Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 28 Jun 2000

Vol. 522 No. 3

Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 2000 [ Seanad ] : Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage.

Debate resumed on amendment No 26:
In page 21, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:
"24.–A person who is the holder of a wine retailer's on-licence attaching to a supermarket may, subject to the same conditions specified in his or her wine retailer's licence, offer beer for sale.".
–Deputy Higgins(Mayo).

Deputy Howlin was in possession.

I concluded by saying the Minister would have an opportunity during Question Time to reflect further on this issue. By and large he has gone a long way to meet the views of the Opposition and accepted a number of amendments. However, we are dealing with an amendment which has a consensus of support on Opposition benches and, I believe, among Members of the Minister's party. This involves a simple net issue involving small supermarket owners and retailers, including those who operate supermarkets attached to garages and so on. This sector is a growing feature or rural Ireland in particular, and I am seeking to afford an opportunity to those who have a wine licence to also sell beer.

The Minister has gone a long way to meet the requirements of virtually every other category of licensee, such as restaurateurs, off-licence holders and on-licence holders. The category to which I refer feels aggrieved. They have made a strong case to the Minister and the Opposition parties which could be acceded to without damaging the principles of the Bill. I hope the Minister had a good and wholesome lunch and that on a full stomach, he will accept the amendment and the views I and Deputy Higgins expressed.

Many supermarkets are small family concerns in a business which is marginal in comparison with the multiples. The multiples are well placed to buy full off-licences for their supermarkets. The categories affected by this amendment are not so well placed and do not have the resources to buy out a licence. Acceptance of this amendment would be good and proper. It would be useful to the drinks industry if people have a choice of beer or wine in a supermarket. Spirits do not come into it – it is not a matter of asking for a full licence. If they want to take that step, they should be obliged.

Acceptance of this amendment will not damage the structure and balance of this Bill. It will please a section of the community, give more choice to the consumer and help to support busi nesses which are a focal point of small rural communities. I hope the Minister is now in a position to accept the amendment.

I support the amendment put down by Deputy Higgins. As a holder of an off-licence, which I had a huge difficulty in obtaining some years ago, and a special restaurant licence, I support the case made by Deputies Howlin and Higgins. The Bill provides for granting a beer licence to the proprietor of a restaurant which has a wine licence. It is extraordinarily difficult for a supermarket to get an off-licence. Some years ago there were many legal difficulties involved as one had to get two licences and reduce them. Many legal books have been devoted to this single transaction.

I welcome the changes in this Bill, particularly the provision for a special restaurant licence. However, it is important to look at the granting of off-sales licences to supermarkets. I am a Pioneer but as a practitioner in the field, I know the service supermarkets provide in small towns and the part they play in their growth. This week, there has been a debate among the licensed vintners on profiteering by certain establishments and the differences in price.

It is important to encourage competition, which is levelled by the free trade in off-sales. Deputy John Bruton spoke about the abuse of alcohol this morning. However, the opportunity for supermarkets to provide a comprehensive service in small communities is important for their survival. We want free trade and open competition. The prohibitive cost is an important factor, especially in our economic development. The profit margin on off-sales in a successful off-licence is 10% to 12% – not 100%. Significant investment is required to get an off-licence.

Some ten bottles of wine are sold to every one bottle of spirits. There is huge potential in the sale of beer in supermarkets. It will offer the consumer more choice. Those with off-licences, including me, have a vested interest in this but it is important that those in the trade do not prevent others getting into the market. When one goes to the Continent one can see the huge availability of beer in liquor stores and supermarkets. The Minister has a unique opportunity as this is the first major legislation introduced on this important issue.

The transfer and reduction of licences has been manipulated and results in huge legal costs. To create an off-licence, one must buy a seven day licence and reduce it. The Minister has introduced a provision whereby one does not need two licences. However, a licence is currently worth more than £100,000. We are talking about introducing more competition. The Government is determined to keep inflation low. The best way to do this is to introduce more competition. Acceptance of this amendment would do that and offer more choice to consumers in every village and small town. This is being prevented. I know several villages and towns who do not have an off-licence in their catchment area. This is being manipulated by the licensed trade who operate off-licences on their premises, which are different to off-licences in supermarkets. I appeal to the Minister to accept Deputy Higgins's amendment and to allow holders of wine licences to sell beer. This would be of huge benefit to and much appreciated by consumers.

I support this amendment. I cannot understand the Minister's difficulty in accepting it. It is a gross injustice to ignore this sector. These are decent people running small supermarkets and shops who cannot compete with the multiples, who have huge resources at their disposal. They have no fear of competition but they should be allowed put the same products as other supermarkets on their shelves.

I understand why someone living in a rural community must pay pub prices for beer if he wants a drink at home. As the Minister knows, many people travel with their families to holiday homes in Castlegregory, Ballyferriter and Caherdaniel. They like to have a drink in the evening but are unable to buy a can of beer in a shop. They must go to the pub and pay its prices. This is grossly unfair in a country trying to promote tourism. If we were in any other European country, these shops would have no difficulty getting an off-licence. We are talking about beer, not spirits, so we are not promoting equality with pubs.

The people getting these licences know their communities and would not sell drink to under age people. They live in the community and most are parents. I ask all rural Deputies in the House to support this amendment and remember their communities who are at a disadvantage compared to those living in towns who have the facility of off-licences. The case made by these people is justifiable. They feel the Minister did not listen to them in a meaningful way. They first contacted the Minister in 1988 when they made an excellent submission. They feel let down. They are not huge in number and I ask the Minister to accept the amendment.

I agree with the sentiments expressed by previous speakers. I hope the Minister will accept what is a common sense amendment. I would have thought the underlying concern in this Bill was an attempt on the part of the Government to codify this legislative mess where we have so many different types of licences allowing for alcoholic drink to be sold in many ways. The Bill has failed to do that. The Minister spoke about the possibility of a commission. In the meantime, however, this is one area to which he might turn his mind in terms of changing what is, in essence, a trade restriction. One can buy a bottle of wine in any shop that has a wine retailer's licence, but only wine and nothing else, apart probably from sherry or port and so on which are derived from grapes. One cannot buy a can of beer.

In terms of the control of the sale of alcohol, many beers and lagers contain less alcohol than wine. I fail to see therefore that it would open the floodgates or in some way endanger the public. The amendment states that any shop or supermarket that is currently selling wine should be allowed to sell beer. The previous speaker, Deputy Moynihan-Cronin, mentioned under age drinking and appropriate policing and enforcement of the law. However, the same law applies to the sale of wine. One cannot say this will give rise to problems because clearly it will not. The main problem the Minister may address himself to is that people operating a supermarket or shop can, under law, sell beer if they have an appropriate licence, and the appropriate licence, in the current scheme of things, is an off-licence or an ordinary seven-day publican's licence, the cost of which is prohibitive. I saw one sell on the market last week for £125,000. It was not envisaged, when the intoxicating liquor legislation was framed, that a publican's licence or a licence to sell drink would be coupled with such an extraordinary monetary value, to the tune of £125,000. It is quite outrageous. People who wish to expand and develop their small businesses simply cannot compete with the larger supermarkets which can buy such a licence. There is evidence that the large supermarket multiples are hoarding licences and holding in-pocket licences for future development of megastores up and down the country. A sum of £125,000 or £150,000 is mere peanuts to these people who are, in effect controlling the market and prices to such an extent as to restrict the trade of the local supermarket in the provincial town or urban area. This is a common sense proposal. I ask the Minister to accept it without delay because it will not give rise to social difficulties as envisaged by people from time to time. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment in the circumstances.

We have been through this on Committee Stage, but we need to briefly reinforce the very cogent arguments made at that Stage and also by the lobby groups who made powerful presentations to us based on very sound social reasons. The Minister rebutted to a certain extent the arguments put forward on Committee Stage by saying that a full licence is so valuable at this stage that allowing supermarkets to sell beer would mean they were getting off very lightly in respect of money spent in the context of their licence.

However, we need to see it in the wider context. Deputy Flanagan has referred to the inflated price of licences which offer undue and discriminatory competition from very large supermarkets which can afford that type of licence fee for an off-licence on their premises. Smaller supermarkets, particularly within villages and tourism areas cannot afford such licences.

All of us, and the Minister – given the area from which he comes – would agree that one of the biggest concerns of legislators is not to undermine small businesses and communities. At a time when large wholesale supermarkets outside villages and towns are drawing people from the villages and towns, acceptance of this amendment would indicate our commitment to communities and tourism areas and to smaller supermarkets in their efforts to cope with competition from larger outlets that will overwhelm us, particularly if larger supermarkets from abroad are allowed to come in.

This is a very important amendment. The Minister has gone a long way in opening up this area. For the sake of the future of the small towns and villages of Ireland, and the supermarkets that keep those communities going, I hope the Minister will take this amendment on board.

The amendment would allow the holder of a wine retailer's off-licence to sell beer. I expect that this amendment is prompted by section 24 which permits members of the public to enjoy a glass of beer with a meal in a restaurant holding a wine retailer's on-licence and a restaurant certificate. However, it is not correct to argue that because a shop has a wine off – or on-licence attached, it should be permitted to sell beer as well. A beer retailer's off-licence is granted on foot of an application to the District Court. In common with all such other applications, for example, an application for the grant of a certificate for a spirit retailer's off-licence or a full publican's licence has a condition that an existing licence or licences should be extinguished. No such requirement exists for the grant of a wine retailer's licence or off-licence. There is, therefore, no examination of the character of the applicant for a licence and no opportunity to examine the fitness of the premises in terms of its location or suitability. The amendment, if it were accepted would mean that every shop would be able to apply for a licence to sell beer without the need to submit to a court examination. It would have profound implications in relation to the availability of alcohol and the enforcement of the under age provisions if liquor were suddenly to be made available in such a multiplicity of outlets. The proposal would also have many implications for small family-run off-licences who have bought a beer retailer's off-licence, for whom the off-licence trade is their only trade, as opposed to the retail grocer for whom the licensed trade is ancillary to the main business. It would also have implications for small family-run pubs which are also located in all the villages and towns to which Deputies have been referring. There seems to be a view abroad that all public houses make a great deal of money. Many public houses do not make much money and business is just turning over. That is true in rural areas.

That is hardly the point.

I will come to the issue of the future of off-licences in due course. I do not agree with Deputy Flanagan. It is very much the point, because there is an issue of being licensed or not being licensed, of having a licence attached to a premises or not having a licence attached to a premises. If licensing was not an issue we would not have this legislation before us. Under the Bill I am providing for a relaxation of the law in relation the extinguishing of licences so that in future a licence may be sourced from anywhere in the State and only one extinguished licence is required in all cases. In addition, a publican's licence can be offered directly in substitution for an off-licence. These provisions should provide greater mobility of licences and increase opportunities for access to the trade. The arrangements for the acquisition of an off-licence are the same as those which apply for the acquisition of a publican's licence – the applicant must extinguish an existing licence and submit to a court examination. Therefore, if a supermarket owner wishes to have a beer retailers off-licence and a spirit retailers off-licence, he or she must extinguish an existing beer retailers off-licence and an existing spirit retailers off-licence. However, these can be sourced from anywhere in the State as opposed to the current city-rural rule. Only one of each is required and no population proofs or one mile rule will apply. Alternatively, the applicant can extinguish an existing publican's licence in substitution for such licences.

Lest there be any misunderstanding I wish to again say I do not agree that supermarkets have been ignored in the Bill. I have relaxed the law considerably in the Bill with regard to premises engaged in mixed trading and have removed all restrictions on the sale of non-licensed goods. This effectively means that premises engaged in mixed trading will be able to open at any time on any day to engage in the business of selling groceries and other non-alcoholic products. I have also relaxed the law with regard to the sale of licensed products in that they can now be sold from 7.30 a.m. on weekdays as opposed to 10.30 a.m.

For the present I have gone far enough in opening up the licensing trade and I feel a proper balance has been achieved in the Bill while at the same time it achieves a good deal of updating and progress in the licensing system.

While the amendment would allow a large number of premises to sell beer without any examination of the character of the applicant or the suitability of the premises, there are other factors which must be considered. This is not a simple matter, though it may seem to be simple until it is examined in depth. The amendment would mean, for example, that any garage or service station which by virtue of existing law has a wine on-licence would be entitled to sell beer. I am not convinced this would be a desirable outcome.

What about wine?

The UK Government, for example, has published a White Paper on reform of the law which promises significant change. It has held the view that garage forecourts are not suitable premises for the sale of liquor. The argument is that the supply of liquor in such circumstances and the association of drinking and driving should not be promoted.

People have to drive to the supermarket. It is bizarre.

There is a case for such a restriction. The difference between a supermarket and a garage is that petrol can be bought at a garage. Many such premises also operate on a 24 hour basis and often attract young people, particularly later at night, and I believe that enforcement of the law would arise in certain circumstances. The case that wine is similar to beer does not stand up as one will not find crowds of young people swigging bottles of wine in open spaces while one will find young people swigging beer in open spaces. These are the facts and there is nothing very funny about them. There has been an attempt in the Bill to tackle underage drinking, which we discussed all morning.

The sale of beer in supermarkets is worth examining, but it must be examined in a structured way. There could be no situation where the sale of beer could be allowed without applying the relevant rules which apply to the sale of intoxicating liquor by other outlets. In these circumstances, and recognising the desire in some quarters for change, I will ask the licensing commission to immediately examine this concept with a view to bringing a report to Government within a very short period – I anticipate in the region of three months if that is possible. I want to examine the proposals which will come forward so that we can see how the matter may be progressed. I am by no means ruling out the Government changing the current law in relation to the sale of beer in off-licences. However, I am cautioning that this involves practical difficulties and policy issues.

The price of alcoholic drink has contributed relatively significantly to the current rate of inflation of 5.2%. This figure represents many factors over which the Government has no control whatsoever. However, we do have control over the price of alcoholic drink, the contribution of which to the rate of inflation was 1.2%, a relatively significant percentage. For this and other reasons which have been mentioned I will be asking the commission to seriously examine the matter. When I have its report I will take it to the Government.

I wish to point out that in bringing forward the Bill there was a very wide ranging consultative process and the balance achieved in the legislation seeks to bring as many interested groups on board as possible. I have already acknowledged the excellent role of the joint committee which was chaired by Deputy Flanagan. The difficulty is that I must bring forward a proposal which is reasonable, structured and operable. When these factors are considered by the commission and when it brings forward a proposal, I will bring it to the Government for discussion. That is the best I can do at present. There is no question of me ignoring any group – in fact I went out of my way to accept meetings with groups in discussing the legislation—

I understand that happened at the Minister's clinics.

—and I tried very hard not to exclude anybody. It included discussions at clinics on the ring of Kerry and the Dingle peninsula.

(Mayo): I am disappointed. The Minister has come a long way in the Bill and I am sorry he did not make another gesture in relation to this issue because these people feel genuinely excluded. The Minister made the point that this is an issue of licences. However, these people have a wine licence, but they must formally go to the courts to get a wine on-licence. We are simply asking that this be extended to include beer, a very common sense proposal. The Minister made the point that if these people want to get a licence to sell beer and spirits they should involve themselves in the very costly process of extinguishing their existing licence. My colleague, Deputy Perry, tells me that in this regard I under-estimated the cost, which is £125,000. We are blue in face saying the reason we are asking that they be allowed sell beer is that these are small, family owned supermarkets which have invested much and taken out mortgages to develop their premises, keep body and soul together and trade viably. This would make an enormous difference. It is not on to expect these people to come up with a lump sum of £125,000.

The Minister said there is no character check. All one has to do is examine the structure. We all know that in rural areas we are talking about premises run by families who are often the bedrock of society and good, solid pillars of the community. The supermarkets are not owned by multinationals or multiple chain stores where there is no character check and which can involve an anonymous person from outside the jurisdiction setting up a hypermarket and employing a staff to operate it.

The Minister also made a point about undue competition for pubs and the off-licence sector. We are talking about totally different hours of trading. Public houses and off-licensed premises can trade up to a late hour; most supermarkets trade within normal hours, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. or 6 p.m. We are talking therefore about the vacuum period within which public houses and off-licensed premises are not open.

On revisiting the issue whenever we see the report of the commission on licensing, it is a case of "live horse and you'll get grass". That is a long-term project. The Minister is talking about a set of proposals which will probably not see the light of day for many years. I am sorry that he will not relent because the number of Deputies who have come into the House to add their voices in support speaks volumes for the merits of the argument.

I will not rehearse the arguments which have been extremely well made and not rebutted. I will do my best to rebut the Minister's arguments. He fundamentally misunderstands the situation in the United Kingdom where the multiples are now selling petrol in out of town shopping centres which have been allowed to develop.

We have managed to stop that happening here by reaching a consensus in the House. The Minister has therefore got the wrong end of the stick.

The Minister made no attempt to argue against allowing those who are currently allowed to sell wine to also sell beer. Small family supermarkets do not want to spend £125,000 to open an off-licence to sell spirits. We are talking solely about beer. There are many such supermarkets in my constituency from Adamstown, Clonroche to Taghmon.

The Minister was being disingenuous in stating that the commission will report back. He has already informed the House, honestly, that he has no intention of bringing another intoxicating liquor Bill before us. Whatever is agreed now therefore will be in place for a very long time. The Minister has made this abundantly clear. He was being disingenuous therefore in stating that the issue would be revisited. This is a small but important matter—

—for those involved in the business. The Minister should not pretend that he will do something about it. He should defend his position, something he has not done. I hope instead he will accept the strong case being made by an augmented team of Deputies on this side of the House. I hope it will be persuasive.

Deputy Higgins has highlighted fully the situation of small supermarkets and shops which hold wine licences and which face enormous competition from the large supermar ket groups. They are finding it very difficult to survive. It would be of great assistance therefore if they were allowed to sell beer. The Minister quoted from the White Paper published in Great Britain where the situation in villages is very different, particularly in England which has a vast population. I therefore ask him to re-examine the matter on which I have received a large number of representations from constituents who are anxious that this facility be granted to them.

There has been an increase of 1.2% in the consumer price index. It is my understanding that tax accounts for 0.75% to 0.9% of this. The Minister was being disingenuous therefore in blaming the public.

While I am aware that the Vintners Federation would not fully support this proposal, I am very disappointed that RGDATA which represents retail grocers has not been more vocal on the issue. It has been mentioned that the issue of a licence would be subject to court approval. This would not present any difficulties given that the issue of a wine licence is already subject to Garda and court approval. As Deputy Higgins correctly stated, in most instances the character of multinationals is not called into question. That argument therefore does not stand up to scrutiny. Those who come here on holiday during the summer find it hard to believe they cannot buy a can of lager in outlets where wine is sold.

Most businesses, be they members of the Vintners Federation or supermarkets, are run correctly. They are in business to provide a service, whether it be on a forecourt or in a supermarket, and as established taxpayers have a set code of conduct. We are talking about convenience trading and must not lose sight of the customer. It is very unfair that the current provisions strongly favour vintners who have gained considerably under the Bill. The small grocer who is most vulnerable should not be omitted at a time when such massive changes are being made.

I do not want to repeat any of the points made by my colleagues but unless I misunderstood him the Minister made an extraordinary statement in referring to price control and what he was doing to keep prices down so as to curb inflation. I would have thought that the amendment would introduce greater competition which should lead in turn to a fall in prices. It would do exactly what the Minister wants to achieve or did I misunderstand him?

Notwithstanding the fact that supermarkets in Britain are beginning to sell petrol the British intend to retain the law which prohibits the sale of beer in a garage because of the association between drink and driving. If one does not treat this matter seriously then one will not treat seriously advertisements—

What has that got to do with the amendment?

—which associate certain products with certain other attractive matters in an attempt to get people to purchase.

If that was the argument one would close down every rural public house.

The comparison with wine is not valid. I have not ever seen a fellow buy a pint of wine in a public house.

Over an evening the Minister probably did.

On the issue of competition, clearly I have been misunderstood. I have outlined that the matter is being referred to the Commission on Licensing and dealt with urgently. I have recognised the need to ensure drink prices do not contribute further to inflation and said that I will ask the commission to report quickly and that I will bring proposals to Government. The concept that there will not be further changes is therefore incorrect as the Government may decide to legislate.

It is very important that any structure or form of special licensing introduced in this area is properly considered. The amendment does not achieve the objective sought by it its promoters. I have set out my position and I am not convinced by the arguments put forward in the absence of a structured formula.

Will the Minister ask the Minster for Finance to increase the tax base?

(Mayo): It does not add up for the Minster to stick rigidly to a wine on-licence being restricted to selling wine only because there is a 40% higher alcohol content in wine than in beer. In some of the lighter beers the disparity is even greater. I do not know what planet the Minister is on if he has never seen anyone drink a pint of wine. People certainly drink half pints of wine. Small bottles of red, white and rosé wine are available in many pubs and have become fashionable among men and women.

Do people drink wine by the pint?

(Mayo): They could drink a second bottle, which would constitute a pint.

Tourists drink it by the gallon.

I have never seen anybody drink a pint of wine.

Is the Minister saying people in County Kerry do not drink wine?

(Mayo): The Minister should try it. It is recommended as part of a calorie free diet and it can be very palatable. It is also very good for blood circulation and it stops a rush of blood to the head.

The Bill makes a bad situation even more complex because it adds another layer to the labyrinth of legislation. I hope that whatever recommendations emerge from the commission, there is some kind of consolidating legislation. That is very important. One generic licence is required, to which varying conditions could be attached depending on circumstances. The labyrinth of legislation going back to the 1830s shows—

It goes back to 1545.

(Mayo):—the problems that arise in this area. The Minister will have a very aggrieved lobby at his clinic in Cahirciveen next Saturday.

Amendment put.

Ahearn, Theresa.Allen, Bernard.Barnes, Monica.Barrett, Seán.Bell, Michael.Boylan, Andrew.Bradford, Paul.Broughan, Thomas.Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).Bruton, John.Bruton, Richard.Burke, Liam.Burke, Ulick.Carey, Donal.Clune, Deirdre.Connaughton, Paul.Cosgrave, Michael.Coveney, Simon.Creed, Michael.Currie, Austin.D'Arcy, Michael.Deenihan, Jimmy.Durkan, Bernard.Enright, Thomas.Farrelly, John.Finucane, Michael.Fitzgerald, Frances.Flanagan, Charles.Hayes, Brian.Healy, Séamus.Higgins, Jim.Higgins, Joe.

Higgins, Michael.Hogan, Philip.Howlin, Brendan.McCormack, Pádraic.McDowell, Derek.McGahon, Brendan.McGinley, Dinny.Mitchell, Jim.Mitchell, Olivia.Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Owen, Nora.Penrose, William.Perry, John.Quinn, Ruairí.Rabbitte, Pat.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Shatter, Alan.Sheehan, Patrick.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Upton, Mary.Wall, Jack.Yates, Ivan.

Níl

Ahern, Bertie.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Andrews, David.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Blaney, Harry.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Matt.Brennan, Séamus.Briscoe, Ben.Browne, John (Wexford).Byrne, Hugh.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cowen, Brian.Cullen, Martin.Davern, Noel.

de Valera, Síle.Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Fahey, Frank.Fleming, Seán.Flood, Chris.Foley, Denis.Fox, Mildred.Gildea, Thomas.Hanafin, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Healy-Rae, Jackie.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy.Kenneally, Brendan.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Michael.Lenihan, Brian.McCreevy, Charlie. McDaid, James.

Níl–continued

McGennis, Marian.McGuinness, John.Moffatt, Thomas.Molloy, Robert.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Donoghue, John.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Keeffe, Ned.O'Kennedy, Michael.

O'Malley, Desmond.O'Rourke, Mary.Power, Seán.Reynolds, Albert.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Treacy, Noel.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Woods, Michael.Wright, G. V.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Barrett and Stagg; Níl, Deputies S. Brennan and Power.
Amendment declared lost.

Amendment No. 27. Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 are related. Therefore, amendments Nos. 27 to 29, inclusive, may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

(Mayo): I move amendment No. 27:

In page 21, line 8, to delete "beer" and substitute "any alcoholic beverage".

This amendment seeks to address a problem in the operation of restaurants. We applaud the concession the Minister is making to restaurants, namely, that restaurants which hold licences that entitle them to sell only wine will be entitled to also sell beer. They can now sell beer as well as wine as a beverage with a meal. That is the genesis of the argument of supermarket owners. If restaurants are allowed to sell beer on top of wine, why are small family supermarkets not so allowed? However, that argument is closed for the present.

One could have wine on top of beer.

(Mayo): If the Minister is into Molotov cocktails, so be it. We in Mayo would certainly have the constitution for it. People in Kerry have a problem even with wine. We drink pints of green Chartreuse with no problem. C'est la vie. The point at issue is that if restaurants are now allowed to sell beer, the logical extension is that they should also be allowed to sell spirits as part of a meal. The argument has been made, rehearsed and repeated and we mentioned repeatedly on Committee Stage that Irish coffees are now part of the norm, part of what we are, and are provided in most restaurants. Tourists who come here expect them to be provided as part of the ordinary fare, so there is no reason spirits, in a limited form, are not allowed to be served in restaurants. That is why I tabled these amendments which substitute “beer” with “alcoholic beverage”.

I support Deputy Higgins's amendment. The special restaurant licence was introduced so that restaurants could sell alcohol, but it had to be from a concealed bar. One could not have an open bar in a restaurant. I am a holder of a special restaurant licence and it is very beneficial to promote business by having alcohol with food. However, it defeats the purpose if a person who can have a glass of wine cannot have an Irish coffee with a meal. As the Bill stands at present, one would be breaking the law by serving an Irish coffee in a restaurant. There is something very wrong with that. Deputy Higgins's amendment allows, within the controls of the special restaurant licence, the consumption of an Irish coffee with a meal from an à la carte menu. That must be incorporated in the Bill and I appeal to the Minister to accept it so that the sale of alcohol in restaurants is incorporated within the structure of the special restaurant licence. It is an important area which should be examined.

I support this amendment from the point of view of having a modern European city and country. It is a joke that a person can have a glass of wine or a bottle of beer with a meal but not an Irish coffee, a glass of port or a gin and tonic. Some people do not drink beer because they are allergic to it. Some like a small whiskey. This is all about vested interests. I understand this because I was spokesman on justice in 1988 when the Intoxicating Liquor Act was passed which introduced restaurant licences for the first time. This issue is about vested interests and has nothing to do with serving the public, although politicians are supposed to serve the public which elects them. That visitors to the country would be breaking the law were they to have an Irish coffee in a restaurant is nothing short of a joke. We are sufficiently mature to know that those who own licensed premises are doing very well. They would not pay between £4 million and £7 million for pubs if they were not making substantial profits.

No matter what part of the country a restaurant is located in, surely if a person has a meal he or she can have a drink. The fear of publicans that people will go to restaurants instead of bars is out of date. People who want to drink will go to a pub or hotel and those who want a meal will go to a restaurant and will have a drink with their meal. The irony is that if one goes to a hotel and has a meal, one can have whatever drink one likes, but if one goes to the restaurant next door, one can only have wine or beer. One might receive the same steak in the restaurant next door, but one cannot choose from the same selection of drinks. It does not make sense to enact legislation with a provision which states that people can have wine or beer with a meal but not an Irish coffee or a gin and tonic. It makes a joke of us. I urge the Minister to accept the amendment so that we can bring in modern law for a modern European country and not protect vested interests by confining people to beer or wine.

While we may wish to be a civilised society with a good social sense of drinking, part of our cultural inheritance has inculcated a sense of binge drinking because of restrictions on where we can drink. This is a civilised amendment for what Deputy Barrett described as a modern society and it is also beneficial to the tourism industry which we are attempting to encourage. An ironic point which should be taken into consideration is that wines are imported, yet there is every right to sell wine in a restaurant. Unfortunately, our climate does not allow us to produce our own wine, but it allows us to produce our own whiskey. Scotland has managed to obtain a patent on Scotch whisky, yet Irish restaurants are not allowed to serve whiskey, even for an Irish coffee. It is ludicrous, ridiculous, anti-competitive and damaging to our indigenous industry.

Section 24 introduces a relaxation of the laws relating to the sale of alcohol in restaurants by permitting the holder of a restaurant certificated wine on-licence to serve beer in conjunction with a meal. This amendment provides that restaurants to which a wine on-licence attaches will be permitted to sell any alcoholic beverage. A restaurant which operates under the special restaurant licence as provided for in the Act of 1988 or a restaurant to which a publican's on-licence attaches may already supply all forms of intoxicating liquor, that is, wine, beer and spirits, with a substantial meal during the hours set out in the legislation. The amendments to the law relating to the special restaurant licence contained in the Bill will have the effect of encouraging more restaurants to apply for that licence, thereby increasing the number of outlets which will be able to offer the full range of drinks.

I am complementing this desirable change by permitting restaurants with a wine on-licence to serve beer with a meal. Taken together, these measures greatly assist the restaurant sector and it has acknowledged that. The bizarre situation where wine could be supplied in a licensed restaurant but not local beers has now been corrected. This provision reflects consumer demand and will also facilitate the tourism trade. It affords the opportunity to restaurateurs to provide the type of service they wish to provide or what would be workable in a locality.

If spirits were to be permitted in restaurants, the only practical way to provide for this would be through the introduction of a full licensing procedure, perhaps modelled on the special restaurant licence. Under current law and arising from this Bill, a person with a wine on-licence does not submit to a certain court examination of fitness. If restaurants were to be permitted to stock the full range of alcoholic drinks, a Circuit Court licensing process would be desirable. The implications that such a change would have for existing restaurants operating on the basis of the special restaurant licence would also have to be considered. In effect, such a decision would spell the demise of that form of licence. Having considered the matter further and because of the complexities which will inevitably arise and which will need to be teased out, this is an issue best left to further examination by the commission on licensing in the context of an overall review of licensing procedures.

The argument made regarding the sale of spirits in a restaurant does not stand up to close examination. It is not as if a restaurant is being asked to buy a full publican's licence to enable it to sell an Irish coffee. That is not the case. All a restaurant is asked to do is to purchase a special restaurant licence under the 1988 Act. This only costs £3,000. A person may apply to the Circuit Court for this licence, which will be granted if the person is deemed fit. It is not as restrictive as it might appear at first sight. It is anything but is restrictive. It is not unreasonable to ask people who want to serve spirits in restaurants, and who have been catered for as far as I reasonably could cater for them in this legislation, to obtain a special restaurant licence. That would not be a difficulty for many of them.

The Government and I wanted to allow the serving of beer with a meal – I stress it is with a meal – and I know it has been welcomed here. Some people do not like to drink wine with their meals. They certainly do not drink it by the pint, which Deputy Higgins said some people do. Such people might welcome a pint of Guinness or beer.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): A pint and a straw would be very handy.

I have sympathy with people who want to have an Irish coffee with their meal and I have explained how that could be done under the special restaurant licence. As I said, this legislation has been fine tuned to try to suit all sectors, which is extremely difficult to do. We have been as reasonable as we possibly could be. While I have not ever seen a person drink a pint of wine, neither have I seen a person drinking a glass of brandy with a steak. Maybe it happens, but I have not seen it.

It comes after the steak, with the coffee.

I accept that.

The Minister has had a very sheltered life.

I have not had a very sheltered life, although I sometimes wish I had. I grew up in a public house, so I have a fair idea of what this is about, even if I say so myself. Many would say that I know a great deal more about this than about anything else, but that is for another day.

Did the Minister serve pints of wine on a Sunday morning?

I did not ever serve a pint of wine in the pub and I have not met a man or woman who asked me for it. However, Deputy Higgins says it happens and I must bow to his greater knowledge.

(Mayo): I said it is available.

It is not as if we are preventing people from getting these licences. We have taken away the need for Bord Fáilte inspections, waiting areas, sectioned off areas and so on. We have tried to liberalise it as much as we could. The final step that is being requested in relation to serving spirits in restaurants is not being legislated for in this Bill but is clearly available with a special restaurant licence.

I accept that a special restaurant licence is available. However, when this was introduced in 1988 it was done on the basis that the regulations attaching to the use of such a licence would be set by the Department of Tourism. Bord Fáilte and the Department went bananas, looking for extra toilets, seating areas, certain counter sizes and so on. When we enacted this special licence, we were unaware this was going to happen.

The weakness is that some restaurants do not have the facilities to apply for a special restaurant licence. There is an argument for a fee of £3,000 for a licence to serve all kinds of alcohol. However, the real stickler is that in some areas, particularly in rural Ireland, some of the smaller restaurants do not have the space to provide the facilities required by this licence. I suggest the Minister ask his colleague to have these regulations reviewed and modernised, so that people do not have to go through the nonsense of having to put in special toilets, seating areas and so on. It has been proven over the 12 years that the special restaurant licence has not affected public houses, which was the big fear at the time. It is those regulations that are causing the problem.

I agree with Deputy Barrett. I know he was his party's spokesman on justice in 1988 when the legislation on special restaurant licences was passed and that he made an excellent contribution to it. We are taking out all those regulations and they will no longer apply. It will be possible to apply simpliciter for the restaurant licence under this legislation and there will not be any more of these regulations. Therefore, it will be quite simple – a person will apply to the court for a restaurant licence and, if he or she is fit, it will be granted on payment of a fee of £3,000. That is what I propose.

That is a good idea.

Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 not moved.

Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

(Mayo): I move amendment No. 30:

In page 23, to delete lines 35 and 36 and substitute the following:

"‘(d) any notice published in a church newsletter, club publication or displayed in a public place within the functional area of the club.'.".

I appreciate that the Minister accepted our amendment to section 27 in relation to the functions of registered clubs. He agreed to broaden the scope of the Bill in the use of clubs by outside bodies by including the word "community". In other words, provided the proceeds are, after deduction of all legitimate expenses, devoted to benevolent, charitable or community purposes, the club can be used.

The Minister will recall that during the debate on this section he also agreed to examine another amendment I had tabled, which I withdrew on the basis of that undertaking by the Minister. As I have said before and as all Members of the House agree, clubs do an excellent job in the promotion of healthy activities for the local community, particularly youth activities. It is the accepted norm that virtually all funds raised by a club go directly back into the retention, maintenance and development of club facilities for the local community, which is why we pushed the community aspect so hard and the Minister kindly agreed to accept our amendment.

However, the problem is that advertising of any such function can only take place within the precincts of the club itself. There is a very strong argument for a broadening of the scope of such advertising, which is why I proposed the amendment, which I understood the Minister was, at least, favourably disposed towards examining. The amendment proposed that any notice published in a church newsletter, club publication or displayed in a public place within the functional area of the club would be permitted. We are not talking here about wide scale advertising on local or national radio or in local or national newspapers. We are talking about four kinds of advertising – bush telegraph, local club publications, a poster within the functional area of the club itself and church newsletters. In other words, it would be kept under control and within the general scope and parameters of the community.

Amendment No. 30 provides that the ban on advertising of any function held on the premises of a registered club should not apply to any notice published in a church newsletter, club publication or displayed in a public place within the functional area of the club. This amendment, if accepted, would permit private members' clubs to advertise widely, through posters, billboards and so on, all events at which alcohol will be served. However, the Government is putting forward an amendment to provide for further relaxation with regard to the advertising of functions by registered clubs and, in the circumstances, I ask Deputy Higgins to withdraw his amendment. In the circumstances, I ask Deputy Higgins to withdraw his amendment.

Amendment No. 31 to section 29(b) relaxes further the ban on the advertising of functions held by registered clubs. I propose this amendment as an alternative to amendment No. 30 in the names of Deputies Jim Higgins and Flanagan. It provides that, in addition to functions at which no alcoholic liquor is being supplied, other functions of a community, charitable or benevolent nature permitted under section 27(2) of the Bill may be advertised. This should adequately meet the needs of registered clubs without doing damage to the underlying principles by which a club is permitted to supply intoxicating liquor, namely, that it is a private institution for the benefit of its members and not a licensed premises. The amendment strikes that proper balance between the fundamental private nature of a club, in terms of the conditions under which it can supply intoxicating liquor to its members and their guests, and the position of a club in the wider community, where its facilities may be made available to groups in that wider community and where the club organises functions that will be of benefit to the community or which will have some other charitable or benevolent purpose.

I have gone a considerable way towards meeting the concerns expressed by Deputy Higgins. While I cannot accept his amendment, I believe he will accept that I have taken it on board, in spirit, and that it will be inserted in the legislation.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 31:

In page 23, line 36, after "served", to insert "or a function to which section 27(2)(a) applies".

Amendment agreed to.

(Mayo): I move amendment No. 32:

In page 24, after line 41, to insert the following:

"38.–Advertisements for alcohol and labels on bottles, cans and other containers from which alcohol is sold shall display in legibly printed form the message ‘GOVERNMENT WARNING – ALCOHOL CAN SERIOUSLY DAMAGE YOUR HEALTH'.".

A great deal of debate took place in respect of this matter on Committee Stage. Most Members held the view that a Government health warning is meaningless and would not provide a deterrent from the point of view of either alerting people to the dangers of alcohol or having the effect of making the consumption of alcohol less attractive. A number of Members made the point that health warnings have not worked in the case of cigarette advertising. I do not subscribe to that view but it is a moot point because the case has yet to be proven.

Alcohol is a legal drug which, in many instances, can be mind-altering. I see the Minister is again treating my argument with a certain degree of derision.

(Mayo): We discussed the effects of alcohol on previous occasions but I must reiterate the point that it is a mood-altering substance. It has been established, and I am sure the Minister for Health and Children will confirm, that pancreatitis, cirrhosis of the liver, brain damage, cancer of the throat and mouth, etc. can all be caused by the consumption of alcohol. Unfortunately, however, people in this country seem to have an endless inclination to inflict damage on their bodies.

I do not accept that including a Government health warning on all cans, bottles and other containers of alcohol would not be a good development. Such warnings should be placed on alcohol products by those responsible for their manufacture and not by retailers. A Government warning that alcohol can seriously damage one's health is valid and should be supported. Packets of aspirin, Dispirin, Anadin and paracetamol carry warnings that excess consumption can damage one's health. In that context and given the havoc being wreaked on our society by a legal drug, I cannot see why consideration cannot be given to including Government health warnings on alcohol products which can seriously damage one's health.

I also spoke on this matter on Committee Stage and I hold a number of views on it. As a former Minister for Health, I was responsible for building a form of European consensus in relation to the inclusion of warnings on cigarette packaging. In my opinion, health warnings on tobacco products have some effect. I am also of the view that tobacco products are completely and absolutely damaging and they have no redeeming characteristics because they involve the intake of a poison. However, I do not believe alcohol falls into the same category.

The excessive consumption of can be extremely damaging. However, alcohol can be used for recreational purposes and it is chosen by many people – I am sure these include Members who have contributed to this debate – as a recreational drug. What we require is a responsible attitude to alcohol. I am of the opinion that including on alcohol products a health warning which states that "Alcohol can seriously damage your health" will not inculcate among people a notion that alcohol is intrinsically good but that it can do immeasurable harm if abused.

Deputy Higgins referred to paracetamol and other drugs. Medicines can be poisonous if taken in excess. Likewise, people can poison or kill themselves if they consume too much alcohol at one sitting. In addition, if a person consumes a large amount of alcohol on a regular basis he or she will do considerable harm to oneself.

I have considered the position in the United States in relation to this matter. Bottles of alcohol sold in that country carry a warning from the US Surgeon General. A number of alternative wordings are used in this regard, one of which is that women should not consume alcohol when pregnant. I suggest that we need to introduce a more wide-ranging educational programme that will build respect for the consumption of alcohol in moderation and highlight the dangers posed by drinking to excess.

The proposal put forward is inadequate because it implies that we should only warn people and they will then be free to go about their own affairs. Young people would perceive alcohol to be more attractive if bottles and cans carried Government health warnings. When the debate about the inclusion of warnings on tobacco products was ongoing, one manufacturer produced a brand of cigarettes called "Death", packets of which displayed a skull and crossbones. The idea appeared to be to undermine legitimate efforts to warn people about the effects of tobacco consumption. If we go down the road of labelling everything which can be potentially damaging, we will diminish the message. What is required is an educational programme which will have a greater impact.

I support the objective behind the amendment tabled by Deputy Higgins. However, the Bill is designed to regulate the position vis-à-vis the drinks industry and opening hours. We have a responsibility to legislate for the public. However, we have another responsibility, namely, to provide the means of education and support. The social consequences of alcohol abuse must be addressed in the context of legislation of this nature. However, from personal experience, I am not convinced that the route outlined by Deputy Higgins is the best one to take.

I support Deputy Jim Higgins's amendment because excessive consumption of alcohol can damage one's health. The amendment is particularly important when one considers the number of underage drinkers in this country. Health warnings on tobacco products have been quite effective in creating an awareness of the dangers of smoking and I would welcome the inclusion of such warnings on alcohol products. The consumption of alcohol in moderation is acceptable but there is a great deal of anecdotal evidence available about the risks of alcohol abuse. We must ensure that we make people, particularly the young, aware of the dangers involved in drinking.

The responsibility for not selling alcohol to people who are under age rests with the owners of established outlets. Regulations have been introduced in respect of the sale of cigarettes to minors and, in my opinion, warnings should be included on alcohol products about dangers involved in consuming alcohol. Alcohol is one of the biggest pitfalls in today's society. It is a dangerous drug which should not be under estimated. Placing a warning on a bottle or can to the effect that excessive consumption can seriously damage health would convey a very important message to vulnerable teenagers who, unfortunately, are beginning to drink at a very young age. Successive Governments have tried to ensure that publicans and supermarket owners act responsibly, which they do, but it is important that the consumer would be made aware of the dangers of excessive alcohol consumption.

I support the underlying principle of this amendment. Deputy Howlin's point was a very valid one because Irish people do not have any respect for drinking alcohol in moderation. There is a need for a change of attitude among members of the public. In the past, young people used to drink and drive but they will no longer go into a pub or club and boast that they drove home the previous night after consuming alcohol. Drinking and driving is socially unacceptable among young people although that mind-set has not changed among older people.

A person who goes into a pub and says he consumed 15 or 16 pints of beer the previous night is perceived as a hard man and that attitude must change. The principle informing this amendment and the proposed establishment of a Government warning is that people would be conscious of the dangers of alcohol. Such a warning should be accompanied by educational back-up.

More people here abuse alcohol than any other drug. Alcohol abuse far outweighs cannabis, heroin and other drug abuse. Some 98% of addiction in the west of Ireland is alcohol addiction. Alcoholism is a very serious disease although there is no harm at all in drinking in moderation. Perhaps in addition to the health warning, the Minister would consider stating on bottle or can labels, that people should not drink and drive. Placing such an advertisement on a bottle of beer would not do any harm and could make some people conscious of the need to respect alcohol.

I did not have an opportunity to speak about under age drinking and identification cards. Under age drinking is a huge problem; the Minister of State at the Department of Tourism, Sport and Recreation has acknowledged that it is the single biggest problem facing us. We must raise awareness of this problem among the public. People do not respect alcohol and that lack of respect leads to abuse.

I support the thrust of Deputy Higgins' amendment. In spite of the issuance of continuous warnings about the dangers of smoking and the publication of health warnings on cigarette packets, people are still smoking.

Young people more than ever.

That is true. On passing secondary schools, one sees young boys and girls lighting up outside the gates. More girls than boys seem to smoke now. We have failed miserably in encouraging young people to abstain from cigarette smoking. This is a huge problem which must be tackled as the number of people smoking is increasing rather than diminishing. While the Minister has the power to incorporate Deputy Higgins' amendment into the Bill, there is a need for co-operation between the Departments of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Health and Children in regard to a well thought-out advertising campaign which would seek to make young people aware of the potential damage to their health of smoking and excessive alcohol intake.

I presume people in Kerry now drink litres rather than pints of wine. Is that not what is sold in the pubs there?

No. I have not seen either pints or litres of wine.

Did the Minister ever see a medium?

The Minister must not ever have been in Kinsealy if he has not seen pints or litres of wine.

(Mayo): He was a great fan of the Kinsealy man for a while.

Fianna Fáil is a great party for forgetting.

The Deputy has forgotten a few things in his time.

Let us not forget the Bill.

(Mayo): Well said, Ceann Comhairle.

French wine producers have marketed their wine, particularly red wine, very successfully. Their advertising campaigns convey the message that red wine is good for people's health. I know of people who would not normally drink wine who are buying wine as a result of these campaigns.

Research has proven that red wine has health benefits.

Guinness very successfully marketed its product with the slogan "Guinness is good for you" and that campaign was effective. In the past, doctors recommended that people with low blood pressure or people who were slightly anaemic should drink a couple of bottles of Guinness.

People used to get a bottle of Guinness when they donated blood.

It is certainly better for people's health than apples.

If this proposed health warning will appear on pint glasses—

It would only appear on bottles or cans.

Well, I would go along with it being placed on cans. It is important that the Government would undertake a serious campaign to educate people on the dangers of alcohol abuse. If this amendment represents a step in that direction, I fully support it.

Deputy Higgins seems to have misinterpreted my sign language. Far from treating his amendment with derision, I see merit in the intention underlying the amendment. However, I do not believe this issue is either feasible or appropriate to the Bill before us. That was the overwhelming view expressed in the Select Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights on Committee Stage.

We are all aware that excessive alcohol intake can cause significant health problems but the effects of alcohol abuse do not merely pertain to the health of the abuser. Social and economic consequences can also result from alcohol abuse. One possible approach might be to place the warning proposed by Deputy Higgins on the product. On the other hand, it could be questioned whether such a warning should be placed on a product some would claim is beneficial to health when taken in moderation. A more appro priate way to ensure alcohol is treated with the respect it deserves is through a public education programme or programmes that stress the negative as well as the positive aspects of alcohol. Deputies Howlin and Enright referred to this. While I appreciate that alcohol can, in some cases, endanger health when abused it may be that it should not be placed in the same category as tobacco consumption which, by definition, is unhealthy and injurious.

In any event, the matter is one that comes within the responsibility of the Minister for Health and Children and will, no doubt, continue to be taken into account in any review of this general area. I agree with Deputy Howlin that one might devalue the warning notice by placing it on too many products. That seems to have been his experience as Minister for Health. I imagine it is true that, taken in moderation, alcohol can be, if not good for one's health, at least not bad for it. On the other hand, cigarettes are always injurious to health. I gave them up four years ago after 20 years of smoking. It is a very difficult thing to do.

The Minister looks all the better for it.

I am not sure that warning signs on cigarette packets had any great effect. It is more important that there be a continuing education programme in regard to cigarettes and alcohol. That is the preferable path to go down. I do not suggest that the notice should be removed from cigarette packets but I am not sure of its efficacy and whether the message gets through to young people.

I would say to young people that it is far easier not to smoke cigarettes than it is to give them up and it is far more rewarding.

Deputy Barnes knows what I am talking about.

Very much so.

In the circumstances I cannot support the amendment and I ask the Deputy to withdraw it.

(Mayo): The operative word is “can” not “does”. It can and it does, and the figures are there to prove it. I take Deputy Howlin's point that it is intrinsically good but it can do damage. As regards “Guinness is good for you”, unfortunately as a nation we have taken that too literally.

One of the practical problems is in relation to imported beers and wines which are sourced outside the country. I agree that education is the key. Perhaps the matter might be looked at again to see if a warning could be put in place. We must try to get the right perspective and attitude in order to address this problem which is of epidemic proportions.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

(Mayo): I move amendment No. 33:

In page 24, after line 41, to insert the following:

"38.–The consumption of alcohol in all public places, both indoor and outdoor, which are not licensed for same shall be illegal. A person found guilty of contravening this section shall be liable to a fine not exceeding £500 or to a community service order.".

It is difficult to get the balance right. This was a suggestion made by the Pioneer Total Abstinence Association to the joint committee. I agree with the thrust of what it proposed but it is difficult to get the precise wording to achieve what I want to achieve.

I am trying to address a problem that is in vogue particularly at this time of year, and that is cider parties held in public places late at night where hordes of young people gather. They pool their resources and acquire flagons of cider. They light fires and drink until the early hours of the morning. There are outdoor beer orgies that result in incredible disrespect for the welfare of the local community. In my two and a half years as spokesperson on justice I have accumulated half a filing cabinet full of letters from people who, at this time of year, are subjected to this kind of outdoor terrorism. Young people band together in huge groups and show a total disregard for the welfare of others, particularly elderly people. The Garda move them on but they come back again. I appreciate it is a problem for the local authorities to invoke the necessary by-laws but thankfully some of them do so. Is there some kind of national prescription that could be put in place such as that suggested by Fr. MacGréil and the Pioneer Total Abstinence Association?

Our local radio station, MWR, was invited by the Garda in Castlebar to accompany them one Saturday night in a patrol car. In the space of two and a half hours, from 1 a.m. to 2.30 a.m., they came across five cider parties or beer orgies under railway bridges, in culs-de-sac and public parks. The report was issued the following day unedited, undiluted and uncensored. The condition, language and performance of those people had to be heard to be believed. They were bombed out of their minds and gave the gardaí lip, which shows the difficulties the gardaí must cope with in policing this type of operation which is so prevalent.

I urge each local authority to introduce its own by-laws but there is also an obligation on us as we are introducing legislation to regulate alcohol, to lay down a general prescription. However, I acknowledge it is difficult to get the precise wording.

I support the objective outlined by Deputy Higgins. I can see the difficulty in trying to frame an appropriate amendment. There is an enormous problem of youth drinking in public places. It is having such an effect that communities are seeking to close off culs-de-sac and have railings and gates put on the access to housing estates. Some are seeking to diminish the open space in housing estates. For years we argued for open space for children to play in and so on.

People are terrorised by young people out of control at cider and beer parties. As I said this morning, there seems to be a mindset among some young people not just to drink but to get drunk. That is appalling. Society must take action against them. A number of local authorities have invoked by-laws. In Arklow there is a notice on the poles in the street stating it is an offence to consume alcohol in a public place within the functional area. Wexford County Council has taken similar action in relation to the beach resorts because of young people congregating at the weekend, literally taking over some resort areas.

The amendment, as drafted, would make the consumption of alcohol illegal in all public places. If one went on a picnic to Curracloe Strand with one's family and had a glass, litre or pint of wine it would be illegal under the amendment. There are obvious occasions where people consume alcohol in public which would not be regarded as untoward or something that should be outlawed. The Minister has not tabled an amendment on this matter and I look forward to hearing his thoughts on one of the most significant social issues of our time, young people drinking in public, menacing people and doing great damage to themselves. Squads of police are required in some areas to deal with this issue. One of the consequences of this is the horrific scenes of violence that are, unfortunately, all too common. I said in another debate that violence caused by young men against other young men is a phenomenon reaching epidemic proportions. There are now communities where young males fear for their lives because others are going out and getting tanked up and will do terrible damage to people. It is mindless and savage and I do not know how we are to deal with this as a community, but we will have to make an attempt.

I support the concept behind this amendment and I wonder if there is a formula that could be included in the Bill which would achieve the objective without outlawing every occasion on which people want to consume alcoholic drink safely in public.

I fully support the thrust of Deputy Higgins's amendment. Cider is being sold at £2.75 for two litres and it is a very cheap way to get highly intoxicated. One can also buy Red Bull and Coke for £1.25 per can. That is also a lethal cocktail.

Red Bull is not alcoholic.

It is not, but it can be mixed.

With vodka.

There is a combination of cocktail mixes. The gardaí should have powers to deal with disorderly conduct among groups late at night and such conduct should be dealt with severely in court. There is nothing more disturbing late at night in a built up area or on a main street. People can buy two litres of cider for £2.75 and can then cause huge annoyance. There is no control of underage drinking. Nobody objects to people having a drink in public if they behave in an orderly manner, but cider is so cheap that young people can have cider parties. We must ensure that disorderly behaviour beyond a reasonable hour is dealt with severely by the courts, though perhaps not through this Bill.

This is one of the most important amendments we have dealt with. This is not only a problem in Dublin and other cities but is a disaster in every town and village. Elderly people are terrorised every Saturday night in Roscommon town by louts coming out of nightclubs who press doorbells and break windows. Young people, cider and lager louts, occupied a derelict house on an estate not too far from where I live and sex orgies are going on. Elderly, middleaged and, as Deputy Howlin said, young people are trapped in their own homes. It is one of the biggest social ills and a lot of blame for it is being laid at the Minister's door because we have failed to tackle this problem.

It comes down to underage drinking and identity cards, but it is also a matter of clamping down on the scumbags who are involved in this. In the Minister's county, the rally in Killarney was almost abandoned because of the riots there and we had the same problem last year when there was a rally in Galway. We must look at this issue and examine the UK approach, where legislation has been introduced to deal with antisocial behaviour. We must ensure that those involved in such activities are banned from particular areas, but the gardaí do not have the powers or resources to do so at present. This is a huge problem in every large housing estate in the country, be they local authority or private estates, and something will have to be done. It is unacceptable that in this age, where the Minister speaks about zero tolerance, elderly, middleaged and young people are forced to stay inside.

This is the time of year such activity occurs. I have no problem with people drinking on the street in a civilised manner and I like to go to a beer garden to enjoy the sun in the summer, but something will have to be done with the scum who are involved in this and it will have to be done soon.

Deputy Naughten has made a good case, but I have to disagree with him. I know this area creates difficulties, but this amendment is too wide and should be more focused. We must bring some balance to the equation. If the weather we enjoy at the moment was to continue—

We would be lucky.

The Deputy may get more of it in Wexford than we do in Kildare.

Please God.

It is a regular feature on Sunday or in weather such as this that people have a picnic in the Curragh and bring some alcoholic drink. After football matches it is often nice if the weather is good to come out of a pub and have a drink on the street, although I know people are not supposed to do so. This is a problem, but I cannot support the amendment. We will have to oppose it.

I can readily agree with Deputy Higgins and other speakers that the abuse of alcohol in open public places, leading to antisocial and disorderly behaviour, is something that should not be tolerated. However, the amendment is too wide in its application as it means that adults having a picnic in the park, at the seaside or some other public place could not enjoy a bottle of wine or a glass of beer. We must be able to distinguish between persons drinking in antisocial circumstances and possibly causing a disturbance and adults drinking in a non-threatening atmosphere, such as having a beer at a picnic. Deputy Higgins referred to a pint of wine, but if one had a pint or two of wine, the following morning would be no picnic.

The difficulties of implementing this amendment if it were to succeed were discussed thoroughly on Committee Stage and the general view was that it would not be practical. However, there are means open to society to protect itself from threatening or antisocial behaviour. Local authorities, under the Local Government Act, 1994, are empowered to make by-laws governing the consumption of alcohol in public places. We heard on Second Stage that this provision was used to some effect in Cork and subsequently in other towns. I am confident that other local authorities experiencing problems with people drinking in public places could follow the lead given in this matter.

Where public drinking leads to disorderly behaviour, the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act, 1993, strengthens the capacity of the gardaí to deal with such incidents. Offences created by that Act include intoxication in public place, disorderly conduct in a public place and threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour in a public place. The Act also gives gardaí important new powers to deal with persons committing such public order offences. Section 8 provides that a garda may, where a person is acting in a manner contrary to the relevant public order provisions of the Act or otherwise loitering in a way that causes apprehension for the safety of persons or property, direct that person to desist from such behaviour and to leave the place concerned in a peaceful and orderly manner and it is an offence for a person to fail to comply with such a direction. I also draw Deputies' attention to the fact that the licensing laws already contain a number of substantive measures to deal with drinking in public places, specifically where underage persons are concerned. Section 33 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1988, makes it an offence for any person under 18 years of age to purchase alcohol, whether in an on-licence or off-licence, or to consume it in any place other than a private residence.

Gardaí have the power to confiscate alcohol in the possession of under age persons. While the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1988, contains a very wide range of controls designed to tackle the problem of under age drinking, this Bill will strengthen the provisions regarding the supply or sale of intoxicating liquor to under age persons. The code of law which will now apply is adequate. I do not propose to support the amendment which is fundamentally flawed and, seemingly, is framed without a comprehension of the strength of existing law.

I agree fully with what the Minister and Deputy Power have said. This amendment does not tackle the nub of the issue and Deputy Higgins said it was a difficult amendment to word. I am disappointed the Minister has not come up with any solution. Will he give the Garda the resources to implement that legislation? Will he ensure that legislation is strengthened so we can clamp down on this? I do not know whether the Minister is living in the real world – this is a huge problem. I am not talking about someone having a beer outside a public house after a football match but about scumbags in the middle of estates terrorising elderly people who cannot get in or out of their homes. Bottles, used condoms, etc. are being thrown into their gardens.

It is unacceptable in this day and age that anyone should have to accept that behaviour. We seem to be doing nothing about it. We, as the legislative assembly, are being blamed for not bringing in the legislation. This Government is being blamed for not enforcing the legislation which is there. We have to do something about it. I am disappointed the Minister did not come up with suggestions or proposals in regard to what he plans to do to ensure we eradicate this problem once and for all. We cannot leave it to the local authorities which do not have the powers and which cannot enforce the legislation applying to them at the moment.

(Mayo): As I acknowledged in my opening comments, I agree it is very difficult to find clear, precise and definitive wording to achieve what we want. I agree with Deputy Naughten in that the Minister is in denial in respect of the huge public order problem. The cider parties are not confined to Roscommon, Castlebar or Dublin but are in Kildare and every other county. Life will be a nightmare for the rest of the summer for a huge tranche of the settled community, particularly the elderly. We are failing in our duty if we do not protect the right to privacy, solitude and tranquillity of elderly people in their own dwellings.

Elderly people, particularly women, are being terrorised in their homes as a result of these open-air orgies of drink and drugs and very often a combination of both. It is fine to talk about the legislation and to trot out the various provisions of the 1994 public order legislation and so on, but the legislation is not working. Enforcement and implementation are important, not legislation. The legislation, however, is not being implemented at present.

The Minister really needs to address this issue. He needs to sit down with the Garda Commissioner and point out that there is a huge problem which, based on previous years, will reach even higher thresholds of crisis than in previous years because it is almost accepted that these people have the right to congregate in public places and drink openly into the early hours of the morning. This problem should be tackled now and the Minister should sit down with the Garda Commissioner who should call in his divisional people and the chief superintendents. They should put in place some kind of emergency action over the summer period to rid the urban and rural landscapes of this plight which, unfortunately, has befallen us.

The answer to the question posed by Deputy Naughten is that the resources are being given to the Garda Síochána. The numbers in the Force have risen from around 10,700 odd to 11,500.

It is not working.

I am on course towards delivering on the pre-election promise to raise the strength of the Force to 12,000. The Garda Vote has been increased over the past three years by a full 42% or more than £200 million. The resources are being made available to the Garda as is the manpower and woman power.

Why is it not working?

The best way to approach the problem which has been posed is obviously the rigorous enforcement of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act, 1994. The legislative framework is there but it requires rigorous enforcement. It is certainly my intention to have dis cussions with the Garda Commissioner in the context of the introduction of this legislation to deal specifically with any problems which may arise.

Specifically, I have explained on many occasions that it is the intention to rigorously enforce the under age provisions in this legislation. The legislation is deliberately tough in this area to try to stamp out under age drinking, in so far as it can be done through legislation. I accept that at night people living in residential areas can face great disturbance as a result of people leaving certain premises. I accept it is necessary to address that problem and that it is not right that people, and very often their young children, should be wakened by serious disturbance. That is a matter I will certainly discuss with the Garda Commissioner in the context of this legislation and the more rigorous enforcement of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act, 1994.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill reported with amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

It has been a tortuous enough process and the consultative process took almost two years to reach this stage. It is far from comprehensive legislation despite the comments of the Minister but, I suppose, in trying to serve the various interests and to make sense of all the enactments in place, it is as good as we can do at this stage. I would have preferred if more of our amendments had been accepted but I am grateful to the Minister and acknowledge the amendments he has taken on board. This will improve the general body of licensing law.

I use this opportunity to pose once again a question I posed on Committee Stage and this morning on Report Stage. Since the Minister said he does not have the resources within his Department, will he commission a consolidation Bill incorporating all the enactments which date back well over a century and which are a minefield for anybody to navigate in order to find out the exact legal position? When discussing one amendment the Minister acknowledged that it would be a surprise to a certain category of license holders to discover that they are in that category at all.

We need a consolidating Act and I would like the Minister to indicate that he will commission such an Act so that when we come to the next set of amendments to the licensing hours or to the intoxicating liquor regime, there will be one set of enactments at which to look because it is extremely difficult to cross reference so many existing Acts. I thank the Minister for his work on this Bill.

(Mayo): I concur with Deputy Howlin's comments. I welcome the Minister's commitment to meet the Garda Commissioner to see what can be done about the public order problem. That is very important and I hope it happens at an early date. It has been a mammoth task to put this Bill together. First, one is talking about the report of the review group and then the degree of consultation with the various interested bodies. I have to acknowledge that, by and large, the Minister has struck a fair balance between the different interest groups and has managed to come up with legislation which treads a very neat and delicate path between the different interest groups apart from the small supermarket owners who have a genuine grievance.

I compliment the Minister and his officials who have done a good job. I am sure he will announce with some fanfare the new opening hours before the end of the week. We would like to know when the Minister thinks the President will be able to append her signature to the new legislation.

I warmly thank the main Opposition spokespersons, Deputy Higgins and Deputy Howlin, for their contributions to this legislation during its passage through the House. It has not been easy legislation to frame and to have processed. I also thank the groups with whom I consulted and, in particular, I thank the staff of the Department for the wonderful work they put into this legislation over a prolonged period.

For the first time in 40 years we are implementing major changes to our intoxicating liquor laws. This change is balanced, reasonable and fair. As to the consolidation of legislation, Ireland's first intoxicating liquor legislation dates from about 1635. That law is not extant and much drinking up time has gone under the bridge since it was passed. The oldest Act concerning this issue dates from 1833 and 55 Acts govern this area. There are few experts on all Acts but one is sitting nearby. He is an official in the Department. It would be a major task to consolidate legislation of this nature but we will have to consider such a course of action.

(Mayo): When does the Minister anticipate the legislation will be signed into law? In other words, can we have a pint going home tomorrow night?

Not if the Deputy is driving.

Deputy O'Rourke has informed me that a fellow townsman of mine, Daniel O'Connell, spoke on the 1833 legislation. It is appropriate that we toast him. I hope the legislation will be signed into law in the next week or so.

Acting Chairman:

As it is now 6.30 p.m. I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day: "That the Bill is hereby passed."

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share