steps to prevent this type of thing happening."

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I accept the points made by Minister. I had taken note of the subtleties of the defence. Having reflected on the points made, I will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 5 to 8, inclusive, not moved.

Section 4 agreed to.

Section 5 agreed to.

SECTION 6.

Mary Henry (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 8, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following new subsection:

"(4) The Court may, if it sees fit, refer a person convicted under subsection (3) for alcohol abuse assessment and with his or her agreement, treatment if required.".

People who get themselves into this sort of state, particularly those who are obliged to go before the courts for repeat offences, have possibly got a serious problem with alcohol. This is not really being addressed in the Bill. However, I realise that the Minister is trying to do something on a very practical level with this legislation.

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

I support Senator Henry's amendment. It would provide an ideal opportunity to get treatment for somebody who comes before the courts. I am not sure whether that would be possible and I look forward to the Minister's response.

I am not trying to dilute Senator Henry's amendment, which is very useful, but I want to introduce another issue – advertising – which affects people's thinking about alcohol. I apologise for introducing the issue at this point, but I could not see any other opportunity to do so. I ask the Minister to tell us when he intends to address the whole issue of advertising of drinks. Will that happen next year when he will return to address this area?

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

I see considerable merit in the thrust of Senator Henry's amendment and I am glad that she is not pernickety about the exact wording or whatever. On foot of what she said on Second Stage, one of my officials attended a meeting of the strategic task force on alcohol this morning. The task force discussed the issue of responses other than just the fines imposed by the District Court, particularly for repeat offenders before the court, so that we do not simply wash our hands of them. People can commit one offence of being drunk and disorderly without anybody having to send them off for treatment or whatever. As a result of the discussion that took place this morning, we are exploring the possibility of devising a list of places where such treatment is available for circulation to members of the District Court.

Drunkenness offences are much more likely to occur in the context of the public order legislation, so the question arises as to whether we should attempt this in the context of the licensing law, the public order law or a sentencing powers statute. I am contemplating bringing proposals to Government, not for guidelines – I hate to use that word because it is misunderstood – but for a statutory statement of powers in respect of sentencing policy. There are a number of possible places where the Senator's proposal could be located legally. If we come to the view that it should be done in the context of the licensing law, then rather than attaching it to this particular area, I propose – in the context of the general revision in 2004 – to locate it in a new law where it would have effect, not just for this offence but for all sorts of licensing law offences.

I am grateful to the Senator for raising this matter. We are already taking this seriously to the point of complying with the substance of the Senator's argument by considering ways of bringing the District Court's attention to the options open to it in this area. It may be desirable to enshrine this principle in law in the first instance so that it will be brought to the attention of District Court judges in order that they will not simply stamp the conviction on to the charge sheet or summons and move on to the next business and that their attention will be drawn to the need to do something further. This is comparable to how, with some motoring offences, the need to re-sit the driving test has been introduced, rather than simply disqualifying people and letting them start all over again at the end of the disqualification period as if nothing had happened.

Mary Henry (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister for his reply. I see his point, but I wonder if what he is suggesting could not be incorporated into this and other Bills, if required. This legislation has received much public attention and I would not like the idea to go out that if people get drunk, they will just get a fine of €300 on the first occasion and €500 on the next. I would like there to be some sort of cognisance also of treatment.

The Minister mentioned the effect on people being told they would have to take the driving test again and the penalty points system certainly sharpened people up to a considerable degree in terms of the way they drive. I now keep an eye on the speedometer going through Donnybrook in case members of the Garda are out with their equipment trying to catch me.

I would be very grateful if the Minister looked at this matter between now and Report Stage, mainly because the legislation has already received a great deal of public attention and will attract more. It is just the sort of people at whom the Minister is trying to aim the legislation who will look at this. I thank the Minister for his reply and will withdraw the amendment. I hope he will have thought of something better by the time the Bill reaches Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."

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

May I ask the Minister to respond to my question on advertising, please? I referred to the way in which advertising influences people to drink to excess and become disorderly.

Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The amendment applied to referring people for counselling.

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

It is a matter about which the Minister has spoken.

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

I will deal with the Senator's point when we come to deal with sections 20 and 21.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Do hurry up, please.

Mary Henry (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Senator Norris, I am running an orderly House.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is a change.

Derek McDowell (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Section 6 gives the power to the licensee or a member of the Garda Síochána to request somebody to leave. Is it clear that the licensee can or cannot delegate this power? In many of the very large pubs in Dublin the licence holder might not be on the premises at a given time. I presume the intention is that a senior member of staff will be entitled to ask somebody to leave.

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

It is a cornerstone of intoxicating liquor law, as I understand it, that the authority of the licensee is vested in his or her staff at any given stage and that he or she is liable for their actions as though they were him or her, if acting within the scope of their employment. For instance, if that was not the case, most of the law would be inoperable simply by virtue of the licensee being able to say he or she was in Majorca at the time and could not have committed any offence.

Derek McDowell (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I accept that it makes common sense. I brought up the matter because the Minister specifically covered the point in the previous section by including the words "or permit to be served".

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

I have a text book here and will look up the point but I am fairly confident that I am correct.

Derek McDowell (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I assume the reference was intended to cover the question of staff.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is an important point and while there is not much that can be done about it, I would have to say that my colleague from the Labour Party has indicated something important. From experience of living in the north inner city I know that those pubs which have a resident landlord, or a landlord on the premises all the time, are almost invariably well run. Those owned by people who live in Liverpool or Manchester, or wherever, and put in proxies with the instruction to squeeze as much money out of them as they can are the ones where problems arise. We cannot do very much about this because we cannot compel landlords to be on the premises, or live over the shop. It is a pity but that is one of the dangers of the super-pubs, or boozeramas as I call them.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 7 agreed to.

SECTION 8.

Derek McDowell (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No.10:

In page 8, subsection (3), line 35, to delete "(1) or (2)" and substitute "(2)".

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

I regret that I am not disposed to accepting this amendment because its effect would be that it would no longer be an offence for a person to engage in disorderly conduct in a licensed premises. An offence would arise only if the disorderly person refused to leave or re-entered within 24 hours. One of the principal aims of the Bill is to address the problems of drunkenness and disorderly conduct. To accept this amendment would be to weaken considerably this important new section.

Acting Chairman:

Is the amendment being pressed?

Derek McDowell (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not intend to press it. Most of the offensive behaviour being covered in the Bill, and with which it is intended to grapple, is already an offence but this is creating a new offence of disorderly conduct and it strikes me that we are going further than we should be in that regard.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Derek McDowell (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 9, subsection (5), line 9 to delete "substantial".

We are trying to lower the bar somewhat in this amendment. Subsection (5) specifically allows the licensee to refuse admission if he or she thinks there is a substantial risk that the person would engage in disorderly conduct. Effectively, somebody is being barred. This gives the licensee legal authority to bar someone if there is a substantial risk. Perhaps we are setting the bar too high for the publican. If somebody has already been disorderly and is a known troublemaker, perhaps the requirement of "substantial risk" is too strong. That is the reason the amendment seeks to remove the word "substantial" and require merely that there be a "risk" that the person would engage in disorderly conduct.

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

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.

Derek McDowell (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The real question is whether one regards the fact that a person has a previous conviction produces a risk or sufficient risk for him – it usually is a man – to be barred. It would not be unreasonable for a publican to take the view that if somebody had been convicted in court of disorderly behaviour there was a risk that he would do it again. I would not be inclined to say such a publican was acting unlawfully if he barred him.

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

The Senator might take as an example somebody who was guilty of disorderly conduct. If all the publicans in his village barred him for life as a consequence, would that be a proportionate or reasonable thing for them to do ten years later? Would they still be able to refuse the person admission because he had beaten up a barman in another pub down the road and tell him that he would never be served in the town again? We have to be reasonable. The risk must be something of substance, not speculative or mathematical, or, to use the phrase used yesterday, "asyntotic to the zero axis."

Acting Chairman:

Is the amendment being pressed?

Derek McDowell (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not intend to press it simply because the practice reflects what the Minister intends, with which we are all in agreement but I wanted to run it.

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

The Equal Status Act also uses the phrase "substantial risk". Therefore, there is coherence.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill."

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

I want to raise a brief technical point of information. Bills should be expressed in plain English, where possible. While I am aware that two negatives make a positive, why do we say, "it shall not be unlawful"? Why not say, "it shall be lawful", or is there some legal term about which I do not know? It is a simple matter, why not put it in the positive form?

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

It is a phrase used frequently in the licensing code that "it shall not be unlawful". I do not want to give the Senator an off-the-cuff answer as to whether saying something is lawful is the same as saying that it shall not be unlawful. It may be that someone would claim that they have authority to do something by virtue of one proposition. A double negative says only that something is not unlawful in the circumstances without prejudice to whether it is lawful in the first place. When I was Attorney General, there was a "plain English" drafting manual in gestation, and I presume that it has been produced. I do not know whether the draughtsman in the Attorney General's office draws that distinction. There are sometimes occasions when saying that something is not unlawful is not the same as saying that it becomes lawful to do it.

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

The two mean the same thing.

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

Not necessarily.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Perhaps the difference is that something is not unlawful because a law has not been passed making it unlawful but that certain things have been sanctioned by being passed into law and are therefore lawful, meaning that there is a grey area whereby something may not be unlawful but there is no positive law supporting the activity in question. Is that possible?

John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Acting Chairman will presently rule me out of order for a totally irrelevant comment, but it is relevant. Perhaps she will recall that, in a previous incarnation on the Opposition benches, I mounted a sustained onslaught on the "in relation to" disease. There is a refreshing absence of "in relation to" in this Bill. I often wonder why the small prepositions cannot be used instead. I have found one instance, but they are becoming ever fewer, so perhaps the campaign is beginning to succeed.

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Section 8 deals with disorderly conduct, and I made a point about that yesterday, comparing the fine for the licensee on the one hand and that for the culprit in the disorderly conduct on the other. The Minister might examine this question before Report Stage, with a view to introducing heavier fines for the individual. The first offence attracts a fine of €300, and a €500 fine for the second offence is far too small. Unfortunately, publicans will be confronted, and in most towns one will find certain characters who are troublemakers. I am not talking about alcoholics. In some instances, all they need before they start to cause problems is a few pints. The penalty imposed on them should be sufficiently severe to deter them, and €500 is not enough. I suggest changing paragraph (b), allowing judicial discretion to impose a maximum fine of €1,500. I would be happier with that.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Perhaps I might use this reflection on the section to fly a little kite. We were talking about people's behaviour and expelling them. Many people, in the two Houses and in the general public, are concerned about the behaviour of drunken people in accident and emergency units in hospitals. I wonder whether that might be covered by legislation. I do not think it is covered by any section of this legislation except, perhaps, by inference. We should examine it because of the enormous waste of time and resources and the prejudice to the health of people who suddenly become critically ill when the accident and emergency units are swamped by drunken idiots. There should be a quite strict little lesson for them. They should be severely fined or made to carry out community service or some such thing.

I say that in general terms, but I presume it is not really covered by this Bill. I ask the Minister to examine the possibility, for otherwise we will have a further huge waste of resources at a critical point for society when people are admitted in what should be an emergency. The vast majority of them are simply suffering from self-induced alcohol poisoning.

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

It would be totally irrelevant for me to comment on Senator Norris's totally irrelevant point, but I tend to agree with him that the staff of accident and emergency units deserve protection. The context is probably one of public order offences. The present Bill deals with the licensing code. There are many other people who deserve protection, such as bus drivers.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Perhaps we might look at legislation in this area later on.

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

I note that the Senator came into the House on the basis that we were not making adequate progress and is now busily impeding it.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If you cannot beat them, join them.

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

Exactly. As far as Senator Jim Walsh's point is concerned, the offences provided for here are the same as those covered in section 6. Whether the fine is €1,500 or €500, in the context of a court conviction there is a great deal of public opprobrium and disgrace. As I said, though perhaps not in this House, for several offences I am considering introducing the right for the Garda Síochána, rather than bring people to the District Court to face the music six months after the event, to serve notice that, if they do not pay a fixed sum, they will be liable for court summons. I sympathise with Senator Walsh in that, compared with a €500 fine, the cost of a garda teeing up a prosecution, the time of the court, serving the summons, the adjournment and so on is quite significant.

Acting Chairman:

Amendment No. 12 is in the name of Senator Derek McDowell. Amendment No. 13 is related, and they will be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Derek McDowell (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 9, subsection (2)(a), line 20, to delete "first" and substitute "second".

These amendments are in the name of the Labour Party Senators. The Minister has anticipated the point in his last comments about penalties. The Bill creates several new offences, including serving drink to drunk people, permitting drunkenness and disorderly conduct and so on. It sets out, as the Minister has pointed out, fairly low financial penalties for publicans of €1,500 for a first offence or a maximum of €2,000 for second and subsequent offences in the District Court. I understand why he is doing that and, broadly speaking, I agree with him.

This section provides for a mandatory closure order not exceeding a week for the first offence. Requiring a mandatory closure after the first offence is a little extreme. It is also obviously far more important to a publican than any of the small financial penalties that he or she will also suffer. The purpose of the amendment is to provide that the mandatory closure order – the important word here is "mandatory"– comes into play only after second or subsequent offences rather than the first, something that is a more proportionate response to the offences concerned. On the face of it, as the law currently stands, if one drunk person is served a drink too many, the pub can be closed for up to a week and must be closed for some period, it would seem. For a first offence, that seems a little harsh.

Eddie Bohan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree with previous speakers about mandatory closing, which is a draconian measure. It is not just the loss of business for a week while staff are being paid but the effect that has on the reputation of the house. The effect would be enormous, even though the closure might occur for little reason.

I assure the House that my organisation and I have no time for anyone who serves under age drinkers. I am amazed at where young people get drink. A member of Senator McDowell's party told me recently he was in Maynooth with one of his children, collecting leaving certificate results. He could not believe the number of 15 – and 16-year olds who were staggering around drunk. I assure the House they did not get drink in the pubs of Maynooth. I do not know where they are getting it.

Recently the Evening Herald sent out a young lady dressed up to look 22 or 23, which can easily be done. She was accompanied by two reporters and they called to 25 pubs in the Dublin area, with the reporters sending her to order drink at the bar. I was amazed she was served in five of those pubs and amazed at the five pubs which served her, as they are among the best-run houses in Dublin. That is entrapment, of course, and it would be draconian to close those pubs for seven days because that girl was served in them. A heavy fine of €5,000 or €10,000 for the first offence would be more appropriate than closing the premises for seven days.

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I mentioned this issue yesterday. I commend the Minister on what he is achieving with this necessary Bill, which addresses matters of public concern. I am concerned with the balance, given the responsibility of the licensee. The licensee has a responsibility but so has the individual. I am mindful of what Senator Bohan said and there have been situations of entrapment, particularly with the equality legislation, where people have availed of legislation to advance their own causes or finances. I am also conscious that the penalty is very severe in this instance.

The Minister pointed out that allowing judicial discretion in the matter means that in all probability the Probation Act will be applied but it might be reassuring if the first time a person is caught a financial penalty rather than closure might be applied – the latter option might impact on the business further down the line.

I also mentioned leaseholders yesterday. We have had some developments in this area of a leaseholder carrying full responsibility, though it would be the operator rather than the leaseholder in this instance. The Minister should look at this. If someone irresponsible offends, he or she is not managing their premises properly and will be caught again anyway. A genuine operator who is caught on a once-off basis could be closed down and the legislation should perhaps reflect a more lenient approach.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am much more in sympathy with the Minister's position. He made it quite clear that the Probation Act can come into play on the first offence, which is perfectly satisfactory. It is very interesting to hear from the honourable, decent people representing the drinks lobby – they have stated their interest – that it does not matter how high the fine is. They will pay the fine but do not want to be closed. That tells me one thing: close them if we are serious about this. That is the only thing that will hurt and it also tells us how much money they are making if they do not care about paying fines of €5,000 or €10,000. If that is cheaper than being closed then it tells us where the money is. We should hit them in the pocket and make them behave.

Senator Bohan has a very high reputation, as do most of his members, and the decent ones will get the benefit of the Probation Act so that this will not happen again. As for the others, the Minister should take the advice he has been unintentionally given and make this pinch. The only way to make it pinch is to close the pubs.

Pat Moylan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What happens when people are found intoxicated and there is proof the alcohol was bought in an off-licence? What happens to the off-licence? That may be covered in a different section.

When a court closes a pub for a day or two it should specify the weekend for closure. If a publican is responsible for serving alcohol to younger people, the closure should be specified for Friday to Sunday, not Tuesday and Wednesday. The publicans will choose the latter if they have the option.

John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am in broad agreement with what is in the legislation. First, it relates to a conviction and second, it specifies the sections in which this may apply – sections 4, 7 and 17. The only place where the sanction may be questionable is section 15, which amends the 1988 Act and states that the holder of a licence shall not allow a person under the age of 21 years to be in a bar if the person does not possess an age document. In that instance this might be a severe sanction but I would not quibble with the sanction in other respects.

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

First, in the case that an injustice would be done by a conviction, there is always the Probation Act as a way out for the District Court. Having said that, if I accede to these amendments I would be saying that everyone has one free go at being done for drunkenness and the closure regime would not apply on that occasion. That would send out the wrong signal as it would suggest to every publican in Dublin that this will never happen to them unless it happens once and they are prosecuted. A point made constantly yesterday was enforcement, with Senators asking where the gardaí were, who would bring the prosecutions and if they would see any results.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is embarrassing for the Minister because he agrees so heartily with it.

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

Sometimes I am damned among my friends in this House.

Taking the more judicious language used by Senator Dardis, I would damage the section and the entire idea if I was to send out the message that a person had one free go and that they would not face sanction unless they had transgressed on a previous occasion. This would make everybody complacent about it and it would not have the deterrent effect that I am seeking. I would prefer to leave the section as it stands and, therefore, I ask Senator Derek McDowell not to press his amendment.

Derek McDowell (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not convinced that the Minister has the balance right. Perhaps the power should be there for a District Justice to impose, at his or her discretion, a closure order for up to a week on a first offence. However, what I am quibbling with is the mandatory nature of the closure. It seems that it might, in some circumstances, deter the prosecution of offences in the first instance. There is some evidence of that in the existing closure order provided for underage drinking and the way it is being employed in various parts of the country. Clearly, that would also work to negate the intention of the Bill.

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

If I was to accept the Senator's amendment, there would not be discretion on the first offence.

Derek McDowell (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I accept that. The amendment does not allow for discretion.

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

I prefer what is in place for the reasons I outlined. I do not claim to be infallible on these matters, but if the message goes out from the Houses of the Oireachtas that drunkenness in a pub is a serious matter and that if there is a conviction, unless the Probation of Offenders Act is applied, there will be a closure attached to it, many of those who manage pubs will tell their staff that from now on they are playing a different ball game.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Hear, hear.

Derek McDowell (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to digress slightly. The word "drunkenness" is defined in a peculiar way in the Bill. Does one person being drunk constitute drunkenness? I take it that it does. It is possible that a conviction could be obtained, simply by virtue of one person being drunk and being served drink, and that a premises would have to be closed. That strikes me as excessive on a first offence, but I do not intend to pursue the matter any further. Clearly, the Minister is of a mind—

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

I wish to reply to that with some force. There is some justification for that being the case. If, for example, a 19 year old – forget about an underage person – was rendered hopelessly drunk in a licensed premises, fell on the pavement and suffered brain damage from which they never recovered—

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Or drove a car and killed somebody.

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

—or drove a car and killed somebody else, the fact that it was only one person and that the entire premises was not being run like some kind of Bacchanalian place does not diminish the seriousness of the matter.

I want to get across the message to the drinks industry – we will succeed in doing so – that, from now on, it is a serious matter if somebody gets drunk in a premises. The superpubs, in particular, cannot simply roll out the drink in a commercial industrial operation and have poor, hapless lounge staff earning pittances delivering it to people, without somebody at the top of this arrangement taking responsibility and realising – this applies especially in the case of superpubs which are frequently franchised out – that they face serious consequences, including up to a week of no trading, if they end up breaching the law in respect of drunkenness.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

At the risk of being tedious, I fully support what the Minister said. I am glad that I stayed for the debate because I am enchanted by the Labour Party's obsession with numerology. One amendment proposes deleting the word "first" and inserting the word "second", while the other proposes to delete the word "second" and insert the word "third". I look forward to being offered this superb defence of saying "I was not drunk your honour, I was on my own". Thank God for the Labour Party and invention.

Derek McDowell (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not sure whether God has much time for the Labour Party or vice versa, but that is not the point.

Nobody could disagree with what the Minister said. He has painted a picture of orgies, drunkenness and violence involving witless 19 year olds being turfed out on to the street and causing damage to themselves and others. Nobody would stand over such behaviour. However, the Minister has provided that if a 19 year old unwittingly serves a drink to an individual who happens to be drunk, then the premises must be closed. That is too harsh. Clearly, as there will not be a meeting of minds on this, I will withdraw the amendment.

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

There would have to be a detection, a prosecution and a conviction and a District Court judge would have to say that it is not an appropriate case for the Probation Act. As for the point about getting drunk on one's own, I should tell Senator Norris about an instance where a senior counsel challenged the testamentary capacity of an elderly man in court. He put it to the witness in the case that the elderly man was incapable of making a will, but was making very little progress. He said to the witness, "I have to suggest to you that the testator was in the hands of soliloquising." The witness said, "To be honest with you, Sir, I do not understand that term." The senior counsel then said, "I have to suggest to you that you know very well he was in the habit of talking to himself when there was nobody else around." The witness replied, "Well, to be honest with you, Sir, I was never there when there was nobody else around."

Acting Chairman:

We should try to make progress on that note.

Derek McDowell (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 13 not moved.

Derek McDowell (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 10, after line 43, to insert the following new 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.".

This amendment seeks to give the court more discretion than does the Bill regarding when the closure takes place. The Bill is quite strict as to exactly when the closure should start, that is, within a certain number of days following the conviction or the appeal. We seek to give the court some added discretion as to the specific period in which the closure would apply.

My wife is from Lisdoonvarna in north Clare. I mention this only because the licensing laws in that part of the country are very interesting. I sometimes wonder whether the licensing laws extend there at all at certain times of the year. The trade is extremely cyclical and seasonal and there are times of the year when no business seems to be done in many pubs and there are other times when a huge amount of business is done.

Obviously, the effect of a closure order would be greater or less depending on when it applied. By giving discretion to the court to decide the period in which – within six months – the order would apply, in a sense allows it some discretion to modulate the severity of the closure. There are times when a closure order would not affect pubs in some parts of the country very much, although there are times when it would affect them a great deal. It seems reasonable to give a judge discretion to modulate the order in that way.

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

What is being proposed is a softening measure. Effectively, Senator McDowell is canvassing the notion that the District Court could select a date for a closure order when it would be of negligible impact on the publican.

Derek McDowell (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not saying that at all.

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

I am not disposed to do that. We will next be informed that it would be a good idea to adjourn driving disqualifications in order to allow people to emigrate. This is supposed to be a deterrent; it is not supposed to have no effect at all.

The first offence involves closure for one day. Bearing in mind that there has to be a prosecution, conviction and decision by a District Court judge that the Probation Act would not be appropriate in the case, the judge could order that the premises be closed for one day, 30 days after the order in question. In those circumstances, I do not believe that this is a draconian, appalling consequence. I agree with Senator Bohan that it is probably the shame and loss of reputation that is relevant rather than the exact timing of the order. The one day closure could fall on Sunday, which would make little difference to most publicans, but consider the effect of a one-day closure on a supermarket.

Senator Moylan asked if this provision applies to off-licences. The answer is that it applies right across the board. I am not disposed to soften this sanction.

Derek McDowell (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It was not my intention to specifically provide for a softening, it was merely aimed at giving judges discretion. The Minister rightly points out that, even if one takes it as a one day closure, if the court decides to close the pub or supermarket on a Monday, it would have quite a different effect than if they decide to close it on a Saturday. It would be open to the District Court justice to make the penalty much tougher by, for example, selecting a Saturday, rather than a Monday, for the closure. Rather than just leaving it haphazardly, as the Bill does at present, to the number of days following the conviction, it should be a matter of discretion for the judge to decide whether the penalty should be harsher or weaker, depending on the circumstances of the offence in the first instances.

John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It could fall on Good Friday.

Derek McDowell (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It could fall on any day.

Acting Chairman:

Is the amendment being pressed?

Derek McDowell (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not think we are going to have a meeting of minds on this. I will not press it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 9 agreed to.

SECTION 10.

Acting Chairman:

Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 are related and may be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

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

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 11, lines 6 and 7, to delete "or Thursday" and substitute "Thursday, Friday and Saturday".

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

I am grateful to the Senator for raising this matter. Her position is consistent with that adopted by her party at the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights, when Deputy Deasy outlined the same general approach.

This is not a question of my rowing back on anything; it is a question of my accepting the recommendations of the Liquor Licensing Commission. In its final report, under the heading "Negative Impact on Work, Training and Education", the commission states:

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Hear, hear.

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

It is not the 11.30 p.m. to 12.30 p.m. regime that is the real problem. I have to provide for a Garda force, rostered by the Commissioner, which has to combat very significant numbers of intoxicated people on our streets between 4 a.m. and 6 a.m. This problem is a consequence of the special exemption order and the entertainment during drinking regime. It arises close to the changeover of Garda personnel at 8 a.m., at which time gardaí have to return to their stations with their charges and carry out other duties associated with the changeover. There is huge stress on the system at this time. Even if I doubled the number of gardaí to 24,000, a significant problem would still arise.

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

The Minister should read what the commission's report has to say on public order incidents since the opening hours were extended. It makes interesting reading and I am surprised that the commission did not make the recommendation that we should roll back the opening hours on Fridays and Saturdays.

The Minister stated he has to deal with the real world. He should do so and accept the commission's finding that the incidence of crime has increased significantly since the opening hours were extended. There is a serious fault in the Bill because the Minister is ignoring this point.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am taken by the Minister's very reasonable approach to this matter. He is correct in stating that Thursday is now a day of serious drinking. I remember when it was Saturday. Then it became Saturday and Friday, and then Saturday, Friday and Thursday. If this trend continues, every day of the week will become one of heavy drinking. It is a function of affluence – young people have a huge amount of disposable income and have not been educated on sensible drinking. They have been given a bad example and the whole culture is eaten into by the notion that it is hysterically funny to be drunk as that it is an excuse and alibi for anything.

There are now advertisements in England inviting one to come to Ireland to get "out of your skull". That is why so many English visitors come to Ireland to have their hen parties. We have a reputation for drinking and it is perceived to be part of our culture. This has been the case for a long time.

It is interesting that we now say Thursday is a very busy drinking day. Every day of the week will be if we are not careful because there is so much money involved.

I am glad the Minister raised the issue of special exemptions, which I raised at some length on Second Stage, because it really needs to be examined. Publicans in my area have said that they get special exemptions for a whole month without their having any special reason other than that they like to have them. They state that they will get a belly dancer to entertain their customers and that they will fry them a few chips, but this is utter nonsense.

I was very careful when I said we need to examine the way in which licences are granted, the operation of the courts and the weight attached to the positions taken by the Garda, the city authorities and the local people. This has been catered for to some extent, especially in terms of neighbourhoods. I hope the Minister will identify and tidy up the problems in concert with the District Court. The issue of special exemptions is a real headache.

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In my area in the south east the late opening hours have not given rise to a significant increase in disorderly conduct, even on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays. However, we have noticed that the special exemption orders definitely do. Our local authority has addressed the issue and has contacted the Garda on many occasions because of severe injuries incurred by people as a consequence of disorderly behaviour in local fast food outlets after their having emerged from nightclubs at 2 a.m. or 2.30 a.m. Since the discos in question have closed, there has not been a problem.

Eddie Bohan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I should have declared earlier that I have a vested interest.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We all know that.

Eddie Bohan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not believe that the roll-back of one hour on Thursdays will make any difference to the problem of absenteeism from work on Friday mornings. It will not affect many public houses in suburban areas but down town, where tourism has a major input and with late night shopping, especially on Thursdays, if people leave a pub at 11.30 p.m. instead of 12.30 a.m., they will go to the clubs, of which there are plenty around. As Senator Jim Walsh said, most of the problems and disturbances late at night occur as people leave late night establishments. I am not knocking the clubs which are entitled to make a living and at which there is not a great deal of trouble at those establishments which close at midnight or 12.30 a.m.

With regard to absenteeism, closing an hour earlier on Thursdays will not make the slightest difference—

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We know that.

Eddie Bohan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

—because the extension to 12.30 a.m. did not make much difference. However, I see where the Minister is coming from with the commission. As he said, he will bring forward a bigger Bill in 2004. In the meantime we will see how this works out.

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

As Senator Terry posed some questions, I would not like to be accused of concealing the facts. In respect of intoxication in a public place, in 2000 there were 14,687 convictions and in 2001, 17,805; in respect of disorderly conduct in a public place, in 2000 there were 2,341 convictions and in 2001, 2,924; in respect of threatening abuse or insulting behaviour, in 2000 there were 14,251 and in 2001, 15,718. The commission took into account and gave careful consideration to all these issues.

Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 17 and 28 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Derek McDowell (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 17:

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.".

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

Senator Terry has tabled a related amendment which would make it mandatory to have closed circuit television cameras. I confess to the House that I had thought along similar lines to Senator Derek McDowell's amendment. I thought twice about the issue and decided I would prefer to provide for next year rather than this year for the following reasons. There is no doubt that in certain public houses the obligation to have closed circuit television cameras, either within or at the entrance of premises, would be helpful to the Garda Síochána. Where there has been trouble in a public house, a public order Act passed recently provides that the District Court can make it a requirement, as a consequence of intervention in such cases, that a closed circuit television system should be established.

I accept that what Senator Derek McDowell has suggested is discretionary and that what Senator Terry has suggested is mandatory. My concern is that if one takes Killorglin, County Kerry – a favourite – or the town of Loughrea, of which I do not have as fond memories because I am usually involved in a traffic jam, and considers the number of pubs on the main street and the amount of closed circuit television monitors that would have to be installed, one would have to ask whether all those premises are getting five customers each night and if this requirement would be proportionate.

Senator Bohan's allies in the public house trade are mainly Dublin orientated but in rural Ireland many public houses are, at best, economically marginal and teetering on the brink of closure in many cases. With rates expenditure and so on, it is hard to make a living in many public houses, some of which are run more as hobbies than as real sources of a livelihood. I do not know the cost of a closed circuit television camera but I am sure it would cost a few thousand euro.

If the district judge is of the opinion that this is a good idea for a publican, he or she can impose this liability but the question arises as to whether he or she could do so in respect of every pub in Killorglin or Loughrea and not in others. There would be a great deal of argument. I want to think about the matter further and 2004 will be the time to do it. It is not as if there is nothing in place. Under the Public Order Bill, where any of these establishments, including fast food outlets, become a focus of disorder, this power is available.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Would it be considered insider trading to invest in closed circuit television companies?

Eddie Bohan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Most of the larger pubs in the Dublin area already have CCTV cameras installed because so many of them have been sued for refusing service to people. Their only defence was to have a camera to show that these people created trouble or problems. Publicans were being sued by people who claimed to have slipped in toilets etc. so the cameras have been installed in the publicans' own interest.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree with the reasonable point made by the Minister. The amendment is unreasonable. In my area of Castlecoote where there are three pubs the people would be appalled to think that it was necessary to have surveillance on them when coming out from pubs at a reasonable hour and in reasonable condition. Everything in the area is run in an ideal way.

A Senator:

Nobody gets drunk.

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

Perhaps the Senator does not wish to be caught on camera.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It would not be appropriate to have a George Orwell big brother type of operation. The proposal is unusual for the Labour Party. It surprises me that the party is getting more left wing. Fianna Fáil is more liberal.

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

A return to the Stalinist regime.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Indeed, it is like that. It is the Workers' Party influence.

Senator Bohan's point was reasonable. Most of the big pubs have installed these cameras for their own security and safety. A recent meeting of the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business dealt with insurance costs, which are appalling. In rural areas it should be at the discretion of the owners of premises whether to install CCTV. I do not want to see it in my area and I am glad the Minister does not propose to insist on it. When he looks at the issue again he should exempt pubs of a certain size or turnover. In regard to the turnover,there is a provision which identifies the size of pubs in regard to the cost of a licence. The Minister should allow the smaller pubs to have a discretion.

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

The Senator is unreasonable. The Labour Party's amendment is a good one. Provision of CCTV assists the fight against crime. We have seen on "Crimeline" that it is of great assistance in apprehending a person. Some day there may be some undesirables passing through Castlecoote and it might come in handy.

I agree that CCTV is not relevant to every pub in the country, but I agree with Senator Derek McDowell that in the event of a case going to court or where a pub has had problems in this regard the judge should be able to insist that the pub install CCTV.

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

To help the House, I should have mentioned that on page 12 of the Bill there is a new restatement of the provision for special exemption orders. It provides that where a special exemption order has been granted, CCTV may be stipulated as a condition for granting the order. That would differentiate between the cosy pubs of Castlecoote and places in the fast lane.

Derek McDowell (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As the Minister has said he will consider this in the light of legislation coming next year I will not press the amendment. We did not intend that it would be mandatory but that the discretion would be there on an application for renewal of a licence.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Derek McDowell (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 18:

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 relates more to the employment of children rather than being specifically relevant to licensing legislation. Existing legislation defines a child as somebody under 16 years of age and somebody between 16 and 17 years of age is a young person. It is not appropriate that a child should be employed on premises where, if the legislation is passed, he or she could not be present at certain times of the day. Perhaps this is implicit already in the provisions the Minister has introduced in regard to the presence of children. It is a belt and braces approach to specifically prohibit the employment of children in pubs.

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

The question of employment of young persons in licensed premises is not easy. Persons under the age of 16 are not permitted to work in licensed premises but the employment of certain 16 to 17 year olds is permitted. Their general duties are confined to serving tables and returning empty glasses to the counter. They are not permitted to sell intoxicating liquor.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We have had three attempts at legislation on the employment of young persons, a matter on which I have spent much time in discussion with different groups in the trade union movement. It has always given me some difficulty. I tend to go along with the Minister's final point. The idea of rearing people away from the real world is not good. On the other hand, we must ensure that they are protected from exploitation. It is important to get the right balance between both.

I am aware of the amount of time that was put into getting the code of conduct together. No group was completely satisfied but it did find a balance between the needs of the different groups. Every month I hear instances of children, who have finished their middle years in post-primary school, looking for jobs in their local pubs and being refused because they are under 16 years of age. Publicans have been honourable, diligent and responsible in this area. I have walked into pubs where I have seen the opposite but in the main there is a positive development in this regard. A balance has emerged which did not exist five years ago. Where we have problems, they could be dealt with through a tighter policing of the code. I would be happy if the existing code of practice was being implemented solidly, as it is being done in responsible houses, although not in others and no change in the law will help them.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I congratulate the Minister on his reasonableness on this section in so far as age is concerned and I hope he will be as reasonable as we continue with the Bill.

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

I am being buttered up for something.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is reasonable because otherwise life would be nearly impossible for publicans, particularly those with families, who perhaps leave a son or daughter in charge of the house, which is attached to the premises, for an hour or two during the day. This type of thing happens in my area and one must be reasonable about such cases. For instance, if a garda came in and saw a young person of 15 or so serving or looking after the premises for half an hour, he or she could be guilty of an offence.

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

I am beginning to realise that there is a greater difference than I had thought between Dublin city pubs and those in the country. I have noticed in pubs in my area that the trend has changed. There are no under 18s working in pubs any more. It is mostly foreign nationals, since young people no longer want to do that type of work.

Section 14 provides that the holder of a licence of a licensed premises shall not, "subject to subsections (2) and (3), allow a person under the age of 18 years to be in the bar of a licensed premises at any time". Does that mean that a person under 18 years of age cannot work in the pub? If they cannot be allowed on the premises, how then can they be allowed to work?

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Senator is going ahead slightly.

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

Am I in order, a Chathaoirligh?

Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, the Senator's comments are relevant to the employment aspect. I remind Senator Leyden that I am in the Chair.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I was seeking to help Senator Terry.

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

Can a person under 18 years work in a pub?

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

Yes.

John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The intention behind the Bill is laudable and I do not think anyone would dispute it. It is undesirable for young people to be exploited or be unduly exposed to the drinks trade at an impressionable age.

I take the point the Minister has made, which is an important one. In any business, irrespective of whether it is the licensed trade or otherwise, it is important for young people to come into the business through employment during school holidays and so on. Whether this applies to farming or otherwise, it is difficult to generate interest if children do not grow up in the business.

Senator O'Toole said earlier that he could remember pulling pints in Dingle and Senator Minihan spoke about working in his grandfather's pub in west Cork. All this has been a standard feature of, at least, country life. On a recent Saturday morning, I watched a rugby international in a small pub in Leenane. I went into the pub reasonably early in the morning—

Derek McDowell (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

How early?

John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

—and a young man, whom I suspect was 15 or 16 years old, cleaned the place, set the fire and did all the work that many people might not be inclined to do. He served me a cup of coffee and was extremely courteous. It would be wrong, notwithstanding Senator McDowell's laudable intentions, if that type of introduction to the trade were to be lost, which could be the effect of such an amendment.

Derek McDowell (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The primary intention of the amendment is to avoid the exploitation of young people and their being brought into an environment most of us would prefer they were not. The 1996 Act provides that young people should not work beyond 10 p.m. According to the code of practice which the Minister has kindly supplied me with, that has been extended to 11 p.m. in certain circumstances at weekends. However, I suspect that it is not adhered to as strictly as it might be and that many people who work in pubs do not finish at 10 p.m. Since many of them are in school, the difficulty is that if they are working from 7 p.m. until closing time, which in any event is illegal, it inevitably affects them the following morning.

The Minister may not have the information at the tip of his fingers, but I would be grateful if he could find out whether there have been any prosecutions in this regard. Some months ago there was a prosecution in regard to a fast food outlet, but I am not aware of any prosecutions of public houses. Is this legislation merely on paper, or is it enforced? If it were enforced, I would be happier to withdraw the amendment.

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

I will have to invoke the Werner von Braun defence that it is not my Department. It is the responsibility of the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment.

We are living in a protective nanny-State world, where it is assumed that it would be a dreadful thing for a 16 or 17 year old to be in a pub working at night. However, it is not assumed to be such a terrible thing if he or she is out in an open space exposed to drugs, drink and so on. Who will protect young people in this scenario? We must bear in mind that childhood is not the uncomplicated thing many of us assume it is.

Although I share the Senator's view that pubs may not be the most salubrious place for young people to work at night, there are many other less salubrious places in which idle youngsters find themselves spending their night time hours. It is not that they would be at home with their trigonometry book working out tomorrow's homework. The truth is that if they are not gainfully employed, they will probably be out in an open space in their own area with someone trying to get them to take drugs or experiment with alcohol.

Derek McDowell (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In the ideological disagreements that the Minister and I have occasionally had in the past, on more than one occasion I have accused him – I thought frivolously – of wanting to drive children back into working in the mines. At this late point in the evening, I discover that I was not all that far wrong.

I agree with Senator Terry. We have an anomalous situation where it is not permitted that children should be on a premises of a public house late at night consuming a lemonade, but it is perfectly permissible and lawful for them to be behind the bar or serving in the lounge. It is an anomaly we need to address. However, perhaps this is not the time to do so.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Derek McDowell (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 11, before section 10 but in Part 3, to insert the following new section:

"Alcohol-related offences.

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.".

My colleague tabled this amendment for discursive purposes. However, I do not intend to pursue that discussion. Therefore, I will not press the amendment.

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

My colleague, the Minister for Transport, Deputy Brennan, will be shocked because, having taken many initiatives to appear on the front of newspapers with various proposals in relation to road transport, it is terrible that the Labour Party thinks the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen, is still in charge of this area of the law.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 10 agreed to.

SECTION 11.

Question proposed: "That section 11 stand part of the Bill."

John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is relevant to the discussion we had on section 10 in regard to special exemption orders and closing hours. Again, thinking about rural Ireland, it struck me that the argument as to whether closing time should be 10.30 p.m. or 11.30 p.m. was somewhat academic, particularly at weekends. If one holidays in the west of Ireland, on the route from Dublin to, say Newport, County Mayo, there is not a weekend that one cannot find licensed premises open until very late in the evening. There are festivals to celebrate everything, including grasshoppers, trout and whatever else happens to be the local delicacy. I am sure a person could, without difficulty, spend the summer months visiting licensed premises open until the early hours of the morning.

In this respect, the debate is somewhat unreal, especially in the context of rural Ireland. While I take it local authorities and the Garda can have a view on this, it appears that a liberal view is taken of what constitutes a function or an event in terms of securing an exemption. By this I do not mean dinner dances or club functions but local festivals. I do not say they are a bad thing because the degree of rioting in the streets, about which Senator Norris is concerned, is minimal.

On the question of 11.30 p.m. or 12.30 a.m. closings, there is a certain veracity in the traditional view in the west that pubs close sometime in November. It appears that each year every crossroads can avail of exemption orders between May and October. Is this subverting the intention regarding closing hours?

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

I agree with Senator Dardis. The phrase "special occasion" is catch-all in scope. The section extends the provision for longer opening hours to every type of occasion and is far too loose. It almost amounts to an extension of opening hours and needs to be tightened up. Perhaps we will revisit the matter when we next deal with this issue.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are again in danger of going down a slippery slope. The House engaged in four hours of moralising yesterday in the debate on Second Stage. If we continue in this vein, we will introduce prohibition. Rural Ireland takes the right approach. Drink is kept in its place and can be enjoyed by local communities. The licensing laws are implemented in a practical manner, which is to be recommended. I ask the Minister to disregard the comments made by his party colleague and Senator Terry. They mean well but people are becoming over-enthusiastic. At this rate we will end up shutting pubs and shooting youngsters.

John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Senator is misrepresenting me.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There was a time when it was said rural Ireland did not have enough festivals and that nothing was happening. We should be concerned about keeping things alive. Let people organise events. What is wrong with holding festivals? They are a means for people to get together and celebrate. We should encourage them to be creative in their approach to finding things to celebrate. There is enough dullness in the world without legislators injecting more of it. I ask the Minister to go easy on this aspect.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I support Senator O'Toole. It is not easy to get extensions. I was secretary of a festival committee and involved in this kind of thing.

John Minihan (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The shame committee.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Name and shame.

Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Senator Leyden, without interruption.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Thank you, Sir, for your protection. A festival lasting one to two weeks would happen in Roscommon town possibly once a year during August. An order must be obtained from the courts. Perhaps the courts differ elsewhere but in my area the judge is very strict and will lay down strict regulations regarding days and opening hours. Events must be arranged in a certain way. I am delighted the Minister is taking a reasonable approach to this aspect. He is striking the right balance.

Derek McDowell (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

While I tend to agree with Senator O'Toole's view, I will not rehearse the arguments. Am I correct in understanding from the section that the special exemption order runs to the times designated, be it 1 a.m. or 2.30 a.m., depending on the day, and that the only discretion of the local authority rests with the area to which they are to be applied? Am I correct in assuming that local authorities do not have a discretion on the time aspect, in order that, for example, it would not be open to them to provide that special exemptions will extend to 1.30 a.m. only?

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

Section 11(7)(a) states:

Derek McDowell (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I interpret it to mean that, for example, Dublin City Council could rule that the regime may apply in Temple Bar but not elsewhere.

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

It is meant to have geographical effect.

Derek McDowell (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I appreciate that but does it provide that the local authority can have discretion regarding closing times? It does not appear to.

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

I believe it does.

Derek McDowell (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not convinced.

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

I tend to agree with Senator O'Toole. It would not be appropriate for me to dismantle the current arrangements without adequate consultation. I am interested in the points raised by Senator Dardis and that in some parts of the country matters are so bad that grasshoppers are a local delicacy.

Senator Derek McDowell's point about the difference in opinion regarding the employment of young people reminds me of the old adage of the Jesuits, "Give me the boy of seven and I will give you the man." The Thatcherites in England say, "Give me the boy of seven and I will have your chimneys swept by half past seven."

Question put and agreed to.

Section 12 agreed to.

SECTION 13.

Question proposed: "That section 13 stand part of the Bill."

John Minihan (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Sections 13 and 16 deal with the supply of drink to young people by parents and guardians in their private residence. I am concerned that, as drafted, the legislation will facilitate retrospective permission granted by a parent or guardian to avoid prosecution or conviction in the event of something happening. We must face the fact some parents are so busy in pubs that they do not supervise activities in their private residence.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What does the Senator mean by private residence?

John Minihan (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It does not extend to boats or yachts, although perhaps an amendment could provide for this. There has been much debate about under age and binge drinking among 15 and 16 year olds. I am concerned that there should be more flexibility in these provisions. The overall circumstances of an offence must be taken into account, including the type of drink provided and the adequacy of the supervision. If the courts were allowed such flexibility, they would be able to make a decision based on all the circumstances of a case in the event of prosecution.

As drafted, the provision means that if a prosecution were to take place and the parent were to give retrospective permission, the case would not stand up. I would prefer to see the matter before a court in which the judge could examine all relevant factors to allow him or her to conclude whether or not adequate supervision was provided or permission was forthcoming.

I am a little concerned that we will trip ourselves up by making an unintentional provision in trying to curb the scourge of under age drinking. People order drink from off-licences in the name of an adult and send a taxi driver to collect and deliver it to them. It is the same as ordering a pizza. We must provide greater flexibility and control to courts to allow them to form an opinion on the overall circumstances surrounding such an occasion.

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have some support for the comments of Senator Minihan in this regard. In my town a few unsavoury characters used to gather in the house of the parents of one of their number. The parents lived abroad and were not very reputable. A great deal of under age drinking took place in the house, which is why I would not like to see a scenario in which a parent could provide retrospective approval to such drinking to avoid convictions. Those who gathered in the house in question were of a nature which was highly intimidatory to the rest of the people in that neighbourhood.

I can envisage circumstances in which parents could be intimidated into giving retrospective approval. Senator Minihan brought that to mind and it is something that should be examined. If it were to happen it would constitute a major flaw in the legislation. Perhaps in subsection (2) provision could be made to require the parents or guardians to be present in a residence when alcohol is consumed. It would be a simple amendment.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are travelling down a very paternalistic road by intruding into people's homes. I would have thought that if the behaviour was as bad as Senator Jim Walsh says, it would have been covered by other aspects of the law. It is idle for the Oireachtas to speculate as to whether a parent's permission was actually granted. How could a court ever determine if it was retrospective or not? This is a nonsense and we are wasting time on it. I do not mind as I have wasted time occasionally myself.

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It might be a waste of time to Senator Norris.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If behaviour of the sort referred to by Senator Walsh becomes outrageous, it is covered by other aspects of the law.

John Minihan (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Of course it is, if these people are creating a nuisance or intimidating people. The Senator said their behaviour was intimidatory and was causing a nuisance to neighbours. It is covered by other aspects of the law.

The Minister is saying what I was trying to say on Second Stage, which was that the vast majority do not object to people drinking. On the Continent young people are encouraged and educated to drink by their parents, but we have a much worse problem here where they are not. The problem is not that people take a drink, it is the behaviour consequent upon that. That behaviour is covered by other aspects of the law. We are travelling down a dead end.

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is very easy to rubbish something, but if one does so, one should be familiar with the facts of the case which has been put forward. I was reminded of the case to which I referred when Senator Minihan was making his point. The case involved a family and a serious and unpardonable crime was committed. Alcohol and, probably, drugs were involved.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If a crime was committed, it is a different matter.

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The alcohol problem, which was a serious issue in the locality, was brought to the attention of the Garda, but there was very little it could do about it. The people involved were not being sold alcohol, they were bringing it to the house. It turned out that the problem persisted for a very considerable time and the council became involved. It met the superintendent to see if anything could be done. People on the estate came to us privately and did not wish it to be known they had done so for fear of intimidation.

This was a genuine case. If we are serious as legislators, we must provide measures which ensure that what happened is illegal. Subsection (2) must be strengthened to achieve that, which is why I make the argument in support of Senator Minihan.

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

I have heard the Senators' comments. According to existing law, if alcohol is delivered to a person in a private residence, no offence is committed regardless of parental consent. The new element of the law is that there has to be parental consent. I accept fully the point the Senators make that it is possible where an offence has been committed for a parent to absolve a youngster retrospectively. The parent may say to gardaí investigating an offence that their son had consent to receive drink in another person's house. There is a limit to the law and, on balance, I am unwilling to allow the Garda to set parents against a son or to challenge the parent's version of events even if the parent is bending the truth. The effect would be to set families against each other and to inquire too much into their private affairs.

Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.

Government amendment No. 20:

In page 14, line 41, to delete "8.00 p.m." and substitute "9.00 p.m.".

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

I have discussed this matter with a number of interested parties and listened to the views of a number of Senators on either side of the argument. With a view to accommodating holidaying families and people in rural areas and to avoiding complication of the law by providing different time limits at different times of the year, and taking into account the fact that sunset occurs in the west 40 minutes later than in the east, I am of the view that 9 p.m. is a reasonable time to set. We do not wish to do everything from a Dublin perspective. I am not in favour of a deadline of 8 p.m. for under 15s and of 9 p.m. for 15, 16 and 17 year olds as suggested. The law must be understandable and people must be permitted a clear view of what is involved.

John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister is to be commended for introducing this amendment. I agree that it would be unnecessarily complicated and burdensome to make distinctions among the various age groups. However, I am still concerned about the issue of hotels. The Minister made a distinction yesterday between a bar and eating area and said that if children were in an eating area it was a different matter.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to move amendment No. 21.

Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We have to dispose of amendment No. 20 first.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In that case, I will rely on what I said on Second Stage. It seems silly and unfair to send young people between the ages of 15 and 18 years off to bed at 8 p.m. They should be allowed to stay until 9 p.m. With regard to the earlier amendment, however, I have no difficulty with providing that children should be out of a premises by 8 p.m. I will not call a vote on it but a public house is not a good place to bring young children in the evening. There is an argument for providing that children under 15 years should be out of the premises by 8 p.m. and giving the older children the distinction of having an extra hour because they are on the verge of adulthood. It is not an important point but it is valid.

Eddie Bohan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am glad the Minister has changed the time from 8 p.m. to 9 p.m. Like Senator Dardis, however, I do not know how it will be enforced. The hotels the Senator mentioned will have a major problem with it. A large number of public houses in the Minister's constituency have a thriving food business. Many take their families out on Saturday and Sunday evenings for a meal and, during the summer, it is not considered late to go at 8 p.m. or 9 p.m. I do not understand how the Minister can expect a publican to tell a family sitting down to a meal that their children under 18 years of age must leave the premises at 9 p.m. Apart from the economic argument, it will be almost impossible to enforce on a busy evening, especially with tourists and foreigners who are accustomed to staying in a premises for as long as they wish when having a meal.

I ask the Minister to go a step further and increase the time to 10 p.m. That would be reasonable and much appreciated. During the summer it is not considered late to serve food up to 10 p.m.

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

This is proof that one cannot please everybody. I would have preferred the time to be left at 8 p.m. However, perhaps this is a difference between Dublin and the country. When one goes into a pub on a Sunday evening, one will regularly see children running around. They should not be there after 8 p.m. However, I do not have a difficulty with the provision because the single hour does not make a great deal of difference. Pubs that serve food could install a separate dining area which would only be used for dining and by families with young children. That would get around the problem outlined by Senator Bohan. If the premises is a public house, can it have a closed off restaurant where people can stay after the 9 p.m. deadline?

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Perhaps the Minister will elaborate on this section. I believe it is unworkable. If legislation is introduced that is unenforceable, it brings the law into disrepute. I am not familiar with British law but I recall bringing my niece to a pub in Britain when we were there on holidays. We were ordered out and I thought it was because we were Irish.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Senator was drunk.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I was not. I did not take a drink until I was 22 years of age.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Senator has made up for it since.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister has been reasonable on other issues. He received the submission from the Irish Hotels Federation and saw its graphic statement. The anti-family accusation was a little unfair, to say the least. The Minister is not anti-family but pro-family, so much so that he has included this section in the Bill. How will the provision work? I have seen how the system works in rural areas. The Cathaoirleach comes from a rural area—

Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Senator cannot involve the Chair in the debate.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Cathaoirleach probably cannot come down here while I take the Chair. We will have to do a bit of work on that.

Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Senator will have to wait a long time.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

My apologies. Under no circumstances do I wish to take the Chair. The Cathaoirleach is doing an excellent job.

Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Senator should speak to the amendment.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will but the Cathaoirleach is being provocative, if he does not mind my saying so. He is encouraging me to debate with the Chair.

Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Speak to the amendment.

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

The Senator is rambling.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not understand the reason this section is included in the Bill. It is not necessary, particularly in rural areas and for premises where food is served. We should also bear in mind the problem of holidaymakers visiting a premises and being asked to leave at a certain time. I ask the Minister to reflect on this over the weekend. He should come down the country and see how it works. He might change his mind.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Perhaps I have a solution that would keep everybody happy. I will explain to Senator Leyden and the Minister how the system works in reality. I was on Bere Island at the weekend and went to a lovely place called Lawrence's Cove. The bar has just one space. It is the only bar in the area and food is served. Gardaí come out diligently once a year to remind people of the licensing laws which are displayed in the pub. As the pint costs €3, it should be at the top of the Minister's list.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Excellent.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Consider that in the context of the lack of understanding in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform of rural Ireland. I am getting confused because Government Members are speaking against the amendment but will support the legislation. Are we trying to impose this on the rest of Ireland because of a problem within the Pale? As the Minister referred to the different times of sunrise and sunset in the west, is it not possible to propose a simple amendment whereby this amendment would apply only to the Pale?

Geraldine Feeney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On Second Stage I suggested that there be staggered times during the summer for older children. I came to the Committee Stage debate to support Senator Bohan's request to extend the time limit to 10 p.m. for 16 and 17 year olds. There are family holiday hotels throughout the west. Families go for a meal and then to the residents' lounge for the music and dancing which children greatly enjoy.

During weddings younger children are generally sent to the room with a babysitter while the parents remain at the wedding. However, how can the provision be applied to children between 15 and 17 years of age at wedding functions or during the holidays? I implore the Minister to go a step further and consider the later hour of 10 p.m. for that age group.

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I shall be very brief because we gave this a good going over yesterday. In fairness to the Minister, he invited us to give our opinions in relation to this.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Senator is still not happy, however. The Minister has done everything to meet his needs.

Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Senator Jim Walsh without interruption, please.

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I was one of those advocating a move to 10 p.m. Obviously, I would be pleased if the Minister did that. In fairness, however, others argued that the limit should remain at 8 p.m., and he has come some way to meeting the views of the House. If he can go the rest of the way, great, but if he cannot, I ask that he does not trigger the implementation of the age limit provisions of the legislation until the end of the summer, which I think he intends doing.

I ask the Chair whether we are bound to finish by 8 p.m.

John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No.

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

So we can continue.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We can go on until 10 p.m.

Acting Chairman:

Or 9 p.m.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wonder if we could arrange for the publication of these fascinating reminiscences from all around the House about the drinking habits of Ireland. They would form a wonderful little booklet.

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

I listened to the Irish Hotels Federation privately and to a reaction of its views in public that this measure was anti-family. Nobody would say it is anti-family to have a notice in a hotel saying that children must be out of the bar by 9 p.m.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Hear, hear.

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

Nobody would say that a hotel is anti-family in such circumstances, especially when they could sit outside on the armchairs in the rest of the hotel having their Club Oranges and the parents could bring out the pints to them.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Bring out pints to the children?

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

The pints would be for the parents. As somebody who has brought children away to holiday hotels on many occasions, I know there will be an occasion when junior will march into the bar, probably in his pyjamas, to complain that one of the other children has been beating him up upstairs or something like that. I do not expect the Garda to seize or close the premises if they see this happening.

What I am saying is that in a hotel, the rule is that at 9 p.m. children are no longer allowed in the bar. I put it to Senator Feeney that I am particularly concerned about 16 and 17 year olds. If I set a time of 10 p.m. or 11 p.m. for them, I have effectively lost control of the whole purpose of this identity card proposal, which is to get 16 and 17 year olds out of pubs. If I, or this House, makes a rule that 16 and 17 year olds who are in the company of their parents, cousins or whatever, cannot be in a bar after 9 p.m., I know that the law will be the same in North Great George's Street, Leeson Street or anywhere else. The rule is the rule right across the country.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister has been eminently reasonable. He has given us a clear, cogent, well argued version of his case which has persuaded me. The accusations of being anti-family are a form of cheap sloganeering which do not match reality. If a reasonable person went into a hotel and saw a notice saying, "Children are not allowed in the bar of this hotel after 9 p.m.", he or she would register that this was a place that cared about the family and was more interested in its welfare than in the profit it would make out of selling drink. That is pro-family. The Minister is perfectly correct and is being extremely reasonable.

Mary Henry (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I also support the Minister. Like Senator Terry, I am dismayed by seeing small children in bars. It is a terrible sight and children do not much like it either. This section might appeal to adults because it might be nice to be in a pub without having a crowd of small children on top of one after 9 p.m. Perhaps it will encourage me to go into pubs more often than I have in the recent past.

The Minister is right about 15, 16 and 17 year olds because when we discussed the sexual assault unit in the Rotunda, and accident and emergency departments in hospitals, one of the most difficult groups to deal with was children aged between 15 and 17 years. Dr. Mary Holohan, the consultant in charge of the sexual assault unit in the Rotunda, said the most difficult night to get anyone to staff the department – she always has to do it herself – was the night the junior certificate results came out, not the leaving certificate. This is a serious issue.

Like the Minister, I rely on the ingenuity of the publican on Bere Island. I bet he would have a room somewhere in which to put children in order that he would not lose his clientele.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I seek clarification. The Minister said this would not affect weddings. Will a function room in a hotel, where there are two bars, be covered in barring young people after 9 p.m.? For example, in a hotel in Roscommon, from where I come, there is a fine function room. If a wedding is held there and a bar is operating after 9 p.m., it seems unreasonable that children will have to leave because it is a big family event and many children accompany the wedding couple.

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I was going to ask the Minister a question privately on this point but as Senator Leyden has raised it, I will ask it now. Does the definition of "bar" in section 2 which "includes any counter or barrier across which drink is or can be served to the public" include a function room or does the word "and" before "includes" rescue it from that provision? This goes back to the definition of "bar".

Ann Ormonde (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

How will this be monitored to make sure it will work? I agree with much of what the Minister is saying but I can see the law being broken unless he has vigilante groups of some kind watching all the time.

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

The Minister seems to be getting more support on this side of the House than from his colleagues. I want to bring to Members' attention another group of young people. I appreciate what Members on the other side are saying about those who may be attending weddings, or tourists. However, there is another group of children who would be in a pub up to 9 p.m., which is too late – the vulnerable children of irresponsible parents who bring their children to the pub in the afternoon, give them a glass of orange and a packet of crisps and stay for hours. I have seen this happen. That is what I think of when I hear talk about allowing children to stay in pubs up to 8 p.m. or 9 p.m. As the Minister says, other children can be catered for, outside the bar. I agree with this.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Let me speak on behalf of the Minister and remind the House that on at least four occasions since this debate started yesterday evening – I have not been present for the entire debate – the Minister has specifically indicated and explained that the section does not apply to function rooms and weddings and other such things. The definition of "bar" is very clear in the Bill and we discussed it earlier. This is becoming tediously repetitive. It has been made absolutely clear that the function room is not part of what is "exclusively or mainly used for the sale and consumption of intoxicating liquor".

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

It will have to be "any open bar or any part of licensed premises which is exclusively or mainly used for the sale and consumption of intoxicating liquor". One knows a bar when one sees one. Defining it is one thing but it is like an elephant, one knows it when one sees it. This is clear. The bar in a hotel or any licensed premises is not a place where youngsters can be found. I could have gone the whole way and brought forward a Bill which stated, "not portion of licensed premises" at which point I would have been in difficulty with hotels because an entire hotel is licensed. It remains an offence, for instance, to send beer up to a 14 year old in room 253 in a hotel but that is not what this is about.

This subsection is trying to ensure that when gardaí arrive in a large Dublin city centre hotel and see a young person in the bar, they can ask for his or her ID and if it turns out to be a 17 year old, they can prosecute the hotelier. Everybody knows what is meant by the bar of the hotel and what is not the bar but the lounge. In that instance gardaí can say the hotelier is running a premises in competition with Senator Bohan's members and allowing 16 and 17 year olds to be in the premises in circumstances where no publican could be allowed to do so. In such circumstances the hotelier is committing an offence. There is no reason large, well organised pubs – I am not talking about super-pubs – cannot establish function rooms and have parties and so on as long as the portion of their premises arranged for this purpose cannot be described in the District Court as the bar in the premises.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 15, line 5, to delete "8.00 p.m." and substitute "9.00 p.m.".

Amendment agreed to.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Uno trionfo for the Independents.

Amendment No. 22 not moved.

Section 14, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 15.

Government amendment No. 23:

In page 16, to delete lines 3 to 9 and substitute the following:

34A.–(1) The holder of a licence of any licensed premises shall not allow a person who is aged at least 18 years but under the age of 21 years to be in the bar of those premises between 9.00 p.m. and 10.30 a.m. on the following day (12.30 p.m. if the following day is a Sunday) if the person does not produce an age document to the holder.".

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

As I mentioned on Second Stage, I am only interested in enacting legislation that is enforceable. Having listened to the views of Deputies, Senators and other interested parties on the issue of age documents, I accept that it would be difficult for 15, 16 and 17 year olds to produce such a document, as many of them, such as age cards or drivers' licences, are not available to 15 and 16 year olds.

In the circumstances, I consider it appropriate to propose an amendment to the age document requirement so that it will only apply after 9 p.m., since those under 18 must have left the premises by that stage. The amendment means that the mandatory requirement will apply only to 18 to 20 year olds who are in the bar of licensed premises at any time between 9 p.m. and 10.30 a.m. the following morning.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I spoke at some length on this subject on Second Stage and I do not wish to hold up the business of the House. However, it is a step backwards and a decision against the little people. It means that those who are already vulnerable and feel exposed and discriminated against will have greater difficulty finding redress. The whole point and thrust of this Government has been to render procedures informal and ensure that what I might describe as "your own union" does not get further control over areas – I am talking about the legal profession.

Eddie Bohan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am surprised at Senator O'Toole. I thought that we should commend the Minister for making the change. Recently, matters reached a stage with the tribunal where there was a mini-industry of people, particularly members of the Traveller community, suing publicans – for whom I speak. The publican had no say in the matter and the equality officer or whoever it may have been was awarding sums of €2,000 or €3,000 at will, without the publican being able to put his or her case forward.

Some cases were ridiculous. In one, a publican refused two Travellers admission because it was 1 p.m. and they were absolutely twisted. They took him to the tribunal, which awarded them €2,000 each. The reason was that they could not have been drunk, since it was only 1 p.m. I might also point out that they had just driven 15 miles to get to the pub. Those are the sorts of decisions that were being made. I commend the Minister for bringing matters to the District Court, where there is a judge and where, if one has broken the law, one will be punished. That is where the licensing starts. One is granted a licence to run a public house there. That is where the licensing should end if one is not running it properly. It should then be up to the District Court to decide whether one is breaking the law.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I commend the Minister on including this provision as this was becoming a mini-racket. People were being intimidated while publicans were getting letters and had to defend themselves. I have met many quality publicans who ran great premises and were reasonable to all sections of the community. However, they would not be reasonable to those who entered the premises in an intoxicated state, refusing to supply them with drink. They then received documents detailing the time and date on which this occurred and literally had to buy people off to avoid being sued. There is plenty of evidence of this, though I do not have it with me tonight.

Who is afraid of the District Court? It is a small court to which it is easy to gain access. Publicans have said to me that they are prepared to face the District Court rather than someone telling them they will have to pay €2,000. The Minister has received good advice on this in his Department and it is an excellent, workable provision with which publicans are pleased. Let us go before the District Court and make our case; let us change the law with this wonderful section, which I support fully.

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

There are sharply divided opinions on this section, which I accept. Some have taken it as an implied criticism of the equality tribunal that this decision was made. I offer no such criticism. The tribunal is doing an excellent job but a licensed premises is not the same as Brown Thomas, for example. The decision to admit or not to admit is a matter of legal consequence and controlled by the District Court. Failure to admit to a public house is an issue in relation to the renewal of one's licence, the orderly conduct of one's premises and, when the Bill comes into force, drunkenness. I do not want a situation where a publican sees someone enter his or her premises and thinks: "Hold it, this person is gay or lesbian or from a minority racial group or a Traveller. If I say "No" and there is trouble afterwards, the local sergeant will threaten me with closure under the latest Intoxicating Liquor Bill, while if a complaint is made to a tribunal in Dublin which operates a concurrent jurisdiction, I may go down the tubes for €2,000. What do I do?" That is not a fair dilemma for anyone.

I was reminded today in the other House by Deputy Cuffe that 12 groups had spoken out, with one voice, against this move but the vast majority of those who have mentioned this to me – who are not members of any of the groups but living in the real world, as I put it – support this provision absolutely. They believe it is reasonable.

The District Court is organised as the people's court. It is not a difficult court in which to do business. The District Court clerk is under a duty to help anybody who has no legal representative in filling out any documents necessary to bring people to book in that court. Also, for Senator O'Toole's information, lawyers have been found present in 30% of equality tribunal cases. There is no holding them back.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They are everywhere. They are ubiquitous and the Minister is opening new doors for them.

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

I am not altering the ground rules. It will still be compensatable discriminatory behaviour to refuse entry for a prohibited reason.

Furthermore, we are including a remedy in this provision whereby, in addition to paying compensation, if it is a gross case, the District Court can order closure to teach a lesson to someone who does not allow a black person into their pub on arbitrary grounds. A temporary closure order can be issued in order that the publican does not do so again. Furthermore, the District Court can rule that if it happens again, the licence may be lost completely. This is by no means a toothless jurisdiction being conferred on the District Court; it is tougher than anything the ODEI tribunal can do.

To those who say the ordinary person may find it embarrassing to go to the District Court, in addition to having access to the court via the clerk if one has no representative, the Equality Authority is being given the statutory function to assist people who want to bring claims of this kind in an amicus curiae role.

This is not one way traffic. It is not the great victory for recalcitrant publicans which people are claiming. This is a decision to put those closely related, interconnected decisions into one single venue where people can decide the rights and wrongs of a decision – before this provision, if one made a decision one way, it exposed one to one remedy, while another exposed one to another legal consequence. In this venue there are people who assess others' credibility day in, day out in every other aspect of their lives, from drink driving to prosecutions and licensing.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Unfortunately, the real world is the Law Library. In the same way that the Minister went to great pains to say this was no reflection on the Equality Authority, nothing I say is a reflection on the District Court, which I never mentioned.

I always start to worry when people start to defend – an old Government trick. It implies something and forces me to defend something I have never said. Senator Bohan mentioned some strange, anonymous person and was backed up by Senator Leyden. The Minister also walked into it by mentioning a tribunal in Dublin. Let us get a few things right: no anonymous person can fine a publican without him or her having the right to put his or her case.

I was one of the first people to take a case to the equality tribunal in 1977 or 1978 as soon as it was established. I had some experience of it before the legal eagles got involved and when it was a decent place to do business. I am not clear about the minutiae of that particular aspect of the law, and I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but the equality officer conducts a report and comes to a conclusion. I have often been deeply unhappy about the lack of consultation by equality officers. We have all been in that situation and have asked why something was not discussed, etc. In that respect, Senator Bohan is right. He is wrong, however, in respect of the next part.

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not think this is really about equality adjudication. There have been abuses of the legislation, of which everyone will be aware, but that is probably not the issue either. This legislation correctly places a great onus on licencees. In doing so, they will be subject to adjudication by the courts on whether they have complied. Equality officers probably come with a certain perspective, which perhaps a District Court judge would not have and would may well be more objective in dealing with the matter. Any equality issues that might arise would have to be adjudicated by the judge in the context of the intent and the licensing provisions.

Bringing in equality officers and the District Court as two separate adjudicators is somewhat similar, if I can use the analogy, to having two referees in Croke Park – one watching for incidents of tripping and the other monitoring dangerous tackles. It would lead to all sorts of confusion. It is much more sensible to take the approach that is envisaged and that is no reflection on the District Court or the equality officers. We must ensure that licensees, publicans and those who will have responsibility for running licensed premises know that they will be dealt with in a consistent manner. That is imperative.

We are hung up on this because perhaps we believe the thrust of equality legislation has been somehow reduced, although that is not the case. If we stand back and reflect on the intent of the Bill, we will see there is a lot of sense in what is being done.

Question put and declared carried.

SECTION 20.

Question proposed: "That section 20 stand part of the Bill."

Mary Henry (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am glad that the Minister introduced this section. The drinks usually supplied in these offers are disgusting because they put a lot of ice in them, so they are not giving twice the measure at all. The advertising of such offers is aimed at students and I have seen evidence of this. I pointed out to the House on a previous occasion that some are directly aimed at young women because advertisements stating "Three vodkas for €10"– which, I understand, is a bargain – were placed on the doors of the women's lavatories in Trinity College. I am glad that the Minister has included this section because it is important. Such offers have become an awful curse. One sees advertisements which state "We are changing venue, come and get three drinks for a certain price".

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Has the Minister considered the situation whereby people pay a lump sum for a night of drinking? Is provision for such activity included in the Bill? Is it similar to the so-called "happy hour", which is very dangerous?

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

The happy hour provision is one we could manage by ourselves, but the fixed amounts and the promotions area are slightly more problematic. The Attorney General's office warned me that if I did something which potentially interfered with EU trade or the capacity to promote new products and so on, I would have to notify it to the Commission. I have no problem issuing such a notification, but, if I did so, I would not be able to get the Bill passed before the summer recess. The ever-inventive parliamentary counsel thought of a way around this. It is contained in section 21(1), which deals with those types of promotions by way of regulation. It does not prevent me from passing the legislation, but requires me to notify the Commission of the regulations I make.

I know that the lawyers will look at everything with a microscope and, in the event that somebody states that it was an unintended consequence and that I got it wrong, I draw the House's attention to the happy hour provision. It states that "reduced price" means a price less than that regularly being charged for intoxicating liquor during an earlier period on the day concerned, so that allows somebody to increase the price at a later time during an evening.

In case anybody says they did not know what was being put past them, if a licence holder has a special exemption or whatever, this provision does not prohibit them from charging a different rate at a later time, provided that the increase is imposed towards the end of the evening. In the event that anybody is of the impression that we did not notice this, it is deliberate and that is the way we have to deal with it.

There are some pubs – I do not approve of such behaviour – which charge extra in the later part of the evening. On the other hand, whereas I may not approve of it, the market sometimes determines these issues. In addition, charging more during the special exemption period may deter some people from going out drinking during those periods. I am not making that illegal.

I am drawing this matter to everyone's attention because I think some eagle-eyed lawyer will see it, anyway, and then claim that I got it wrong. We did not get it wrong, we did it deliberately.

Question put and agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Acting Chairman:

Amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 25 on the Supplementary Order Paper is being discussed with amendment No. 25. There are two corrections: first, the lead-in should state "before section 21"; and, second, the first line of subsection (3) should read "subsections (5) and (6)".

Acting Chairman:

Government amendment No. 25:

Acting Chairman:

In page 21, before section 21, to insert the following new section:

Acting Chairman:

21–(1) In this section–

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

This amendment is designed to allow the Minister for Arts, Sports and Tourism to issue to the owner or owners of a designated national sporting arena, a certificate approving of a grant of a licence in respect of such an arena. The phrase "designated a national sporting arena" means a speaking note . I apologise, means a major arena or stadium—

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I never thought I would see the day and please do not forget—

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

This is what happens when I am out past my bedtime.

John Minihan (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister is an hour over.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I think it is time he told Senator O'Toole something—

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

At present, some national sporting arenas are not properly provided for in respect of licensing. For example, Croke Park is not properly endowed with the capacity to have the sale of intoxicating liquor on its premises. It could try to bend the club rules in some way or establish a club. If it did so and then a convention, a meeting or whatever took place on the premises, the club rules are really being abused in an attempt to cover the use of some of the facilities on the campus for intoxicating liquor. As a result of representations I received, I agreed to come forward with a proposal with regard to these venues.

The terms of the licence are restrictive and do not cater for hospitality offered in conjunction with non-sporting events. At present, in respect of other places, the conditions attaching to licences are often inappropriate and this makes compliance with an enforcement of the licensing laws very difficult. This situation compares unfavourably with the licensing arrangements for racecourses, greyhound tracks, national cultural institutions and the National Concert Hall.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

All I can think about is drink at the Bertie Bowl.

This is a sensible amendment. In terms of a practical approach, it is unique in that it is the only part of the Bill which opens up access to alcohol. To that extent, I thoroughly support it. I also believe that national stadia need to be able to provide this type of facility. We are talking about arenas, for example, Croke Park, which are under the control of national organisations such as the GAA. It would be odd if such a superb structure and facility as Croke Park was not able to provide a full service in this area. I fully support and endorse the Minister's words on this part of the Bill.

This is a positive approach and I do not believe there will by any objections to it. It does what we were discussing earlier, namely, it focuses on an item of law relating to clubs and similar organisations which has been twisted in every direction. The Minister has inserted the necessary wording to tidy it up and make it operable in a way that is open, transparent and responsible.

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will not say very much more because Senator O'Toole has outlined the position well. There has been huge investment in sporting arenas. I hope that further investment will be made in the not too distant future. It is appropriate that they should have all the commercial underpinning necessary to make them viable. If one goes to places such as Old Trafford and sees the way it has been developed to provide facilities at different times and functions, it shows that the overall use of such a facility, which is a huge capital investment, is well underpinned. We should aspire to have those type of facilities here. The organisations that displayed courage in making investments should be supported.

It was totally unacceptable that, in the past, small sports clubs in rural areas were governed by the same rules as designated national sporting arenas. The Minister is to be commended for recognising this anomaly and correcting it.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I understand perfectly what this is being done. I may be mischievous in suggesting that it also might be an indication of flexibility on the part of the Progressive Democrats, our partners in Government, towards provision of a national stadium, which the Minister should appreciate is definitely needed. I hope the Minister will see that it is provided. Such a facility is needed and the sporting organisations, fans and everyone else want it. I hope the Minister has as much flexibility in that regard as he has shown in not only this but in many other instances.

Acting Chairman:

Is this relevant to the amendment?

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes. As the Minister referred to national stadia, as distinct from national stadiums, one assumes that this law will apply to anything that will come on stream in the future. Notwithstanding the Minister's reference to designated areas within stadia and the fact that we would naturally expect those applying for certificates to be as honourable in discharging their obligations as the Minister will be in certifying them, I hope that in a stadium with a capacity of 80,000 – I refer to Croke Park – the designated areas will be adequate and plentiful and that there will not be a mass of people entering specific areas wherein will occur the kind of behaviour the Minister does not wish to see.

Most sports events are family affairs. I am not in favour of the culture of drinking or accepting the fact that because everybody else is selling alcohol, a national sports body should have to do so in order to survive. Unfortunately, this would be reminiscent of King Canute. The reality is as the Minister has outlined. I hope and have no doubt that he will adopt a sensible, logical position, rather than a moral one, to the issue of young people being faced with the sale of alcoholic drinks in national sports stadia and during live music concerts – I am not referring to conferences or seminars. Any Senator who has had occasion to attend live music concerts will know that there is no question about the fact that there is a drink culture associated with them.

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

I, too, welcome this amendment. However, I am not sure that I fully understand how its provisions will work. Given that drink is already served at all matches in Croke Park, what difference will the amendment make?

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

Croke Park is a registered club to which one is admitted as a guest. This situation could continue quite happily but if it was decided to hold events in the stadium that had nothing to do with the club or the playing of Gaelic games, as was the case in respect of a function associated with the EU Presidency, it would be over-stretching the rules to pretend that the club was having a function if the Government was hosting foreign Heads of State. I attended a trade mark and patent agents dinner in the club facilities of Croke Park, which are fantastic. This is fairly near the edge of what is legally permissible – I am not suggesting it was unlawful but remember thinking that it was odd that a sports club was hosting a semi-commercial activity.

I fully accept the comments of Senator Mooney. It caused me to gulp when this amendment was put before me as an idea. One might ask if I am now in the business of identifying sport with drink. I am not because what happens at sports events in Croke Park is covered by the club. The amendment will allow the GAA to achieve maximum use of its conference facility, host large seminars, management conferences, etc., and will not further the connection between sport and drink. I have spoken to the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Deputy O'Donoghue, to ensure this provision will not be used as the thin end of the wedge to have drink sold on the terraces and everybody swilling beer while watching events. That would be disastrous for Irish sport and should not be permitted in any circumstances.

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

Does subsection (5), which states, "There shall be charged", read correctly?

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

That is Revenue talk.

Amendment to amendment agreed to,

Amendment No. 25, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 21.

Amendment No. 26 not moved.

Question proposed: "That section 21 stand part of the Bill."

Mary Henry (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I commend the Minister on subsection (1)(a) which prohibits promotions on a licensee's premises. I have seen extraordinary promotions, for example, for rum with bonny girls leaping around the place, which must have cost a fortune. Therefore, they must be well worth doing. I have a question about the subsection because at this hour of the night I can ask Senator Quinn for double Superclub points for having my wits about me. I realise the Minister has to bring forward regulations regarding this matter. Senator Quinn has pointed out to me and the Minister that there would be a great cost and a great deal of labour involved in affixing particulars to all containers of intoxicating liquor sold for consumption off licensed premises. In order that I can report back, has the Minister had any further thoughts on the matter?

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

Yes. I met Senator Quinn on Friday afternoon when he was donating a horse to the Garda Síochána in Ballinteer and discussed this matter with him. The same issue that arose in relation to the transport of goods between countries applies to the European dimension to this also. I have a problem, perhaps, in relation to this. Again, I had to take the regulation route because I did not want to go the notification route to the European Union. I have come to the conclusion that the previous law, which was never commenced because people began to worry about its practicality, was a very blunt instrument and that in some circumstances it might be possible, for example, in the case of sealed boxes of wine, champagne and brandy, to rip them open, stamp them and affix labels to them. That would be ridiculous and utterly futile if the aim was to stop under age drinking. The two issues would be totally unrelated.

I have repealed the section which never commenced and I am replacing it with an enabling section which allows the Department to generate proposals effective by regulation to require the marking of alcohol sold for consumption off the premises. I have raised in the other House and mentioned here some of the difficulties in relation to this matter. Would one label every bottle in a six pack? How would one get to the bottles in the middle of the six pack? Would one rip open every bubble wrapped tray of drink and affix labels to every bottle and would one have to put them back together again to sell as one unit? Would one open every box of wine and affix stickers on each bottle? We have to ask ourselves whether this would be practical. If there is a practical way, I will bring forward regulations to achieve that end. I do not want the off-licence trade to be subjected to a crude obligation which was valueless compared to the disproportionate cost of implementing it.

Senator Henry can tell Senator Quinn, in getting her double Superclub points, that what we have decided to do is recast the existing mandatory provision which was never commenced with an enabling provision based on regulations which will be tailor made to the issue and only be made if practicality determines they will be of some benefit to the community.

Mary Henry (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Was not Senator Quinn wise to give a present of a horse?

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 22 and 23 agreed to.

Amendment No. 27 not moved.