It is proposed to group the following amendments for the purpose of debate: Nos. 1, 3 and 17; Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6; Nos. 8, 11 and 13; Nos. 9 and 10; and Nos. 15, 16 and 18. That list will be circulated to members.
Intoxicating Liquor Bill [Seanad], 2000: Committee Stage.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 17 are related to amendment No. 1 and all may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 7, line 3, to delete "or Good Friday".
This amendment deals with whether Good Friday should remain a closed day. It is my view, and this was included in a previous Labour Party intoxicating liquor Bill, that we have a changing, multicultural Ireland that will accommodate different religious views and so on and the prohibition on Good Friday is no longer relevant. Those who wish to abstain from alcoholic assumption for any period make a personal decision, which is well and good. However, the notion that the State should determine in its laws that Good Friday should be a day when people have no access to alcoholic drink does not fit into a changing, multicultural evolving Ireland.
It would be a signal to a more pluralist Ireland if that State provision, which is based on a Christian perspective, did not hold sway. As I said, many Irish citizens abstain, of their own volition, from the consumption of alcohol, not only on Good Friday but for the duration of Lent. That is a perfectly wholesome and good habit. However, there is also a growing Muslim community in this country which abstains permanently from alcohol, and certainly for their feast of Ramadan. Other ethnic and cultural groups also have different traditions. Since we have determined that the State should not reflect a denominational complexion in its laws and we have changed the special place of one nominated religion, this would be a good and proper signal.
The import of amendments Nos. 1 and 3 is simply to make Good Friday a regular Friday and to remove the prohibition. We all have personal experience of bizarre situations resulting from this. In my constituency, retailers, for example, petrol stations which are licensed to sell alcohol, have to close on Good Friday. The law is rigidly enforced in my constituency, which is right and proper. However, it is not right and proper for that provision to be reflected in our laws in 2000.
Amendment No. 17 refers to the Good Friday provision in section 12, which deals with special restaurant licences. It is even more pertinent to remove the prohibition there. Under the law without this amendment, it would not be lawful for any person in any premises to which a special restaurant licence is attached, to sell or expose for sale or open or keep the premises for the sale of, or permit the consumption of alcohol at any time on Good Friday.
I do not see why a visitor, who might not share the majority religion here, should not be entitled to consume alcohol in a restaurant on Good Friday. It would be a proper, progressive, open and pluralist thing to do and would meet the requirements of a changing Ireland without diminishing our respect and regard for the traditions of this country. I hope the Minister is minded to accept these amendments.
The amendments seek to permit licensed premises and premises with special restaurant licences attached to open on Good Friday as if it were a normal day of the year. The amendment does not extend to the operation of registered clubs on Good Friday but I presume this is an omission on the part of the Deputy proposing the amendment. The Oireachtas sub-committee on licensing laws was of the view that there should be no change to the law concerning Good Friday and the Government accepts that.
These aspects of the licensing laws concerning Good Friday command significant support in the community. There is good reason not to provide for change in the area. I know some might say that the business sector, particularly shops and supermarkets, has changed over the years in regard to Good Friday. However, I do not believe we should equate the licensing sector with those sectors. Consequently, I cannot support the amendments proposed. However, I accept that there is an argument on the other side of this coin.
I support Deputy Howlin and acknowledge that the Minister accepts there is another argument. We should look at this aspect in the light of a changing society, which will be even more multi-cultural than it is now, and the impact of tourism. Great numbers of people travel here for a break at Easter and find it incomprehensible that this law applies, irrespective of one's religious belief.
I am aware of the views of the sub-committee. I do not want to use the hackneyed phrase "on mature reflection" but there is a growing view that this is good. If I withdraw the amendment will the Minister reflect further on whether this is appropriate? The Minister is establishing a commission and it is unlikely that we will revisit this law soon, yet this is an anomaly that does not do service to anyone. No one is required to consume alcohol or avail of the service if it exists but there is a compelling reason, in a changing environment, that this might be revisited. I ask the Minister to reflect further on this; if he is not moved towards accepting it, well and good, but not to close the door on it now.
The door is closed as far as Good Friday is concerned. In deference to the Deputy's wishes, I will look at it again but I cannot say I am fully disposed towards it. The all-party sub-committee was against it. There are arguments for and against. One could ask why pubs are not open on Christmas Day. I will have another look at it on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6 are related to amendment No. 2 and they may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 7, line 6, to delete "12.30 p.m." and substitute "10.30 a.m.".
As I said on Second Stage, the section dealing with hours of opening is the most convoluted drafting I have seen in legislation for a long time. One would need a soothsayer to divine from reading section 3 when exactly alcohol may be consumed, depending on the lunar cycle, the full moon, one's birthday and "whatever you are having yourself". One must then work out if it is the eve of something or other and, if it falls on a Sunday, subtract one's birth date. I understand the reason for it but I am endeavouring to make it slightly more penetrable and bring it into conformity.
This amendment deals with St. Patrick's Day. The Minister's proposal is that it would follow what is currently Sunday trading which is 12.30 p.m. until 12.30 a.m. I suggest that opening hours on St. Patrick's Day should be 10.30 a.m., normal day opening. I do not see the requirement for restricting the opening times to 12.30 p.m. Why should it be deemed, whatever day it falls on, to be a Sunday as opposed to a public holiday which it properly is? It is more rational that, if it falls on a Thursday, the opening hours would be the same as any other Thursday. I hope there is some logic in the refinement of bringing the opening hours back to 10.30 a.m.
Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6, which is also in the names of Deputies Jim Higgins and Flanagan, are related. Amendment No. 4 proposes to delete 12.30 p.m. and substitute 10.30 a.m. on the eve of any public holiday other than Christmas Eve. If it falls on a Sunday, the Minister proposes 12.30 p.m. and I propose 10.30 a.m. It is the same net point that the Sunday provision should be same as the rest of the week, that is, 10.30 a.m. opening time. Amendment No. 5 refers to the provision that deals with any other Sunday, except a St. Patrick's Day that falls on a Sunday - I said it was convoluted - and allows for opening between 12.30 p.m. and 11.00 p.m. I propose that the 12.30 p.m. time should be 10.30 a.m. Amendment No. 6 proposes that 11.00 p.m. be changed to 11.30 p.m.
The purpose of the amendments is to bring St. Patrick's Day and Sunday trading into the normal, regular hours scheme rather than have the multiplicity of hours envisaged in the Bill. I am sure that in endeavouring to build a consensus on these matters the Minister welded these various times together. The import of the amendments is to try to rationalise it a little.
That is tongue twisting timing.
I support the amendments. The point on St. Patrick's Day is well made by Deputy Howlin and is valid. I do not see why 10.30 a.m. opening cannot be allowed. As regards amendment No. 6, it is ridiculous to have three different closing times in one week. We are talking about closing times on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays being 11.30 p.m. to 12.00 a.m., on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays, 12.30 a.m. to 1.00 a.m. and 11.00 p.m. on Sundays. It is farcical, impractical and inoperable. It will not work. Publicans see difficulty with trying to explain them to customers. They will be shown a yellow card at 11.30 p.m. and a red card at 12.00 a.m. For the sake of streamlining it, the Minister should relent on this issue. There is a strong body of opinion that supports what the Minister is doing with regard to opening hours on the first three days of the week. The hours on the second three days are also commendable but Sunday closing time does not make sense. I urge the Minister to accept the amendment.
Listening to Deputy Howlin was so mind boggling that not only the customers and the publicans but the Garda will be confused.
It is undesirable to have three different times of opening. Will the Minister comment on the popular legend that this was a rush of puritanical views from the office of the Taoiseach that the great unwashed would not be able to get up for work on a Monday if you allowed them to drink beyond a restricted time? Such paternalism should be dead and gone. People should be treated as being mature enough to make their own decisions about when and where to take a drink. To have three different schedules, notwithstanding the variety depending on eves of holidays, public holidays and 'what you are having yourself', is convoluted. If we can rationalise two levels in one step it would be significant and is supported by the submissions received by the select committee directly from the licensed trade.
The effect of these amendments would be reintroduce a scheme of permitted hours whereby all licensed premises would open from 10.30 a.m. on Sunday to 11.30 p.m. plus 30 minutes drinking up time. Sunday opening hours has been given very careful consideration by the Government as has consideration of the high level of absenteeism in the labour force on Monday mornings.
I was right.
I have no doubt, notwithstanding the lack of empirical research, that the consumption of alcohol on Sunday nights is related to the rate of absenteeism the next morning. During Second Stage, Deputies made the point that Friday was also a working day and opening hours were being extended considerably on Thursday nights. There are many employers who have said that absenteeism on Friday mornings is not a major problem whereas it is on Monday mornings.
Then it has nothing to do with the hours.
It follows the weekend, a natural break in the working week for many. If I accepted the amendments with regard to Sunday opening it would only accentuate the problem. I have already put the Taoiseach's views on the matter on record. He is of the view that to extend those hours would increase absenteeism in the workforce and would not be in the best interests of society. That is the message that came from many employers. It is not a question of the Taoiseach imposing his will. I do not believe he ever does that. He listens very carefully to what people have to say before he——
He listens very carefully, empathises with them and then does the opposite.
I do not accept that. Reform of the licensing hours, particularly with regard to permitted hours, is an issue on which it is extremely difficult to obtain consensus, and who knows that better than me? There is need when legislating in this area to maintain a correct balance, reflecting not only the legitimate, commercial interests of the different groups and the trade but also society as a whole.
Regarding the permitted hours, I have achieved an unprecedented level of consensus on what would be suitable hours for licensed premises. The reality is that the package of permitted hours in the Bill represents the greatest level of consensus, not just within the trade and among customers but from within the House. Most people would agree that the package of measures relating to hours are remarkable in that they have found general acceptance and are, therefore, workable. I am prepared to accept that not every licence-holder or member of the public will be happy with the hours proposed but I do not believe it is possible to put forward such optimum hours as would please everybody. I am not saying the hours are perfect but, as a general scheme of permitted hours taken together, they represent the most acceptable package.
The Bill provides for a considerable extension of the licensing hours, including the abolition of the 2.00 p.m. to 4.00 p.m. closing on Sunday afternoon. I cannot extend Sunday opening beyond the existing hours because of the problem of absenteeism and so on. Sunday closing will be 11.00 p.m. with a half an hour drinking up time the whole year round. I cannot make the change that is requested. I accept that having three different tiers of opening hours might not be the ideal but there is not an ideal on this.
If the net issue is absenteeism on a Monday, that is nanny stateism. Many businesses now work seven day cycles. People have different days off. They have part-time and multiple types of employment. Sometimes people coming off a shift like to get a drink. It seems bizarre that, with our growing tourism sector, what we apply here will apply on Sundays to visitors. This city attracts a great number of international travellers and the night life of the city is part of the attraction. It is an old-fashioned, paternalistic, nannyism. The same view existed in Australia for a long time where, so that workers would go home for their dinner on Sunday——
Women do not make dinner on Sundays.
——pubs were closed at 7.00 p.m. People flooded into the pub between 5.30 p.m. and 7.00 p.m. and became paralytic, guzzling as much drink as they could in the permitted time. All that has been abolished. Most progressive countries believe citizens make choices for themselves. They do not need the State to regulate every act or part of their lives. If that is the net issue on which this change is resisted, it is dated. If the Minister is not willing to revisit it now, it will be revisited in the next Intoxicating Liquor Bill. We should look to the future and amend this Bill now.
As I have said, the section is convoluted, though I understand the reasons for it. The Minister is correct when he says there will not ever be consensus on this. However, we should have the greatest degree of simplicity. There are more opening and closing times than there are in a railway timetable. For the sake of simplicity we should think again. I am disappointed the Minister is not more open to giving latitude to mature citizens to make decisions. He will not be thanked in the long run for this paternalistic outdated view.
I reinforce what Deputy Howlin said with regard to changing work patterns. With the growth in technology, in five years' time we will not have the work patterns we have today. Has the Minister any statistical information on the high level of absenteeism on a Monday morning or is it merely anecdotal? The pressures of work at present do not allow for the level of absenteeism that existed in a less demanding time. As the Minister said, he did not envisage revisiting this in the near future. Perhaps we should take this into account now, in light of the vast change that has come about.
I again urge the Minister to take into account the arguments that have been made. There is no doubt that there will be wholesale prosecutions depending on the application of the law in particular areas, and with some justification because of the total confusion involved. The Minister's argument about the Monday morning work pattern is demolished by the fact that Friday comes in the direct wake of a 12.30 to 1 o'clock provision. So, by stretching the time from 11.30 to 12 o'clock, one is effectively ensuring that if the law is properly applied, everybody will be off the premises in the same day. How could anybody suggest that will encroach on the Monday morning work pattern through absenteeism? The argument does not stand up.
Given that the Seanad is sitting next week and possibly the following week, the Minister should bring this amendment back to the Upper House. It is a sensible amendment and has not been moved for vexatious or argumentative purposes. It makes absolute sense.
I accept that nobody is bringing forward this argument to be vexatious and I am not denying that people have genuine views about it. I sincerely hope that publicans and customers alike know what day it is. It is exaggerating things somewhat to say that the confusion will stretch to the point where they will not know what day it is.
They might have a couple of jars on them.
I hope it will not come to that. Talking of hours, I recall the late Deputy Pat Upton, the Lord have mercy on him, who was a tremendously witty person and great fun. During a debate on a Private Members' Bill relating to permitted licensing hours, he said he had it on good authority that the reason the holy hour was abolished in Dublin was to get civil servants back to work after lunch.
They should walk out.
During that debate the civil servants were ably represented on my right, and I duly received a note saying "No. that's not true. I heard it was to get Deputies back to the Dáil bar after question time". So, Deputies can take their pick. While I do not have the empirical data available, there is no doubt apparently but that there is a high rate of absenteeism on Monday mornings. There is a difference between Monday and Friday mornings. I am not saying everybody is off work on a Sunday - Deputy Howlin is right - but the majority of people are off work on a Sunday.
After Mass on a Sunday one might find a good few people in a public house. However, the following day or any other day of the week, the probability is that in the average bar - believe me, I grew up in one - one will not find the same numbers.
Except when it is closing.
I am not saying that people who go for a drink after Mass would stay there until closing time. The availability of time on a Sunday to drink is far greater than it is on other days. There is a tradition in some places about it. There is no doubt, however, that some people avail of the greater amount of time available on a Sunday to drink. It is true that they can continue on drinking into the night. There is no simple solution to this matter. Many employers, but not all, have expressed the view that there is evidence of vastly increased absenteeism in the workplace on Monday mornings. These employers would not agree with extending the hours further on Sunday night. There is no doubt that if the hours are further extended on Sunday night, and since there is already a problem with absenteeism on Monday mornings, the problem could only grow, or at least the potential for it to grow would be there.
I suppose it is true to say that there will be changes in licensing laws as matters develop. It is also fair to say that the time will come, and it is probably not so far away, when the question of restricted hours will be a thing of the past. That matter is not for discussion now, although I have no doubt it will happen. As regards the changes during my term as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, achieving the level of consensus I have achieved over the past two and a half years - with the help of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights - has been tortuous and difficult. Everybody came to the table with goodwill, however. It is very difficult to achieve the kind of balance sought by this legislation. That is why I do not envisage that I will open up the intoxicating liquor laws again. I have no doubt that some future Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform will do so, and the very best of luck to him or her.
The Minister has more or less conceded that this is a temporary little arrangement and that there will inevitably be change. Ireland is at the forefront of change in so many ways and we should not be coy about it. The Minister is disposed to be cautious in many areas of justice, which is not a bad thing but in this area he could afford to be a little bolder. In the type of work the Minister does, I venture to say there have been late night sessions at council meetings in Brussels. If the Justice or Home Affairs Councils are anything like the councils I was involved in, they would go on until quite late at night, so one would be expected to unwind with one's civil servants and have a drink.
There is no duty-free any more.
It is unreal to say that because of a work pattern one might not be available on a Sunday at normal times, and that somehow the pub opening hours should be restricted. It is also unreal to say that if one is out with friends on a Sunday evening and if one fancied a night cap one cannot avail of it because the pubs are closed at 11 o'clock. A minor change is being sought. If I had my own way, I would certainly go further. It would not sunder the consensus the Minister spoke about to make this minor adjustment. If we go all the way on deregulation, which it has been indicated might happen in future under some successor of the Minister's, I can imagine that good consensus being sundered. However, I do not think that rationalising the three-tier system to a two-tier system, to bring Sunday, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday into line, would do any damage at all to the consensus that he has rightfully built up on this issue.
As regards the concerns of employers, was the Minister approached by IBEC, ISME or any other employer organisation about this? Or is this just a hunch the Minister has, or one that exists within his Department?
It is surprising that there is no data available to the Minister to present to us now, if he has come to a determination in relation to it.
I do not have the data available to me. Several individual employers mentioned this matter to me personally. As the Deputy is probably aware, the Taoiseach has a certain view on it. From his days as Minister for Labour, he is of the view that it would be a retrograde step——
That was a while ago.
That was a long time ago.
——to introduce the measure that is being proposed. I suppose Shakespeare was right when he said that "Men are as the time is". In particular, where intoxicating liquor is concerned, men are as the time is, and women are, as well.
Seize the hour, come with the Minister.
Precisely.
There is a tide in the affairs of men which, taken at——
Seize the day.
And come all ye maidens. My difficulty, however, is that I have to legislate for everyone.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
Amendment No. 4 has already been discussed with amendment No. 2.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 7, line 17, to delete "12.30 p.m." and substitute "10.30 a.m.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 7, line 20, to delete "12.30 p.m." and substitute "10.30 a.m.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 7, line 21, to delete "11.00 p.m." and substitute "11.30 p.m.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 7, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following:
"(1C) The provisions of this section shall operate for a period not exceeding two years from the date of their enactment, during which time an impact study shall be conducted in order to measure the personal, medical, domestic, economic and social effects of the extended trading hours to assist in determining if the provisions of this section are to be renewed.".
One of the strongest representations we received was from the Pioneer Total Abstinence Association. It was a most impressive presentation written by Fr. Micheál MacGréil and two others. The committee commended the trojan work being done by the Pioneer Total Abstinence Association in trying to introduce some moderation in relation to drinking and encourage people to desist and resist the temptation to indulge in alcohol at the earliest possible stage. The association is relatively successful. There is no doubt that, because of its success, the per capita figures are much lower than they should be.
However, it is agreed that there is a huge alcohol problem in Ireland. A survey published two weeks ago showed that the threshold is now down to people who are not yet in their teens. People are now sampling alcohol at the age of 11 and 12 years. Hangovers in first year in post-primary schools are no exception, particularly on a Monday morning. The huge problem in relation to teenage pregnancies has been brought about by the availability of alcohol.
The committee also received an impressive presentation from the health promotion unit. It was not impressive from the point of view of the work but from the perspective of spelling out the reality of the alcohol problem in Ireland. The health education unit of the Department of Health and Children also made a presentation to the joint committee. Essentially, the Pioneer Total Abstinence Association is urging caution and that we should seek to delimit to some extent the effects of the changes in the times under the Bill. Its view is that at some stage there should be some reflection, monitoring and examination of whether there has been a deterioration in relation to alcohol trends, particularly the consumption of alcohol in terms of the obvious effects on health. One only has to look at the graveyards or hospitals of Ireland to realise the huge cost in terms of mortality rates and effects on health and the health service of alcoholism. Effectively, the association believes that some form of monitoring mechanism should be put in place so that, after two years, the consequences can be examined.
A decision might be taken at that stage to take the route of total liberalisation rather than, as Deputy Howlin said, total paternalisation in relation to monitoring and regulating people's private lives. However, from the point of view of assessing the damage, danger and effects of the new extended licensing hours and greater flexibility, there should be an examination in a scientific and expert way of the consequences in terms of the personal, medical, domestic, economic and social effects. The amendment came directly from the PTAA and the committee should reflect on it.
The effect of the amendment would be to limit the life of the new package of opening times for all licensed premises and, I assume, registered clubs for a trial two year period.
It is longer than the discussion.
Almost.
As long as.
While the intention behind the amendment, which advocates the submission of the Pioneer Total Abstinence Association, is laudable, it is not practical. Most people would agree that the range of permitted hours provided for in the Bill is reasonable and it coheres with public expectation and demand. If I had been proposing a full deregulation of opening hours, thereby allowing 24 hour access to alcohol on licensed premises, there might be more merit in the proposal.
However, as the Bill stands, the hours proposed reflect the market trend towards later socialising. The amendment would introduce a certain degree of uncertainty into the code that would not be useful, although I accept the need to educate about the dangers and so on of drink. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that the majority of drinkers exercise a responsible attitude to alcohol consumption. The measures try to provide moderate drinkers with opportunities within reasonable time limits to enjoy a social drink at times of their choosing. This does not mean that I am denigrating the motives behind the Deputy's amendment or the Pioneer Total Abstinence Association's proposal. However, it is not practical at this point.
Is there any liaison between the Minister's Department and the Department of Health and Children in relation to the consequences of alcohol? I recognise the two Departments are separate but the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform regulates hours and practices while the Department of Health and Children is the agency which picks up the pieces in terms of domestic violence, child pregnancies and traffic accidents and the obvious consequences of people who decide to indulge themselves and drink themselves to death. Is there any liaison in terms of the social, economic and domestic consequences of alcohol? What is happening in that regard?
Regarding the health promotion unit, we heard that a report was being prepared. However, that may have been on a restricted scale. New Zealand had a restrictive licensing pattern, similar to Ireland, but the alcohol scene there was liberalised. Funding is currently being sought for projects and increased sampling of young people in consumption surveys. A community based research project is also proposed which will work with young people to explore factors and patterns of socialising and alcohol and drug use to better understand this area and support safer socialising choices.
Such projects would be of tremendous help to the health promotion unit and everybody working in this area. It would also be a way of measuring changes. All members are concerned about the level of underage drinking and we welcome the fact that this Bill attempts to enforce legislation strongly in that regard. However, a report on the socialising context in which events happen would be of tremendous value to society.
There was liaison between my Department and the Department of Health and Children on the Bill. I understand it was felt that the hours were reasonable. The national alcohol policy is directed at reducing the prevalence of alcohol-related problems through emphasis on moderation in alcohol consumption.
Since the publication of the policy by the Department of Health and Children, some elements of the action plan have been put in place. The most significant of these are the establishment of the national alcohol surveillance centre and a national lifestyle survey. There has been an advertising campaign regarding the fact that moderation should be the norm. A further campaign will be aimed at young, high risk drinkers. This campaign is in the planning stages and research is being carried out in relation to the impact of alcohol advertising on young people.
Many Deputies expressed concern on Second Stage regarding the effect of the advertising of alcohol. Some of the research which is being carried out by the Department of Health and Children should provide important information on how to tackle the issue. Work is also ongoing on a number of the longer-term elements of the policy, including developing the school curriculum based on a life skills approach and the development of health promotion policies. In relation to schools, hospitals, work places and campuses, it will include policies in relation to alcohol use, discussions with the drinks industry and the development of responsible server training.
My colleague, the Minister for Health and Children, intends to continue the elements of the plans which have already been commenced and to make progress in relation to other initiatives. Co-operation with industry groups will continue with a view to encouraging the industry to play its part in encouraging moderation in alcohol consumption and to look at the issue of underage drinking. Actions taken on the basis of the plan are evaluated on an ongoing basis so that the policy continues to be focused and effective.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Amendments Nos. 8 and 11 are consequential on amendment No. 13 and all may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 7, line 45, to delete "and".
These amendments are technical and relate to grammar. They provide for the deletion of subsection (3) of the 1927 Act and are consequential on the revised arrangements permitting premises engaged in mixed trading to open for non-licensed business at any time.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 9. Amendment No. 10 is related. Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 8, line 8, to delete "8.00 a.m." and substitute "7.30 a.m.".
Section 4 deals with off-licence trading. The Minister intends to allow the sale of alcohol in off-licences from 8 a.m. rather than the current 10.30 a.m. and he further proposes to allow the sale of intoxicating liquor on certain Sundays, that is, 23 and 24 December, if they fall on either of those days in any year. I propose to change the trading time from 8 a.m. to 7.30 a.m., which is the opening time for many of these premises. It seems bizarre that premises would open and not be able to sell intoxicating liquor for half an hour. That is what I am advised by the trade. This is a minor adjustment which could be accommodated. There will not be a swarm of alcoholics taking advantage of the liberal half hour. If it facilitates the trade which opens at 7.30 a.m., I do not see why it cannot be accommodated in the legislation.
As regards amendment No. 10, we should allow the sale of alcohol on any Sunday, rather than the specific Sunday referred to by the Minister, from 7.30 a.m. or 8 a.m., if amendment No. 9 is not accepted. I do not see why the sale of alcohol would be precluded on Sundays except on the specific Sunday that falls before Christmas Day, as the Minister envisages. I hope he will accept these amendments.
Amendment No. 9 provides for an extension additional to the extension already provided for in the Bill in relation to the hours during which premises engaged in mixed trading will be allowed to sell licensed products. Amendment No. 10 extends the scope of the section to allow such premises to open at 7.30 a.m. on Sundays for the sale of intoxicating liquor.
That is assuming amendmentNo. 9 is passed.
Yes. I have relaxed the law considerably by way of this Bill with regard to those premises engaged in mixed trading in that alcohol can be sold from 8 a.m. on weekdays as opposed to 10.30 a.m. under current law. This will greatly benefit supermarkets and their customers on those days. In addition, following an amendment I introduced on Committee Stage in the Seanad, I have removed all time restriction on the sale of non-licensed goods. Premises engaged in mixed trading will be able to open not from 7.30 a.m., as originally proposed, but at any time any day to engage in their business of selling groceries and other non-alcoholic products.
As regards Sunday, there is no particular demand for change. I understand the view that there may be some sensitivity about trading on Sunday mornings. The Government's view is that the status quo should prevail in relation to Sundays, that is, the sale of intoxicating liquor can be conducted from 12.30 p.m. Supermarkets will be permitted to open for non-licensed business at any time on Sunday, if they so wish. This might at first sight appear a little restrictive but a difficulty has been identified, about which Deputy Howlin as a sports fan will know, which relates to some young people gathering prior to matches on a Sunday, going into supermarkets to purchase alcoholic beverages and drinking which could lead to a certain amount of rowdyism prior to major games in our provincial towns, in the capital and elsewhere. That difficulty could occur if the experience we have in relation to weekdays is anything to go by.
While I fully understand the Minister's reasoning, amendment No. 9 seeks to amend a section he amended in the Seanad. I welcome that amendment because a peculiar and bizarre situation existed where, during the restricted hours, a premises engaged in mixed trading could not open. However, in addressing that issue, the Minister has created an anomaly where the normal opening hour for many premises, garages etc. to sell goods is 7.30 a.m., yet they cannot sell liquor for a further half an hour. That restriction is unnecessary. Someone could be guilty of an offence if they inadvertently sell alcohol before 8 a.m. If people are going on a camping holiday and they stop at a shop or garage to get their supplies, they will not be able to do so without waiting for half an hour. People will be breaking the law if they put a bottle of wine in their basket along with their cornflakes and orange juice. That does not make sense.
Since the Minister has come a good measure of the way, I am sure he can allow premises to sell both classes of goods at 7.30 a.m. rather than allowing one category of goods to be sold from 7.30 a.m. to 8 a.m. and everything to be sold once the magic half hour is up. I ask the Minister to consider that.
We will look at that.
I accept what the Minister said about Sundays. He is saying that, because there may be a temptation for young people going to matches to go into supermarkets to buy alcohol, every other citizen who wants to buy a bottle of wine on a Sunday morning, with their Sunday newspapers, for their lunch must wait until 12.30 p.m. to do so. I do not know why there must be another restriction. It is not a good way to do business if we allow the thugs or the blackguards to write the laws.
I understand where the Deputy is coming from but he would be amazed at the amount of heated debate this issue generates. Some people involved in sporting organisations are adamant that a change will cause difficulties at major games on a Sunday. They feel it would lead to young people getting inebriated before a big match in Croke Park and that this would give rise to difficulties. They have strong views on this issue. This is not only in relation to Croke Park but throughout the country. Such people are in the minority but, unfortunately, they exist. I advise Deputy Howlin's customer to buy the bottle of wine the evening before he wants it.
I always take that precaution.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 10 not moved.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 8, line 10, to delete "year.'." and substitute "year.', and".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 8, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following:
"(2A) The name and address of premises to which an off-licence is attached shall be stated on any packaging in which intoxicating liquor for consumption off the premises is placed when the said intoxicating liquor is sold.".
This amendment is important in that it will help to identify the source of alcohol if minors are in possession of it so that people can be forced to address the issue. If people allow alcohol from their premises to be bought or to fall into the hands of minors, this tool will help the authorities to require people to address the important issue of underage drinking. This is also an important environmental issue. If littering is involved, the source will be readily identified. It is an effective double-edged requirement which could have a positive effect. I am not saying it is a panacea which will readily identify the source of all alcohol that falls into the hands of minors, but it is another element which will help to address the issue of the sale of alcohol to underage people, which everyone recognises is a scourge in our cities. I hope the Minister reflects on that and accepts the amendment.
The amendment would make it obligatory on off-licence holders to have the name and address of their premises printed on the bags or other packaging in which the alcoholic product is placed. However, it is not without some practical difficulties. A licensee who is prepared to break the law in the first instance by selling or supplying alcohol to persons under 18 years of age will hardly feel compelled to comply with a law which will oblige him or her to advertise the fact that he or she is breaking the law. On that basis, the suggestion might not contribute to the efforts of the gardaí in this area. The code of law which will apply on enactment of this Bill should offer comprehensive and effective deterrents and sanctions in the area of underage drinking.
The amendment is deficient. In the first place it makes no provision for off-sales from premises that have an on-licence attached, such as a public house. Second, it provides for no sanctions against a licensee found to be in breach of the requirement. I should note in passing that responsible off-licence holders in the main advertise their presence by including references to their premises on bags. It is perhaps the unscrupulous ones who do not or at least who would not - I should not paint all the off-licence holders in the same way. In those circumstances the amendment, if it were to succeed, would be unworkable and would be of no particular effect.
I am frankly disappointed by the Minister's response because the issue is an extremely important one. I fully accept that it is not the solution simpliciter and that it would require a penalty section, but if the Minister were to accept the principle of it, that could be done readily on Report Stage by an amendment in the Minister's own name adjusting the terms of this amendment to include premises that have an on-licence and to insert in the penalty clause the assertion of a crime in relation to this. The amendment has merit. The Minister can dismiss it and say that anybody who is willing to supply alcohol directly to minors will not advertise the fact, and that is true, but alcohol falls into the hands of minors through others and people should be alerted to that. People would be extremely careful if there was a legal requirement to hand over a bag with the name of the premises on it and if the source was identified, it might help in the campaign to make it more difficult for minors to get access to alcohol. It might also have an environmental impact in terms of the littering that occurs from discarded drink containers and packaging in the aftermath of events. Even when they are legitimately and legally sold people should be called to account for the packaging they are generating. If the Minister is minded to accept the principles of the amendment he could return with his own amendment on Report Stage to deal with the deficiencies that he has rightly identified.
This is an excellent amendment. As Deputy Howlin said, it will not be the antidote but it could be an important instrument from the point of view of curbing underage drinking. I do not understand the reason it can be dismissed out of hand as having no relevance, that it was impractical or that it would not work. It can work. If we can attach a label with a price on it, surely it is possible to put on some kind of stamp as to the origins of the alcohol. I urge the Minister to at least examine this matter before Report Stage. I do not know whether this matter was even contemplated by the Department or the Minister in the drafting of the Bill, but there are merits in it and I exhort the Minister to examine it to see if it would be possible for him to come up with an amendment of his own. It is all very well to say that the law is there but the law is not working. Matters are getting worse. It is a proven fact that most sales of alcohol that fall into the hands of underage people emanate from off-licences so it should be possible to do something with that.
There is a good proposal contained in this amendment and I urge the Minister to go back to his Department and consider what can be done. As Deputy Howlin said, it would also have the dual effect of helping to curb the litter problem, particularly in relation to alcohol containers. I was walking along the Claddagh in Galway on Monday, a beautiful summer day, with tourists beginning to arrive, but the area opposite the Dominican church in the Claddagh was swamped with beer cans and containers of every assortment. This amendment could prove to be a helpful tool in the effort to curb littering.
I will be brief. I do not deny that the amendment has merit. The difficulty is that we cannot legislate to make people put things into bags.
Why not?
I never heard of it.
The Minister for the Environment and Local Government is now making people put things into different bags and he is determining the type of bag they can put them into by banning plastic bags and requiring people to use different types of containers. Of course it can be done.
Or no bag.
Or no bag.
That is the problem. In other words——
Or brown paper bags. A lot of people drink out of brown paper bags.
It does not matter what colour the bag is, that is the difficulty.
If the principle is accepted——
We will have a look at it to see if there is some way in which it can be operated. If it helps in the struggle against underage drinking, I will be delighted. The actual theory is very good. The difficulty is legislating to make people put things into bags, even if they are brown paper bags.
We can address the issue in a variety of ways. As Deputy Higgins rightly said, most alcohol sold in off-licences or in licensed premises has a price label on it. There is no reason that we could not, in the same way we define cigarette packaging, require a sticky label that would give the name and address of the off-licence as well as the price. It should be attached to——
The Minister will look at that on Report Stage.
We will look at that. Report Stage will be exciting.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 8, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following:
"(c) by the deletion of subsection (3).”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 5.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 8, subsection (1)(f), line 38, after “cause” to insert “serious”.
This is an amendment to section 5(1)(f), a very welcome amendment, where a court shall not grant a special exemption order in respect of any premises unless it is satisfied that the special occasion mentioned in subsection (5) of this section will be conducted in a manner which will not cause undue inconvenience to persons residing in the vicinity of those premises. I welcome the addressing of this issue but the notion of undue inconvenience is a very light burden. All sorts of things could cause me inconvenience, or even undue inconvenience. The section reads that the court has to be satisfied that there will not be undue inconvenience, but it would be difficult in those circumstances to get a special occasion licence. The only modification I am suggesting is that the word “serious” would be added to “inconvenience” so that it would be a serious inconvenience rather than simply an undue inconvenience. It weights it slightly more because the Minister is requiring the court to be satisfied, not just mindful of, and all sorts of things can inconvenience a person, the parking of a car in the wrong way or I might not like to have noise in the area, or something like that. It would have to be a little more weighted than that and that is the reason I tabled the amendment.
This amendment relates to the granting of a special exemption order and the requirement that the grant of such an order must not cause undue inconvenience to persons residing in the vicinity of the premises. The amendment proposes that a court will not grant a special exemption order unless it was satisfied that the special occasion would not cause serious undue inconvenience rather than undue convenience, as currently worded.
The requirement that a special occasion should not cause undue inconvenience is a new requirement and one which is useful and necessary. It means that the court will act as the guardian of the rights of local residents and be in a position to protect local residents where the late opening of a licensed premises might not be appropriate. It will serve to protect local communities where the operation of a special exemption order might lead to anti-social behaviour or indeed public order offences.
Quite serious, obviously.
It will be at the court's discretion to determine the extent of the inconvenience and to either refuse to grant the order or grant the order with or without conditions. The inclusion of the word "serious" as proposed would have the effect of weakening the provision as it stands. It would weaken the protection the provision offers. That protection centres on the words "undue inconvenience" and it will be a matter for the court to determine, in all the circumstances of the case, whether the inconvenience is of that kind. It is not reasonable to expect that the interest of a community would be served by asking them to prove serious inconvenience in the matter. The words "undue inconvenience" convey better the weight that should be given to the matter by the courts.
It must be remembered that we are providing for an extension of the special exemption order to 2.30 a.m., with half an hour drinking up time, that is 3 a.m., so it would have been remiss of me not to allow the court to take cognisance of the possible detrimental effect of such late night opening in a residential area. That is the reason section 5 provides the necessary balance of interest in the subject.
As I said in my opening comments, I am strongly supportive of section 5(1)(f), but I ask the Minister to reflect on the wording. It states it is a direction of the law to the court that it shall not grant a special exemption order, unless it is satisfied the special occasion mentioned will not cause undue inconvenience. That is a tall test. While communities must be protected, there is no doubt that any exemption will cause inconvenience. The building of a pub will cause inconvenience and one of the difficulties in getting a licence for a pub built in Dublin, as the Chairman will attest, is not solely that of acquiring a licence but of acquiring planning permission, even where areas originally zoned for a community shopping area envisage a licensed premises as members of communities resist the establishment of such premises. Communities must be sovereign to some degree, but there must be some facility for licensed premises. We should not say that it is prudent to extend the availability of occasional exemptions but put the hurdle so high that, in practice, it would make the granting of exemptions impossible.
Perhaps I am wrong about how it will pan out in the courts, but under the section, as drafted, it will be difficult to satisfy a court that any exemption would not cause some undue inconvenience or a serious inconvenience. The Minister listed serious public order breaches or anti-social behaviour. They come under the serious category envisaged in my amendment. It is a matter of getting a balance having regard to what is an inconvenience or an irritant. If we were to use that as the criteria to be able to do things, we would do nothing in this State. The occasioning of serious inconvenience that would be caused by the granting of a special exemption order should not be permitted. In this section we might be constructing too high a hurdle that might debar the granting of an occasional special exemption order.
I do not agree. Take the example of a man, his wife and their three young children who live across the street from a licensed premises which closes at 3 a.m. when the people leaving the pub cause a good deal of noise and disorder which awakens those children and the neighbours' children.
In my view that would constitute serious inconvenience.
In such a case, the gardaí might say to the court that there was undue inconvenience.
They might even say there was undue serious inconvenience.
On the other hand, if one or two people left the pub, sat into their cars and drove off, one would not consider that to constitute undue inconvenience. It is difficult to strike the right balance. The residents concerned would not be in court on the day the special exemption order application comes before it. Members of the Garda Síochána would be in court and the court would have to listen to what they have to say regarding the issue of public inconvenience.
In many such cases they would be represented in court.
In the case of an application for a special exemption order, it is a matter for the gardaí to object or not to object to it because they would be the notice parties along with the District Court clerk who would place the case on the list. If a court was instructed that the special occasion must be conducted in a manner that would not cause undue serious inconvenience, we would have to consider the definition not only of what constitutes undue inconvenience but what constitutes undue serious inconvenience. The inclusion of the word "serious" would make it difficult to utilise the principle to capture the kind of situations I envisaged. In those circumstances, the advice available to me is that I should retain the wording "undue inconvenience" and I am inclined to accept that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 18 are related and may be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 9, lines 10 to 17, to delete all words from and including "premises--" in line 10 down to and including line 17 and substitute "premises on any day between 10.30 a.m. and 1.30 a.m. on the following day,".
Section 6 deals with restaurants. It relates to when intoxicating liquor can be consumed on the premises of restaurants or hotels. The Minister's proposals are unduly restrictive. Section 6 states that nothing in this Act shall operate to prohibit the holder of an on-licence, in respect of premises which are for the time being a hotel or a restaurant, from supplying intoxicating liquor to any person on the premises or from permitting intoxicating liquor to be consumed on the premises on Christmas Day between 1 p.m. and 3 p.m. or between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m.
Why is the Minister stipulating that? Is he saying that on Christmas Day if one is out with one's family in a hotel and wants to have a pre-lunch drink, one cannot have a glass of champagne before 1 p.m., that if the celebrations start late, one is not allowed to be served a drink after 3 p.m. or that one must eat and drink between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. because the Minister has decreed that? That provision regarding the consumption of intoxicating liquor in hotels andrestaurants on Christmas Day is unnecessary.
There are many packages available in hotels on Christmas Day and many people bring their families to a hotel for Christmas lunch. The stipulation in the section that drinking shall commence at 1 p.m. and cease at 3 p.m. and in the evening one may fill the glass but not sip the drink from it before 7 p.m. and drinking shall cease at 10 p.m. is too mechanical. Will the Minister reflect on that and give us a Christmas break on Christmas Day? That provision does not need to be provided in those terms. I argue that amendments Nos. 15 and 16, which seek to delete those times and include normal times, are more acceptable. When people have a meal in a restaurant on Christmas Day, they should not be told they can continue to eat but they must stop drinking. Is amendment No. 18 being taken with amendments Nos. 15 and 16?
Amendments Nos. 16 and 18 are being taken with amendment No. 15.
Have we already discussed amendment No. 18?
No, amendment No. 18 is part of this group of amendments.
Amendment No. 18 relates to section 12, which deals with exemptions for premises having special restaurant licences. The same point applies to it. The section provides that intoxicating liquor shall be consumed on such premises only between 1 p.m. and 3 p.m. and between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. on Christmas Day and any other day between 12.30 p.m. and one hour after the expiration of any period during which it is lawful etc.
Amendment No. 16 relates to clubs.
It relates to the same point. Drink can be served only during traditional lunch time and traditional dinner time in clubs, restaurants and where it is lawful to serve drink on those days mentioned. I propose that normal pub opening hours should pertain in those instances. That is a responsible disposition for the Minister to accept. A colleague of the Minister's defined a Fianna Fáil supporter as a man who eats his dinner in the middle of the day——
That was Mark Killilea.
——but there are people who might now like to take a drink at different times on Christmas Day. The notion that the Minister would seek to include this sort of restriction in the Bill is at variance with reality.
I appreciate the thinking behind the two sides of the argument. Many people who have Christmas lunch in a hotel are residents, but one would have to impose restrictions on the serving of alcohol to non-residents who go out to a hotel for Christmas lunch. A hotel is a free and open place which one can walk into and out of. If one tries to keep people out of a pub on Christmas Day in the event that they are not having lunch, will that aspect be supervised? Given that people will have to drink between certain periods, it will be difficult especially if the potatoes are not ready on time. Unless one is a resident or is booked in, usually for lunch - they do not do evening meals on Christmas——
They do in many places.
Wexford people have nothing at all. I do not know who will pay them. One is either a resident or is coming for lunch or an evening meal, but there will also be those who will be neither. How will one supervise that aspect of it? The time element is a little restrictive but one is trying to restrict it to those who are coming for a meal or to a resident on the premises.
Any man or woman who wants to have a drink can have it at home. There is no problem about having the drink.
I am glad to hear it.
There is a fundamental misapprehension here. What is being provided for is when one can have a drink on Christmas Day in a hotel, restaurant or club. What I am providing for here is for a person to have a drink with a meal on Christmas Day or Good Friday in a hotel, restaurant or club and, in deference to the fellows who, as Deputy Howlin says, quoting the former Deputy Mark Killilea, have their dinner in the middle of the day, we cater for them by allowing them to have a drink between 1 p.m. and 3 p.m., and for the nouveau riche who do not have their dinner in the middle of the day, we allow them to have a drink with their meal between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. What could be fairer? In other words we are allowing the Fianna Fáil person, the Labour person, the Fine Gael person and everyone else——
This is serious.
——to take their pick. I do not think we should provide at that stage between 1 p.m. and 3 p.m. and 7 p.m. and 10 p.m.——
For the Progressive Democrats who do——
The amendments to sections 6, 7 and 12, as proposed by the Deputy, would allow those places to serve alcohol with a meal from 10.30 a.m. until 1.30 a.m. on the following day. I do not support those amendments because they would have the effect of treating Christmas Day or Good Friday as a normal day for the purposes of the Intoxicating Liquor Acts. The committee had already before it amendments that would, if they had been successful, have permitted all licensed premises to open on Good Friday but not on Christmas Day. These amendments have not been successful. It would be inconsistent to allow hotels, restaurants and registered clubs operate a different scheme from that of public houses. In any event the amendments proposed are deficient in that they cannot achieve what is intended of them. I assume the amendments seek to permit hotels, restaurants and registered clubs to open everyday from 10.30 a.m. to 1.30 a.m.
Amendment No. 15 to section 6, if accepted, would achieve this in that hotels and certain restaurants, that is, those that do not hold special restaurant licences, would be entitled to open for the sale of intoxicating liquor from 10.30 a.m. to 1.30 a.m. the following day on all days of the year, including Christmas Day and Good Friday. However, while amendment No. 16 to section 7 relating to registered clubs purports to permit the same regime as proposed in relation to hotels and restaurants by amending subsection (2) of new section 56 of the 1927 Act, that should not be the case. Subsection (1) of the new section 56 prohibits the supply of intoxicating liquor on Good Friday. The amendment in subsection (2) as proposed could not achieve the results demanded by the Deputy, that is, that the premises be permitted to remain open on Good Friday. Likewise, with amendment No. 18 to section 12, which relates to restaurants holding a special restaurant licence, the effect of the amendment would be to permit the restaurant to open on Christmas Day. However, as a restaurant would not be permitted to open on Good Friday by virtue of the new subsection (1) of section 14 of the 1998 Act and inserted by section 12 of the Bill, the result intended by the amendment would not be achieved.
I am not in favour of removing the restrictions that apply in relation to Christmas Day and Good Friday. I do not believe there is any real demand for their removal either from the various elements within the trade or significantly from the general public. Unless Deputy Howlin can establish that there is a category of people, outside the categories I have already mentioned——
Who are not Fine Gael or Labour.
——who do not want to eat their dinner in the middle of the day or who do not want to have their dinner between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m., I am afraid I cannot help them.
I am baffled by this. It would seem that one is expected to eat within certain hours if one wants to have a drink with it.
That is right.
What about first sittings and second sittings? All good hotels full of noveau riche have certain hours for first sittings and second sittings and make a great profit. There is a huge difficulty here about extended eating hours whatever about drinking hours. A trend is developing where, because of demands of work by both partners, a great number of people elect to go out for Christmas dinner either in the middle of the day or in the evening.
They are covered.
Only within specific times.
From 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. and 7 p.m. to 10 p.m.
What about an early sitting? There are two sittings in Dublin and Belfast.
Come on.
I call on the Chair to clarify that.
It is almost 4.10 p.m. and we want to proceed to other amendments.
In two and a half years nobody raised this matter. Nobody mentioned it. I had numerous meetings with hoteliers, restaurateurs, publicans and those involved in the retail and wholesale trades, consumers and so on.
Was it illegal?
It is only two days in the year, Christmas Day and Good Friday.
I do not believe we can conclude this section in the two minutes. What is the current regime.
The current regime is that the sale of intoxicating liquor is allowed on Christmas Day with a meal between 1 p.m. and 3 p.m. and 7 p.m. and 10 p.m.
One of the reasons the Minister did not get much representations on this issue is that it is broadly ignored.
Absolutely.
I do not believe the Garda go to restaurants on Christmas Day with their stopwatches. Because that is the position, I do not think we should treat the law like that. We should have some regard for the law. I accept that my amendments are deficient in that they are probably too broad. A reasonable compromise, if we want the law to be respected, might be between, say, 12 noon and 11 p.m.
To cover the lot.
Most hotels offer a package for Christmas of a pre-luncheon glass of champagne or mulled wine pre-dinner. It is a whole day of celebration. The notion that that would somehow be illegal, if there was a particularly "Plodish" garda who would interfere with it and have one hauled off with his or her Christmas mulled wine, is——
To the station.
I still maintain that in the majority of cases people have their meals at those hours. We will look at it for Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 6 agreed to.
Amendment No. 16 not moved.
Section 7 agreed to.
Sections 8 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 not moved.
Section 12 agreed to.
We will resume tomorrow at 2 p.m. on section 13, amendment No. 19.
Amendment No. 19 is a technical amendment to correct a misprint in the Bill.
The Estimates for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform will be discussed tomorrow at 11.30 a.m. The joint committee will meet at 10 a.m. to meet a foreign delegation.
We will be worn out by the time we get back to the Bill.
The Select Committee adjourned at 4.10 p.m.