I wish to share my time with Deputies Broughan and Moynihan-Cronin.
Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 2000 [ Seanad ] : Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Is that agreed? Agreed.
This Bill has been long in gestation. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform made a solemn promise to the House that changes in the licensing laws would be enacted in advance of the summer recess. However, it was the 1999 summer recess that the Minister had in mind. In the Seanad he described this as a comprehensive measure. He also said that in formulating the proposals he had sought submissions from the "length and breadth of the country". It is indicative of his approach to this matter that subsequent to this inordinate delay in bringing the measure before the House and consequent to his submissions up and down the country, one of the provisions in the new Bill establishes a new commission on licensing.
In effect, the Minister is saying that after two years of consideration, after a committee of the House deliberated and reported on the matter and after taking submissions from "the length and breadth of the country", as the Minister said, he is now to set up a commission to continue with this process. Far from being comprehensive, this Bill is a stopgap measure bringing together some elements of the proposals that were put to the Minister by various interested parties. That is regrettable. It is important that a comprehensive final draft of licensing regimes is brought before this House and enacted so that the various interests can be balanced and a determination made. I have no objection in principle to the concept of a commission on licensing but the fact that a commission is required to do the job that was taken on by the Minister and is the proper preserve of this House is an admission of failure.
I have only a few minutes to deal in detail with the provisions of the Bill. The most vexed question and the one which has caused most debate is opening hours. The Bill deals with the opening hours permitted to licensed premises and clubs. However, if one attempts to read the section relating to the permitted opening hours, one will find the most convoluted, impenetrable legal speak ever put on paper. The opening hours take up a full page of the Bill.
This legislation, much vaunted by the Minister as a Bill to bring clarity to the licensing laws, brings together all sorts of suggestions in a mishmash that is impossible for the average citizen to read or understand. If I had sufficient time I would read section 3 into the record as an example of impenetrable legalese and gobbledegook. It refers to when St. Patrick's Day falls on a certain day, Christmas eve and the eve of Good Friday between certain hours, and the eve of any public holiday other than Christmas eve. It is like a soothsayer's guide, if there is a full moon followed by the Michaelmas term, one subtracts the date one was born and one might be allowed to open the pub. It is incredible.
Good Friday fell on Easter Monday; it was a racehorse.
When one gets through all that and trawls through the eves of holy days, public holidays, bank holidays, one's birthday and one's best friend's favourite number, one reaches section 3(1A) which states: "The hours specified in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) in respect of any day specified in that paragraph are in addition to the period between midnight and 12.30 a.m. on that day where that period is included in the hours so specified in respect of the eve of that day." Is that not clear? It is gobbledegook.
I understand the Taoiseach had an input into drafting the opening hours and, in good nanny state style, he determined that there should not be late opening on Sunday nights because the labouring classes might be unable to get up to do their work on Mondays. That patronising attitude was common at one time in the licensing regime in Australia. People were obliged to go into drinking houses to guzzle as much drink as they could in a limited period. I thought we had left that type of thing behind. This Bill will put in place three basic regimes of opening hours and a number of sub-regimes and bring anything but clarity to the matter.
Section 4 deals with premises engaged in a mixture of retail activity, that is, the licensing regime for supermarkets and the new developing premises which provide petrol and a variety of other services. The opening hours will be changed from 9 a.m. on weekdays to 7.30 a.m. and from 12.30 p.m. on other days, except on 23 and 24 December. They can sell liquor from 8 a.m. on weekdays. These premises, therefore, can open at 7.30 a.m. but can only sell liquor from 8 a.m. The assistants will probably have to stand shotgun for an hour and a half lest the alcoholics get loose among the liquor aisles during the time before permitted hours. This type of nannyism is daft and should be tackled.
We still have not addressed the issue of opening on Good Friday. The blanket prohibition on the sale of alcohol on Good Friday is out of kilter with growing secularism and with the notion that people should be allowed to establish their own regimes. If people wish to have religious observance, it should not be enforced by the law of the State. The fact that the old regime will still prevail on Good Friday, where premises will be unable to open because they sell intoxicating liquor in addition to a range of other goods, is unacceptable and wrong.
Section 5 deals with nightclubs, disco operators and special exemptions. It quite properly abolishes the requirement that meals be provided with special occasion exemptions. Subsection (1)(f) introduces a requirement that the new hours permitted for exemptions not cause undue inconvenience to local residents. This is welcome although I do not know how it will work in practice. However, it is true that throughout the country certain late night disco licences can have an extremely deleterious effect on neighbourhoods. I welcome the provision that the court must have regard for the inconvenience to local residents in determining the exemption but I am not convinced as to how it will work.
Section 6 deals with hotels and restaurants and is another example of the nanny state. On Christmas Day hotels and restaurants are allowed to sell intoxicating liquor between 1 p.m. and 3 p.m. and between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m., presumably to allow people have a drink with their lunch and dinner. Will there be somebody in the restaurant with a stopwatch on Christmas Day? If somebody has a glass of champagne with their family in the restaurant before 1 p.m., will they be committing a criminal offence? Is that not daft and silly? Is it not time we got away from drafting regimes which impose unrealistic burdens on people, which will not be enforced and which, if they are, are daft? I support the extra hour of permitted hours on other days.
Part 3 deals with underage drinking. I strongly support the new measures which provide for a severe penalty for those who sell drink to minors. There should be extremely strong laws in relation to underage drinking. It should be deterred in the same way as in the United States. However, people have, for some reason, equated liberalising laws in relation to opening hours with strict laws on underage drinking. There is no correlation between the two.
This is a hotchpotch Bill. It does some good and some bad but it is far from the comprehensive Bill that was promised and far from the overarching legislation that should have been produced after two years gestation.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. Unfortunately, however, my time is limited and I cannot deal in detail with the issues I hope to raise.
I welcome many of the initiatives in the Bill, particularly the provisions relating to people who sell liquor to underage persons. This is a huge issue throughout the country. While many publicans and owners of off-licences are concerned about this issue and would not sell drink to minors, there is a number who do sell it. Unless a strict identity card system is put in place, it will be extremely difficult to police this section. The Minister must ensure that the law is enforced. There are many laws but they are of little use if they are not enforced.
The Minister said he consulted widely about this Bill. I am sure that one of the more vocal groups he met was the parents of young children and teenagers who are able to buy drink and get drunk in pubs. I was speaking to a 16 year old friend of mine recently who is studying in university. Her friend, who is also 16 years of age, is from the United States. When the exams were over her friend from the US was boasting that she was now looking forward to going out and getting drunk. When that girl will go back home to America she will not get drunk, she will not even get a drink. It is about time we dealt with this issue and I commend the Minister for beginning to do so.
I would like the Minister to take on board a couple of issues. The first issue relates to small supermarkets which are losing business to the larger multinationals because they have no facility to sell liquor. I ask the Minister to listen to the genuine concerns of these people. I will quote from a letter I received from a small super market owner in my constituency in Kerry. The letter reads as follows:
I am currently employing 8 people in an area where there is little other employment. My family have been in business for over 100 years and have managed to date to survive in the face of increasing competition from big multiples. Competition has increased in the past 6/7 years. The multiples, which have stores only 8 miles away have increased opening hours and are now selling newspapers and lotto, as well as intoxicating liquor. I really feel I am losing business by not having an off-licence. I am always going to be by-passed by the busy consumer for a store where the product range is larger.
I received another letter which reads:
.. the liquor licensing laws in this country are outdated in comparison to other European countries where you can go into any supermarket and buy drink. As you know shops over the years, either in cities, towns or country have closed down due to the high level of competition from multinationals.
Again rural Ireland will suffer. I ask the Minister, who comes from a constituency with many small supermarkets, to listen to the concerns of these people and give them fair play.
Another issue to which I wish to draw the Minister's attention is Sunday night closing hours. I cannot understand why pubs must close earlier on Sunday night than on weekend nights. For example, people from Kerry who travel to football matches or race meetings in Dublin like to have a social drink when they return home but, unfortunately, there is no way people from Dingle, Cahirciveen, Killarney and Kenmare, which is five or six hours drive from Dublin, can have a social drink after they arrive home from these sporting events. The Minister, who comes from Cahirciveen, will understand this aspect and should do away with this draconian law to close pubs earlier on Sunday night. I would like to raise many other issues but, unfortunately, my time is up.
In the 19th century it was said that brewers controlled the liberal party. It must be said, given this anaemic Bill before us, that brewers, publicans and supermarket interests have a major influence on the two conservative parties in this House. The Bill just tinkers with the important issue of our social lives but does not introduce fundamental reforms. I acknowledge that pubs and hostelries have played a useful role in public life in providing accommodation, rooms for public meetings and so on. However, it is the duty of this House to legislate for all sectors of society, particularly in the important area of alcohol.
There are gross restrictions on the issuing of licences in the four Dublin County Council areas where there are 1.2 million people. There are approximately 657 licences in this area, whereas the rest of Ireland has approximately 7,000 licences. This is a key issue which the Government should address. This has resulted in grotesque profiteering in the area of alcohol with profits of £2, £3, £4 and £5 per drink in public houses throughout Dublin and Ireland as reported in yesterday's Irish Independent. These massive profits and the spiralling cost of beers, shorts and mixers are a major imposition on people leading a normal social life and is an issue the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, should have tackled. Deputy Rabbitte, as Minister of State, was prepared to control prices in this area but the present Government as usual has flunked addressing this important lobby.
I welcome sections 13 and 14 governing the sale of alcoholic drinks to underage persons and the abolition of the reasonable grounds defence. As the Deputy opposite from the north Dublin region knows, people living in the northern and western fringes of the city are plagued on three, four or five nights a week by gangs of underage youths, some as young as 12, 13 or 14, carrying plastic carrier bags and drinking in open spaces and parks. These plastic carrier bags carry no names, therefore the sellers cannot be identified. Fianna Fáil and Progressive Democrats Deputies should have addressed this issue. These youths cause mayhem and disturbance of the peace for the gardaí and residents. This issue has been ignored totally by Members on the opposite side of the House and this constant mayhem is allowed to continue.
Fianna Fáil promised in its election manifesto to introduce community wardens to deal with this issue. Since then nothing has happened on these anaemic ideas about park wardens and so on. There has been no co-ordination between the Departments of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Environment and Local Government in relation to by-laws. Dublin City and Fingal County Councils have no by-laws at present on drinking in open spaces. There is no attempt to place responsibility on the brewing industry and publicans throughout the area.
The Bill fails to address the issuing of licences. The legislation has not attempted to look at a proper ratio of licences for the burgeoning districts of Dublin north, Dublin west and so on. Areas with approximately 30,000, 40,000 or 50,000 people are served by perhaps three, four or five pubs. Vast drinking halls cater for 600 or 700 people. The Bill does not address this fundamental issue which is at the route of many of our problems.
I welcome some of the changes on trading hours. When I was Labour Party spokesman for Enterprise, Trade and Employment I held meetings with Mandate and representatives of the brewers and publicans. I made various demands at the time in relation to shift systems and extra wages for late night work from which I hope workers will benefit.
I wish to share my time with Deputies Kenneally and John Browne, Wexford.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I welcome the Bill, by and large. However, I am concerned about the effects the extended opening hours will have in the Dublin area, as in many urban areas, on adjacent residential areas where I have yet to see a pub which closes on time. There are a few notorious pubs in my constituency where the shutters are closed at approximately 2 a.m. and 3 a.m. People are being served in these pubs at all hours of the night. The provision in the instruments underpinning this legislation must ensure that people who live near public houses can have a decent night's sleep and get up in the morning.
I want to focus on Part 3 of the Bill relating to the amendment of provisions relating to underage persons. My good friend, Fr. Micheál McGréil of the Pioneer Total Abstinence Association, made very good observations in that regard. As Deputy Broughan said, when we talk about underage drinking in the area he and I represent, one is talking about 10, 11, and 12 year old youngsters who, as a matter of course on Friday afternoon after school, go to the local off-licence or pub and, without difficulty, can get Dutch Gold, Red Bull or cider in unmarked plastic bags.
The Minister might take on board the need to have clear identification marks on bags used to carry alcohol from off-licences. People get blotto in our parks and open spaces and usually end up with a "company car", as we call it in Dublin, break some windows and cause mayhem. This must be tackled. Will the Minister look at provisions which could be introduced? Dublin City Council tried to deal with this problem by way of by-laws – which will restrict or prohibit drinking in public places such as parks. There are alcohol-free zones in some towns in Northern Ireland. I was in Coventry recently, where there is a huge problem with under age drinking with gangs gathering in the city centre at all hours of day and night and where a complete ban was introduced on drinking in open spaces and public areas, which has worked. In many states in the US a person with a can or a beer bottle in the back of a taxi can be prosecuted on the spot. The problem is so extensive in Ireland we need to address it with, unfortunately, fairly draconian measures.
Health warning on drinks containers should be introduced given the amount of disruption to family life and health caused by the abuse of alcohol. I met a bright and breezy 16 year old alcoholic last Friday whom I taught a number of years ago. He is very intelligent but drifted into alcohol abuse and without extensive counselling will be in that way of life for a long time. The drinks industry should bear part of the cost in ensuring that person is looked after. There is no reason measures similar to those taken against the tobacco industry should not be taken against the drinks industry. The Cider Industry Council is doing its bit and funding programmes, although I am not sure how effective they are.
Deputy Moynihan-Cronin mentioned something very dear to my heart, namely, an enforceable ID scheme for young people which we must introduce. In the part of the city I represent we had a watch card which was introduced by some community gardaí. In some pubs it was accepted and regarded as bona fide but in many places it was abused and youngsters were able to forge the cards, and in the end it simply did not work.
I welcome the provision in section 13(3) which places the onus on publicans to prove they have not sold drink to an under age person. If that is enforced in conjunction with a proper ID system we will see an improvement.
The Bill in general is very welcome, but I need to be convinced that we can introduce measures restricting the ability of young people to get alcohol at off-licences, pubs, etc. I also need to be convinced that we have the commitment to introduce a wide-ranging and enforceable ID scheme. Otherwise what we see in our parks, on our streets and everywhere else, particularly at weekends, will continue and get worse.
(Wexford): I welcome the Bill, although I have certain reservations about it. My view, which I have discussed with the Minister on a number of occasions, is that there should be complete deregulation of the drinks industry and that pubs should be allowed close whenever they so wish. In Enniscorthy I see gardaí driving around the town at closing time and visiting half the pubs which is a waste of their time – they would be far better off looking after the community, something the Minister should seriously examine. The UK is currently going down that road and perhaps in some years we will also take that direction. However, the Minister does not think it is the road to take at the moment, and neither do some publicans.
I have nothing against drink, but glossy advertising on television, in cinemas and all over the place encourage young people to drink. The Minister for Health and Children talks about banning all cigarette advertising, but neither he nor the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform seem to have plans to ban drinks advertising. I agree with Deputy Carey that a health warning on drinks bottles and cans is as important as a health warning on packs of cigarettes and the Minister should consider banning the advertising of alcohol on Report Stage.
Regarding sections 13 and 14, under age drinking has been a big issue for many years and publicans and successive Governments seem at loggerheads as to how it should be resolved. An ID scheme was suggested for quite a long time and I know some publicans implemented it, but it did not work. It is necessary for the Government and publicans to examine the scheme again in co-operation with each other. A proper enforceable ID scheme could be funded jointly to deal with under age drinking.
It is not good enough for the VFI to just run away from under age drinking. It knows there are some cowboy operators among its members who are serving drink to people who are under age. The VFI is turning a blind eye to this and is not taking any action against its members, which is very serious. We all know some publicans and off-licences provide young people with drink. This is not just confined to Dublin – the problem also exists in other urban and rural areas where young people are gathering in parks, at cross-roads and in town squares to drink cider and all kinds of new and fancy drinks which they are buying in off-licences and from publicans.
Deputy Moynihan-Cronin suggested the names of publicans and off-licences should be on all bottles and cans, and it is probably something we should consider, given that we hear much talk about traceability. It would involve publicans having their names or the company's name on the drink they sell, particularly on flagons of cider.
I am concerned about discos. I live in Enniscorthy, a small town, where every Friday, Saturday and Sunday night when the five disco halls close at 2.00 a.m., 5,000 people are dumped on to the street at the one time. Under the new legislation the time will probably change to 3.00 a.m. or 3.30 a.m. There are rows, bottle throwing and all sorts of problems with which the Garda have to deal. The disco owners close the doors and pull down the shutters and it is left to the local community and the Garda to deal with the situation. The Minister must seriously examine how this problem can be dealt with. I am sure the problem is not confined to Enniscorthy but is the same in every urban centre. These crowds of people, who emerge from discos at the same time, converge on two or three chippers and cause mayhem and inconvenience local people.
Seaside resorts in Wexford have major problems with drinking in public places and the county council recently introduced a by-law to ban drinking in public places this summer in Courtown as a pilot scheme because Dublin louts come down and cause mayhem at the weekends. We just do not want them in Courtown or in any part of Wexford. Some people say it may not be possible to implement the by-law, but it is worth a try and if it is successful we will extend it to other parts of the county.
I welcome the Bill, although I feel it has not gone far enough. However, it is a start and perhaps at some future time we can take it a stage further.
I thank my colleagues, Deputies Carey and Browne, for sharing their time with me.
As someone who has a background in the licensed trade I welcome the Minister's decision to make comprehensive changes to the licensing laws. In doing so he is responding to an obvious need and reflecting the more acceptable of cur rent trends in the area of drinking. If anyone has doubts about the seriousness of the consumption of alcohol to excess or the need to control its supply, all he or she need do is read the reports of hooliganism on the return train journey from Cork following the hurling game last Sunday. The reported happenings were despicable—
(Wexford): Only Tipperary supporters were involved.
—and the full rigours of the law should be applied, where appropriate. It was also a very sad day for the people of Waterford, in particular for one of its star hurlers, Mr. Ken McGrath. I spoke to one of his relatives earlier today. I take the opportunity of wishing him well. He will unfortunately be out of the game for a considerable period.
Waterford will not be playing for a considerable period either.
The Deputy is correct. The system will have to change.
I have always believed that there is an adequate number of liquor licences. Even after the extinction of a good number in recent years there are still enough premises, although their distribution could be more advantageous from the point of view of patrons. In almost every other trade or profession the location of the business or service is dictated by need in a given area. Premises change and businesses relocate as necessary to follow the available custom or to locate where the number of customers is greatest. Such businesses are customer driven.
I welcome the Minister's proposals to introduce more flexibility in regard to the movement of licences. Trying to make a living from a public house in an area which is fast depopulating is an uphill struggle. The Minister's proposals will make the realisation of a publican's assets much easier. This is only right. I have always questioned the correctness of requiring that two licences be extinguished before a new one can be granted. The current proposal of a one for one system is much more equitable and realistic and is to be welcomed.
In common with many others I congratulate the Minister on his proposals in regard to underage drinking. The depth and extent of the problem is not fully understood. If it is not tackled head on the seeds of huge problems in the future will be sown. There will have to be programmes of education aimed at teenagers to inform them fully of the effects of youth drinking. In the wake of the proposal of the Minister for Health and Children to eliminate all cigarette advertising, much the same course will have to be considered for drink. Medical and hospitals statistics alone demand that this be looked at, if only on economic grounds, leaving aside the moral and medical aspects. Young people are drinking on people's walls in housing estates and generally causing a nuisance. It is a difficult problem with which to deal but it must be tackled.
I realise that there are difficulties in regard to the identification of underage drinkers and the establishment of their correct age. I am well aware that young people are very inventive with computers, scanners and copiers and can produce plausible, if false, identification in a matter of minutes. I am also aware that identification is being bought in the United Kingdom and seems to be readily acceptable to accommodating licensees when presented. Regardless of what the civil libertarians have to say, it is long past time when we had an official identification system that works. In some areas the Garda Síochána and vintners organisations came together to operate such a system but they seemed to fall through very quickly.
While there does not seem to be the will to enforce the law on underage drinking, I am aware that many conscientious vintners would welcome a realistic official and universal form of identification which would be recognisable throughout the country. The necessary mechanism is in place. It is a matter of highlighting it and making it work. Figures released in recent months indicated that 7,154 identity cards had been issued, of which 247 had been issued in my constituency of Waterford. Only 25 had been issued in Limerick which has a huge urban population. It is obvious that the matter is not being taken seriously.
I am delighted that the reasonable belief defence is being removed. The necessary machinery must be put in place to help co-operative vintners operate within the law and require the rogue element to obey it. I honestly believe that the rogue operators will obey it because the necessary sanctions are being put in place. My 16 year old daughter was able to point out a number of her classmates in photographs recently carried in some local newspapers of people out having a drink. Is someone telling me that the licensee concerned is operating in a responsible manner? He could easily cut this practice out if he wanted to. He will be made do so by the sanctions being put in place.
The adjustments in opening times proposed by the Minister are adequate and well balanced. Those who look for longer opening hours or a free for all, normally demanded on the grounds of tourism, are not looking at the facts. Most tourists are drawn from American coach tours, are of mature age and, as residents, have access to a drink in their hotel. Many others come from Great Britain where there is no culture of late night drinking. Those who holiday on the Continent know that towns and villages are largely deserted after 9 p.m. The Minister's proposals are reasonable and realistic and should be fully endorsed.
There should be greater flexibility in regard to area exemptions in respect of which local conditions should be taken more fully into account. Blanket extensions benefit those located in the centre of an urban area and are of little use to those on the outskirts. There should be flexibility whereby local pubs should be able to apply for an exemption when the local GAA club reaches the county final.
The proposal to allow restaurants with a wine licence to serve beer with meals makes common sense and should have been provided for years ago. It should be extended to include the serving of Irish coffee.
This is a sensible Bill. Its proposals are long overdue and I wholeheartedly support its provisions.
I wish to share my time with Deputies Perry, Creed, Deasy and Ó Caoláin.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
The broad welcome the Bill has received within the industry is an indication that it contains many welcome provisions. I disagree, however, with those who think that it will satisfy the industry for many years to come. The importance of the changes in the hours of opening and the measures under which publicans can be punished for serving alcohol on the premises to those who are under age must be highlighted, but whether we like it, unless there is a complete change of attitude among the population nothing will change. Young people must be educated not to look on drink as the priority or focus of their entertainment activities. This can be done to the benefit of society as a whole.
One can glean from local newspapers the numbers of people involved in court cases directly related to drink, whether it be drink driving, persons found on premises or publicans violating opening hours, and the number of hours members of the Garda Síochána are diverted from their direct professional duties in policing opening hours. That is the downside to the Bill. Three different sets of opening hours in the week will lead to further confusion and cannot be policed, leading to an inevitable increase in the need for the Garda and the courts to take further action.
Under age drinking is one of the major problems facing us and it is sad that many sporting and youth entertainment events are focused on alcohol. Some publicans, particularly those in rural areas, did not ever open after hours and did not serve alcohol to under age persons. However, some of the people now leasing licensed premises for a year or longer are a scourge and are giving the industry a bad name. These people are only interested in profit and will do anything to get an extra pound out of the customer's pocket, even if it means serving long into the night. The Minister must examine the leasing of licensed premises by fly-by-night merchants who do not belong in the industry. These people are only interested in a quick kill after which they will get out, with serious consequences in many instances.
I acknowledge the work done by many community workers, particularly those who give of their time voluntarily to organisations like the No Name Club and who organise entertainment and social events for young people away from the environment of drink. I hope the Minister will alter the Bill in this respect.
I welcome the broad thrust of the Bill and it is important to upgrade the Acts of 1833 and 1904. However, there is an absence of a mandatory age card system and courts must have discretion in the closure of pubs where, for instance, a customer purchases alcohol for an under age person. Under the Bill, a publican can be closed down for up to 7 days for a first offence and up to 30 for a subsequent offence, without actually having committed an offence. It will be very difficult to police this measure.
I welcome the one for one system as the transfer of licences involved high legal costs. This measure will open up the system because one will not need to extinguish two licences to create one new licence. The three different sets of opening hours in a week will be confusing for the trade, staff, customers and tourists in particular. If only people over 18 are entitled to be on a licensed premises with an exemption into Monday morning, there is no reason pubs should be forced to close at 11.30 p.m. They should be permitted the same opening hours as on Thursday, Friday and Saturday. Absenteeism on Mondays is not caused by pubs staying open until 11.30 p.m but by people staying in discos until 2.30 a.m. and 3.00 a.m. The three sets of opening hours will cause great difficulties.
I welcome the fact that new pubs can be created in large urban areas. A cartel has operated in large cities and this measure will open up the trade. I am glad the courts will have discretion as to whether a person is deemed suitable to hold a licence in a new urban estate as it will create competition which is the best form of trade. Cartels in large cities meant that people could increase the price of alcohol without regard to the Minister or consumer associations. It is to be welcomed that new pubs will now be opened in growth centres and large urban areas.
I have a special restaurant licence since 1988 under which alcohol can be served with a meal. This was a significant innovation and I welcome the change whereby a restaurant which holds a wine licence will be able to sell beer.
One issue which is not addressed in the Bill and about which I am concerned is the creation of off-licences. It is very difficult to police the current arrangements with regard to under age people and the same debate took place concerning cigarettes. Responsibility must be placed on operators but it is very hard to police this measure in establishments where most people are staff driven. An age card system can overcome the difficulty of sales of alcohol in off licence premises. A significant programme of education is needed in homes and schools to make people aware of the dangers of alcohol. There is no point in placing all the responsibility on proprietors as that is unfair.
The Minister should examine the creation of off-licences in towns and villages, leading to greater prosperity. I welcome these important changes but I appeal to the Minister to look at the issue of off-sales now that towns and villages are experiencing growth. Such licences would be important for continued growth, particularly for supermarkets.
I welcome this debate if not all the contents of the Bill. Some of the measures are progressive and, given the industry is so powerful, perhaps we will make hay slowly and we cannot achieve all the changes we desire over night.
Members received correspondence from various vintners groups. I received correspondence from the Licensed Vintners Association expressing reservations about Part V of the Bill which allows restaurants to sell beer. The association fears this will lead to the demand to sell Irish coffees and, ultimately, spirits being available in restaurants, leading to more drinking establishments. However, I support this measure. This is the thin end of the wedge and this measure can lead to more outlets being opened.
There are 23 pubs in Macroom which has 2,500 people yet in some large urban centres there may be only one pub serving 10,000, 15,000 or 20,000 people. I welcome any measure which facilitates greater competition in the drinks industry because, ultimately, it will benefit consumers.
The measure regarding closing times furthers the concept of the nanny state or Big Brother telling people when to go home. I have some sympathy for Deputy Browne's argument for total deregulation. Rome will not be built in a day and the Bill has some welcome provisions with regard to extending opening hours. However, the differentiation between Monday, Thursday, Saturday and Sunday nights is ludicrous and farcical, and we are making a laughing stock of ourselves. Deputy Howlin referred to Good Friday but these anomalies should be ended by this Bill. It would not have been a step too far to have a single closing time and that should have been provided for in the Bill.
One or two pubs in every town depend on under age drinking for the majority of their trade and I welcome any measure which clamps down on such rogue traders. Some traders argue, with reason, that they cannot be sure if drink served to adults is not being given to under age drinkers, and a national ID system should be examined in that context. However, if we are against the nanny state we have to encourage parental and individual responsibility. We must encourage individuals to take responsibility for their actions. That requires a change of culture, which will not be achieved overnight by the introduction of legislation, although it is something for which we must strive.
I am pleased the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform who also has responsibility in the Department of Health and Children, is present. The latest drink phenomenon is vodka and Red Bull. There is ample anecdotal evidence to suggest that such high energy drinks are responsible for much of the gratuitous violence that occurs inside or in the precincts of licensed premises and night clubs in any town on a Friday or Saturday night. We often hear on the news headlines the following morning that a person has been stabbed or killed. The Garda mentioned this drink as being a contributory factor. That drink is banned in certain jurisdictions and it is necessary that we refer the matter to the Food Safety Authority of Ireland for final arbitration.
I consider this legislation a first step in transforming our licensing laws. The preparation of this legislation has been quite rushed, as many of us have called for its introduction. It is understandable, therefore, that it is not as comprehensive as we would like.
I said previously that we should not have any licensing laws. Licences should be deregulated. It is a nonsense that the time of gardaí is taken up policing public houses. That should not be necessary. Their time should be devoted to solving crime and anti-social behaviour, which is very prevalent on our streets. The anti-social and lewd behaviour of our young and not so young is unacceptable. It is time a concerted effort was made to stamp it out.
We heard much about zero tolerance when the Government was in opposition. I am not one to be over-critical of Governments as they have a difficult job to do. We need a zero tolerance approach to this type of behaviour in public places. Such behaviour is not confined to O'Connell Street and the centre of Dublin, it is prevalent in provincial towns and even in small towns and villages. People feel it is not safe to walk the streets at night. The problem of such anti-social behaviour, much of it due to the drunkenness of people who are not old enough to be legally entitled to drink, must be tackled in a comprehensive rather than a piecemeal manner, but this legislation is piecemeal in its approach.
The abuse of drink in this country is a historical fact. We blame the loss of the Battle of Kinsale 400 years ago on drunken Irish soldiers, although I am not sure if that is factual. We have that tradition. It is exemplified not in Ireland but in many cities outside it, in London and other cities in Britain where Irish people who are down on their luck tend to retire to the pub to drown their sorrows. It is an addiction, an affliction and an unfortunate fact of life.
If we are to deregulate licences, publicans should be totally responsible for the behaviour of customers on their premises. They should be responsible for ensuring that people who are under age should not be allowed drink on their premises.
Public houses should also open for a limited time on Christmas Day and Good Friday. They open on those days in other countries. I do not know of a country where they do not open. Such openings do not give rise to abuse of alcohol. It comes down to publicans determining who is and who is not fit to drink on their premises. If it comes to the notice of the Garda that a person who is under age or a person who has too much drink taken has been served drink by a publican, that publican's licence should be withdrawn. It would take time to adapt to such changes, but we must adopt a more mature attitude towards drinking. At present our attitude is quite irresponsible.
I welcome the Bill. It provides for reform of many aspects of the law relating to alcoholic drink, especially with regard to trading hours. These reforms are long overdue.
When the Minister introduced his abortive Intoxicating Liquor Bill last year, I tabled an amendment, the effect of which would have been to extend opening hours to 12.30 a.m. every night, summer and winter. This Bill does not go that far, but it is a vast improvement on the current situation.
As I said during the debate on the previous Bill, we need to deal honestly with the reality of drinking habits in Ireland today. We need to treat people as adults and offer our tourist visitors the opportunity to experience Irish hospitality. The Bill's provisions on trading hours achieve that.
Many people are genuinely concerned about the possible ill-effects of extended opening hours. We need to take on board those concerns. They arise from an awareness of the widespread abuse of alcohol and from knowledge of the high levels of alcoholism in this country and its terrible effects on people with an addiction and on those around them.
This is a complex issue. There is not a simplistic direct relation between hours of opening and the incidence of alcoholism. The liberalisation in the Bill is necessary. It is also necessary to adopt a more determined approach to the issue of alcoholism and its treatment. This is our most serious drug problem, yet it gets only a fraction of the attention it deserves. The provision for treatment and rehabilitation is inadequate and it is a pity parallel legislation was not brought forward to deal with this issue. The saturation advertising of alcohol also needs to be addressed.
We are all aware that many of the existing laws relating to drinking hours and other aspects of the licensed trade are honoured more in the breach than in the observance. The need for our society to deal responsibly with the question of alcohol consumption is ill-served by the yawning gap between legislation and reality. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the regulation of licensed clubs. Such clubs are an integral part of community life in urban and rural areas throughout the country. The Bill maintains unnecessary restrictions on such clubs, restrictions that in most cases are not enforced. The requirement for all patrons other than members to sign in individually and to be effectively chaperoned by a club member is widely disregarded and should be dispensed with.
The Bill further tightens restrictions whereby clubs would not be able to host private functions other than those for a club member. That would deprive many clubs of badly needed revenue. Many of those are the same clubs that appeal every year for funding under the sports capital programme, yet that provision would curb their ability to supplement their funds by hosting birthday parties, christenings, retirement parties and so on. Surely what is needed is a liberalisation of the law so that private functions and fundraising functions for local organisations can be allowed in clubs with patrons free to attend as they would other venues. I welcome the provisions of the Bill subject to the concerns I expressed which need to be addressed.
I wish to share my time with Deputies Noel Ahern and Conor Lenihan.
That is agreed.
The Bill introduced by the Minister is the first attempt made in many years to regularise our drinking hours and drinking habits. It is important that we consider the Bill in that context. I am in favour of the proposed changes in pub closing times. People who claim no controls should apply to pub opening times are not living in the real world. While it may be fashionable on the Continent not to regulate pub opening hours, the Irish public would prefer and expect such controls to apply.
There are two provisions in the Bill which might not come to the fore but which are important to a number of people. They relate to the changes in relation to restricted licences that will allow people to regularise a situation that has been allowed to continue to operate for quite a number of years where some have been trading without a full liquor licence.
We have to look at public houses in two contexts. The rural family pub is disappearing rapidly mainly due to the effect of competition and because people could not afford to carry out the necessary renovations to bring them up to standard. What has happened in the past ten years is that in villages where there were four or five pubs a couple of the licences have been sold. In the city many of the licences were used for new hotels. I hope there will not be a further decrease in the number of rural pubs as people in rural areas would prefer to drink locally than to travel five or six miles to a town. We are all aware that drinking and driving is not an acceptable pastime, especially among young people. They should be complimented on the fact that when they drink they rarely drive.
Education has been mentioned in the context of the Bill. The dangers of alcohol should be fully explained to pupils at second level. Education could lead to the prevention of many problems associated with under age drinking, in later life. There is also the problem that it is difficult for a publican to establish the age of some of our teenagers as many look much older than they are. The penalty proposed for those who break the law on under age drinking may need to be dealt with cautiously unless there is a proper ID system. A proper ID system could solve many of the problems of under age drinking. It would make sense if it were mandatory to produce an ID in a pub. Where a person is found to be 17 years and 11 months or 18 years less a day they may have to be dealt with in a flexible manner.
I compliment the Minister on deciding to deal with the licensing hours. We have been lobbied by publicans, disco owners and so on for the past 18 months. The Minister has been consistent in his approach. He said he would treat each section of the drinks industry fairly and he has done so. I will make one suggestion in regard to new licences. Where the population justifies it, the licence should be issued rather than have single pubs serve large areas, especially in and around the city. There are pubs in this city with a catchment area almost as big as the county from which I come. There are pubs with a catchment of 25,000 people. That is not in the best interests of the publican concerned or the people in the area. At some future time that is something that should be looked at in the context of planning. Many Dublin Deputies are concerned that frequently the pub is in the middle of an estate rather than on the fringes.
I welcome the Bill. I welcome also that the Minister has taken action to deal with the licensing hours. It is said that in rural areas there is no great regard given to drinking hours. We are all aware that rural pubs have had a tradition of staying open later than pubs in Dublin and that the Garda has not made a rule of interfering. This is an indication of how well the pubs were run in many cases. Publicans have a duty to protect their customers. I hope some future legislation will put an onus on publicans to safeguard those who may be intoxicated and on their premises.
It is obvious there is broad agreement on this Bill among various bodies and that there was much consultation and work done in advance. In this I include the committee, of which Deputy Flanagan is chairman, which did much work in teasing out the issue and getting a consensus. It is a complicated issue in that it has many vested interests – the publicans, hoteliers, restaurateurs etc. If I compare it, and probably contradict myself, with the taxi issue in Dublin, with which I was involved, we were told to take on or take out the vested interests and to think of the consumer. Yet nearly every speaker, including myself, has mentioned the vested interests. It is obvious this is not the time to take them on or take them out. Given the numbers it would be a juggling feat to get a certain balance among them.
The licensing laws are strange. I was secretary of a sports club for seven or eight years and dealt with the licensing laws from the club's point of view. It has struck me that there is one law for the city and one law for the country and I may have enjoyed that when I was down the country on my holidays. Even within an area, it often appears there is one law for one pub or club and a different law for another. When the Bill is enacted I hope it will be enforced in a fair and even-handed manner. In the past there were differences in the degree to which the law was enforced.
The proposed changes reflect the changes in society and that the trade has ignored the law and pushed out the bounds of what was possible. We are all friendly with publicans and have clinics in pubs and so on. While publicans are law-abiding in respect of house rules, often they do not give a damn about the rules of the land. Dare one break a house rule and one will be out on one's ear. It is sacred not to break a house rule. I hope, following these concessions, that all sides will respect the new law and that the Garda will enforce it in a fair and even-handed way.
I have no problem with the new closing hours. There are three different closing times. The closing time of 11 p.m. on a Sunday night is late enough. It is not like any other day of the week where people rush in after work for a few pints. People have all day to drink on a Sunday and if they have not had enough by 11 p.m. maybe they need to be locked out. In Dublin people have to get up on Monday morning. Many need a week's rest rather than a half hour's rest after the exertions of the weekend.
I have one concern about the situation in Dublin. I do not care whether people drink until 5 a.m. in Temple Bar or even on the main streets, or in Howth or Bray etc. In my area a number of pubs are slap bang in the middle of residential areas. If they do not close until 1 a.m. or 1.30 a.m. that will have an impact on local residents. That is a matter for which publicans will have to take responsibility. They will have to run a good shop inside the pub and be responsible for what happens outside. Otherwise the courts and the Garda will have to lay down new standards. I have in mind a couple of pubs which will cause absolute havoc given that elderly people live near them and many others who live nearby have to get up for work in the morning. None of us is as nice or as quiet after a few drinks as we are during the rest of the day. The Minister might clarify whether the courts will have the freedom to order a pub to close at 11 o'clock or 11.30 p.m. if the later closing time creates problems outside. The publican must be held responsible if that happens.
Some pubs in Dublin are enormous. I am therefore glad that extra licences will be trans ferred into Dublin. I would like to see a sizeable number transferred because some existing pubs are huge and create tremendous problems. I am concerned about what these licences will cost. Could the Minister tell the House what he considers reasonable? Taxi licences, from having a nominal value, acquired a value which was never thought of. I would like the Minister to put this Bill in context and say what his understanding is, whether it would be acceptable for these licences to be sold for £25,000, £50,000 or £100,000. I would like the Minister to decide on a context so that if, in five or ten years' time, licences are priced at £500,000, we can say that is wrong and out of context.
I agree with the comments on under age drinking and temporary or early closures. These should apply to pubs that create a problem outside. I hope there will be enforcement. Nobody is fussy about somebody who is 17 years and 11 months old drinking a pint of shandy. One does not suddenly become sensible on one's eighteenth birthday. However, we all know of pubs where 14 and 15 year olds are being served not just one pint of shandy but spirits week after week. There is no doubt that laxity has crept into the whole system and it is necessary to clamp down.
I am amazed that pubs will have to close at 11.30 p.m. on Holy Thursday. That is a night when many go out to drink as if it were going out of fashion because they cannot cope with the thought of one dry day. I am aware that it overlaps into Good Friday morning, but I would have thought that was one night pubs would be allowed to stay open late, because that is a night when people tend to go bonkers anyway.
As somebody who had a long and enduring love affair with alcohol, gambling and wild, wild women, it is a unique distinction to be able to speak in a debate like this.
That is terrible talk from Fianna Fáil.
Having had a reckless youth, I am becoming rather more mature and sensible in my old age. I commend the Minister and his officials for producing this Bill. It is pragmatic rather than being overly infused with the moral dicta of a previous age. It is no secret that the legislation on intoxicating liquor, gambling and other such areas is rooted in the Victorian era when it was more important to be seen to be doing the right thing than to actually do it. The Minister is doing the right thing in introducing this legislation. He is not cloaking his arguments in favour of this legislation in an overly moralistic framework. That is important because unfortunately – or fortunately, depending on how one looks at it – alcohol and all these other distractions in life are with us and will be for a long time.
I wish, in the time available, to concentrate on three distinct topics, first, the supply of alcohol to under age drinkers, drinking in public places and the position of GAA, rugby, golf and other clubs under this legislation.
There are other major positive features and measures included in this Bill. The provisions are intended to curb the phenomenon of under age drinking which has become such a regrettable feature of our society. This is one of the problems of prosperity which now face us. Previous generations simply did not have the disposable income to engage in serious drinking as young teenagers. This is brought home to anybody that cares to ask a serious question of their own parents or grandparents. They simply did not have the money in their pockets to do the kinds of things young people have the money to do today. Nowadays with widespread affluence, ready pocket money, widely available part-time employment and ready access to alcohol, there has been a huge increase in teenage drinking and drunkenness in all communities. This has contributed to a variety of anti-social activities, criminal behaviour and disregard for the public good.
The abolition in this Bill of the legal anomaly, the so-called "reasonable grounds" defence, which has made it inordinately difficult for the Garda to secure convictions against licensees or publicans – who are a minority in any community – who persistently sell alcoholic beverages to under age people, either on or off their premises, will be radically changed in the context of this Bill. The law enforcement agencies will have a very strong enforcement measure against those publicans who wilfully sell alcohol to people who are below the legal age for consuming it. For the first time it will an offence of strict liability. There will be no acceptable defence to the selling of alcohol to minors and that is welcome.
We often try to fool ourselves – and the people who promote tourism here are as guilty as many others – that this country is a wonderful place where one can have a drink and so on. However, there is a very strong minority of people who do not drink; there is a very strong temperance movement. There is also very great concern on the part of the Garda Síochána about the kind of lawlessness and disorder that is associated with the opening of pubs and the effect it has on the community because of the opening hours and so on. It is important to keep that in context. While we are fabled and renowned the world over as a nation of drinkers, there is a significant minority of people – I do not know the percentage – who do not touch alcohol. Their wishes must be considered in legislating for the availability of alcohol, pub opening hours, the type of licensing and the social controls that will apply.
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue, who is one of the best Ministers for Justice this House has ever had, has made a unique contribution in this regard. He has not pursued an excessively zealous moral agenda, nor has he expressed an excessively lax or liberal view in relation to these provisions. The scaremongering that is going on in relation to clubs and societies is wrong and the Minister has rightly rebutted that. This is a fabulous piece of legislation. It is not the end of the Irish alcohol question. It is only the beginning. It is like a long night in a pub. There is much further discussion to be done. The Minister has rightly appointed a commission to look into the other vexatious issues that will, of necessity, arise from this legislation.
I call Deputy Flanagan. He is sharing time with Deputies Hogan, Reynolds, Browne and Enright.
I welcome the broad thrust of the legislation which has been awaited for quite some time. We had the abortive attempt on the Minister's part last year when he tried to introduce a botched measure. It did not survive his own backbench revolt. The rumour around the House is that Deputy Healy-Rae and others have been kept under wraps for this evening so the Bill is probably assured passage at Second Stage.
A number of issues that arose in the context of the debate on this issue over the past number of years have not been included in the Bill. While I welcome the sections in the Bill, I will concentrate on issues that have been ignored in the hope that the Minister might be prevailed upon to introduce appropriate amendments on Committee Stage. He does not need to be reminded of the 75 recommendations of the sub-committee that sat over a long period and dealt with important matters, many of which have been ignored.
Under Part 4 the Minister is unduly restrictive in the manner in which he allows for a relaxation in the law on the issuing of new licences. It is extraordinary and, indeed, unnecessary that one must enact new legislation for the granting of a new retail on licence to new outlets. A mechanism should be devised to allow for the issue of intoxicating liquor licences to heritage interpretative centres, bona fide museums, theatres, cultural centres, galleries, outdoor sports stadia and recreational centres where the consumption of alcohol would be secondary to the main pursuit for which the building is best noted. It is disappointing that the Minister has ignored that aspect.
The Minister did not ignore it.
In that event we look forward to detailed ministerial amendments on Committee Stage. The Minister will be aware of the practice, particularly in rural areas, of having a drink after Sunday morning Mass. A general application must be made to bring forward the opening hours to 12 o'clock. I understand the legislation does not deal with this aspect and a general application will have to made to the court on an annual basis. I would have thought this matter would have been addressed by way of a practical amendment.
I welcome the measures on six day licences. The amount of money involved is considerably higher than that which obtained on a previous occasion. I regret that there is no definition of a night club. That will cause problems. I accept it is a complex issue but I hope it can be addressed in the context of this legislation.
The Minister did not concern himself with the price of drink but he might deal with that in the context of his relationship, if any, with the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. The price of drink is too high. There is a cartel in operation which the Minister is ensuring will continue to operate given the restrictive licensing code. The price of soft drinks should be the subject of an inquiry.
The sale of beer in restaurants has been tackled and I welcome section 22. However, the unduly restrictive nature of that section is underlined by the fact that people can be fined £1,000 for having a drink if they do not do so at the same time as they are eating. What have we come to if a person can be fined £1,000 for buying a drink in a restaurant after they have eaten there? It is extraordinary.
There has been public debate on sections 25 and 26 and I leave it to the Minister to rebut many of the arguments concerning clubs, their members and signing the book. Rather than reaffirm the law in this matter I would have expected the Minister to relax it. These are weird and impractical provisions.
As regards the sale of beer in shops, particularly independent grocery chains that do not have a full wine, beer and spirits off-licence but a retail wine licence, there is a strong argument in favour of having a mechanism that would allow for the sale of beer. Perhaps the wine licence could be accompanied by a beer retailer's licence. If one can sell wine freely in a grocery outlet the argument in favour of selling beer is overwhelming.
I agree with previous speakers who referred to the "super pubs", the barn-like emporiums that we have seen destroy an Irish tradition in pubs. The reason for them is the distribution of the licences. We must move away from such structures. With regard to the technical nature of the licence, we must separate a hotel licence from a seven day publican's licence. If one inspects the licence register in a District Court office one will see there is not any colour coding, the language is unclear and it is impossible to distinguish between the two types of licence. The licences should be colour coded. I am not sure whether this can be done by way of regulation but I am disappointed the Minister has not addressed this matter in the Bill. Many court registers do not accurately reflect the nature of the licence for the particular area. Many hotel owners are under the mistaken impression that they hold seven day licences. There is no obvious way to tell from an inspection whether it is a hotel or pub licence.
I wonder whether section 6 of the 1902 Act, as amended by section 24 of the 1960 Act, applies to a hotel extension or whether one should apply for a new hotel licence. I regret I do not have more time at my disposal but I will deal with these issues further on Report Stage.
I thank Deputy Flanagan for sharing his time. I wish to share time with Deputy Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny). The social aspect of a public house is very important, particularly in rural Ireland. We are all aware of the outcry that ensued when the Minister, Deputy Michael Smith, tried to reduce the permitted alcohol limit for the purposes of road safety legislation. Our constituents found it difficult to understand how it could be reduced to a mere pint. That was subsequently amended by the Fine Gael, Labour and Democratic Left coalition Government in 1995.
The question of alcohol consumption always generates heat. This Bill will also generate much debate and opinion depending on what sector is involved. Whether one is a rural or Dublin based publican, one will have different views. We must control the level of alcohol people can consume, particularly young people. I support the concept of compulsory ID. Under-age drinking is a great worry. It is drug abuse and is carried on in the context of social activities, many of which centre around alcohol.
The alternatives to drink are few and far between. Some years ago in Kilkenny a number of people, including Mr. Eddie Keher and Fr. Tommy Murphy, established the No Name Club which afforded young people the opportunity to enjoy themselves without resort to drink. It was not funded by the State as a youth activity to the extent that it is now. The Government should examine the funding available to youth activities, particularly those which do not involve the consumption of alcoholic beverages. Organisations such as the No Name Club should attract extended funding to provide a meaningful alternative for youth activities.
I compliment the level of involvement and partnership that publicans and clubs have engaged in over the years in Kilkenny city in funding various commercial activities and festivals as well as artistic and sporting events. The partnership between pubs and clubs has worked well. The legislation will put down a demarcation line and will upset that partnership. Clubs will be forced to take radical action to comply with the legislation by signing on people for birthday parties or community events. The Minister should reduce this demarcation line and confirm the existing partnership in a more meaningful way by not providing for such harsh fines or regulations attached to club activities. The quality of premises in Kilkenny, which depends a lot on tourism and festival events, is unequalled in the country, as is the level of service and hygiene. Vintners, clubs, societies and other organisations have come together in a major show of goodwill for the community there. The Minister could be undermining that partnership, however, in the Bill.
Not enough licences are easily available for growing urban areas and that problem is not confined to Dublin. In many parts of my constituency, in particular Kilkenny city where sprawling housing estates are developing, it is not easy to establish a new public house. The vintners' organisation is looking after its existing members but it could be a bit more flexible instead of seeking a rigid and restrictive attitude towards the granting of new pub licences. The normal cost of a licence in rural areas is £110,000 which is an expensive process to permit a new public house to be established.
The inconsistency of drink prices is not addressed in the Bill. Since the abolition of restrictive practices we have seen indiscriminate increases in drink prices without any legislative mechanism to restrict them. The Minister should examine the issue of uniform opening hours, rather than having three different opening hours. I was amused to see that under section 19 the sale of drink will not be allowed at an auction or sale. We will have many a good auction or sale with the flexibility the Minister is inserting in this section of the Bill. I do not know where the demand came from.
The auctioneers wanted to buy their round.
I would expect to get good prices for property and animals under the influence of the Minister's legislation. While I do not think there is a huge demand for it from auctioneers, one would expect to have rapid demand for more properties which the owners perhaps did not realise they needed.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): People who commit crimes of assault because they have taken too much alcoholic drink should be banned from drinking alcohol for 12 months rather than being fined in court. If a person has a firearms licence and abuses that privilege, the gardaí will confiscate the gun. Likewise, if someone has a car and drives recklessly and dangerously they can be put off the road. It is time that those who cannot have alcohol without being aggressive and thuggish were banned from having drink by the courts. While the implementation of this procedure might be difficult it would be effective.
We can all see what happens when these people, who have no sense of responsibility, start to perform under the influence of drink. A few weeks ago I was returning from a long journey when a crowd of people came out of a pub across the street forcing us to stop the car. We were stuck in the middle of a row at 8 o'clock on a Sunday evening, which had nothing to do with late closing hours. The drunken thugs damaged the wing of the car by falling against it. A lout stood in front of the car and told my daughter, who was driving, to "f"– off up the street, even though we were four decent citizens minding our own business. Just because he was full of drink he thought he was free to act in such a manner. He should be banned from drinking alcohol because he has no sense of responsibility. Likewise, people who travelled on the train from Cork after Tipperary's great victory over Waterford were terrorised by a few people who thought they could wreck everybody else's journey because they had taken drink. These people should be banned from having alcohol because they cannot carry drink.
Many people have different views about selling drink to underage persons. The onus should be on young drinkers themselves to prove that they are aged 18 or over. It is asking the impossible to expect a publican to recognise whether a young person is under 18. As a former teacher, I have often been flabbergasted to see how some of my former pupils could get drink even though they were under 18. On one occasion in a local club I saw one of the under-16 footballers, who looked much older than that, drinking orange and vodka. He wanted me to smell the orange to prove that he only had a soft drink, but I had to remind him that I had been out before. It is impossible for publicans to know whether young people are under age. I have no time for any publican who would deliberately sell drink to underage persons and I would support the idea of closing them down for a week for doing so. In addition, so-called responsible adults who buy drink for underage persons in their company should also be guilty of an offence.
One would need the wisdom of Solomon to guess young people's ages. There is no identity card system and we should introduce one. Otherwise, it is asking too much of so many decent publicans who are family people themselves and would not want their own children to get drink. The onus of the offence should fall on young drinkers themselves who should not put people in difficulty by buying drink in a pub. The Minister should examine that matter because without identity cards for young people a publican is placed in an impossible position to judge.
We all received a submission from the Pioneer Total Abstinence Association, which is a sensible document. The association asked us to have a sense of responsibility. Some people become happy when they have a few drinks and may sing a song, provided they can sing before they drink because drink does not make singers out of crows. Much good happens when people get a few drinks, but the thugs should be banned from all licensed premises.
In future if the Minister is granting new licences from scratch they should only have the value of allowing the licensee to sell alcohol. It is absurd that such licences should grow in value. If somebody wishes to cease selling drink, that should be the end of the matter. One cannot make legislation retroactive because people have paid colossal sums of money and they have rights. However, any licences granted in future should only be to sell drink, not to sell the licence itself.
Last night I paid £3.15 for a drink which normally costs £1.80. The people who sell the drink for £1.80 are making a profit so what is happening with those who charged me £3.15 in Dublin last night? I am delighted that agricultural shows, as distinct from auctions, can have a licence. Tullow show always had a problem because the publican had to close his shop in order to sell drink there. It was a complicated system of transferring the licence, so the new provision is to be welcomed.
As a member of Deputy Flanagan's wonderful committee that sat listening to all kinds of argument for and against the extension of closing time, I must say the Minister would need the wisdom of Solomon in dealing with this subject. The committee heard people who argued for the closure of pubs at 10 o'clock at night, while others came in immediately afterwards and argued that pubs should be open all night. It is difficult to strike the correct balance. It is important that the people who use these public houses have a responsibility in that regard. If a person cannot drink and be a better person, then they should not drink at all. The idea that a solicitor can make a plea in court that a person was under the influence of drink is wrong. He or she should have their sentence doubled because if they cannot behave themselves when they drink, they should not drink at all. Some judges might tell them to go on an alcohol abuse course. It should be mandatory that these people are barred from pubs because they injure people.
This debate provides an opportunity to discuss the broader implications of drink but I would first like to compliment the Minister. After many years of discussion and debate, we finally have legislation which goes a long way towards addressing the majority view. The majority of people would have expressed the opinion that the licensing hours were too restrictive, but we need a system in place where there are at least some rules with regard to the closing of licensed premises. People might quote the European context and say that in some European countries there is no mechanism whereby a pub has to close at a certain hour, but there is a different attitude to drink in those countries. They are not the hub of social activity that we would associate with the traditional Irish pub and the drinking habits of the Irish people. It is disingenuous of those people to suggest we should have a very liberal system and equate it to some of the European countries which have a completely different culture and attitude to drinking in general.
This debate has been going on for many years. There has been much broadly based consultation with various interested groups. A committee was set up to discuss licensing hours and the issuing of licences and the Bill goes a long way towards addressing the consensus that was almost reached with regard to the Bill.
Because we are a tourist dependent country, the pub closure on Sunday afternoon, known in rural Ireland as the holy hour, impinged greatly on the whole pub food sector. The fact that it is now being abolished is welcome because it will allow pubs throughout the country to provide a proper food service for tourists and their own patrons alike. That is a positive step.
I compliment the Minister on acknowledging that there is a sector of people who do not want to go to nightclubs. They want to stay out that extra hour until 12.30 a.m. with their friends and have a few jars and a social evening. In the past, if people wanted a few late drinks they were obliged to go to the local nightclub or dance hall, pay £5 or £7 to get in and then pay what I would deem to be excessive prices for the drink sold there and to listen to loud music. I did that for many years but as the years move on one is less inclined to go to these places. The closing time of 12.30 a.m. on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays is very welcome.
There is much reference in the Bill to under age drinking. While I know this Bill is not the legislative implementation process to address the issue of under age drinking, it affords us an opportunity to have a debate on the problem. Under age drinking is the biggest social scourge facing Irish society. Under age drinking is an alarming phenomenon in every part of the country and if we do not address the problem in some way we will be going down a very slippery road.
Many years ago, when public representatives and others highlighted the heroin problem, people said we did not have a problem or that only a very small number of people were using the drug. After the ostrich syndrome ended and we took our heads out of the sand, we acknowledged that we had an enormous problem and we are only now addressing it. That is the case with the problem of under age drinking. It has to be tackled in a serious way.
Other public representatives, particularly those who represent large cities and towns, have told me that on Friday and Saturday nights they are almost no go areas because of hoards of young people highly intoxicated on alcohol and, more likely, on some other substance as well. The drinking culture, which involves young people buying copious amounts of drink from off-licences, gathering in large groups and indulging in large amounts of drink, is a threat to the whole fabric of society.
That is the reason we should examine the idea of introducing an identity card system. We are a mature society. The civil liberties crowd claim it would be an infringement on a person's civil liberties if they were obliged to carry an ID card but we have to remember that on Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights in some areas many people are unable to walk the public highways because they are so fearful of these large gangs of young people who gather to drink and who cause all sorts of problems. We have public order Acts and other forms of legislation to tackle the end result but so far we have not addressed the source of the problem. If we introduced an ID card system it could go a long way to addressing that particular problem.
I was in Boston last year on holiday. Outside every pub in Boston there is a person at the door and if someone is unable to produce a driving licence, or a passport in the case of a non-national – United States citizens would show their national security card – they cannot enter the premises. There is a good reason for that. If the police enter the premises and someone does not have valid ID, it is the licensee who is prosecuted. We have to consider introducing such a system. The civil liberties groups must acknowledge there is a major problem which has to be tackled.
Reference was made to the price of drink. There is a problem here as well. It is amazing that one can travel the length and breadth of the country and there can be a difference of £1 in the price of a drink. That is a problem we must address because it is creating inflationary pressures but, more importantly, it is not fair that a person who stops off at a pub has to first look at the price list on the door. People do not normally do that. They call in for a drink, the drink is put on the counter but they are charged over and above what we would consider a reasonable price. I am not advocating that we bring back restrictive practices but it should be acknowledged that there is a problem of excessive charging in the drinks industry, particularly in the Dublin area. Some pubs charge incredible prices for drinks, particularly the mixers for spirits.
People on both sides of the argument will say that a liberal view should be taken of licences and that they should be issued without any restrictions other than the fact that one must have a suitable premises and that it would be available to sell alcohol. That is going a step too far. Many family run pubs have invested large sums of money over many years. It is their source of income and their way of life, and if we were to undermine that we would undermine the basic idea of the Irish rural pub which would have a knock-on effect in terms of tourism, etc. The Minister has struck a fair balance in that regard. He should be commended on that.
There has been a major improvement in the quality of Irish pubs in recent years, particularly in regard to food. However, there is still a difficulty in some areas with regard to hygiene standards, particularly the toilets and washing facilities in public houses. This is a very serious issue. We are giving public houses the freedom to trade for longer hours and we use the Irish pub as a mechanism to attract tourists. It is important to not only enforce licensing hours but to uphold hygiene standards and the quality afforded to patrons. That should be addressed, if not in this Bill, by the health boards or the hygiene authorities. We must encourage and, if necessary, force people to address this. People who flout hygiene regulations and do not provide proper washing and toilet facilities should be fined or closed down until they get their house in order.
I will not go through the Bill in detail. I know many people will want to express opinions on it again on Report Stage. I compliment the Minister. The extension of the licensing hours is very welcome. It is accepted that many people have a few extra drinks on Thursday nights. Many people who work in Dublin go out with their friends on Thursday nights because they travel home on Fridays. Thursday is a popular night for going out, particularly in large urban areas. It is very welcome that the closing time on Thursday nights will now be 12.30 a.m.
There are difficulties in regard to absenteeism, but I think they are diminishing. Somebody said to me that people drank in the 1980s because they were depressed and in the 1990s because they were celebrating. That is a factor. The level of absenteeism due to alcohol has diminished somewhat over the years, but it is still a problem and we need to be conscious of it. The licensing hours that have been outlined acknowledge that.
I wish the Bill a speedy passage. The Minister might seek to stimulate a debate on the identity card concept. There is a large problem with an element in the off-licence trade that will serve drink to almost anybody. In addition, third parties purchase large amounts of drink in off-licences and distribute it to younger people who take it to parties, which creates problems. At the end of the day, it is up to individuals to be responsible. However, as a society and as a Government we have a duty to ensure we minimise the access of young people to drink, particularly in the off-licence sector and some public houses.
There was an issue in the Bill which some people felt was contentious. However, I believe that if publicans are unsure of a person's age, they should err on the side of caution and not serve them, or at least ask for some positive identification, rather than saying afterwards that the person looked 19 years old because he was tall and very broad. That is unacceptable in this day and age. I compliment the Minister for taking tough action and sending out a signal that we are addressing the difficulties of under-age drinking. However, I hope he will go a few steps further in regard to the identification card system.
I thank the 42 Deputies who contributed to this most interesting debate on the Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 2000. It was to be expected that the Bill would generate a great deal of interest on both sides of the House. I am truly grateful to all the Deputies who made contributions because they reflected the reaction to the legislation in the wider community in a democratic fashion, which is what this House is all about. I am also gratified by the positive reception the Bill has received, in general terms, in the House and outside.
In essence, the Bill achieves what I set out to achieve under two years ago, and which I described in my opening remarks, that is, to introduce a system of permitted hours in line with public expectation and demand, on terms that are socially and economically acceptable, to sweep away restrictive legislation governing access to the market, without undermining the economic basis which obtains for the holders of licences and to put in place innovative, workable and strict penalties against those who engage in the criminally irresponsible practice of selling or supplying intoxicating liquor to under-age persons. The licensing laws must be seen as a system of balances that is responsive to the needs and demands of today's consumer and marketplace, but that also ensures that our social responsibilities, including responsibility for health, public order and protection of the vulnerable, particularly the young, are not weakened or cast aside. That is the balance I have sought to ensure in this legislation.
No one can argue that the Bill does not contain genuine and much needed reform to meet the needs and expectations of a modern society. Deputies have, for the most part, recognised this in the important comments they made on the Bill and on the need to change the law to reflect the society in which we live. It is equally important that the Bill contains a social conscience and that it does not do away with those vital elements that protect society. It is my contention that the Bill achieves that radical transformation of the licensing scene, that it does so with the minimum fuss, without adding to the burden of regulation that has been a long-standing feature of the licensing code and that it does not lose sight of the fact that alcohol is a drug, to be handled with care and from which we must also protect the young and the vulnerable.
I have undertaken that the commission on licensing will examine other aspects of the licensing code, including a review of the scope for a system of additional licences and, indeed, the nature of premises that could be licensed. In that respect, I clearly acknowledge that more needs to be done. However, I think it is plain to see in the Bill a full measure, if I may be permitted at least one pun, of my bona fides as far as reform of the law in this area is concerned. I am in favour of changing many aspects of our intoxicating liquor law. There is no doubt that, from the perspective of social legislation, this is an area of the law which demands to be reviewed from time to time and appropriate changes made. It is also an area of the law which is highly complex and which, to say the very least, has the capacity to be very controversial.
Many Deputies referred to the issue of under-age drinking. I appreciate the support for the provisions in the Bill in relation to that matter. I made a deliberate and particular effort in the Bill to ensure the protection of young people and to make such protection as effective as possible. In addition to the provisions contained in the Intoxi cating Liquor Act, 1988, the new provisions introduced by this Bill will significantly improve on the situation, in that they are designed to tackle head on those who engage in the criminally irresponsible practice of supplying alcohol to young people. As I have said on many other occasions, the vast majority of licence holders have nothing to fear from these provisions.
Deputies also referred to the age card scheme and queried its application. Regulations to provide for the introduction of a national voluntary age card scheme came into effect on 19 April 1999. The number of cards being issued by the Garda is increasing steadily, from just over 7,000 at the end of March this year, to the present figure of some 9,250 cards. I believe that the scheme will help to provide an effective deterrent against under-age drinking.
Coupled with the substantial changes provided for in the Bill to deal with underage drinking, particularly the removal of the "reasonable grounds" defence in any proceedings against a licensee, a greater onus is placed on the licensee of a licensed premises to ensure that intoxicating liquor is supplied only to those who are legally entitled to purchase it or consume it on licensed premises. The removal of the "reasonable grounds" defence is complementary to the voluntary age card scheme and will serve to make reliance on it by licensees more important, because no defence will be permitted where a person wilfully supplies liquor to an under-age person.I make no apology that these provisions are tough. They must be tough if they are to contribute effectively and not be just mere window dressing to our attack on under age drinking. In this context, many thousands of parents of young teenagers feel particularly vulnerable to the danger of under age drinking in our society. One only has to look at the night of junior certificate results in the towns, villages and cities to realise their fear is a grounded one. It is incumbent on the House to ensure provisions are brought forward which will tackle this problem in a meaningful way.
That is not to say it would be fair to impose an obligation on the licensee which could not be met by him or her. Cards will be available to young people over the age of 18. I would strongly encourage young people who wish to visit a licensed premises and consume alcohol and who are over the age of 18 to obtain these cards. In the future, it will be the position that licensees will expect the cards to be produced if they have a doubt regarding a young person's age. This is because the offence of serving under age persons will be an offence of strict liability.
There have been many important contributions to this legislation, not least of which has come from the Oireachtas committee which considered the licensing laws over a long period. It would be remiss of me if I did not acknowledge the lasting and meaningful contribution which the committee made towards the drafting of this legislation. I am also grateful to all Members of the House. It is sometimes forgotten that those who come under the most pressure when legislation like this is introduced are the Independent Deputies who support the Government. I publicly thank the Independents for their support for this legislation.
(Mayo): Fan go bhfeicimid.
It is also true to say that it is important from many perspectives that the new age card for young people is promoted in a proper fashion. In deference to the Independent Deputies and others who have mentioned it to me, there will be a major public awareness campaign in relation to the availability of the cards so that young people will know what is expected of them if there is a doubt regarding their age. In addition, it is only fair to the licensees that this should be the case.
There was a suggestion to the effect that we were merely tinkering around with these licensing laws. This is a political charge that can be taken with a grain of salt because, in truth, there is hardly a section of this Bill that does not introduce important changes in the law. The Bill provides a framework within which responsible people can enjoy a drink in convivial surroundings if that is what they desire. We must acknowledge that the majority of people exercise a responsible attitude to drink, otherwise we should legislate for greater restrictions on the use of alcohol. I agree with Deputies who have provided examples of the dangers of alcohol abuse. However, the problems associated with alcohol abuse cannot be solved by legislation alone. It has been said many times that one cannot legislate for people to be good, no more than one can legislate for people to be bad.
The real challenge is in changing attitudes to alcohol. We know this is an extremely difficult task to accomplish but not impossible. Public intolerance of drinking and driving shows what can be done through constantly making people aware of the unacceptable consequences of driving and drinking. Parents can deliver a very clear message to their children about the evils of under age drinking and the dangers of alcohol abuse but the impact of the message is greatly diminished if the parents themselves do not have a responsible attitude towards the use of alcohol.
Many people will agree that it is remarkable that there does not exist any requirement on licence holders to display a notice to the effect that it is illegal to sell or supply liquor to under age persons, or that it is an offence for a young person to seek to obtain alcohol in a licensed premises. It would be a useful reminder to licence holders and young people alike if such a notice were to be displayed prominently. In that context, I regard it as necessary that such notices would be displayed in any place where alcohol is supplied. On Committee Stage I will, therefore, introduce an amendment to Part III of the Bill relating to under age provisions to provide for such a notice.
There has been some comment about registered clubs. Private clubs, registered under the Registration of Clubs Acts, provide opportunities for people to socialise. I am concerned, however, that registered clubs should, for the purpose of tackling the problem of under age drinking, be brought within the same regime in relation to offences for under age drinking as they apply to licensed premises. Regarding access to club premises, I remind commentators on this debate that a registered club is not the same as a licensed premises with a seven day licence. There is a difference. Far from interfering in a restrictive way with present law regarding registered clubs, I am proposing that rather than carry on with the rule – some might even call it a farce – whereby each guest invited from a visiting group or team has to sign his or her name and address, in the future the member would sign in the entire group.
I must resist the calls to liberalise the situation to the extent that to all intents and purposes, a registered club would have precisely the same rights as an ordinary licensed premises. If I were to do that in relation to registered clubs, other sectors of society involved in other commercial activities would have every right to make precisely the same argument. I have outlined on a number of occasions why I am opposed to total deregulation because I have always been firmly of the view that we are not comparing like with like when we compare groceries with alcohol. Alcohol is a mind altering substance and to the best of my knowledge, unless one has been invented recently, groceries do not alter the mind in the same way.
There were suggestions to the effect that the measures are too restrictive and also suggestions that they are too liberal. I am pleased that I have reached the middle ground in this debate. If I have succeeded in doing so, the Bill will be a success. We have reached a point in our social development when we can dispense with some of the paranoia surrounding the consumption of alcohol, which is a throwback to a bygone age. As I stated on numerous occasions, I have met many interest groups.
I am pleased that this is a genuinely reforming measure and one that represents a number of balances. I am glad I have been able to achieve a balance in particular between those advocating no change in the law as it stands and those who see any regulation of this areas as the personification of the nanny state.
I thank Deputies for their useful and positive contributions. I acknowledge the courtesy of the main Opposition spokespersons in being present for my closing contribution. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.