I thank all the members of this House for the very valuable contributions they have made to the debate. At the outset, I would like to repeat what I said in my opening remarks, that during the course of Committee Stage of this Bill I will be more than prepared to sit down and discuss the merits of any amendment. I say that in particular having regard to Deputy Colley's contribution last evening in which a number of very important points were made and I say the same to Deputy Deenihan now. There is room for improvement in this Bill. It is something that we all want to see. On behalf of the Government party I am more than prepared to do what I can in the interests of having better legislation, bearing in mind the problems we are trying to deal with. I accept, as does everybody else, that we cannot legislate for morality, and thank God for that, but we can do our part in helping to deal with the problem.
Suggestions have been made as to how we can make the legislation more effective, particularly having regard to the problem of under-age drinking. Some suggestions made by members of all parties are worth further consideration. If we could have informal discussions, even before Committee Stage, with Deputy Colley, Deputy Seán Barrett or anybody else on what attitudes might be to certain proposals, we could go a long way towards producing very worthwhile legislation at the end of the day. When I say "the end of the day" I am not talking about months but perhaps a couple of weeks to consider amendments and then come back to this House. Of course, this is subject to agreement between the Whips. There is an acceptance between all parties that the Finance Bill will be discussed over the next two weeks, but perhaps we could deal with this matter the following week. We should give this legislation the priority it deserves.
There is another reason for moving rapidly, that is, have the licences for restaurants considered. It is important that this legislation be brought in as quickly as possible so that the restaurants will be able to have their licences and be operational for the summer tourist season. As far as I am concerned, there is no division among us. I did not agree with some of the comments made from this side of the House and when one of my party colleagues made points with which I did not agree, I told him I could not go along that line for very good reasons which I would spell out on Committee Stage.
Last night I met with representatives of the interests involved — hoteliers, restauranteurs, vintners — and I advised them to speak to the spokespersons of the other parties, Deputy Seán Barrett and Deputy Colley. I had not heard the comments from other Deputies at that time. Some of the suggestions made may be worth taking on board, they are certainly worth considering. I hope Deputies have taken my suggestion to heart and will make their submissions in a matter of days. As I said to the people I met last night, and as I said in this House yesterday, with regard to amendments one has to be very careful that one sectional interest does not take from another. If we are not we will have an unmerciful tug-of-war and we will fall down with regard to getting fair, worthwhile and proper legislation on the Statute Book, which is what we all want to see.
There is very great concern about under-age drinking. I want to publicly express my appreciation to Deputy Seán Barrett and to all the Members of this House who participated in the debate on this subject over the last few weeks. The fact that there have only been five or six prosecutions over a period, is no reason to believe the problem does not exist. Of course it exists and we are expected to do something about it. We can only do a certain amount and I hope from the publicity given to these debates that parents will be reminded that they, too, have a very serious part to play, something they seem to forget.
Like every other Deputy I want to see legislation which will be enforced fairly and squarely right across the board. I want to see legislation that will be respected by the general public and by those engaged in selling alcohol. This is very necessary. Last night, one of the Deputies said the law with regard to the ten minute drinking up time was not being enforced, that it was impossible to enforce. That is generally accepted. We see there is a problem there and we are trying to do something about it. Deputy Davern outlined many difficulties in enforcing existing legislation. We have to clear obstacles out of the way of the law enforcers and ensure that there is no reason the law is not observed. We all want to see the law observed.
My argument when speaking to interested groups and to Deputies and Senators, when we were discussing fines was that the law must be enforced. Some people say the fines are too severe and others say they are too low. There would be no need to discuss fines if people observed the law. Why should we worry about fines if intoxicating liquor is sold only during the hours set down in legislation? Already people are saying a fine of £400 for a first offence is too severe. Of course it is, if a person flouts the law. It is meant to be a penalty, not a reward.
I read in a newspaper that a certain establishment had 100 plus people on the premises on Christmas Day and the judge could only fine the licence holder £40. He would make that in ten or 15 minutes. We should have a real disincentive. In Northern Ireland, he would be fined £1,000 and probably get 12 months in jail. I think we are being very moderate and we are doing it this way to get the co-operation of the trade. I am satisfied that those in the trade do not want an illegal after hours business. They want to finish at 11.00 p.m. or midnight, but if there are loopholes, where one establishment serves drinks after hours and another follows suit then everything mushrooms and there is no control. Those days are gone.
Deputy Colley mentioned severe penalties on those selling drink to under-age persons. I look forward to discussing this section on Committee Stage and to hearing proposals from any side of the House. I think we will find support for such a measure right across the board. If Deputies suggest any way to deal more effectively with this problem I will be prepared to consider it. Last night Deputies said if we were positive about tackling under-age drinking we should have a system of identification. I have no hang-ups about that. Having regard to what was said in the debate, and taking into account my views on this matter, I am prepared to give that suggestion very serious consideration so that we can work out a fair and equitable system. I recognise that there are people outside who will shout — they shouted at Deputy Seán Barrett and wrongly so — that Big Brother will be watching. I resent Big Brother as much as anybody and, because of my job, I probably know Big Brother better than anybody. I would be as watchful of people's rights and privileges as anybody else but we must, and can do something in this area.
As I said, Deputy Colley mentioned this as did her colleague, Deputy Quill, two weeks ago. I did not agree with the details of the scheme spelled out by Deputy Quill but that does not matter as long as we agree in principle and do not hold up the Bill. By way of an amendment, we might consider an enabling provision which would help us along the way. There is room for our collective wisdom to see if we can deal with this problem.
If we are to deal with the problem of cider parties and the fall-out from these parties, we should use our common sense and frame legislation to see how we can deal with it. I believe we can do a very worthwhile job.
A number of Members had reservations about allowing children in pubs with their parents or guardians while others welcome the change. It is not an easy question to deal with but it is a matter of getting the balance right. For instance, nobody suggested that we should allow children unaccompanied in pubs or that we should ban them from pubs. The latter would seem to be going to the other extreme. We are trying to strike a proper balance in regard to that. If Deputy Deenihan, while on his way home to his constituency of North Kerry with his wife and family, would like a sandwich in a pub he will be able to bring his family with him. It is nice to see the family staying together rather than what happened when we were kids, the children remaining in the car while Daddy went into the pub for a sandwich and a bottle of beer and mother was lucky if she got a cup of coffee in the pub. In my view we are going in the right direction in trying to strike the proper balance.
A question was raised about the ban on persons under 18 years of age being in the part of a licensed premises in respect of which a special exemption order is in force. That provision will not, of course, apply to the premises as a whole but only to the particular part to which the exemption applies. Accordingly, there is no question of those under 18 not being allowed, for example, in hotel premises where an extension is in operation. The provision will merely prevent such persons being in the ballroom or wherever else the extension applies. We can deal with such matters in greater detail on Committee Stage.
A strong case was made by Deputy Davern and others, about the way drink is sold in supermarkets. I accept that there is a problem there and I am prepared, during the course of Committee Stage, to pool our resources to try to deal with it. It is not funny that in this day and age when alcohol cannot be sold through licensed outlets on Good Friday one can walk into a supermarket, or back up a truck and take it away if one can afford to pay for it. There is no question of any proper supervision on who goes into such sections of a supermarket or what they do when they get there. I am prepared to look at that and see to it based on our own experience, that they cannot be outlets for the sale of alcohol to under-age people.
On the question of a notice about under-age drinking provisions the point was made that licensed premises should have to display notices about the provisions relating to under-age drinking. Sections 34 and 36 already require the posting of notices regarding the provisions excluding children from bars and excluding those aged 18 from late night extensions. Whether one should go further and require notice about other provisions in Part IV is something that we can look at again but my first reaction is that the law regarding the supply of drink to the under aged will now be so well known to everybody, both licensees and patrons of licensed premises of whatever age, that further notices will be unnecessary.
We had a lot of discussions on the question of making it an offence for those under 18 to be in the possession of containers of drink. One thing we ought turn our minds to is that those over 18 who supply drink to under-age persons, or those who supply drink to those over 18 years of age who in turn pass it on to young people, should be dealt with. We should watch out for that loophole on Committee Stage and do what we can to deal with it. There is a strong consensus in regard to under-age drinking and our responsibilities in regard to that problem. I am pleased about that. There are problems and there will be problems. The word "knowingly" is being taken out of the old legislation and that will put a greater responsibility on licensees to make it their business to check the age of the person who is buying the drink. We will have to see how best we can deal with that problem on Committee Stage.
Many points were raised about the new system of restaurant licensing. In my view the policy of licensing good quality restaurants should be accepted by all reasonable people. In replying to points made during the debate I intend to refer only to aspects of the proposed system. A number of Deputies felt the fee of £3,000 was too low while others maintained it was too high. Suggestions as to what would be an appropriate figure ranged in the last number of months from a low of £500 to a high of about £10,000. Those suggestions were made to me when I was trying to put this package together. In my view the licence fee should be related to requirements for obtaining the licence and what the licence will enable the holder to do. Thus, it will not be necessary to extinguish an existing licence but it will be necessary for the applicant to have a good quality restaurant.
The licence fee of £3,000 should be quite small relative to the cost of acquiring, equipping and running such a restaurant. On the other hand the holder of a special restaurant licence will be allowed to sell a full range of intoxicating liquor in association with substantial meals and possession of such a licence should generate a considerable income for the holder. Being a licence to sell intoxicating liquor the fee should be more than just the nominal amount of a few hundred pounds. On the other hand it is a restrictive licence in the sense that intoxicating liquor can only be sold with a substantial meal and at certain times of the day. On weekdays a restaurant will be permitted to sell liquor from 12.30 p.m. to 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. to 12.30 a.m. In all the circumstances a fee of £3,000 is not excessive. The fee will be a once off one and the excise duty for the annual renewal will be the same as for public houses, £50.
Restaurants with special restaurant licences will not be able to serve drink during the afternoon. I appreciate that some restaurants may find this restrictive but in deciding on the time during which restaurants should be allowed to serve drink I considered that these times should coincide with the times most people could reasonably be expected to want a substantial meal in a restaurant. Generally speaking these times are lunch time and the time of the evening meal. It has been said that some people eat their meals in restaurants during the afternoon but most people eat substantial meals at lunchtime, tea time or later in the evening.
I will have to have regard to the danger of a licence being abused if there was allday opening. I should emphasise that the intention is that special restaurant licences should not enable the holders to carry on pub trade. On the question of opening hours it has been said that public houses will be at a disadvantage because restaurants will be able to stay open until 12.30 a.m. The closing time of 12.30 a.m. is already the standard closing time for any premises such as a registered club, licensed restaurant or licensed hotels that serve substantial meals to the public. As a restaurant with a special restaurant licence will be in the same category it is only fair that they should have the same closing time. That is already the case for public houses that have obtained restaurant certificates under which they serve substantial meals to the public. The intention is that restaurants with special restaurant licences will not be in competition with public houses.
Finally, on the question of restaurants, there is some dissatisfaction that the word "bar" has been defined so strictly. It is central to the whole concept of the special restaurant licence that premises obtaining such licences cannot get involved in a bar trade. Therefore, there can be no question of alcohol being served across counters or barriers or through hatches.
Deputy Seán Barrett wanted to know whether it would be necessary to place notices in newspapers regarding the applications for the granting of a special restaurant licence. The answer is yes. The licence will be renewable annually and under the law attracts all the conditions attached to it. The granting of these licences can be objected to by any persons for the same reasons and in the same way as objections can be made to granting any liquor licence. In addition, a Garda superintendent can object to the renewal of a special restaurant licence on the grounds that premises have not been bona fide and solely used as restaurants within the meaning of the Act.
A number of Deputies said that it is practically impossible for the Garda to enforce the law because of the way some of these restaurants operate. Members of the House have said that, in trying to do so, the Garda may come to the door of a restaurant which is closed and cannot gain admission. They are often left for ten or 15 minutes before they are allowed in to see that the law is being observed. I know that in one such place in recent times a man outside the door had a way of communicating with those inside and he was able to tell them that the Garda were coming, thus ensuring that everything was shipshape when they arrived. I will have discussions with the Garda Commissioner before Committee Stage to see how we can ensure that this obstacle in the way of the Garda can be dealt with. It is not good enough and we cannot accept it. It may even mean that the Garda superintendent will make this point in court at the hearing for the renewal of the licence so that the judge will take it into consideration. It is a serious problem and is not confined to Dublin.
Last night Deputy Davern said that a requirement for late night exemptions is that a meal must be served. Up to now the price of a meal was £2 but, as I said already, we propose to considerably increase that figure. Deputy Davern also said that, in many of these places, meals are not served. That is not how the system is meant to operate. The Garda, up to now, have been unable to deal with this problem and we must ensure that food is served if restaurants have a licence.
If the purpose of the operation is to hold disco dancing and that drink is sold — it can only be sold if food is supplied — we must insist that food is supplied. If there is a problem in this regard, we will deal with it on Committee Stage.
Deputy Colley raised the question of St. Patrick's Day. Someone else mentioned New year's Eve and I have no hang-up in regard to these two days. It is a long time since I celebrated on the streets of the capital city on New Year's Eve but I would prefer to see people enjoying themselves in a disciplined fashion indoors than being rowdy outside. I will do anything to help commonsense to prevail, even on the most joyous occasion.
Deputy Colley said that a smaller fee should be imposed on the seasonal restaurants as she thought the sum of £3,000 was excessive. I gave this matter very serious consideration in trying to justify how a small restaurant in Waterville, Dingle, Ballybunion, Kilkee or Westport should pay the same fee as, say, Ernie's in Donnybrook which is open for six or seven nights of the week. However, the same could apply to public houses or hotels that are closed for a number of months and I am advised very strongly that there is a better chance of having proper legislation if there is a degree of uniformity. We all know families in different parts of the country who provide a lovely service for foreign and Irish tourists and they may operate for only half of June, July, August and may be a week or two in September. It does not appear to be fair that they will have to pay the same fee as large restaurants open all year but I did consider the matter very seriously, as I was asked to do by the restaurant trade early in the year, and if that had not been a factor the fee would have been at a much higher level.
I was surprised to hear Deputy Seán Barrett expressing doubts regarding the abolition of the "holy hour". However, in fairness, he said he only had doubts and that he was open to convincing. As the debate went on, I am sure his doubts vanished because none of us likes to see people staying on in licensed premises and getting to a stage where they cannot look after themselves. In the new legislation, there will be an increased penalty for the licence holder who supplies drink to someone who should not have been served. There is a responsibility on the licence holder not to serve alcohol to somebody who is not in total command of their senses. The fact that the "holy hour" is to be abolished will not lead to any great excess in alcohol consumption because the principal factor governing such consumption is the amount of cash in the pocket. There is also a very high awareness now among young people in regard to the dangers of excessive drinking.
If people are found to have more than the permittted level of alcohol in their blood stream when driving a car they will immediately be put off the road. It has taken a while for that message to get through but it is finally dawning on people that we are serious in this regard. In other countries, the amount of permitted alcohol is even less than that permitted here and perhaps we should be thinking along those lines. An advertisement a couple of years ago said "two will do"— I did not think very much of it — and I would prefer those who drive not to take any alcohol.
I do not see the logic of saying that an extra half an hour's drinking-up time will lead to a higher rate of drunken driving. Most people, particularly those in charge of cars, recognise the consequences of driving if they have consumed too much alcohol. They know that their safety — and that of others — is threatened and that they will lose their licence, which, in turn, will mean in many cases that they will lose their jobs. The Garda are to be complimented on the way they have enforced the law.
It is about 20 years since the law in regard to drunken driving was brought in and it was not very welcome at that time. It was one of the first issues I voted on in this House. In reality it was the second; the first issue I voted on was in regard to another Limerick man, Steve Coughlan, who was unruly and the second was for the introduction of the breathalyser. It has taken a while to win public approval and observance and the way the law has been enforced is responsible for its acceptance.
A number of contributors raised the question of clubs, and I know there is a big problem in this regard. You could start up a club anywhere with 25 members; you could enrol 25 names and start selling booze. That is mad. I would welcome further discussion on that to see if we can do something about it. It is wrong. We will take that one from there and deal with it. If Members of the House had an opportunity to read the Official Report for 1957 on the Intoxicating Liquor Act they would see some of the comments made as to why clubs should not be inspected by members of the Garda Síochána below the rank of inspector. That argument does not hold today and we are taking away that privilege. I would go further than that, although not within this Bill. No member of the Garda Síochána should serve on the board of management of any of these clubs. I know some do and it is wrong and the Garda Commissioner will be asked to look at that matter because it cannot be perceived that in such circumstances the law would be enforced fairly and squarely across the board. It is not a matter for the Bill, but that should be discouraged. I am sure the commissioner could deal with that in some way as the House want him to do.
That is a reasonable effort, I believe, on my part to reply to most of the points made. With regard to penalties, a number of Deputies thought the fine of £2, if convicted of being drunk and disorderly, is too low; it is. It is just the price of a pint. I will examine that and we will do something about it.
Deputy Michael Barrett raised a considerable number of interesting points including the question of controls, the renewal of off-licences, the question of making provision in relation to sales of cider and that of imposing some controls on admission to discos. We will look at these matters and see what we can do there. Other suggestions were made that we consider greater penalties, as I have said, for those involved in selling alcohol to people under age. I have no doubt that a number of Deputies will be exercising their minds on this and we will give their proposals every consideration.
Deputy Barrett suggested that the Bill should contain provisions to ensure the highest standards of hygiene are maintained in licensed premises. I point out to the Deputy that provisions of this kind are more appropriate to legislation administered by other Departments, such as food hygiene regulations administered by the Department of Health and perhaps it is wise to leave that area to them. I am satisfied that it is fairly properly covered. Deputy Deenihan spoke about the desirability of an educational publicity campaign to instil standards of moderation in relation to drink to help curb under-age drinking in particular. I agree that such initiatives have a part to play in combating drinking, but any provision of this kind would probably be outside the scope of this Bill.
Drink advertising raises difficult questions and any move to include a provision in this Bill to restrict such advertisements would delay probably the progress of the Bill, but we can look at it and I will take up Deputy Colley's offer if we need further legislation in this area, and I thank her for the offer. I am not prepared to wait a year or two to see how things are going before I do something about it. The only problem I have is to get it up and running as fast as I can.
