Deputy Briscoe has 26 minutes.
Private Members' Business. - Intoxicating Liquor (Children and Young Persons) Bill, 1988: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Acting Chairman
Before I moved the adjournment of the debate on this Bill on 23 March I said that the Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1988, was 99.9 per cent ready and would be introduced when we resumed after the Easter recess. On that occasion Deputy Carey remarked: "Live horse and you will get grass", which prompted the Minister to remark: "Can we have a little wager on the margin"?. I am glad to be able to report that the Minister's Bill has been introduced. Members will be aware that it is almost a replica of legislation which was being prepared by the Coalition before they left office. I accept that Deputy Barrett's Bill is similar. The Minister has announced that his Bill, with the exception of one or two alterations, is almost a copy of the Coalition's proposals. I understand that in section 34 of the Minister's Bill those under 15 years of age will be allowed to be on licensed premises at any time during permitted hours — Deputy Barrett's Bill restricts their presence to 8 p.m. — if accompanied by a parent or guardian. Both Bills forbid unaccompanied children to be on licensed premises.
The Minister has made that change to accommodate tourists and holidaymakers. If we adopted Deputy Barrett's proposal they would have to leave licensed premises with their children at 8 p.m. Young persons are forbidden to consume alcohol on licensed premises at any time. I understand that licensed vintners made representations to the Minister to change the time limit. Section 38 of the Minister's Bill will allow publicans to employ apprentices over the age of 16 in licensed premises. Deputy Barrett's Bill proposed that only young people over the age of 18 should be employed on such premises. We are all aware that many apprentices in the licensed trade start at 16 years of age.
All Members welcome Deputy Barrett's decision to introduce his Bill. He deserves praise because he has given us an opportunity to stress the need for curbs on underage drinking. We have all had to face problems associated with cider parties and so on but Deputy Barrett was not concerned about young people drinking cider alone. We are all aware of the distress young hooligans who consume a lot of alcohol cause to our citizens. It is important to point out that they represent a small minority of our young people. We are introducing legislation to curb the extravagances of a few people. However, I am glad that at last gardaí will have the authority to confiscate drink from young people and that they will be able to cart young people they find in a drunken state off to a suitable place to sober up.
We are all aware of how frustrating it is for gardaí who cannot deal with young people who congregate in a field for a cider party. There is a need to educate our young people about drink. Deputy Harney was correct in stating that drink is associated with being adult, mature and independent. If children are introduced to drink in the home where it is taken in moderation they will not take any great notice of it when they reach maturity. When they are 18 they will not go on a great splurge and drink their heads off. They will grow up without attaching any great mystique to alcohol. If young people see their parents abusing alcohol — far too many of them return home with too much drink on them — they will follow that example. That is a shame. Alcohol given to children at the family table will educate them to regard alcohol as a normal beverage and one that is not restricted to adults.
Another reason we have excessive drinking is that young people starting out in a job get adult wages. In the thirties, forties and fifties young people starting in their first job at 18, 19 or 20 received ten shillings, £1 or £2 per week. They did not have the money to spend on alcohol but the youngsters of that age today in many cases start off earning the same amount that is paid to a married person with a family. I accept that they pay a lot more in taxation but they are left with a big amount of money and spend most of it on alcohol. I do not see anything wrong with drink as long as it is consumed in moderation. Our problem is that many children of ten and 11 have been found in a drunken state. There have been numerous complaints about certain off-licences in my constituency selling alcohol to young people.
When one endeavours to persuade such people to go into court to give evidence against the person selling alcohol one discovers they will not do so. On the one hand members of the public complain bitterly about off-licence proprietors selling alcohol to people under age, while on the other hand, there is encountered the difficulty of persuading them to give evidence in court. We hear the contention continuously that if there were more recreational facilities, more clubs and amenities for young people there would not be so much abuse of alcohol. I would argue that the many young people who join youth clubs and avail of recreational facilities do not abuse alcohol or use it excessively. I would contend that it is those young people who do not join such clubs or avail of recreational facilities who are the real offenders. I read a letter written by a sensible person recently who spoke of the forties, fifties and sixties when there were no youth clubs or recreational facilities for the young people growing up in those decades. Yet there were not encountered anything like the same problems that arise today. It should be remembered that millions of pounds have been spent since 1973 on the provision of such recreational facilities for young people whereas there were never any funds provided before then, from the time rates were first lifted from community halls to the stage when massive grants were provided for such halls. The problem has increased to such an extent that we are forced to introduce this Bill. In the seventies I used to beseech respective Ministers for Justice to introduce legislation to prevent under-18 year olds being sold alcohol by off-licence proprietors. Usually, the response I received was that if a father wanted a pint of stout or a granny a naggin of brandy a youngster had to be able to fetch it for them.
I think Deputy McCartan spoke of a minimum of one pint, that one could not sell an open can to an under-18 year old. The problem appears to be confined to the same small minority. As that small minority reach adulthood, take up a life of crime or whatever, in turn their youngsters seem to follow the same pattern. I have spoken on many occasions to the Garda, juvenile liaision officers, people engaged in social work with youngsters and they contend that, very often, they follow the same pattern or cycle as their parents. It constitutes a great tragedy.
The question of identity cards was raised on a number of occasions. Deputy Seán Barrett considered that perhaps there should be some attention devoted to the issue of such identity cards. I do not see any drawback to the issue of such identity cards to prove that one is over 18 years of age rather than vice versa. If I were 18, 19 or 20 and was going out with the lads and did not want them to laugh at me I would make sure I had some form of proof to illustrate that I was over 18 years of age. I do not think young people of 18, 19 or 20 would object to a system of identity cards. I see no need for any great debate on that issue. As Deputy Seán Barrett said, people use cards for all sorts of services, such as Banklink and Visa to passports. Neither do I see the need for legislation to introduce identity cards. Publicans, who are very anxious to have such a system in operation — if they can satisfy themselves that their customers are over 18 years of age — should be able to issue them, asking young people to bring in birth certificates, photographs of themselves or whatever, when they would issue a card free of charge. If I were an 18, 19 or 20 year old and was being taken for being younger because of my size I would not want to be embarrassed going into a publichouse and being refused alcohol. Therefore I would be quite happy to show personal identification.
Sometimes legislative provisions penalise certain sections of the community. My children enjoy a small quantity of wine with Sunday dinner. They have been doing so since they were very young children and have never become drunk so far. But when we take our children out to dinner or attend a wedding or some other function the same practice cannot obtain. That is a price I am prepared to pay in order to control the excesses of a very small minority. This may constitute a problem for some people who dine out on Sundays, who want to educate their children to drinking in a responsible manner. Unfortunately it is becoming a part of our culture that there must be total abstinence or, alternatively, indulging in alcohol to excess. I would think the majority of people drink moderately. Practically all Members of this House enjoy a drink. Assuming that Members represent a cross-section of our community then it could be contended that most people drink moderately, in a manner allowing them to maintain control of themselves.
The most telling provisions of this Bill are those providing for the confiscation of drink by the Garda from marauding gangs of hooligans. Many of us must have been tempted many times to leave our cars when we saw young hooligans going around swinging bottles of cider. The temptation is to take those bottles from them; these are usually 15 or 16 year olds. One does not readily become involved in such circumstances. I can always understand the reluctance on the part of the Garda to become so involved. Nevertheless it is up to the community at large, the Garda and everybody concerned, to ensure that the provisions of this Bill are implemented.
As the Minister said, one cannot legislate for virtue but one can endeavour to make abuse of the law more difficult.
When Deputy Seán Barrett replies on Second Stage he may ask that this Bill form part of the overall intoxicating liquor legislation rather that have two separate Bills incorporating much the same provisions. There is no point in my dealing with the Minister's Bill, much as I should like to, vis-à-vis the changing of the opening hours of off-licence premises and so on.
I was relieved to see that it will be an offence for anyone over 18 years of age to purchase alcohol for someone under that age because sometimes a man who should know better will, for £1 or £2, buy alcohol for those under age. I am glad that a penalty has been introduced in this regard.
The amount of money spent glamorising alcohol in advertising has been referred to. The advertisements I fear the most are those publicising drinks which are laced with wine or fruit juice which make alcohol very palatable. People who are prone to alcoholism can, without realising it, become addicted to these drinks and advertising practices should be examined.
Most people drink responsibly and no one is trying to stamp out the practice. However, educational programmes should be undertaken to try to make parents who take a drink aware of the importance of monitoring the alcohol consumption of their children. They could perhaps remove the mystique by drinking in a family atmosphere because I do not know anyone who ended up an alcoholic who had grown up in that kind of atmosphere. They may exist but I am not aware of them. I am delighted to be able to say to Deputy Barrett that our Bill is ready and I hope the two will become part of the same Bill.
On behalf of The Workers' Party I wish to contribute briefly to this debate in relation to the Intoxicating Liquor (Children and Young Persons) Bill, 1988, proposed by Deputy Barrett on behalf of Fine Gael.
Earlier today, at Question Time, I asked the Taoiseach whether he could give an indication to the House that its business might be a little better ordered in future, particularly as there appeared to be a coming together of minds between the major opposition parties and the Government on issues of major importance, not only within Parliament but outside it. Not being privy to the discussions on the Order of Business, it is somewhat disquieting that although the time of the House is very valuable and that there are so many important issues to be pursued, by whatever series of events, by the initiative of Deputy Barrett we have an Intoxicating Liquor (Amendment) Bill dealing with one aspect of the law — namely, children and young persons — and wider legislation in the stocks published in the recess by the Government in which section 4 is an exact copy of Deputy Barrett's Bill.
We spent two sessions of Private Members' Time in the last term discussing this Bill and we will have to repeat a lot of what has been said when the Government introduce their Bill. However, some good has come out of it because it is undoubtedly a fact that if the Bill now before the House had not been presented in Private Members' Time there would not have been any legislation from the Government. Deputy Barrett's Bill prompted a very rapid response from the Government. It is also clear that we have an opportunity, to some degree, to use this debate as a pre-Second Stage debate on the Government's Bill. No doubt, some of their remarks will be noted by the Minister who is present and reported back to the Government.
I listened at length to Deputy Briscoe's contribution to understand how this marriage process will take place and how one Bill will ultimately be subsumed into the other. This Bill should be supported and The Workers' Party will support it because it is comprehensive in the area it seeks to address. It deals very adequately with the issues of under-age drinking. It is so accurate that the Government's Bill mirrors it. Deputy Briscoe highlighted two small differences but otherwise they are exactly the same.
If we pass Deputy Barrett's Bill at the conclusion of Second Stage, as I understand the procedures of the House, it will then go to a special committee of the House to consider Committee Stage as happened in the case of the Bill regarding marital breakdown currently on Committee Stage. That has a very good aspect to it because it means that parallel to the business conducted in the House, there is, at a remove within the House, more legislative work proceeding. That system should be looked at much more often in the conduct of the business of the House as it would be a much more constructive way of dealing with amendments on Committee Stage, as in the case of the two sessions we had of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Marital Breakdown. At each session, 16 Deputies were present throughout, contributing and listening, which would not happen in the House on Committee Stage of any Bill. The special committee on Committee Stage is a very good system and in supporting Deputy Barrett's Bill we will achieve that for the second time in the life of the House. It will mean that good legislative work is proceeding in tandem with what is going on in the Chamber.
By supporting Deputy Barrett's Bill, the Opposition — if I can use that global expression to encompass all except the Government side — will be in a position to dictate the pace at which the legislation relating to under-age drinking can proceed, because The Workers' Party are not happy with the progress and pace at which legislation is introduced on the floor of the House and proceeded with from then on. We have no control within our party because we are not privy to Whips' meetings and discussions and the other parties in their entirety referred to as the Opposition do not control the pace at which legislation can proceed through the House. This is an important, urgent area of law which should be addressed as early as possible. Unfortunately, one cannot rely upon Fianna Fáil, this Government, to assure us they can deliver as quickly as we would like movement on this legislation. The Bill as introduced in Private Members' Time was the sole and single reason for prompting the Government's legislation. If Committee Stage is dealt with by a Special Committee it may well be the means of prompting onwards at a greater pace the Government legislation. Well and good, if all becomes one let it be so, and let us have the opportunity to move with haste.
On the procedural end of things the Government's Bill as produced deals with areas other than under-age drinking and, even at this stage within days of its publication, it has evoked a response from the organised sectors within the bar trade and the licensed trade generally. It is clear that a great deal of hard debate faces us and many serious issues have to be discussed in the broader context of licensing of restaurants and the like, but there seems to be no disagreement around the House on under-age drinking. It appears that both sides of the House have produced identical legislation, so why can we not at least deal with that single area and not be delayed by arguments and issues which may arise in a different sector of the liquor licensing laws?
We should deal specifically with the law with regard to under-age drinking, get it on to the Statute Book in the form of Deputy Barrett's Bill as quickly as possible and then spend whatever time is necessary at a later date dealing with the broader or other issues of liquor licensing as contained in the Minister's Bill. That is a very sensible way to proceed with it, and I urge the Minister and the Government to consider taking that on board. Looking through the record and listening to the contributions it seems that throughout the debate there has been no serious departure from the principles advanced in Deputy Barrett's Bill. We should not delay any longer in putting that legislation into place.
The Bill is particularly welcomed by The Workers' Party because for the first time since 1924 it gives us the opportunity to challenge the thuggery of under-age gang drinking in the city and, from listening to the contributions it seems the experience is not confined to the Dublin area. The problem has confronted many communities over the years and it is important that we tackle it. It has confronted not only communities but is a feature of the nightly work of CIE bus drivers and conductors in the city who have to deal with juvenile drinkers coming on board their buses from the city centre. In my area of Fairview and the North Strand these young people can find any number of off-licences to service their need, continuing into the north-east area in Coolock and so on where they hold their mid-field, out in the open drink parties. Phibsboro' comes to mind on the city centre route to Finglas as an area notorious for the delivery of alcohol through off-licences to under-age people, particularly cider, although I accept that beer features largely too. These areas on the north side of the city have become synonomous with off-licences prepared to hand out alcohol without yea or nay to young people, and those facts have been known for years.
I talk about the north side because I am familiar with that area of Dublin but I have no doubt that similar problems obtain on the south side and throughout the city where in licensing hours, irrespective of age, provided you are big enough to stand up in long trousers, you can collect alcohol in off-licences and the law is so outdated and inadequate that nothing can effectively be done about it. Night in and night out young boys — and girls — can be seen hanging about street corners canvassing older people as they walk past to go down and get them the odds in the off-licences, and silly, stupid people agree or are often bullied into doing it. Even today in our newspapers we read of the sea front at Bray, once a place of casual, usual resort for people, becoming a virtual no-go area because of these extraordinary happenings. This is the most important feature of the legislation before the House tonight. It is geared to enable the Garda Síochána to confront and deal with not only those who are out in the open at these cider drinking parties abusing alcohol but also the off-licence owners and pub owners and bring home to them their wrong-doings.
However, a number of aspects of the Bill need to be commented on and in doing so I am mindful that I am now addressing both sides of the House, so to speak. At this stage I welcome the arrival of the Minister for Justice. In making my comments I am addressing Deputy Barrett who is promoting the Bill before the House and the Minister for Justice, Deputy Collins, because he will have to listen to much the same arguments when his own Bill is being debated. The first aspect that worries me is that while the Garda Síochána have power to intervene and confiscate goods, alcohol and containers and to demand of persons their name, age and address, there is not the power of arrest. Particularly late at night when alcohol can be replaced it is crucial that when the Garda come to deal with these kind of illegal parties not only can they disperse the crowd but they can identify the ringleaders and put them into temporary cold storage to cool off. It is essential that that power is given to the Garda.
The gardaí will descend; there will be a scattering and whatever number of people can be caught will simply have their goods, their liquor and hardware, confiscated. That is no deterrent to these people who, driven by need, aimlessness or whatever will simply go to the off-licence or the pub, collect another round and head back to the fields and continue with what they were doing. Bravado being the order of the day, to belittle the Garda as much as possible is a feature of the conduct of many of these people. Therefore, it is important to look at the question of arrest powers and the opportunity for the Garda to recognise, as they can and do, the ringleaders of these events, take them in for cold storage purposes overnight, prosecute them as being the ringleaders and let them out in the cold, clear early morning or visit a court to answer for the misdeeds.
The other aspect of the Bill that concerns me is what can only be described as a very soft approach to the whole area of penalty. If I remember correctly, the point was made by Deputy Taylor and others, and I adopt the argument, that alcohol is a drug as lethal in the hands of young, impressionable people as any hard drug. It can create as lethal a consequence. It can provoke the same type of irrational response as any hallucinatory or other strong drug. Let us look at the penalties.
Throughout the Bill all that is proposed even on the third offence is a monetary penalty and one which pales into insignificance if one compares the range of monetary penalties that have been made available for road traffic offences today in this country or the monetary penalties that are being made available in the misuse of drugs legislation. This has got to be looked at. There is money to be made out of the peddling of alcohol to young people. That is the reason off-licences trade in it and that is why dishonest publicans will do anything to get alcohol over the counter to anyone irrespective of age. We must be serious if we are to talk about this legislation being effective. I contend that the sanction of imprisonment must be available for people who persist and on the third time around we should be talking about penalties beyond £300. We should be looking seriously at the prospect of putting before publicans and young people who persist in this kind of offence the prospect of their going to prison.
The point must be made that the simple extension of endorsement on licence with the consequence obviously that three endorsements will lead to possible suspension of the licence. As far as that licence holder is concerned, that has proven not to be a satisfactory sanction because of the whole area of the transfer of licences from the current licence holder to a nominee, and onwards down the line, with the result that any member of the family, or indeed outside persons, can be nominated to hold the licence if the risk of disqualification or suspension of the licence is being broached.
It is not sufficient to confine the whole area to fines only. I say that for another reason. A very good way of bringing home to pub owners and off-licence owners the harm and damage they do is to force them into doing community work, to make them come out of their profit-making ale houses and off-licences and to work with the victims of young hooligans who are driven to all kinds of insanities by the consumption of alcohol. They should be made work through the community service order but that cannot happen where the penalty is a fine only. The community service regime can only be invoked by a District Court where it is a substitute for imprisonment. For that reason I say that the sanction of imprisonment should be available as an alternative with regard to penalties under the Bill. I would ask Deputy Barrett to have a look at that. In tandem, we are having a double address to Deputy Barrett now and to the Minister later when his identical legislation comes to be considered.
Section 5 of the Bill which deals with getting rid of the "knowing" provision is very much welcomed. It is incredible to think that the Garda Síochána and so many community people have had to wait for so long for legislation to deal with this matter. It has bedevilled any serious prosecution of under-age drinking. I make the point, and it has been made before, that the onus must rest on people who hold their premises open to business. It is the duty of a person who holds a licence to conduct the business in accordance with the law and the onus must rest squarely on the licensee. I do not believe one need dwell on that matter. There is no one in this country who would seriously argue against that.
Section 6 deals with under-age drinking. The penalties are utterly unrealistic and must be dealt with. Regarding the consumption of alcohol by under-age persons, I suggest that the legislation is a little draconian and restrictive. I am thinking particularly about social events, for example, weddings where people under 18 years of age go in the company of their parents or family. To suggest that at a wedding in an hotel that a person at the age of 17 could not take a glass of wine at the meal is somewhat restrictive and I would ask that that be looked at. We can go too far on this line. However, in the company of parents, adults or guardians there is a time and an event where the consumption of alcohol in moderation is not a bad thing and, indeed, is often a more useful thing to help to introduce the normality of alcohol as something in which young people should be educated.
The question of children on licensed premises is a matter on which I understand there is a divergence of views. Deputy Barrett's Bill confines matters to 8 p.m. The Minister said he would allow it up to all hours of proper licensing trade but Deputy Briscoe said that was because the Minister had received representations. I have received representations from the Vintners' Federation of Ireland. It may well be that they have a more extensive response to the Minister but they made no point in any representations to me about this in so far as they make no reference to it at all.
However, the Irish National Union of Vintners, Grocers and Allied Trades Association, which is the association that represents most of the Dublin staff, have made representations specifically on this point and at their AGM passed a resolution expressing grave concern at the suggestion that section 120 of the Children Act, 1908 would be repealed to allow for the presence of young persons on licensed premises. I am inclined to that view. I do not believe that a licensed premises is the place for children of any age in any circumstances. However, I recognise that there is the question of tourism and people going out with their families and they should be accommodated. The way in which I have experienced that abroad in the company of children is that there are areas in licensed premises designated as children's rooms where the parents are asked to sit with their children. This is a scheme which could be looked at. The areas are well appointed. They contain some small items for the children's amusement, for example, a special area where they can play on the floor, and the children can have access to some toys and, most importantly, they are not getting in the way of adults who are there on the premises simply to socialise without being troubled and annoyed.
I do not believe there is anything as unseemly and as disorderly as some of the licensed premises one can visit here on a sunny Sunday afternoon close to holiday resorts where tables are laden down with half-empty beer glasses and children are dashing about to the annoyance of everyone and at the risk of toppling tables and glasses over. We must be very careful about how we allow the law to be changed in this regard. The simple repeal and the general proviso of children on premises while in the company of adults is not sufficient and I would ask both to consider——
The Deputy must recognise that the licence holder has a role to play as well.
Indeed, but we could prompt a specific direction here of indicating that this provision would apply to specially designated "children only" areas in licensed premises. That is something that must be looked at.
Under section 11 the Garda have power to confiscate and arrest. The power to arrest is essential to allow gardaí to deal with persistent ringleaders and with the problem that they can simply regroup at the same point when the gardaí have gone.
Regarding proof of age on prosecution, the words "and such person appears to the court to have been" in section 13 are unnecessary. The prosecution presumption should stand on the belief of the garda and it should only be dislodged by the formal proof by the defendant, on production of a birth certificate, that he or she was over the age.
What is the Deputy's view on the voluntary age of majority card?
I have not addressed the whole topic but it is a matter that could be looked at. I will not express a view now because time does not allow. There is all-party agreement on the provisions of Deputy Barrett's Bill. As it is an urgent matter, I suggest that the Bill be allowed to progress unhindered at this stage. We could then come to deal constructively with the other matters which are addressed in the Minister's Bill and which may take more time to debate. We welcome this Bill and will support it.
I welcome the opportunity to speak briefly on this Bill. This debate will be well worthwhile if it enlightens the minds of Members of this House as to the urgent need to update the legislation governing the sale of intoxicating liquor to young people and others. The Minister should take whatever good points are in this Bill and incorporate them in his own legislation.
Deputy McCartan made many allegations during the course of his speech and talked about the delay in bringing in this legislation. I agree that legislation in this area is long overdue. This Minister is undertaking an indepth study of the problem. I am aware of this at first hand since I am involved in the trade and in the Vintners' Federation. He has prepared fully effective legislation to deal with the entire problem, which does not simply relate to young people. Responsibility for the problems in this area rests partly with the publicans and partly with the Garda Síochána, but generally it rests with society as a whole.
Many Ministers have fudged this issue during the past 15 years. I was Vice-Chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Small Businesses which submitted two detailed reports to the last Coalition Government. We proposed specific changes which were long overdue in updating the law on the licensed trade. The Government did absolutely nothing. I hope that Members of this House will have a sense of collective responsibility when they finally come to decide on the details of new legislation.
There have been allegations about dishonest publicans. I am a publican and I can safely say here or anywhere else that I am a fairly honest man.
The legislation as it stands is impossible to comply with and implement. That is why we need a broadly based Bill to cover all aspects of the sale and consumption of intoxicating liquor. This legislation should be debated fully and implemented as quickly as possible. I have already expressed my compliments to the Minister on undertaking an indepth study.
The Deputy is not officially lobbying on behalf of the vintners.
No, I am lobbying on behalf of honest publicans. When they handled the drink trade we had not any of the problems we have today. There has been a new concept of marketing in this country and multinationals have been offering bargain buys to the housewife. The problem starts when the housewife buys a half bottle of vodka and consumes it during the day. What effect does this have on the family? Teachers are now expected to teach manners to children in schools. It is all a question of responsibility.
As one who has been involved in the trade for many years I can say that the family publicans and the Vintners' Federation are very concerned about the good name of the business and they are saddened at the fact that they are saddled with part of the blame for the problems which arise from the abuse of alcohol. The good name of the trade on which so much of this economy depends will be enhanced if legislation is introduced to update the existing law and eradicate anomalies.
Nobody can give a specific answer to the question of how these various problems arose. We all have our own ideas but many are reluctant to face reality. I believe that part of the problem is caused by the fact that young people have more money to spend and are afforded greater opportunities to do so. The opportunities are there because of the advent of clubs and organisations. I would include political parties who saw a golden opportunity to apply for extensions to sell intoxicating liquor and were accommodated by the existing law to do so. We know that in recent years licences for late night drinking were granted rather easily. The effects of granting such licences have rebounded on the family publican and on the family itself. Under the law as it stands, the onus is on the publican to clear his premises at a said time and to determine the suitability and age of a person who wishes to buy alcohol and consume it on the premises. The heavy hand of the law rests on the shoulder of the publican. People in general feel they have no responsibility in the matter. I know that from experience. The existing law supports this claim. I believe that collective responsibility is the key to the solution of the abuse of alcohol.
I believe that when the Minister for Justice introduces his new legislation on the sale and consumption of intoxicating liquor we will have the commonsense to realise that responsibility in its entirety must be removed from the shoulders of the publican and spread across the board, to the family, and to those elders who bring young people into pubs and to the young people themselves who must be educated about their responsibility in the matter.
I hope the discussion this evening will help to open the minds and thinking of many people in this House on alcohol and drug abuse. They are related and one leads to the other. Many people blame the publican for the incidence of drug and alcohol abuse, especially among young people. However, we must bear in mind that the family publican did not create the problem, as I have said before, and history has proved that. As I have said previously, the existing legislation needs to be reviewed urgently. The Vintners Federation of Ireland are very concerned about the abuse of alcohol, in general, and they have made submissions to many successive Ministers, on many aspects of the licensed trade in respect of their concern with regard to the abuse of alcohol and under age drinking. They certainly look forward to changes in the legislation.
Will the Deputy give his opinion on the suggestion that has been made on the question of introducing age of majority cards to monitor the situation, to help publicans deal with under age drinking and to prevent the sale of drink to those under 18 years?
That is very hard Minister.
I believe we are inclined to fudge this. We all have memories of a certain Government that fell on this issue. I believe there should be some type of identification. It is completely impossible for me, as a publican, to determine whether a young girl is under the age at which she may legally be served alcohol. For instance, six young people come into my pub, or somebody else's — perhaps even the Leas-Cheann Comhairle's pub, when he retires — and one of them orders four pints and two club oranges. We have an idea that one or two of the group are under age but if somebody comes over when you are busy and orders say, four vodkas and two pints, they could tip the vodka into the orange. I could then be prosecuted for serving those people and this is one of my concerns under the proposed legislation. The word "knowingly" is very important. We do not want to let anybody off the hook. There is a recognition that responsibility must be shared across the board. There are many aspects of the legislation which we must examine in great detail.
I think a sympathetic district justice would understand the odd occasion that might arise.
With all due respects to the Minister, we have at present legislation enforced whereby a publican must vacate his counter at 10 o'clock on a Sunday evening and walk out and call time. If people refuse to leave the premises he can be hauled in before a court to answer his case. The silly old adage that a garda listening outside a door does not hear the publican call time should be forgotten. There is nothing in legislation that I know of which states that somebody outside a publichouse door should hear them calling time inside. The publican may walk around his customers and state nice and quietly, "time is up gentlemen, please". Anybody who frequents a publichouse surely knows the closing time. Many publicans have had their livelihoods endangered by endorsements imposed because a garda did not hear them calling time outside the premises. That is going from one extreme to the other. We should try to bring in legislation that will incorporate a sensible balance, and where the law will have some respect for the publican. At present it has no respect for them. People who leave publichouses after closing time can go to a disco, where there are extensions or go to a night club where there is no supervision and where, in many cases, there are young teenagers. These people are exempted from the law and have been, but I hope they will not be exempted much longer. There should never be a law which differentiates one person from another. It is time that we did away with that situation.
I would take grave exception to the remarks Deputy McCartan made here about dishonest publicans. I believe that anybody, people in small towns or elsewhere, know you may find a publican, and I term then a necessary evil, who will keep late hours, who will open before Mass is over and will not close for the two hours. They take a certain segment of the trade away from the normal publican. But we find invariably that when the "for sale" sign is up these are the publichouses that are on the market. They may last a year or two, perhaps three but not much longer. That is my experience and I have been in the trade for 30 years. Generally speaking, from 10 o'clock in the morning until 11 o'clock at night is long enough for any business.
It is impossible for people to force drink down their throats inside the 10 minutes drinking up time so the extension of drinking up time to half-an-hour is more than welcome. Sunday night closing where publicans are forced to close at 10 o'clock only opens the minds of some people when they have a few drinks taken to head off and perhaps drive 15 or 20 miles to attend a late night disco, bringing young people with them, perhaps their families. I am not blaming the hotels or the people who run the discos, but the law allows this to happen. The law as it stands is itself furthering the opportunities for abuse of alcohol.
Deputy McCartan also referred to the advertising of alcohol. I think it has an effect. If you look back at old films of the late twenties, thirties and forties — and I have not killed the habit — everybody was smoking a cigarette. No matter how beautiful she was she lit up a cigarette. It was the done thing at that time and this had an effect on people smoking. John Wayne smoked a fag, I was a fan of his and I would get a Woodbine somewhere. The same applies to alcohol. Advertising definitely has an effect. We all know that the box in the corner has done a lot of damage to the social structures in this country. People will be guided by what they see on television. We should have a look at the question of advertising alcohol. However, if we are looking at advertising in relation to alcohol we should look at the other side of advertising. For example, we are told that certain washing powders wash whiter than white but in my opinion soap is soap no matter what brand you are selling and it just washes like soap.
On the question of children in licensed premises, from my own experience the worst thing for any publican is to have a child running around a public house at night. He would get in the way of everybody and the publican would worry about the law finding him on the premises. At the same time I know from personal experience and from living in the north Meath area where there are great attractions for tourism that in a certain public house where there is céili music and dancing at night people like to bring in their children. We are always very concerned and very worried about having the children on the premises. At the same time I believe it is much better to have young children under the supervision of their parents.
Or at home in bed.
Yes, that is where they should be but I am talking about when they are out on a Sunday evening down at a lake, at a football match or out for a drive with their parents——
That is different.
We should use a sensible approach in those cases and allow children to be accompanied by their parents. I know of cases where cars have gone on fire and many other things can also happen. The Minister should also keep in mind — and I know there is nothing he can do about this — the young families who are locked at home in their houses at night while their parents are out at social functions. I know there is nothing we can do about that but it is a question of collective responsibility. The vandalism which has erupted in major cities, and which has even spread down the country during recent years, is as a result of the abandonment of responsibility by the people who should be responsible, and who should be held most responsible.
Does that include parents?
I am talking about parents. In many cases parents have abandoned their responsibilities. As I said earlier on, they blame the publicans and the schoolteachers and if a schoolteacher raises a hand to a child to put manners on him, or question him about the taking of alcohol, parents question why their children should be accosted in such a manner.
I hope Deputy Barrett's Bill will create an awareness in this House of the problems of under-age drinking. I hope that many of the people who have spoken here will abandon their one-sided approach to this problem. There is no use in saying that one should close all pubs. It would be like the prohibition period in America and worse could happen as a result. When we discussed the report of the Oireachtas Joint Committee Members on the other side of the House suggested that pubs should be left open. There is a certain amount of merit in that because from my experience once people are refused alcohol that is when they start looking for it. However, I do not think we can go that road yet.
The legislation the Minister has introduced, with the exception of a few grey areas which we hope to brighten up before it passes through this House, is good legislation. I hope that aspects of Deputy Barrett's Bill will be taken into consideration and implemented. Hopefully we will emerge with a Bill that will do justice to the trade and preserve the interests of society in this country.
The proceedings here this evening remind me of the time when I was growing up as a youngster in the country when on Sunday nights we were allowed to go to the pictures. During the course of the evening we viewed the main feature film and at some stage we were given a preview of what would happen the next Sunday evening. We used to call it the "trailer" in those very simple days. There was no drink, and no money for it, around in those days.
Were they not any good at the poteen making down in Kilgarvan?
They were but it did not come in our direction. The main feature of the evening here is Deputy Barrett's Bill but it is laced with a little of the Government Bill that has been published in the meantime. I find that a little intriguing. Having said that I will confine my remarks to Deputy Barrett's Bill.
At the outset I should like to say that I and my party welcome this Bill. We commend Deputy Barrett for bringing it before the House and for enabling all of us to make a contribution on it. Contributions have been made in great depth and detail during the course of the deliberation on this Bill since it was first introduced before the Easter recess. My party support the Bill but we will put forward amendments to it. At this stage I should like to appeal to the Minister to allow this legislation, as it has been presented by Deputy Barrett to go through, to let it take its course, to let it go through Committee Stage and to take on board whatever amendments are worthy of being made. He should let it go through as a separate piece of legislation that is long overdue. It should not be delayed any longer. Commendable and all as the Minister's Bill is, I feel that because of the broader issues involved there must inevitably be a great deal of discussion and debate before the Bill finally clears the Houses of the Oireachtas. Under-age drinking is a serious problem and there has been too much delay in bringing this legislation before us. I ask the Minister — and I know he is open to this kind of suggestion — to let this Bill go through, to let it become law, to put his back behind the enforcement of that law and then let us come back and study his own worthwhile Bill as an entity in its own right. I say to Deputy Barrett — and I hope he does not think we are ungracious about this — that we will put forward amendments to the Bill and I hope that the opportunity will be given for us to do that.
I said to the Minister that we have waited too long already and in this respect I want to quote from the ESRI report that was published in 1986, which is exactly two years ago. It is the report of a survey that was carried out on teenage drinking. Its findings were that eight out of ten youngsters in the age range of 13 to 17 years drank in pubs. That is extremely serious. The report also said that in that same year only six publicans were prosecuted and of those six, five had convictions, some reasonably modest fines were imposed and business went on as usual. That happened a long time ago and a lot of serious hard drinking has been done in the meantime. We should not neglect any longer what that survey told us two years ago. The time has now come when we in this House must put together legislation that will be strong, practical, enforceable and which will be enforced. We must do it now and not wait any longer.
The people who have suffered all the depredations that have been described in great detail by almost every speaker who has spoken in this debate — and which I am not going to repeat here this evening — will be glad and grateful to us if we speed up this legislation and if they see we are putting nothing at all in its way that might slow it down by even one day, not to mind one month or half a year or, as is likely to happen, if we allow it to be incorporated in the Minister's legislation. We are supporting Deputy Barrett's Bill, so he will not expect me, at 8.20 p.m. on this Tuesday evening, to describe at great length what we find good in the Bill. The general overall thrust of the Bill is good. Its objectives will be met with some amendments. Here I will be ungracious and immediately go into the areas where I feel amendments ought to be made.
I am sorry Deputy Lynch did not wait to hear what I have to say about this, because I believe the single essential weakness in the Bill is the absence of any kind of identification. In the early days when that Bill was discussed in the newspapers, my belief was that Deputy Barrett was going to incorporate in his Bill some system for identification cards. As it is before the House, there is no reference to that at all. That is a weakness in the Bill which will make it very difficult to enforce. We are plagued with legislation, most of which is never enforced fully. I hope that trait will not be an inbuilt factor in any new legislation. I will be putting down an amendment later. This Bill will either stand or fall on the inclusion or not of some kind of identity card.
The Bill as it stands places far too great a burden on the licensee or the person who is tending the bar at any given time. I realise, and everybody who has spoken has said, that the removal of the word "knowingly" is a major advance but it pushes too much responsibility onto the licensee or whoever happens to be selling drink in a pub or disco or an off-licence and so on. Some of the responsibility will have to be put on the shoulders of young people themselves. I agree with Deputy Lynch that it is almost impossible to expect people who serve drinks in a bar to judge with any accuracy whether or not a person is over 18 years of age. I think you will agree with me on that, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, having been a teacher for a number of years. There are a number of second level teachers who are Members of this House, although they are not present at the moment, who would agree that it is almost impossible to judge the age of teenagers. These are people who deal with children professionally and over prolonged periods every day. If one meets those same children out of school on the street when they have changed out of their uniforms, when they have put their hair up or let their hair down and put on their make-up, or whatever it is they do with themselves when they are out of school, it is absolutely and utterly impossible to tell whether these children are fifth years or sixth years or seventh years. If people like that cannot distinguish or identify them, how can we reasonably expect people who serve drinks in pubs and off-licences or wherever to make a judgement as to whether or not a person is under age and act accordingly? We are asking too much. If we go along these lines the law will not be enforceable.
I have thought a good deal about the whole business of ID cards. I have no objection to asking every citizen of this country to carry an ID card. A country that has a sense of social responsibility and an awareness of the damage that is being done to our young people through excessive drinking and under-age drinking should not object to carrying an ID card. I do not think it is necessary to impose that on all of us to make the provisions of this Bill work. I do not think it is necessary that the Minister or I should have to carry an ID card if we want to buy a glass of beer in a pub. Unfortunately it would be instantly recognised that we are both——
The Deputy would have some chance but I do not think I would have any.
Another idea that has been put forward is that on attaining the age of 18 young people should be issued with an ID card in the context of this legislation or similar legislation. That idea is fraught with danger. There is an inherent weakness in that idea because it could easily be read by young people as giving them a licence to drink in the same way as people get a licence to drive. That would defeat in part the purpose of this Bill. Under this Bill not alone are we hoping to curb teenage drinking but to modify all drinking in this country.
What I propose is — and I think the Minister will be glad when he hears what I have to say because he has been plugging it like nobody's business all afternoon — that on reaching the age of 18 every young person should be issued with an age of majority card, a multi-purpose card on the lines of a range of other cards people are given. This type of card, with a photograph and date of birth, has a possport validity in all European countries. It could have the same validity for our young people and it could have a range of other benefits and entitlements that it would confer on young people at the age of 18.
That is the kind of card I will be promoting. That card ought to be issued by local authorities in conjunction with the compilation of the register of electors because, on attaining the age of 18, young people are conferred with the right to vote. The details in terms of cost and administration can be worked out later. I am just postulating the principle at this time. Let us work on that kind of card and then we can say to young people that if they have their card they can buy drink and if not they are not permitted to do so. In other words no card, no drink.
That is a simple mechanism. It would be easily understood by everybody and easily administered. It would make a teenage and under-age drinking Bill work. I have thought long and hard about what we are seeking to do in this Bill because I have seen far too much evidence of the damage done to potentially fine young people with the carry on and the caper of drinking at the moment. I have thought long and hard to come up with some kind of mechanism that would enable us to bring forward a law which would be enforceable and easily enforceable. That is the only recipe I have come up with. Whether the Minister sees any merit in it I do not know, but he has been talking about an age of majority card for some time since I came into the House this evening. There is the key to making this Bill work. One produces the age of majority card and then let it be known to everybody involved that that is the passport to buying drink whether it is in an off-licence, or publichouse, or wherever and, no card, no drink. If we could do that we would be doing a good service to everybody.
There are other parts of the Bill which I would like to commend. One is the section that gives additional power to the Garda to go into these drinking parties and cider parties during the course of which a lot of alcohol is consumed by young people very often resulting in young people going on in a rampage of vandalism and violence afterwards. That is a good provision in the Bill.
The Deputy has two minutes remaining.
Beidh níos mó ama amárach. Mar sin leanfaidh mé leis an dá nóiméad and say that that is a good provision in the Bill. It needs to be fleshed out further. I was interested in what was said by Deputy McCartan when he advocated that gardaí finding young people in these circumstances ought to arrest these people and put them into cold storage. That might be one way of doing it. I do not know where a cold storage place could be found. The gardaí might simply take these people home to their parents who cannot be exempted from responsibility either. If these people are under age and ought not to be in possession of alcohol the fit and proper thing for the gardaí to do would be to take them home to their parents and let us hope that the parents too would be made to feel that they cannot get exemption from responsibility in the whole area of coming to terms with teenage drinking. The gardaí should take these people home to their parents and give their parents the responsibility of looking after them. The gardaí must confiscate the drink. It must be known that young people who come by drink and engage in these drinking parties will have those parties broken up by the gardaí and will be taken home to their parents. I hope it will be extremely difficult for such young people to find drink when this Bill becomes law.
Debate adjourned.