Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 20 Apr 1988

Vol. 379 No. 7

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".

Last night I advocated the inclusion of an age of majority card as a provision in the proposed legislation. This would give young people a sense of responsibility in relation to their own drinking and the long-term benefits would be very great. We often notice among the adult population a lack of responsibility towards drinking and a lack of awareness of its many ugly side effects. It would be well if the upcoming generation had a sense of responsibility towards drinking. There would certainly be an effect on young people if they had to produce a card in order to obtain drink. There would be no compulsion to carry the card but the rule would be "no card — no drink".

Regarding penalties, Deputy Barrett has advocated an increase in fines. That is a step in the right direction but he has not gone far enough. He stops short of a sanction which would have a strong effect on those who sell drink. Deputy McCartan said last night that dishonest publicans ought to be sent to jail. I am not sure I would agree with that course of action. We have too many people in our jails. Jail is not the best answer for dealing with all misdemeanours. There are strong reasons for seeking alternative sanctions for a number of offences. I would not advocate jail for people who breach the licensing law by selling drink to teenagers. If licence holders in pubs, discos or other licensed premises were found to be repeatedly in breach of the law their licences could be suspended for a period of several days or even for a month. This would have a most salutary effect. If a licensed premises could be closed for even one day it would bring many people to their senses. Off-licences are major offenders in respect of teenage drinking but if these premises were closed down for a week the penalty would be severe enough to act as a very strong deterrent. This could be done at no cost to the State. If that discretion were given to judges it would go a long way towards solving the problem which Deputy Barrett has brought before the House. It would jolt licence holders and those who work in licensed premises into a sense of responsibility. We would engender a much more adult approach to drinking if we could enhance the sense of responsibility among young people who buy drink and among those who sell it. I feel very strongly about the matter of penalties and it will be the subject of one of the amendments I hope to table on Committee Stage. The other amendment will relate to the carrying of an age of majority card.

Many of our problems here and in other countries derive from the general attitude towards drinking by both adults and teenagers. The phenomenon of teenage drinking is not peculiar to Ireland. There is an enormous problem in America, in France, in England and throughout Europe where there has been an explosion of drinking among teenagers.

No real research has been done into the reason but it is suspected that part of the reason derives from the constant advertising of drink products on television. This is a factor which we must take into consideration. It is not too much to ask that advertisements which set out to make drink appear so glamorous as to be almost irresistable should not be shown on television during family viewing times. It might have some effect if such advertisements were confined to later viewing times. There is some reason why so many young people are being drawn to drink and this is a measure which we could take without any major cost to the Exchequer.

A contributory factor seems to be that parents nowadays do not have the same control or authority over their children as they had when we were growing up. Certainly many parents do not seem to exercise the same control. This is extremely serious. If the problem does not lend itself to resolution under the provisions of this Bill when it becomes law, we might have to decide that some parents should be made responsible for their children's drinking habits, perhaps by paying fines if they allow their children to roam around the streets and become involved in teenage drink parties, with all the ugly side effects. The depredations which they can cause have already been well described in the course of this debate. In many ways this is a very unhappy country in which to grow old. In certain urban areas older people are living in fear of their lives or in fear of what may happen to themselves and their property. Young people can think of nothing better to do on leaving a drink party than to terrorise old people in their homes, break windows and smash doors or break into vacant houses where they can carry on on their shenanigans late into the night. This is having a very worrying effect on older people. If this legislation does not solve the problem we will have to find stronger measures.

I hope that all the discussion which has taken place on this Bill will jolt not only young people and publicans but also parents into some sense of their responsibility. A great deal of the problem derives from lack of responsibility on the part of many people. It really applies to all of us. I welcome the Bill and commend Deputy Barrett for bringing it to the House. I repeat my call to the Minister to allow this Bill to go through on its merits. It is a specific piece of legislation aimed at a particular problem which needs to be addressed today. I appeal to everybody on the Government side not to delay it for any reason, even by trying to incorporate it into the Government's Bill.

In this case I believe the problem is so urgent that nothing that would delay the Bill by one day should be entertained at this stage. Undoubtedly, having read the other Bill, I believe it will evoke a lot of very broad and wide-ranging discussion and will not go through the House very quickly. Let us put our heads together and let us give united recognition to the enormity of the problem. Let this Bill go through and become law and let us facilitate in every way we can the enforcement of the provisions of this Bill as quickly as possible. We will be supporting the Bill, with amendments, when it goes to Committee Stage.

I join with Deputy Quill in thanking Deputy Barrett for initiating this debate. We have had many issues discussed in Private Members' Time but I have found this to be a very worthwhile debate. The contributions that have come from all sides of the House have been very constructive and positive.

That we have a very serious under-age drinking problem is beyond doubt. The more I delve into the issue, the more concerned and the more frightened I become. The more you talk to teachers, youth workers, or to fellow parents the more you hear about what is happening out in the bad world. It is not just cider parties. The scene has become more sophisticated and now we are talking about drinking parties in houses. We are talking about the use of vodka, gin and very heavy spirits being consumed by young children, children as young as 13 or 14 years. As I have said, the more one delves into the problem the more worried one becomes.

Many people have referred to the fact that legislation can do only so much, and I would agree with that. The bottom line is that it all comes down to parental control. As parents we should all ask whether we know where our children are at any particular time. I believe if this principle were adopted many of these problems would not exist. I also believe we must have an open approach in our homes. Modern life demands that we talk to our children. I would be the first to accept that many politicians like myself have not got much time to talk to children because of the nature of our profession.

The Minister is correct when she says you have to make time but we depend on our spouses and I know my own spouse does the job of communicating with our children very well. The issue is about parental control in the main and it is about knowing where our children are at any given time, particularly in the late hours.

Legislation can help to deal with the problem but I suggest, and I think most people would agree, that drink is now a bigger killer of young people than drugs. In the UK it has been established that drink is a bigger killer than drugs and that is the way we are heading in Ireland. There is a very definite association between drink and crime and between drink and unwanted pregnancies, and many of the mothers in these cases would be as young as 14 years. This is very worrying. It comes down to the fact that we have to be aware of the problems and to educate our children accordingly. I believe we can do more in our schools. I have found that the anti-smoking campaign in our schools has been most effective. My own daughter has been involved in an anti-smoking project and she even convinced me that I should give them up. She has been most effective. That is the type of strategy we should adopt with regard to drink. I believe that a very strong campaign on the lines of the anti-smoking campaign in our schools would be most helpful.

The points Deputy Quill made with regard to advertising are valid. I would like to see very definite standards applying to advertising. The image of the drinker as macho should not be accepted. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that it should be banned. We should have responsible advertising in the area of drink. Drinking in moderation is a marvellous social activity. I would be the first to accept that. In Ireland we pride ourselves on our love of conversation, music and song. Drink is a wonderful thing but it is being presented as a macho type activity for people which it is not. Drink should be respected and it is not treated in that manner in advertising.

What can we do with regard to legislation? Legislation can help to deal with the problem. The Minister has produced and obviously Deputy Barrett has seen the Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1988. We are all trying to curb under-age drinking as well as introducing provisions to deal with other aspects of the licensing laws. The debate has been worth while and, at the end of the day, we will have legislation introduced in this House. I join with my colleagues in asking Deputy Barrett to hold off for a very short period and to wait for the Government Bill.

The legislation will make it more difficult for young people to obtain alcohol. It can assist the Garda — and they need assistance — in detecting breaches of the law and in bringing prosecutions and it can obviously introduce penalties. Most people involved in the liquor business are responsible and do not supply drink to under-age persons but, as we are all aware, there are individuals who go outside the law and supply drink to young people. I suggest they are in the minority. The debate is really about the abuse of alcohol and about education with regard to alcohol. It is important that we repeat that. I have heard other speakers refer to the problem of absenteeism in the work place and I hope a healthier attitude towards drink will result from this debate. Drink in moderation is a very good thing.

The Minister's Bill amends the licensing laws and deals with special restaurant licences, prohibited hours, under-age drinking and extending the opening hours which will create an atmosphere where moderation will prevail. I hope respect for drink will prevail. We will be moving more in line socially with our European partners and with European practices. I welcome the liberalisation of the licensing laws. I welcome this approach. The benefits in regard to tourism are evident and this is something we should all agree to promote.

At present it is an offence to sell or to supply intoxicating liquor to young persons under the age of 18 years. This is impossible to enforce because of the requirement under the 1924 Act that the person selling the drink did so "knowingly", that is, knowing the person buying the alcohol was under 18 years. I commend Deputy Barrett for addressing this issue. It is a very complex area. Deputy Barrett's Bill puts an added responsibility on the publican or supplier in selling or supplying intoxicating liquor to a person under the age of 18 years. The Bill covers the sale of drink to persons under 18 and it covers the purchasing of drink by or on behalf of those under 18. The Bill also gives new powers to a member of the Garda to seize bottles or other containers which they have reasonable cause to believe contain intoxicating liquor from persons under the age of 18 years. I believe this is a most important area of legislation that we must address.

I want to refer again to the problem of cider parties. In the Dublin area in particular we have all heard complaints from local residents about the growth of cider parties in the city and county. This problem arises among all classes of society. We all hope to see the day when the Garda can go in and seize these bottles and I welcome this part of Deputy Barrett's proposal.

Youngsters turn to drink because in many cases they do not have any alternative in their community or because their parents do not ensure that they have an alternative means of recreation. There are alternative means of recreation in most parts of Dublin. There are youth groups working in communities and many people are working voluntarily on the ground. There are options for young people if their parents genuinely try to involve their youngsters in these activities. It is an adult responsibility. It is not easy but parents should be obliged to ensure that their young children have other options. The youngsters who get involved in cider parties and other types of undesirable activities such as congregating in open spaces and outside local chippers are the ones who should be encouraged to take part in other activities. I accept that we should continue to improve such options and the facilities that are available. I have no doubt, from the evidence so far, that the national lottery will improve the options for our young people and will ensure they have alternative options other than getting involved in these infamous cider parties.

Deputy Quill referred to identity cards. It is important that this matter should be debated. Deputy Quill was quite adamant that there should be an age of majority card for the over 18s. I think that is basically the same as an ID card. Some local voluntary community-based identification system could be established if the need arises, as no doubt it will at some future date.

The control of under-age drinking is a family problem, community problem, a problem for our gardaí, publicans and those involved in the off-licence trade. However, it is primarily a community responsibility and if all those working in the community can come to grips with it that will be the desirable approach. People's privacy is being whittled away with the advances in technology and I would be very slow to infringe further on the privacy and confidentiality of the individual. I accept that many people feel this is the only option but I would advance the voluntary approach to this issue at this point.

Deputy McCartan made an interesting point in relation to a 17-year old drinking wine at a wedding. I, too, would not like to see the local Garda rushing in and taking the glass out of his hand because a wedding venue is basically an extension of the home and I do not think either Deputy Barrett or the Minister for Justice, Deputy Collins, want to legislate for the family, whether in the home or at a wedding in an hotel. I think it is a valid point and I support the points made by Deputy McCartan.

The differences between this Bill and the Minister's Bill are minute but nevertheless they are important. The Minister's Bill allows children under 15 years of age to be on licensed premises at any time during permitted hours if accompanied by a parent or guardian. The Private Members' Bill allows under 15s to be on licensed premises with a parent or guardian up to 8 p.m. only. Both Bills forbid children being on licensed premises at any time unless accompanied by a parent or guardian. That is obviously correct. Not every public premises is conducive to the presence of children and it is a practice I do not encourage. Unfortunately many of our pubs are drab and dark and some are unhygienic. Obviously during the tourist season some pubs cater for entertainment for children. I have experienced this in County Wexford where I holiday. One pub has a children's night and the children can join their parents for musical entertainment in a public lounge. It is a very clean place, very well run and the children are well catered for. Obviously that is a common practice. I think Deputy McCartan mentioned this practice in relation to Europe but I do not think he has to go too far to see that entertainment for children, who are accompanied by their parents, works very well in lounges here. The Minister's Bill deals specifically with that kind of situation. It faces up to reality, as does Deputy Barrett's Bill, but there are a few minor points I should like to deal with. It is very difficult to legislate for this area because it is so complex. The Minister has consulted very widely and he has arrived at a very practical consensus.

Another point of difference between the two Bills is that section 38 of the Minister's Bill allows apprentices over the age of 16 to be employed in licensed premises. The Private Members' Bill would only allow apprentices over the age of 18 to be employed. I am aware that the Government have had representations from the Licensed Vintners' Association in Dublin pointing out that up to 600 young apprentices could become unemployed if this section of the Bill is passed. Many of these would be students between the ages of 16 and 18 who are working part time in public houses. Sixteen is generally the age for apprenticeships and I believe the Minister's proposal is the preferred one in this instance.

The Minister's Bill which was published last Monday is a major Bill and a significant part of it deals with under-age drinking. It is similar to the Coalition Bill which never came to the floor of the House. Unfortunately we need comprehensive legislation in the area of under-age drinking and also in relation to restaurant licensing, to permitted hours and drinking in clubs. I sincerely thank Deputy Barrett for initiating this debate. It has been most enlightening and worthwhile but with no disrespect to Deputy Barrett, I look on his Bill as a forerunner to the Government Bill. Now that he has seen the Minister's Bill I ask him to hold off and wait for what I hope will be the speedy introduction of the Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1988. We have waited 64 years for this legislation and I ask Deputy Barrett for another few weeks. We are all anxious to have legislation placed on the Statute Book before the tourist season in relation to the other issues but, more importantly, I am anxious that the Government will introduce their Bill which deals with under-age drinking and ensure that, from a legislative point of view, we deal with this issue in a comprehensive manner. I want to repeat that it will only be a framework within which we will work and in the last analysis it will come down to parents, communities and society to ensure that the problem of under-age drinking is tackled.

I welcome the opportunity of making a contribution to this debate. I should like to thank Deputy Seán Barrett for introducing this Bill into the House. I know the Government will accept it in principle but because the Minister has published his own Bill perhaps Deputy Barrett will agree to incorporate his Bill in the Minister's Bill which, in general, is the same in principle. The Minister has proposals in his Bill which deal with under-age drinking.

This Bill gives us an opportunity to express concern about the problem of under-age drinking. The abuse of alcohol is a major problem in Ireland today. This is especially true when 15, 16 and 17-year olds indulge in alcohol. Facts are beginning to emerge which show that the problem is getting greater. More and more young people are starting to drink heavily early in life. On the law of averages, many of they will become heavy drinkers and so the chain of misery will be added to. Innocent people whose only crime will be falling in love with drunkards will have their lives clouded with misery. This need not be the way because if we get a grip on the problem we can support young people in their determination to be sober. But that is not happening. Figures from the Irish Council on Alcoholism show that the age at which young people start to drink has come down drastically in the last 20 years. In 1970 one in ten under the age of 17 were regular drinkers. Now the figure is one in three. Over half of them have been drunk several times and there are teenagers under the age of 17 years who have been drunk on several ocaasions.

The question is often asked where these young people get the money to purchase alcohol. The answer that I get is that the money is given to them by parents who do not bother to question them as to what they require the money for. It is also given to them by older brothers or sisters. Many young people do summer jobs and have babysitting jobs for which they get money. There are many other ways as well. Then there is the question of where the young people get the alcohol. It is available in off licences, supermarkets and public houses, and according to the present law any young person over the age of 15 years can purchase alcohol provided it is in a sealed or corked vessel. There is a great need to change the law.

The vast majority of public houses, off-licences and supermarkets will not supply alcohol to under-age people but there are others that do supply it. There is a serious problem in the Dublin area where alcohol is supplied to young people. In a recent court case an off-licence holder in the Phibsboro area applied for the renewal of his licence. The Garda Síochána were aware that this off-licence holder was breaking the law by supplying alcohol to people of a very young age. The Garda therefore opposed the granting of this licence. The judge agreed not to renew the licence. However the off-licence holder appealed against this decision of the courts and his appeal was granted and, according to the law, once an appeal is granted one is back in business until such time as the case is held in another court. This is the situation here. This man is back in business and that will be the case until there is another court hearing.

I heard of another case in my own constituency where the local people were concerned that the local public house in the Finglas south area were supplying alcoholic drink to very young children, and the tenants' association, of their own accord, decided to take this publican to court and had the support of the Garda. The justice heard several witnesses including the Garda and, after consideration, he decided to grant the licence to the publican because there was not sufficient evidence to prove that these young children were getting the drink in that public house. The type of evidence he wanted consisted of photographs of the children coming out of the pub with the drink. I know that the tenants' association spent a considerable amount of money trying to ensure that this individual would not be granted a licence, but their efforts were fruitless. As long as district justices adopt that type of attitude it will be very difficult for the Garda to operate.

There is an obligation on parents to face the possibility that their 16 year old son or daughter drinks. This is something that many parents will not accept. The statistics are not fantasy. It should not be assumed that the neighbour's child is the only culprit. Everybody blames the schools for not doing more. I do not because I think most schools spell out the facts, the dangers and the problems in relation to excessive drinking and alcoholism. There is a great need to change the attitudes of people towards the use of alcohol here. It seems that we cannot celebrate anything in this country without alcohol. No matter what the function, whether it is a death, a marriage or a christening, we must have alcohol. There are people who honestly believe that these things could not go on without alcohol.

There are many people going to England now. I emigrated to England myself. In England an Irishman is mostly described as an Irish drunk. Television comedians describe Irishmen as Irish drunks. When I emigrated to England I was a casual drinker myself and having worked there for a few years I saw the way that many Irishmen and women brought down the good name of Irish people by the way they abused alcohol. I decided to join the pioneers and have worked in the pioneer association in England and here while time permitted me to do so. Since I became a Member of this House I have not been able to give the same amount of attention to it, but I recognise the great work that the pioneer association has done in England and it is still operating very satisfactorily for many Irish people. It is almost accepted in England as an Irish association.

There are many people going to England now. They go to public houses because they are lonely and hope to meet friends. In fact many people here boast about the amount of alcohol they can consume. In England the average Englishman has a different attitude altogether. He may go out to drink every night but he does not drink a pint but a glass of beer, and he only drinks a few and does not come home staggering drunk. In other European countries alcohol is taken mostly with meals. This is not so here.

The people that have been involved in the manufacture and the promotion of the sale of alcohol have embarked on a massive advertising campaign. Many if not all the advertisements are misleading. I am not surprised that young people are impressed, particularly by the television advertisements. The impression they give is that if one has a pint one is better looking, stronger, more effective and has more sexual appeal. In addition local authorities provide prominent places for the advertising companies to put up those huge advertisements. Those promoting the sale of alcohol are prepared to pay because advertising pays.

Many young people drink because of pressures which they have not the maturity to resist. Some suffer from lack of confidence to face social situations without a crutch. Some have not the courage face disappointments without an anaesthetic. The person who finds judgments and decisions difficult when sober can be completely irresponsible when under the influence of alcohol. Many go to the public house to find friends but friends met there will remain friends only while such persons have money in their pocket. When the money goes, the friends disappear. A real friend is one who is prepared to lose your friendship in order to help you. Real friends are scarce and are not to be found in public houses. The physical and psychological danger of alcohol to the growing person is great.

The abuse of alcohol is our greatest social problem. We have the highest rate of alcoholism in Europe. At present, there are almost 200,000 alcoholics in this country and quite large numbers of these are women. When I was a young man women would not be seen in a public house but today it is a regular feature. Young girls in their place of employment make arrangements to meet in the public house. Many would describe the public house now as a social centre. With young people, there is always the danger of taking a few extra drinks.

While I speak about 200,000 alcoholics, I am also aware that there are many more. Those I have mentioned are those who go to hospitals or institutions for treatment. There are many thousands who do not even admit to alcoholism, so we must take their numbers into consideration. No human tragedy seems to squeeze the life out of those who love the victim as does alcoholism. No other experience produces that distinctive haggard look, the worn look that so often marks the spouse and children of the drunkard. If pain is something that works its way into the eyes and gets written into the face, then there must be much pain in those who live their live in the shadow of somebody who is too fond of drink. Money problems bring their own difficulties and so does a vigil spent watching somebody dying of cancer over a period of months. These are great afflictions which leave their mark, but the excessive drinking habits of a partner or parent seem to bring a form of weariness and physical ageing that outdoes all other griefs put together.

There is a great problem for the hotel owner and those working in public houses in being able to establish the correct age of a teenager. For this reason, there is a great need to introduce identification cards. I cannot understand why everybody is not obliged to carry one. I have no doubt that the identification card would benefit the holder as much as it would benefit the Garda Síochána.

Under-age drinking has caused serious problems here, especially in towns and cities. Cider parties are a regular feature, particularly in the city of Dublin. Young people who take part in such parties have caused millions of pounds worth of damage in the city of Dublin through crime and vandalism. Many of the places damaged include churches and schools. Young people coming home from cider parties make attacks on the old. Bus crews are a regular target and the way our law operates the gardaí are sometimes powerless. Even though they can apprehend the culprit, there is not much satisfaction to be got out of that because all they can do is send for the parents. Sometimes the parents refuse to come to the station so the gardaí have to take the young persons home. When they arrive there, rather than being thanked for bringing the culprit home the gardaí are abused.

Parents should be made responsible for young people and made pay for the damage which teenagers cause. Until the law is changed, the situation will not improve. Many buildings the taxpayer has contributed to have been the subject of vandalism and because of that community buildings under construction at the moment either have no windows or small windows to prevent the vandals from entering. There is a great need to update the legislation on under-age drinking and, in general, on the sale of drink. The Minister has circulated a Bill which deals with this problem and I have no doubt that it will be discussed during this session.

I hope the proposals in this Bill will improve the situation, although I am not happy with some aspects of the Bill. There is no need to extend the hours of drinking. Doing that is like sending for an oil tanker when there is a fire, rather than for the fire brigade. The present hours of drinking should be sufficient and "time" should be "time". In Britain, when time is up the publican puts the towel on the pumps and nobody will be served after that. We talk about the extension of drinking hours as being done to help the tourism industry. Many tourists come to England and the pubs there close at 10.30 p.m. They close at 2 p.m. in the afternoon and do not open until 5 p.m. or 6 p.m. in the evening. On Sunday the pub will open from 12 noon to 2 o'clock and from 7 o'clock until 10 o'clock in the evening. Why we want to extend opening hours to midnight I do not know. When the Bill comes before the House we will express our views on that.

In relation to licences, I know that tourists might like to have the opportunity to have a drink with their meal but the Vintners' Association and I are concerned because the publican will be at a disadvantage. The publican will be obliged to close at midnight while the restaurant can remain open until an early hour in the morning. I am not worried about the tourism aspect because of the difference in the price of a drink here and in Great Britain or the North of Ireland. If a pint costs about 82p in Britain or in the North, a tourist here would have to add a pound to it.

Parents have a grave obligation in relation to their children. They should make sure they know where their teenagers are and on what they are spending their money. I am glad to have had an opportunity to debate this serious problem.

I wish to stitch into the record my wholehearted support for this measure. During the past number of years since under-age drinking became a problem we have heard pious platitudes, a lot of well intentioned pleas and promises of positive action in relation to corrective action in the area of under-age drinking. This is the first positive measure to redress this problem. I commend Deputy Barrett for his determination and for his foresight in this area and for giving tangible proof that we have a terrible social problem. Deputy Barrett has taken section 6 of a Bill which was put on the stocks by the previous Government but which they did not get an opportunity to introduce and put it into the form of a Bill and presented it to this House. This Bill appeals to me because it is a narrow confined measure. It narrows the focus to addressing the great social scourge we face, our greatest danger to the fabric of society, that is, under-age drinking.

While I commend the Government for coming hot on Deputy Barrett's heels with another measure, and while I would normally welcome a comprehensive measure in relation to intoxicating liquor, if a Bill is too diverse the emphasis is dissipated and the impact in relation to the key areas is very often lost and, when it comes to implementation, the provisions in relation to key areas are underimplemented or ignored. We all agree that the problem is horrendous. The stark realities of the statistics have brought this home in no uncertain fashion.

Over the years there has been a slippage in standards. In past years temperance was looked on as a virtue. As a matter of course people were enrolled in the Pioneer Total Abstinence Association and it was a foregone conclusion that nobody dared to take a drink before the age of 18 or 21. It was a foregone conclusion also that nobody entered ballrooms under the influence of drink. A person who arrived at a ballroom smelling of alcohol, even without the appearance of having taken alcohol, would find it hard to get by the proprietors and, if they got past the cordon, they were shunned by the people inside. There is now such a slippage in standards that recently a survey taken in Galway city indicated that 60 per cent of children had sampled alcohol by the time they reached the age of 12.

I welcome this measure because it has prompted the Government to take action. I have no doubt that, at the end of the day, some positive corrective measure will emerge. While I would not advocate draconian measures my only regret is that the penalties are too lenient. I welcome this measure because of its narrow focus, because it is doing something and because it is goading the Government into doing something about the problem.

Irrespective of what legislation is brought before this House I fully subscribe to the view of Deputy Barrett that the parents have the ultimate responsibility. We cannot expect the schools, the legislators, the gardaí or the publicans to act in loco parentis for our children. They are our children and we have an obligation to know where they are, how they are behaving and in what state of intoxication or sobriety they return to their home at night.

The major problem is that much of the slippage in standards goes back to laxity of parental control at all levels. Parents are very often the sinners in relation to alcohol abuse. There is a greater permissiveness and a greater tolerance of alcohol abuse. All of those things contribute to forming the sad picture of life today in this country. The social consequences are that children mitch from school or they arrive in school unable to take part in normal school functions. In some cases children are sent home from school or are unable to sit for examinations. Levels of academic achievement have been badly impaired because children have been exposed to alcohol or because parents have been too lax in exercising vigilance in relation to their children's activities. We have seen the horrendous consequences in terms of vandalism also which, sadly, is part and parcel of life here today.

I pay tribute to a group from my own county who have been one of the main instigators in putting the spotlight on the problem. They are the Mayo identity card scheme group who were launched under the aegis of the vocational education committee. They have operated a very successful scheme with the co-operation of responsible publicans. I fully subscribe to the view stated in this House, on radio and on television by Deputy Barrett that we should push for the introduction of a national scheme of identification cards throughout the country. I do not see anything wrong with that. In fact I think it is very commendable and it will be a very valuable aid in the successful introduction of any legislative procedures in relation to alcohol.

As I have said, we have seen over the years, unfortunately, a slippage in standards and that is why I welcome the deletion of the word "knowingly" and the placing of a responsibility on the publican to find out whether a person seeking a drink is over 18 years of age. In the past the publican took pride in his trade and in knowing who his customers were but, unfortunately, of late we have seen a more mercenary type of publican — the Johnny-come-lately — who is not too worried about standards and who does not give a damn unless it is going to affect the cash register ticking up considerable receipts at the end of the day. They have to accept an equal share of responsibility for this sad state of affairs which has necessitated the introduction of this legislation.

Apart from the Government measure being too comprehensive, my only regret is that it will delay once more the introduction of legislation. The more we delay, the worse the problem will become. In conclusion, let me say that whichever measure sees the light of day I hope it will be rigidly implemented and that there will be a massive publicity campaign to make parents and everybody involved in the intoxicating liquor business fully aware of its implications.

I intend to be brief. There seems to be a general acceptance that drink is a major social evil in this country, that the abuse of alcohol has long since reached epidemic proportions and that there is a necessity for us to review our attitudes towards alcohol and its consumption. The Minister in response to Deputy Barrett's introduction of the Bill welcomed it and what it was trying to achieve. I have no quibble with the Bill but I wonder, as we have two pieces of legislation reaching the Chamber at the same time, one narrow and one broad, whether we are using our time in the best way.

I take issue with Deputy Higgins when he says that the Government proposals are too broad and that Deputy Barrett's measure acted as a catalyst to produce the Government's proposals. No catalyst was needed, as the political will to bring forward proposals already existed and it is a bit disingenuous and inaccurate for Deputy Higgins to suggest otherwise. I also take issue with Deputy Higgins when he says that the Government proposals which have been circulated are too comprehensive. It strikes me as extraordinary that a Deputy would put abroad such a view because the reality is that the sale and consumption of alcohol and the place it holds in the Irish psyche is a complex issue which has to be handled in broad legislation.

In congratulating Deputy Barrett for bringing forward his proposals I would suggest to him that he hold them back and incorporate them into the proposals being put forward by the Minister. I think that would make sense and that we do not dignify politics by seeking spurious arguments between ourselves in this House. There are no differences between us on this issue. It is a question of emphasis rather than content and as Deputy Barrett, Deputy Higgins and all those on the benches opposite know, the will to introduce the changes exists. I would also point out to Deputy Higgins that his party only relatively recently vacated the Government benches and that as he himself said legislative change in this area is long overdue. I am sure while his party were in Government that he was champing at the bit in an effort to get this legislative change introduced but evidently he was unsuccessful and that the champing on this side of the House has been more successful.

Deputy Higgins and others who have spoken tonight dealt with the nub of the issue which is the part alcohol plays in Irish social life. I think that the abuse of alcohol poses a far greater danger to the fabric of society than many of the relatively minor problems which seem from time to time to attract the headlines. It is true that we have a problem with drugs but thankfully it is a relatively minor one. Sadly, it is increasing but I hope we can address ourselves to that problem. It is also true we have a problem with AIDS but thankfully that too is a relatively minor one and it should not get the degree of attention it is getting. What is without contest is that we do have a major problem with alcohol and that certainly does need controlling and more attention than it is getting. In that respect having two Bills before the House at present is welcome in that it will allow many Deputies to ventilate their views on this problem. I hope they will carry those views out of this Chamber and that, when engaging in social activities in their constituencies, will put into practice what they would preach here.

Unfortunately, the abuse of alcohol starts at a very early age. We seem to suffer from an extraordinary lack of confidence — Deputy Higgins touched on this — in that young men and in more recent times young women feel that they cannot go into a disco, ballroom or party unless they have fortified themselves with the spirit, and this is tragic. I wonder whether this points to a wider problem which is that we do not seem to be able to address this evil or ill. We have not been able to inculcate into successive generations a sense of self-esteem, selfworth and self-confidence to the degree where they would be able to reject the concept of the hard man or nowadays the hard woman. We need to educate our children to see through the myth of alcohol and we need to address this issue outside of narrow legislation.

Deputy Barrett, Deputy Higgins and several others referred to the need for parental control but the hard fact is that one cannot legislate for standards. Standards are either there or they are not and as other Deputies have said it is true that there has been an extraordinary slippage in standards in society. I have four young children and when travelling around my constituency I am always amazed when I see young people who are clearly under age being served drink in pubs and off-licences. While there is the culpability of the young people themselves, two other groups of people are also culpable — their parents and those who serve them alcohol.

One of the most important things that is happening in regard to this issue is that we are removing the word "knowingly" which has operated as a very narrow cloth behind which people have hidden. As I have said, it is impossible to legislate for standards. Who scores and who is first to the post in parliamentary terms is not of consequence. What is of consequence is how we, as political leaders, inculcate some sense of direction into society. In this regard perhaps we cannot legislate for parental standards but we can certainly decry the slippage in parental standards that lies behind this problem.

The question of control on the sale of liquor has been dealt with and I do not wish to deal with it in any extensive way but it strikes me that in addition to parental control, to a slippage of parental control, there has been a remarkable slippage of standards in the trade. There is no doubt about that and there is no point in our trying to disguise that fact. Unfortunately, there are people who are the owners of off-licences and people who run supermarkets where alcoholic drink is sold who do not give a damn for the consequences of their actions and we need to address that. I believe that in the more comprehensive measures that the Minister has introduced, that matter among other issues, is addressed. We need to look at the issue of off-licence sales. Some of the Deputies, particularly from Dublin and the urban areas, who have spoken on this Bill have dealt with the tragedy of off-licence sales. I am sure you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, as a man who knows your constituency well, are fully familiar with this.

It is extraordinary that very young people can be served in off-licences. This Bill does not deal with that matter and that is why I favour the more comprehensive approach of the Minister. It is extraordinary that traders can operate with relative impunity. They can cock a snook at society and get away with it. It is extraordinary that we do not seem to have any way of adequately policing the legislation. The proposal from the Minister that the Garda be empowered to take from young people alcoholic beverages and impound them is a very welcome change. When the Minister's proposals come before us I will be suggesting that we take that a step further. I would like to see some form of indelible marking on every beverage container in an off-licence. It would not necessarily be costly to do that. If we then found a pattern emerging in any particular area we could trace the problem to a particular off-licence.

As I have said at the outset, alcohol is costly in society, not just in terms of cost to those who buy it or, as one Deputy said, to families who are broken by it but to us all. It undermines the Irish potential. It is the opiate of the Irish people. It is necessary that we adopt a more mature attitude towards drink and educate our young people to have a more mature attitude towards it. If I seem critical of Deputy Barrett's proposals, that is certainly not my intention. I congratulate the Deputy on introducing these proposals. They are valuable proposals but I urge him to accept that they will be covered in the Bill which is to be circulated by the Minister. It would seem to be more sensible if we all got together in this House and in the other House to ensure a speedy passage of that Bill. In so far as there may be lacunae in that Bill we should all ensure that they are closed.

When I saw the text of the Minister's Bill I intended to write to him about it. Anyone who has any experience of the way in which the criminal law is operated in relation to publicans will be aware that district justices are conscious of the fact that a licence and the business which is based on a licence is a very costly thing to invest in. The sanction of mandatory disqualification or elimination of a licence is so terrible a punishment that, it is fair to say, the Judiciary flee from resorting to that remedy. They use every possible means to avoid taking away a publican's licence.

I would like to say to the Minister that what would be an effective system and would be enforced by the courts is a system whereby district justices would be entitled, for a matter of a week, two weeks, a month or three months, depending on the severity and the gravity of the offence, to tell a publican to close his premises. If a big pub in Dublin is told to close down for a week for serving a young person, its management would certainly make sure that the offence never took place again. That is a sanction that is workable and it is one that the Judiciary would use. It would have a dramatic effect in securing compliance with the hours laws, the under-age drinking laws and every other form of law. The penalties provisions in the Minister's legislation seem to be slightly inadequate. If you really want an effective law which the Judiciary will enforce you should bring in the power to temporarily suspend publicans' licences. That would achieve a dramatic revolution in enforcement of the law.

I wish to make one very short comment in reply to Deputy McDowell. It is the intention of the Government, if the House agrees, to have the Intoxicating Liquor Bill, which I circulated last Monday, before the House for Second Reading next Tuesday. I wish to say for the benefit of all parties in the House that I would not want anybody to think that I have a monopoly on what is best in this area. I would welcome for full discussion, without any time restrictions, proposals from any side of the House that will help us all to deal with this problem which we recognise and thanks to Deputy Barrett for facilitating us up to now. If we work together on this matter we can have good legislation on our Statute Book very quickly which is what we all want.

We are indebted to Deputy Barrett that he did not call time earlier.

I will begin by thanking all those who contributed to the debate. I covered many of the points that were made when I initially presented the Bill. A very positive approach was adopted by all the speakers. It is generally recognised that legislation is only part of what can be done in this whole area. That is the role we have and we cannot ignore it. Unfortunately, it has been ignored for 64 years and as a result we are facing many problems today.

One problem in particular is in relation to the sale of drink from off-licences. As the Deputies on this side of the House are well aware the facilities we, as Opposition Deputies, have for research, consist of oneself and one's constituency secretary doing all the probing. When I was doing some research in this area I was fascinated to discover that when legislation was passed in 1924 it permitted the sale of alcohol from off-licences to anybody over 15 years of age, provided it was sold in a corked and sealed container and that that container was capable of holding in excess of one pint. I think that is where we got this flood of sales of flagons of cider from off-licences. Anyone who has examined the statistics will see that cider is probably the second or third in line in relation to the consumption of alcohol by young people. Beer is consumed more than cider and spirits is not too far behind. I am talking about 12 and 13 year olds in case anybody thinks I am being a spoil sport in talking about semi-grown people of 17 or 18 years of age.

A positive approach was adopted throughout this debate. I said at the outset and I still hold the view — I recognise that by agreement the Whips hold the view — that perhaps the best way of dealing with this matter is not to pursue this Bill through a special committee of the House but to deal with the matter by way of the legislation published recently by the Minister. It is quite obvious from the debate that has taken place that the one positive thing we achieved is that we narrowed the discussion on this whole area to concentrate on the problem of under-age drinking. If we had more wide-ranging legislation dealing with the opening and closing hours of pubs and the issue of special restaurant licences as well as under age drinking, we would not have highlighted the problem of under-age drinking over the past few weeks. It was of tremendous benefit to have separate legislation dealing with this problem.

I am still of the opinion — and I do not say this in a narrow political sense — that it would have been wiser if the Minister when publishing his legislation had recognised that there was already a Bill before the House dealing with the problem of under-age drinking and his Bill could have concentrated on opening and closing hours and the issue of special licences for restaurants. I say that in all sincerity because for far too long when introducing legislation we have tried to cover too many areas. In other countries when they introduce legislation covering many areas, it is common to break it up into separate Bills and deal with each Bill separately. The benefit of doing that is that it focuses attention on a particular problem and continuously reminds us of the need to review and update that legislation, as we should be doing.

I said before and I say it again, any Minister for Justice, whether from my party or from the party across the floor, has a very difficult job dealing with security, prisons, the Garda Síochána and the Northern Ireland problem as well as law reform. The Department is far too big for any one individual to deal with such a wide area. The problem is that there are various pieces of out-of-date legislation which it is impossible to update if it is left to one Minister.

That brings me to another point. When I was Government Whip and Whip of my party I tried strenuously to get my party to accept the view that when in Government the onus is not always on the Government of the day to produce legislation. It is an accepted principle that parties in Opposition, or individual Deputies if they wish, should feel free to produce legislation. Because a party in Opposition or an individual Deputy produces legislation that does not take from the Government of the day. The Government should not feel they have to produce a Bill because the Opposition did. We have to change that attitude.

If we are asking for changes in legislation to be implemented we have to change our attitude in this House. We still have the idea that it is up to the Government to produce legislation. So far the Fine Gael Party in Opposition have produced five Private Members' Bills and I hope we produce many more. If the Government do not like them they should vote against them, but if they like them they should let them pass and make changes on Committee Stage.

The legislation produced by the Minister is practically word for word the same as that produced by the Coalition Government on 17 December 1986. For that reason I must ask why it has taken 12 months to produce the Government Bill. Admittedly there are a few minor changes but by and large it is the same as our Bill. As regards the part of the Ministers Bill dealing with under-age drinking, it is practically word for word the same as my Bill before the House tonight, but with two minor amendments. The first is allowing for apprentices over the age of 16 years to be on licensed premises. I would have been prepared to accept an amendment to that effect on Committee Stage because I accept that we should have made such a provision.

The second minor change is that it permits children to be on licensed premises, accompanied by their parents or guardians, at any time. I do not have any particular hang-up about that. However, in my view, it is not appropriate to see young children being left abandoned in public houses while some irresponsible parents are drinking. I say that deliberately because there are a very large number of responsible parents who bring in their families when they are having one or two drinks, particularly when they are on holidays. Once something is put into legislation it applies to everybody. We cannot legislate for some people and ignore others. Once we have this provision in the Bill we are making it legal for the irresponsible parent to abandon his children in the public house while he is drinking. In my view that is not good for society, nor is it an example to give young children in their tender years, ten, 12 or 14 or younger. I warn against that, but that too can be discussed on Committee Stage.

As I said, with the exception of those two changes there is no difference between my Bill and that produced by the Government and I fail to see why the Government decided to follow me and produce similar legislation. My only concern is to see legislation dealing with this matter on the Statute Book and whether it be in the name of the Government of the day, in my name or that of any other Deputy, I am not particularly concerned. I have taken a great deal of pleasure in promoting this legislation. I have taken a great deal of pleasure on behalf of my party in having the opportunity of highlighting the problem and having a wide-ranging discussion on the problem. I am delighted we were able to do so on a rational basis across party lines. This augurs well for the future.

I do not have time to go through some of the points made in the debate but the point which was mentioned most dealt with the issue of identity cards. It is very peculiar that the same coverage was given to this problem by the media when there is nothing about identity cards in the legislation, yet we spent most of our time discussing that issue. However, it was a worthwhile discussion and I hope the Government will take note of it. Despite what has been written and said, in many cases in an irrational way, by some people about the issue of identity cards, it is not the view which is widely held by the majority of the elected representatives in this House. The Progressive Democrats, The Workers' Party, members of Fianna Fáil and members of Fine Gael have come out openly and said identity cards are a good idea. Maybe we could argue about the detail or the precautions that would have to be taken if such a system were introduced, but it is clear to me from the letters which appeared in our newspapers over the past few weeks following the interview I gave about this issue that I am winning. About 70 per cent of the letters were in favour and 30 per cent against the issue of identity cards.

It pays not to be afraid to open a discussion or to make your point, even though you think the majority may be against you. It is interesting to note that if one makes a suggestion to deal with abuses of the social welfare system there is uproar from some of those who complain bitterly about those abuses. We had better make up our minds whether we want to head into the 21st century with modern technology assisting us or whether we want to live with our heads in the sand afraid to face up to issues. People of my age group, and older, can learn from the positive attitude of young people who see nothing wrong in having to have identity cards or in having to carry some form of identification. In fact, they could save themselves some embarrassment by carrying identification. It is interesting to note that the issue that was touched on by most speakers in the debate was not related to the legislation, but we can learn from that.

While Deputy Roche was endeavouring in his contribution to be constructive I got the distinct impression that he did not devote a lot of time to reading the provisions of my Bill. He said I had not covered certain issues which I had dealt with when moving the Second Stage debate, such as off-licences. It is my view that by moving this legislation I have stirred the Government into action. I criticise the Minister for waiting 12 months to introduce his Bill and I am glad we had a short debate on under-age drinking. I do not want to hinder the passage of any legislation or to adopt a selfish approach in regard to any Bills and for those reasons I will not be putting this matter to a division. However, I should like to warn the Government that we will be pressing to have their legislation put through the House in the near future.

I should like to thank Deputy Barrett for giving us all an opportunity to have a worthwhile debate on this subject.

Question proposed: "That leave be given to withdraw the motion. `That the Bill be now read a Second Time'; and that the Bill be withdrawn."
Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share