Amendments Nos. 2 and 12 are related to amendment No. 1. Is it agreed that amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 12 be discussed together? Agreed.
Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 2000 [ Seanad ] : Report Stage.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 7, line 3, to delete "or Good Friday".
For a long period it has been illegal to sell intoxicating liquor in public houses, off-licensed premises and restaurants on Good Friday. This is perfectly understandable given the strong Christian ethos and tradition within the country. The argument I put to the Minister on Committee Stage and on which he volunteered to reflect was that, given that the nature of Irish society is changing and evolving to the point where there are now resident in the State persons from a variety of cultures and with different religious beliefs and none, all of whom should be cherished equally within our legal system, it is an anomaly to retain this provision which provides for closure on Good Friday. My colleague, Deputy Barnes, made the valid point that a growing number of people visit this country for the Easter break and that many of them regard it as an anomaly that public houses and clubs are closed on Good Friday.
The Minister is very sensitive, as I am, to the commemoration of Good Friday and the Easter celebrations in general, a time of extraordinary importance to the overwhelming majority of people living on the island but their adherence to or understanding of their religious beliefs would not be in any way diminished if the law of the land allowed others to take a drink in a public house on Good Friday. It is inevitable that this will change. On Committee Stage the Minister indicated that he would not be anxious to run back to the House with a new Bill. It might be some time therefore before we have another opportunity to achieve this objective. This is the opportune time to make the change.
I do not know if the Minister has had an opportunity to reflect further on the matter. From the list of amendments tabled, I know he has responded positively to a number of the amendments tabled by me on Committee Stage. Alas he has not spoken to these amendments. Either he is minded to leave things as they are or he is minded to accept the amendments. I await his comments with anxiety. This is an issue of some importance. It would be an indication of our maturity that we can accommodate different views and do not need to legislate from one religious perspective. As we are all aware, even the most religious and fervent of Christians often look for ways to circumvent the law which provides for closure. They do not consider that this diminishes or demeans the importance and significance of Good Friday.
These amendments seek to permit licensed premises and premises to which special restaurant licences are attached to open on Good Friday as if it were an ordinary day of the year. If the amendment was successful it would not extend this concession to registered clubs and thereby it would create an anomaly as to the current practice. Good Friday is one of the two "closed" days in the year in relation to the licensing laws. It is the only day of the year on which licensed premises are expected to remain closed for the sale of intoxicating liquor under any circumstances.
There are certain traditional aspects to the licensing laws which command significant support in the community and there is good reason not to provide for change in the area. The joint Oireachtas sub-committee on the licensing laws was of the view that there should not be a change to the law concerning Good Friday. The Government accepts and supports that view. Some might say that the business sector, particularly shops and supermarkets, has changed during the years in relation to Good Friday. However, we should not equate the licensing sector with those sectors.
While I am not prepared to accept an amendment with regard to the sale of intoxicating liquor on Good Friday, I have relaxed the provisions with regard to the sale of non-licensed goods for those premises which engage in mixed trading and removed all restrictions on the sale of non-licensed goods. This effectively means that premises will be able to open at any time on any day, including Good Friday, to engage in the business of selling groceries or other non-alcoholic products. Consequently I regret that I cannot support the amendments proposed.
I do not intend to push the point further. I thought this was the opportune time to table the amendment which was included in the Labour Party Bill tabled by my predecessor and much missed colleague, the late Deputy Pat Upton. It will eventually be made. If the Minister is not minded to think that the moment is now, there is no point in pursuing the matter further and I will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 7, line 21, to delete "11.00 p.m." and substitute "11.30 p.m.".
The import of this amendment is to regularise closing hours by providing for two rather than three regimes. This will mean including Sunday under the regime applying to Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. The Bill proposes a stand-alone closing time for Sunday. The Minister has said the Taoiseach holds the view that, somehow, an extra 30 minutes opening on Sunday would incapacitate the workforce. That is not convincing.
There should be as little variety as possible with regard to closing times. Part 2 is the most convoluted part of any Bill I have read. A water diviner and soothsayer would be required to work out when it is possible to open to sell intoxicating liquor. We should do our best to rationalise these provisions. The extra half hour opening proposed in the amendment is not of such earth-shattering importance that it would damage the Bill, or hit the economy or productivity because people might drink an extra pint, leading to mass absenteeism on Monday.
Previously the Minister made a nanny-type response to this proposal. For the sake of simplicity there is no point in having three closing time regimes, two is enough. The argument in favour of this proposal was put on Committee Stage. It makes sense and there is little merit in the argument made by the Minister. Perhaps on mature reflection, he has had the opportunity to conclude that the simpler formula of two closing time regimes is preferable and that he will accept the amendment.
(Mayo): I do not understand how the Minister can stand over the proposal to have three different closing times in a seven day period. It is proposed that closing time will be 11.30 p.m. to 12 midnight on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday; 12.30 a.m. to 1 a.m. on Thursday and Friday and 11 p.m. on Sunday night. That will be inoperable and it will be flouted. The Minister's argument that the impact of later closing time on Sunday will affect workers on Monday morning does not add up. It has already been acknowledged that closing time on Thursday will be 12.30 a.m. to 1 a.m., even though Friday is a working day. If it does not have an impact on Friday, how can it be argued that having everybody out of the pub by 12 midnight on Sunday will adversely affect the numbers turning up for work on Monday morning?
The amendment is sensible. The provision in the Bill has not been fully thought through. Publicans have also questioned how it is proposed to police three different closing times – 11.30 p.m. to 12 midnight, 12.30 p.m. to 1 a.m. and 11 p.m. – within a seven day period. The Minister has been sensible in relation to closing times. He should relent on this aspect and accept that two closing time regimes within a seven day period should be the maximum provided for by the legislation.
The effect of this amendment would be to permit licensed premises to remain open until 11.30 p.m. plus 30 minutes drinking up time on normal Sundays. I again emphasise that the issue of Sunday opening hours has been given very careful consideration by the Government. One consideration is the high rate of absenteeism in the labour force on Monday mornings. The consumption of alcohol on Sunday nights is a related factor to the rate of absenteeism the next morning. On Second and Committee Stages, Deputies pointed out that Friday was also a working day and that opening hours were being extended considerably on Thursday nights. However, many employers maintain that absenteeism on Friday mornings is not a major problem, but that it is on Monday mornings because it follows the weekend, a natural break in the working week for many.
During the debate in the Seanad, reference was made to the fact that a number of factories in urban areas have had to reschedule their shifts on Monday mornings to take account of absenteeism. Excessive drinking over the weekend, especially on Sundays, is undoubtedly a contributing factor. If I decided to accept the amendment with regard to Sunday, I would only accentuate the problem of absenteeism. I have already put on record the Taoiseach's strong views on this point. He believes that to extend those hours would increase absenteeism in the workforce and would not be in the best interests of society.
As I said before, it is extremely difficult to obtain consensus on reform of the licensing laws, particularly with regard to permitted hours. When legislating in this area there is a need to maintain a correct balance that reflects not only the legitimate commercial concerns of the different groups in the trade, but also the interests of society as a whole. With regard to the issue of permitted hours in general, I have achieved an unprecedented level of consensus on what would be suitable opening hours for licensed premises. The package of permitted hours proposed in the Bill represents the greatest level of consensus, not just from within the trade and among customers, but also in the House.
Most reasonable people would agree that the package of measures relating to hours provided in the Bill is remarkable in that it has already found general acceptance and is, therefore, workable. I accept that not every single licence holder or every member of the drinking and non-drinking public would be happy with every aspect of the package, but as a general scheme of permitted hours it represents the most acceptable package. The Bill already provides for a considerable extension of the licensing hours, including the abolition of the 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. closing on Sunday afternoon. I am not prepared to extend Sunday opening beyond the existing hours. Sunday closing will be 11 p.m. with a half hour drinking up time the whole year round.
For the reasons I have stated, I will not support the amendment. Deputy Jim Higgins said it would be impossible to police the hours set out in the legislation because there will be three different regimes in respect of opening and closing. Deputy Howlin made the same point.
I did not.
I accept that. There will be three different regimes in any event because Sunday opening is 12.30 p.m. while normal opening during the week is 10.30 a.m. We all accept it would be impossible to propose hours of opening that would be acceptable to all. I did not engage in nannyism, to use Deputy Howlin's phrase. Nannyism is not a trait of my character. I tried to consult as much as I could. An Oireachtas joint committee considered the matter in great detail. In that regard I have acknowledged the enormous contribution made by all parties to the legislation. I have also acknowledged the enormous contribution made by outside groups. Not only would it be far too doubtful, but nobody would accept any suggestion on my part that I am a repository of full knowledge on this subject.
Or any.
All one can do is put forward what appeared to be the consensus that emerged from the Oireachtas joint committee and the groups I met over a two and a half to three year period. There are as many different opinions on what the legislation should provide for in terms of correct opening hours as there are varieties of drink. There is no way we will fully agree on what the opening hours should be. All I can do is to reflect the consensus as best I can, and that is what I have sought to do.
I am disappointed with the Minister's response. On Committee Stage we asked him to provide data on the direct correlation between absenteeism and the licensing hours, and on how this important half-hour will be the bridgehead which will safeguard the productivity of the economy. The Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, stated that the evidence was anecdotal or that he was told that there was significant absenteeism and somebody somewhere had made the connection that absenteeism on Mondays had to do with drinking on Sundays as opposed to conflict in the home because the husband is at home on Sundays, sporting injuries or other matters which could arise. The Minister has decided that the anecdotal evidence of which he is aware is accurate. More importantly, the Taoiseach believes it and he has more clout than a majority which can be cobbled together here.
I would like to see the empirical data which states that that half-hour of drinking time on Sun days would have an impact on productivity and absenteeism. I have seen no such analysis from any source to date but in the intervening couple of days perhaps the Minister has had an opportunity to find that data and will present it to us today.
My other point has to do with the changing nature of the economy. This is not the 1950s, when most people worked from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Monday to Friday and had Saturday and Sunday off. The Minister knows well that his working hours are not confined to such a regime. For a growing number of people the 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday to Friday regime does not apply. They work shifts and weekends.
Carlow-Kilkenny): Tá do chuid ama thart.
I will get another chance to contribute at the end and I will return to this. It is not reflective of what is happening to take a 1950s view of Sunday and the worker. It is the old, 1950s view of the economy which no longer applies.
With regard to the tourism industry, people go out on Sundays—
Acting Chairman:
I ask the Deputy to leave that until afterwards.
(Mayo): I want to add to what Deputy Howlin has said by reminding the Minister that on Committee Stage I asked him from where the empirical data came. I asked, for example, whether he had received representations from IBEC and ISME and he gave the impression that he had not. It seems to be a case of “the Taoiseach rules okay.”
He looked into his heart.
(Mayo): I genuinely believe that is the case. We must take a common sense approach to putting in place a regime which will be with us for the next 20 years. There will be chaos, confusion and charges because it will be hard to say to somebody that on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays closing time will be 11.30 p.m. with 30 minutes drinking up time, on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays closing time will be 12.30 a.m. with 30 minutes drinking up time and on Sundays the red card will be shown at 11 p.m. It simply will not work.
The Minister has relented on a number of amendments and indicated that he would be prepared to consider others at this Stage. I cannot understand why he will not do what he knows is right. The Taoiseach has obviously looked at the Bill and made some kind of prima facie determination on it. It is the Taoiseach's diktat rather than the Minister's common sense which is being applied on this matter.
It is essentially a good Bill. This is a fundamental issue. The publicans, hotel owners and restaurant owners do not see how three closing times in a seven day period can be operated in a sensible manner. It is inoperable. Again I would ask the Minister to do what he believes in his heart is right, that is, to confine it to two closing times. I would suggest that closing time on Sundays should be the same as that on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays. It should be an early closing time, in other words everybody should be off the premises at 12 o'clock. If the Minister accepts the amendment, there will be no trespassing on Monday mornings.
It is not a question of the Taoiseach ruling by diktat. Of all Taoisigh in the history of the State, this one does not rule by diktat. He just offered his opinion. Incidentally it is an opinion with which I and many others happen to agree.
Where is the data?
The reason I agree with it is that Thursday is different from Sunday.
That is very profound.
Most people work on Thursdays but most people do not work on Sundays. There is a far greater amount of time available to people to go drinking on Sundays than on Thursdays. We all know that, unfortunately, there is a small minority of people who go out after Mass or lunch on Sundays and do not arrive home until closing time. These are facts. There are other people who drink more on Sundays than they would normally. Of course, I am not saying that the vast majority of the population do so, but there is a minority of people who do that and no doubt employers accept that absenteeism is a problem on Monday mornings more than on any other day of the week. I do not have empirical research for that but I know it to be true, and I think Deputies Higgins and Howlin know it to be true also.
The position is that there is plenty of time for drinking. We are giving until 12.30 a.m. on Thursdays with 30 minutes drinking up time and the same on Fridays and Saturdays. For goodness sake, it is not asking a great deal that we would leave closing time on Sunday as it is. I do not see the Deputies' difficulty with that.
I cannot go any further than that. I stress that there is no repository of knowledge which could be Solomonic – it does not exist and I accept that. I am just putting forward what I regard as a common sense view. It happens to be the view of the Taoiseach and many others. It is also the view of the vast majority of employers and a considerable number in society. People will have different views on this. There is no perfect solution. If there were, I feel certain that somebody would have thought of it by now.
I will be brief because it is not worth labouring the point when the Minister has a closed mind on it, but it is unnecessarily confusing to have a third regime of closing hours for the sake of a half-hour. It would have been much simpler to have Sundays, Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays falling into one slot and Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays falling into a second slot in order that people would know where they stood.
Sunday is an important day for families. Often families go out to dinner, to the theatre or to a film on a Sunday night and the notion of being able subsequently to go for a drink sounds eminently reasonable. On these lovely bright evenings – long may they last – people might go out to the beach on Sunday afternoons, come home and make dinner, and then decide to go out. The tourism industry depends on that.
This seems unnecessarily restrictive. The Minister has a closed mind in this regard and, therefore, there is no point in arguing, but it is not good enough for him to state that "I believe this to be a fact but I do not have the data to prove it", that it is anecdotal or somebody says it is so.
Considering the amount of work done in preparation for this Bill, which was a long time in gestation and the enactment of which was promised this time last year, at least the premises on which we base our decisions should be sustainable. The Minister's statement that he knows the view of employers or that he has a view on it is not good enough to convince somebody that it should be the case.
Ireland has changed and people's working hours are different. We should not have a 1950s regime which reflects a work pattern which increasingly is not relevant to a majority of people. This is one of the issues which, no doubt, we will revisit. It is not of huge moment but acceptance of the amendment would add to the simplicity of the Bill and of the licensing regime, which is convoluted enough if one reads the section to which I refer. I regret that he will not do so and I certainly intend to press it.
(Mayo): We should press the amendment because in the absence of any empirical—
Acting Chairman:
Although the amendment is in your name also, only the first proposer may respond.
(Mayo): That is fine. The Minister said a sensible solution did not exist. This is the sensible solution.
Question, "That the figures proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
(Mayo): I move amendment No. 4:
In page 7, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following:
"(1C) The provisions of this section shall operate for a period not exceeding two years from the date of their enactment, during which time an impact study shall be conducted in order to measure the personal, medical, domestic, economic and social effects of the extended trading hours to assist in determining if the provisions of this section are to be renewed.".
This is the nub of my concerns and those of many people about the implications for society of the extended drinking hours. One of the most impressive submissions made to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights when it held oral hearings was made by the Pioneer Total Abstinence Association, the thrust of which I agree with.
Earlier this week, the Association of Secondary Teachers, Ireland, the representative body for secondary school teachers throughout the 26 counties, produced a report on the abuse and misuse of alcohol at secondary level. It pointed to something we have known to be the pattern over the past decade, namely, that the age threshold for first taking alcohol has now fallen to the pre-teens. We are now talking about 12 year olds in first year sampling alcohol. Vox pops confirm that trend.
We have reached a stage where we are indulging ourselves in a culture of alcohol which is leading to wholesale social, economic and domestic desolation in this country. The consequences are obvious. Pupils at all stages in post-primary schools suffer hangovers on a Monday morning because of excessive intake of alcohol the previous night. Alcohol abuse is now of epidemic proportions. In the 1940s and 1950s, the epidemic which wrought havoc in society was tuberculosis. There is an equal if not greater threat now to the fabric of society from under age drinking, excessive intake of alcohol and alcohol abuse. It is eating into the fabric of society. The hooliganism, vandalism and domestic violence on Saturday and Sunday nights, the refuges to which women go who are regularly beaten up on Saturday and Sunday nights, and the increased demand for the services of the Legal Aid Board speak for themselves. These, along with the pressure on hospital wards and accident and emergency services at weekends, are alcohol-related in that they are caused by the abuse of alcohol.
We need to get a grip on ourselves. Last Monday evening, I saw 50 youngsters in dress suits outside a pub preparing for their graduation. The dinner was not until 9 o'clock but they already had pints of Guinness, Heineken and other beers in their hands. One can only imagine what condition they would have been in by 9 o'clock not to speak of the condition they would have been in by 1 a.m. What sense of enjoyment is there in that? Have we completely lost the run of ourselves? We have a serious alcohol problem and we are not facing up to it. We put this forcefully to the unit in the Department of Health and Children charged with monitoring the alcohol problem but it is still only talking about mobilising and organising and promoting an alcohol awareness campaign.
Given the extended licensing hours proposed in the Bill, a review provision should be included to ensure that, after two years, we objectively examine the effects of the extended hours. We should measure the social, personal, medical and domestic consequences and the economic effects to see if the worst fears of a number of organisations, especially the Pioneer Total Abstinence Association, are realised.
The Minister will probably say that including such a provision leaves the Bill open to review after two years. That is exactly what I intend. Last week, we debated the Offences against the State (Amendment) Bill to renew a provision we introduced two years ago in the wake of the Omagh bombing to ensure we continued to combat on an ongoing basis terrorism from paramilitaries who had not signed up to the peace process. If we can do that following the Omagh bombing and the Offences against the State (Amendment) Bill, I do not see why we cannot include a review provision for this Bill. In the interim, while the extended opening hours are in place, we should charge the unit in the Department of Health and Children with conducting an assessment and presenting a report to the House. If the effects are not as deleterious or damaging as people feared, we could then renew the provision.
It seems I am damned if I do and cursed if I do not. At least Deputy Higgins will be pleased that people will be home a half hour earlier on Sunday nights as a result of my refusal to accept his earlier amendment.
The effect of this amendment would be to limit the life of the new package of opening times for all licensed premises and, I assume, registered clubs for a trial two year period. While the intention of the amendment advocated in the submission of the Pioneer Total Abstinence Association is laudable, it is not practical. Most people agree that the range of permitted hours provided in the Bill is reasonable in that they cohere with public expectation and demand. If I had proposed in the Bill a full deregulation of opening hours allowing for 24 hour access to alcohol in licensed premises, I might see more merit in the proposal. As the Bill stands, the hours proposed reflect the market trend towards later socialising. The amendment would introduce a certain degree of uncertainty into the code and that would not be useful.
A certain degree of uncertainty?
Yes. Furthermore, what result could be obtained from research work that would have to report on the personal, medical, domestic, economic and social effects of the new range of permitted hours in such a relatively short time frame? It would be extremely difficult to gain insights in such a short period as to the effects of the new hours as opposed to the exist ing ones. In any event, I doubt this is an issue proper to legislation. The question of research into the negative aspects of alcohol consumption and the measures which need to be undertaken to limit those effects can be addressed outside the context of a licensing measure. They are, in effect, measures which fall to be addressed in the context of health promotion generally.
In this context, the national alcohol policy is directed at reducing the prevalence of alcohol related problems through an emphasis on moderation in alcohol consumption. As alcohol problems are multi-dimensional, the policy sets out multi-sectoral solutions requiring both environmental and individual strategies. Since the publication of the policy, a number of elements of an action plan have been put in place. The most significant of these are the establishment of a national alcohol surveillance centre and a national lifestyle survey. In addition, an advertising campaign emphasising the message of moderation in drinking has been carried out and evaluated and a new campaign aimed at young, high risk drinkers is in the planning stage and research is being carried out on the impact of alcohol advertising on young people.
Many Deputies expressed concern on Second Stage about the effects of the advertising of alcohol and the research now being carried out should provide important information on how to tackle the issue. Work is also ongoing on a number of the longer-term elements of the policy, including developing the school curriculum based on a life skills approach, development of health promotion policies for schools, hospitals, workplaces and campuses, which will include policies on alcohol use, discussions with the drinks industry and the development of responsible server training.
My colleague, the Minister for Health and Children, intends to continue with the elements of the plan already commenced and to make progress on other initiatives. Co-operation with industry groups will continue with a view to encouraging the industry to play its part in encouraging moderation in alcohol consumption and to look at the issue of underage drinking. Actions taken on the basis of the plan are evaluated on an ongoing basis, so that the policy continues to be focused and effective.
The real challenge is changing attitudes to drink. We know this is extremely difficult to establish, 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 underage drinking and the dangers, generally, of drink 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. Deputy Higgins is correct that the place of alcohol in the lives of our young people and the growing perception that the principal pastime of some young people now is to go out and get drunk is a sad indictment of our society. However, it is because I recognise that such a problem exists that this Bill introduces the toughest possible measures against underage drinking. In doing this, I am playing a major part in addressing the problem. I have been greatly encouraged by the very positive response, incidentally, to the underage provisions.
We must not lose sight of the fact that the majority of drinkers exercise a reasonable attitude towards consumption of alcohol. The measures in the Bill are directed at providing such moderate drinkers with the opportunities, within reasonable limits, to enjoy sociable drinks at the times of their choosing. For the reasons I have outlined, I cannot accept Deputy Higgins's amendment.
(Mayo): In regard to the last issue we dealt with, the third closing time provision on Sunday nights, we pointed out to the Minister that there was a lack of empirical evidence to support his contention that it would have an effect on Monday morning working patterns. There is certainly no lack of empirical evidence in relation to the devastating effects of underage drinking and alcohol on Irish society. If the Minister wants statistics, he need only go to the emergency and casualty units of hospitals, graveyards and women's refuge centres.
While I accept that health policy is a matter for the Minister for Health and Children and his Department, we are responsible for this legislation which will determine the entire pattern of drinking afforded by the new regime of opening hours we are bringing into effect. The problem in relation to alcohol in Irish society is that what is everybody's business is nobody's business. It is obvious that education policies are not working because primary school children who are barely out of short trousers are drinking. At post-primary level, there is a separate set of flash cards, data and documentation which is not working because it is not being sold due to pressure from the points system. The Department of Health and Children is not doing its business either. The Minister's Department has overarching responsibility for the regulation, implementation and enforcement of licensing hours and so on.
We are running from reality and we will rue this day. We have an opportunity here to carry out a reappraisal and re-evaluation of what we are putting in place. That is all I am asking for. It is a sensible suggestion that after this legislation has been in operation for two years there should be a short debate in this House, perhaps for two hours, to re-evaluate it and decide whether our fears were ill-founded, that matters are under control and the regime in this Bill should continue. It is irresponsible to run away from conducting a social, economic and domestic re-evaluation of the impact of this measure. However, it seems the Minister will not agree.
This is, as I said, a licensing measure which does not involve sociological or health factors. It just relates to licensing hours. I have explained what is happening in the Department of Health and Children, in so far as I could gather the information for Deputy Higgins. I cannot say any more than that. This is legislation from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform which deals with the licensing of public houses and other premises selling alcohol. I am not dealing with other matters. If the Department were to extend into these matters as well as everything else, the place would be overrun. It would not be possible to do that.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Acting Chairman:
Amendment No. 6 is related to amendment No. 5 and both may be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 8, line 6, to delete "8.00 a.m." and substitute "7.30 a.m.".
Amendment No. 5 provides for a further extension to the extension provided for in the Bill in relation to the hours during which premises engaged in mixed trading will be allowed to sell licensed products. I indicated on Committee Stage that I was open to this further liberalisation of the law. Businesses engaged in mixed trading, typically supermarkets, will, by virtue of the amendment, be permitted to open for the sale of licensed products off the premises from 7.30 a.m. rather than 8 a.m., as was originally proposed, on all week days and on a Sunday which falls on 23 or 24 December. They will, of course, be entitled to open at any time for all other business.
However, I am not in favour of amendment No. 6, which would permit the sale of alcohol off the premises from 7.30 a.m. on all Sundays. There is no particular demand for this. I can understand—
Deputy Barnes' bottle of wine is very important.
—the view that there may be some sensitivity relating to trading on Sunday mornings. At this point, the Government view is that the status quo should prevail in relation to Sundays, that is, the sale of intoxicating liquor can be conducted from 12.30 p.m. I have relaxed the law considerably in the Bill with regard to those premises engaged in mixed trading and if amendment No. 5 is accepted, alcohol will be available from 7.30 a.m. on weekdays as opposed to 10.30 a.m. under current law. The extended trading time for licensed business in places such as supermarkets will greatly benefit customers on those days.
In addition, I have removed all time restrictions on the sale of non-licensed goods. Premises engaged in mixed trading will be able to open, not from 7.30 a.m., as originally proposed, but at any time on any day to engage in their business of selling groceries and other non-alcoholic products. This, effectively, means that supermarkets will be permitted to open for non-licensed business at any time on Sundays should they so wish.
I do not propose to accept the amendment on the sale of liquor before 12.30 p.m. on Sunday. However, I think I have gone some way down the road with Deputy Howlin on this one.
I am very grateful to the Minister for a number of issues he has addressed in the amendments published today, some of which were quite complex. In the very short time available, he has sought to accept arguments from this side of this House, as far as he could, which is always a good sign.
On this issue he has accepted the notion that supermarkets and other premises, such as garages, increasingly open at 7.30 a.m. There should not be an anomaly whereby they would have to have a shotgun guard on the drinks section for half an hour until 8 a.m. I am grateful the Minister has accepted the amendment I proposed.
In regard to amendment No. 6, we had some debate about allowing the sale of alcohol in supermarkets, garages and other licensed places on Sunday mornings. It would be handy if people buying something for Sunday lunch, going on a picnic or settling in to watch the Sunday afternoon match could buy wine or beer with their petrol and other goods. A few years ago supermarkets did not open on Sunday, but that is now a very busy day for them. With the pressures of work and the changing patterns of life, people buy a lot of cooked goods, such as chickens and turkeys, from the delicatessen sections of supermarkets on Sunday mornings. It seems an anomaly that they cannot buy a bottle of wine to go with their Sunday lunch at the same time. The Minister said they should have the foresight to buy it the previous day. However, this is an interference with people's rights, although the Minister could argue that, by definition, the whole licensing regime is an interference with people's rights as it sets the boundaries within which we can operate.
My predilection is to give people as much freedom as possible. The Minister stated that if supermarkets were allowed to sell alcohol, young people on their way to Gaelic games on Sundays might be tempted to buy drink. I do not believe that is a realistic argument. If people wish to purchase alcohol, they will find ways of doing so. My purpose is to try to facilitate families and individuals by introducing a liberal regime.
It is always difficult to make laws, but bad laws are made when one considers the worst case scenario and decides to introduce restrictions on the great majority of people to remove temptation from those who might abuse the system. That is a bad way to consider matters of this nature. We should provide support and assistance to those with problems with alcohol. We must accept that alcohol is part of social life and that, by and large, it is good. However, we must also recognise that there are excesses and that people and families are terribly damaged by it. In that context, we must put in place supports to assist those that are damaged and not introduce undue restrictions on people's normal lives.
While I welcome the Minister's acceptance of the amendment I tabled on Committee Stage – this has been incorporated in amendment No. 5 which has been jointly tabled in our names – I regret he is continuing with his embargo on Sunday sales. Amendment No. 6 proposes to liberalise the position in this regard.
We must recognise that this legislation will bring about the first substantial change in licensing hours in this country in over 40 years. I gave careful consideration to Deputy Howlin's proposal regarding Sunday opening times. Public houses open at 12.30 p.m. and the Deputy suggests that off-licence sales should also commence at that time. In the case of major sporting occasions and other events, there is no doubt that if supermarkets, for example, were allowed to sell, by way of off-licence or off-licences, beer or spirits before 12.30 p.m. there would undoubtedly be a very great temptation for young people in particular to gather and start drinking prior to such occasions and events. That would not be desirable.
We have decided that Sunday opening time will continue to be 12.30 p.m., for that and other reasons, and if I were to change the position in respect of off-licences or supermarkets I would be circumventing the rules which apply to public houses. That would not be wise. If I agreed to the Deputy's amendment, I am certain I would regret it. While I have no doubt that in the future there will be a full liberalisation of the licensing hours, I am restricted at present to doing my best in terms of reflecting the views of the Joint Oireachtas Committee, the House, the various interest groups and the general public. As I have stated on numerous occasions, I do not pretend to possess the wisdom of Solomon in respect of this matter but I believe the provision, as it stands, reflects public opinion.
I fully accept the Minister's good faith in respect of this issue and I genuinely believe he has reflected on it. However, I do not agree with the position he has adopted because people buying provisions for their lunch on Sunday mornings should be allowed to purchase a bottle of wine. That said, we are making good progress on a range of issues and I do not intend to divide the House in respect of this one. The Minister is correct in stating we will return to this issue and amend the position in due course.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 6 not moved.
Acting Chairman:
Amendments Nos. 7 and 19 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 8, line 8, to delete "year."," and substitute the following:
"year.',
(2A) The name and address of premises to which an off-licence is attached shall be stated on any packaging in which intoxicating liquor for consumption off the premises is placed when the said intoxicating liquor is sold.',".
I must again express my gratitude to the Minister in respect of this group of amendments. While he accepted on Committee Stage that there was merit in my proposal, I did not believe he would return, in the time available to him, with an amendment on Report Stage. I thank him for doing so, for accepting the sensible nature of the proposal I put forward on Committee Stage and for drafting an amendment which is better framed than amendment No. 7. The Minister's amendment makes it an offence to sell, or permit to be sold, intoxicating liquor in contravention of section 17(1) and sets out a regime of penalties. I commend the Minister on responding in such a positive manner because it is not always the case that Committee Stage amendments from the Opposition are taken on board. On occasion, arguments are made for the sake of making them and I am grateful this is not the case in this instance.
The import of amendment No. 7 is to require that off-licence products should be labelled. On Committee Stage I argued that there are two good reasons for this. First, where off-licence products fall into the hands of minors, the source of such products could be identified and those responsible for providing them could be more easily traced. This would give the Garda authorities better access to information in respect of the source of such products and allow them to alert the owners of particular off-licences that those products are falling into the hands of minors and that they had better take action in that regard. If the offence is repeated, the Garda authorities will be empowered to take action.
The labelling of off-licence products is required because it will go a long way towards dealing with the real scourge of underage drinking. As Deputy Jim Higgins stated earlier, it is extraordinary that young people, from a very early age, believe it is acceptable not only to drink but also to get drunk. That is a relatively new development. Young people have always been excited by the prospect of obtaining alcohol. However, there is now a growing view among them that the objective is not just to obtain alcohol but also to get drunk. This has become part of their definition of what it means to celebrate a significant occasion. We must address this matter.
On Committee Stage we discussed the effectiveness of the law in the United States. It is perverse that a person can encounter almost no difficulty in obtaining an automatic pistol at a young age in the US. However, it is virtually impossible for young people to gain access to alcohol in that country because severe penalties accrue to those who facilitate or supply them. We have a much more liberal regime and our level of tolerance is higher. In many ways that is not a bad thing because people are introduced to alcohol in a more structured way. This often happens in the family environment where the dangers as well as the benefits can be explained and understood. The new phenomenon of young people going out to get drunk with their peers is a matter on which we must take a clear stand. Amendment No. 19 in the Minister's name will go a long way towards addressing it.
The other argument I put forward in respect of this matter, which is a legacy of my time as Minister for the Environment, involves litter enforcement. I refer to the fact that the source of packages which are discarded can be identified by the labelling on such packages. The major environmental nuisance posed by discarded packages can be addressed by my proposal. The Minister's amendment states:
17.–(1) The name of the owner, and the address of the premises to which an on-licence or an off-licence is attached shall be clearly indicated on a label affixed to any container in which intoxicating liquor is sold for consumption off the premises.
(2) A licensee who sells intoxicating liquor or permits it to be sold, in contravention of subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding–
(a) in the case of a first offence, £250, or
(b) in the case of a second or any subsequent offence, £500.
That proposal is compact and good. I heartily commend the Minister and I believe this will be one of the most effective amendments we will introduce today.
As the Government is putting forward amendment No. 19 as a means for providing for the labelling of any container in which intoxicating liquor is sold from an off-licence premises, I ask Deputy Howlin to withdraw his amendment. The appropriate place for this provision is the section relating to underage drinking. Amendment No. 19 introduces a new section to Part III of the Bill. The object is to ensure that licence holders engaged in the off-licence sales of liquor would identify the premises concerned on the containers in which the alcohol is sold. I would consider this to be more effective than providing, for example, that the identification would appear on the bags in which the product is placed as the first thing an underage person buying alcohol would do would be to get rid of the bag.
The amendment is intended as a further provision in the law to assist in the curbing of underage drinking. It is a useful initiative although it will not offer a panacea. It will assist in the overall campaign to track down those irresponsible licence holders who engage in the criminally irresponsible act of supplying intoxicating liquor to young people. The House will be aware that measures are contained in this legislation which are aimed at addressing the problem of underage drinking. Those measures will be the most effective ever introduced to tackle this problem from a law enforcement perspective.
To date, the position was that if a person put up the defence that he or she had reasonable grounds for believing that a young person was over the age of 18 years, then the court could not convict the person concerned for the simple reason that the case could not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. That defence is being removed. The sale of alcohol to an underage person will be an offence of strict liability. In April last year, I moved to introduce legislation, by way of regulation, to provide for the introduction of identity cards for young people and I will ensure that a major public awareness campaign is implemented in that regard.
The message to those people over 18 years of age who may look younger than 18 years of age is that they should obtain a card if they wish to purchase alcohol and the message to licence holders is quite simple, namely that if they have a doubt about a person's age, they should ask for the card. If they do not ask for the card and serve alcohol to an underage person, the offence will be one of strict liability and this legislation contains tough provisions on that. Following on a conviction, the court will be obliged to close down the premises for any period up to seven days for a first offence. Provision is also made for fines. Only a small minority of people is involved in the irresponsible trade of serving drink to young people. This legislation, in part, represents a major attack on this problem.
Deputy Howlin was correct when he said there are young people who drink to get drunk and that this is reflective of a very irresponsible attitude. The parents of young Irish teenagers are appalled by the prospect of their sons and daughters coming home helplessly drunk. On occasions such as the night of the junior certificate results, young teenagers arrive home to their parents helplessly drunk. Obviously, this problem must be tackled in a meaningful way and this legislation will ensure that happens.
I am grateful to Deputy Howlin for his amendment and for bringing the entire issue of putting the name and address of the licence holder on the container which contains the drink. That will be of assistance, particularly in the context of all of the other measures in the legislation to tackle underage drinking.
(Mayo): I support this amendment and welcome the Minister's decision to accept the thrust of the amendment proposed on Committee Stage. I welcome his addition to Deputy Howlin's amendment of “a licensee who sells intoxicating liquor or permits it to be sold in contravention of . . .”. In other words, the name and address of the licence holder must appear on the container, otherwise the licence holder will be guilty of an offence for which specific penalties are outlined in the form of £250 for a first offence or £500 for a second or subsequent offence.
The vast majority of publicans are very responsible people, as are the vast majority of off-licence holders. In an era where "traceability" is the buzz word, it is crucial that we put in place the tightest possible mechanisms through which to establish the source from which alcohol was made available to children or people under the age at which alcohol is permitted to be sold.
On the Minister's comments that parents are appalled at their children coming home drunk, that is the parents' responsibility at the end of the day. If a young person arrives home drunk once, there is obviously a problem which must be addressed. Parents must ensure that their children do not arrive home drunk a second time. Unfortunately, many parents are abdicating their responsibilities in this. They do not know where their children are, who they are with, what time they will arrive home at night or what condition they are in when they come home. They never even bother to check. A simple check on a person of 15 or 16 years of age when they come home at night would tell the tale.
Parents are not being fair to their children by abdicating their parental responsibilities, drawing lines in the sand and imposing strictures to be observed by their children. Many children are great, to survive their parents. While we might like to blame the Garda, the schools, the health service or the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform for this problem, the primary and constitutional responsibility rests with parents to look after their children's welfare. That is not happening at present and this matter must be revisited if we are serious about addressing the prevailing culture of alcohol abuse which is becoming progressively worse.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Acting Chairman:
Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14 are related. Amendment No. 9 is an alternative to No. 8, amendment No. 11 is an alternative to No. 10 and amendment No. 14 is an alternative to No. 13. The amendments may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 9, lines 8 to 15, to delete all words from and including "premises–" in line 8, down to and including line 15 and substitute "premises on any day between 10.30 a.m. and 1.30 a.m. on the following day,".
Amendment No. 9 is an alternative to amendment No. 8 and is an improvement on it. Similarly, the Minister's other alternative amendments are an improvement on the amendments I tabled. The Minister and Deputy Higgins will recall our debate on these matters on Committee Stage. It seemed that an extraordinary regime existed in the past which allowed drinking between designated hours on Christmas Day in restaurants, registered clubs, hotels and restaurants with special exemptions. One could have a glass of wine or a celebratory drink between 1 p.m. and 3 p.m. and 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. One could commence celebrating Christmas with a glass of champagne at 1 p.m. and conclude by 3 p.m. No further alcohol was to be consumed on the premises until 7 p.m. when one could get into festive mode again. Even if someone had not had his Irish coffee by 10 p.m., the shutters went down again. Although I would have preferred the Minister to extend the opening hours until 11 p.m., the new proposed hours of between 12 midday and 10 p.m. are acceptable. People will be able to have their Irish coffee with their morning coffee before they go to a hotel, club or restaurant.
I appreciate the Minister's willingness to take on board the logic of the arguments which existed. Notwithstanding his statement that nobody pointed out this anomaly to him, nor did anyone make representations to him on the matter, he is still willing to address the issue. He is prepared to accept the thrust of the proposed amendments relating to hotels and restaurants, to clubs under the 1927 Act and to premises having special restaurant licences under section 12. There would not be too many zealous gardaí going into restaurants on Christmas Day to check whether people might be having a glass of wine before the appointed hour of 1 p.m. but in order to avoid that potential embarrassment and to make the law more sane, I welcome the three amendments in the Minister's name and do not intend to press my own amendments.
Sections 6, 7 and 12 of the Bill as it stands permits the sale of alcohol with a meal in hotels, restaurants and clubs for up to one hour after normal closing time on all days except Christmas Day and Good Friday which are closed days. The sale of alcohol with a meal is allowed, however, on Christmas Day between 1 p.m. and 3 p.m. We all agreed that was to cater for former Deputy Mark Killilea's clients who eat their dinner in the middle of the day and those who do not do so are allowed to have a drink with their meal between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m.
Amendments Nos. 9, 11 and 14 to sections 6, 7 and 12 will relax the times during which it will be lawful for premises that are hotels, restaurants or registered clubs to provide alcohol with a meal on Christmas Day. Instead of the present position where premises may open for three hours in the afternoon, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. and a further three hours in the evening from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m., they will be permitted to open from 12 midday right through until 10 p.m. These amendments are proposed in place of amendments Nos. 8 and 13 which would seek to allow hotels, restaurants and registered clubs to open on Christmas Day from 10.30 a.m. until 1.30 a.m. the following day.
As the purpose behind the exemption is to permit persons to enjoy a drink with a meal on a day that is, for the purposes of the licensing laws, a closed day, I do not go so far as to agree that these premises should be permitted to open as if it were an ordinary day. My amendments give ample opportunity to people who wish to enjoy a drink with a meal outside their own homes on Christmas Day to do so. I hope Deputy Howlin accepts these amendments are reasonable and that he will withdraw his amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 9, lines 9 and 10, to delete "between 1.00 p.m. and 3.00 p.m. or between 7.00 p.m. and 10.00 p.m. and substitute "between 12.00 midday and 10.00 p.m.".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 10 not moved.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 10, lines 1 and 2, to delete "between 1.00 p.m. and 3.00 p.m. or between 7.00 p.m. and 10.00 p.m." and substitute "between 12.00 midday and 10.00 p.m.".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 not moved.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 11, lines 27 and 28, to delete "between 1.00 p.m. and 3.00 p.m. and 7.00 p.m. and 10.00 p.m." and substitute "between 12.00 midday and 10.00 p.m.".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 12, line 2, to delete "AMENDMENT OF".
This amendment is consequential on section 16 which was inserted on Committee Stage. It is a technical amendment which involves the deletion of certain words in the heading to Part 3. As it stands the heading might indicate that Part only deals with amendment of provisions relating to underage persons in the 1988 Act. By virtue of section 16 it will no longer simply amend that Act, and the heading proposed makes that clear.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 16 is consequential on amendment No. 17 and both may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 12, line 9, to delete "Where" and substitute "Subject to subsection (3), where".
These amendments to section 13 relate to the temporary closure of premises where the licence holder is convicted of an underage offence and ensures that where a licensee is convicted of several offences of selling liquor to underage persons on the same occasion, say where four or five persons were detected by the Garda on a premises at the same time, the court cannot impose a temporary closure order in respect of each conviction.
I am grateful to Deputy Howlin who, on Committee Stage, pointed out the possibility of that kind of interpretation. That was not the intention of the legislation. I have addressed the matter in the amendment and I commend it to the House. I am very pleased the matter was raised on Committee Stage rather than being raised by some very wise barrister later. Perhaps Deputy Howlin missed his calling.
I will send my legal fees to the Minister in due course. I wish Members were paid proportionately to barristers who make their money from arguing the meaning of the enactments we pass. I did not re-table my amendment but I am grateful to the Minister for dealing with this matter. It is one of the most contentious and difficult issues and is the one on which the licensed vintners made the strongest case. Family premises felt extremely vulnerable to compulsory closure. Mistakes can happen, as Members frequently discover, in all walks of life. The consequences of a mistake could be very expensive for licensees. Balanced against that is the Minister's strong determination, shared by Members on this side of the House, to do something about the sale of intoxicating drink to underage people.
On balance, the Minister's proposals must stand. Addressing an anomaly where a single offence could have a disastrous consequence for people is wise, particularly when we consider that a number of youths can look well over the age. It does not limit the impact of the legislation to tackle underage drinking. I look forward to seeing how it will apply in practice and I welcomed the detailed explanation given by the Minister on Committee Stage of the flexibility afforded to the courts in terms of the times the compulsory closure will apply – it can be any period up to a week for a first offence. It could be an hour, an afternoon or a morning and it could apply to part of a premises, perhaps a lounge as opposed to a bar. It is good to give such flexibility to the courts, but there must be a big stick available to them to deal with those who are engaged in this type of offence.
The Minister is well aware that in many urban and rural centres there are premises with a repu tation. Young people can tell you that if they go there they will be served. It is time we took a very hard line on this matter. I wish these proposals well and hope they will have the impact the Minister clearly intends.
(Mayo): I welcome the amendment and compliment Deputy Howlin on pointing out what was a legal anomaly. The clarification helps to tighten up the Bill in both its structure and presentation. Why did the Minister not go further as regards temporary closure orders? As far as I am concerned, any measure, irrespective of how punitive it is, that tackles the scourge of underage drinking is welcome. My understanding is that a temporary closure order applies only to underage drinking. Did the Minister consider introducing such orders where publicans irresponsibly manage their affairs as regards continuous after-hours trading, where people tumble out of public houses in the early hours of the morning, roaring and shouting and making life intolerable for settled communities and elderly people whose houses are more like fortifications than homes because they live next door to a public house where there is constant loud noise, music and raucous behaviour? Did he consider introducing temporary closure orders in cases where there is manifest disregard for the welfare of local communities?
Under the Bill temporary closure orders relate to underage drinking. It has been stated that on a first offence the court will have power to close down the premises in question for any period up to seven days. All the circumstances will be taken into account by the court in assessing how long a closure order should be. As Deputy Howlin correctly pointed out, the period during which the closure order can operate will be any period from one minute to seven days, depending on the circumstances. In addition to that, any part of the premises can be closed. Everything will hinge on the offence. If it is deemed to be a relatively minor offence, I have no doubt that the sanction imposed will be much less than if it were a more serious one. As regards Deputy Higgins' question on whether consideration was given to having temporary closure orders in respect of people tumbling out of licensed premises, as he described them, there are enormous difficulties in holding a licensee responsible for what happens on the street outside his premises and in imputing the conduct of one individual to another. Those situations create many legal difficulties.
The problem, as I and the Government saw it, is that there was and is a serious problem all over the country with underage drinking. It is not just confined to Dublin or the cities but is in every town and village. In those circumstances the target was underage drinking in terms of the temporary closure orders and I feel we have succeeded admirably in achieving the objective of having a major sanction for those who regularly flout this law. Any subsequent offence would carry a greater degree of closure than is provided for in the case of a first offence. In addition, the offender will be obliged to place a notice setting out the period of the closure in a prominent position and setting out precisely why his premises has been closed down by order of the court. All these provisions are meant for those who are involved in serving underage persons and I believe they will be successful. We decided not to extend the closure order beyond what is contained in the legislation because the target was underage drinking. These temporary closure orders have already been legislated for by the House with regard to dealing in drugs. Premises can be closed down for drug dealing by an order of the court and this has happened in several cases. It has proven to be quite effective and I am satisfied this measure will also be effective against that small minority which does not care and which serves young people irrespective of their age.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 12, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:
"(3) Where a licence holder–
(a) is convicted of more than one offence to which this section applies, and
(b) all the offences were committed on the same occasion,
only one temporary closure order may be made in respect of the offences.".
Amendment agreed to.
(Mayo): I move amendment No. 18:
In page 14, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:
"14.–The Act of 1988 is hereby amended by the substitution of the following section for section 40:
‘40.–(1) The Minister shall provide for a national identity card to be administered by An Garda Síochána. Each identity card shall display the date of birth, the revenue and social insurance number and a photograph of the person to whom the card is issued.
(2) A licensee or person authorised by the licensee may refuse to sell alcohol to any person who fails on request to produce the official Garda Síochána-issued identity card.'.".
Sections 40 and 41 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1988, deal with the issuing of official identity cards by the Garda. For some reason successive Administrations and Ministers have ignored this provision and last year the Minister made the necessary order to give effect to it. We welcomed the announcement at the time, but the Minister would acknowledge the scheme got off to a slow start. Availability was intermittent and the take-up among the young people for whom it was intended was sparse, to put it mildly.
On Committee Stage I pointed out that nowadays the vast majority of identity cards are almost irrelevant, as forgery of such cards has become a national industry. Forged cards of a very high standard are readily available; they can be bar-coded and laminated and photographs on the cards can be changed. The result is that we have a farcical situation regarding identity cards providing evidence of one's age as proof positive of one's entitlement to something. I pointed out to the Minister that gardaí have informed me that even the official age card issued by the Garda is now the subject of forgery.
I favour a national identity card scheme. That issue was addressed by the vintners in the written submission they made in advance of their oral presentation to the joint committee. The vintners made a very strong case to the effect that if one removes the defence of reasonable belief, another defence should be provided, such as that offered by a national identity card. I know those with civil liberties inclinations would say this is an infringement of people's civil liberties, but I do not subscribe to that view. Such schemes operate under other regimes without infringing on people's civil or individual liberties.
An identity card can be a valuable ally on occasions. When children reach 16, within seven days they receive a social welfare card with an RSI number by post. That is why we should tighten up the provisions of the Garda identity card scheme. We could call it an identity card rather than an age card and it would contain a person's name, date of birth and RSI number. The reason for including the RSI number is that one would then have a definite database against which the individual's age could be checked. There are no RSI numbers on the cards at present, but given that the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs issues the cards and operates hand in hand in different areas with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, I do not see why it is not possible to include the RSI numbers. Anyone wishing to check a person's age could then check it against the RSI database. I was minded to go further on Committee Stage and to suggest the inclusion of a person's blood group on the card, but that might be a step too far. Civil libertarians would probably have genuine problems with including blood groups. However, as I said on Committee Stage, everyone's blood group is rightly determined at birth; they are notified of same and this information could be included on an identity card in order that the person could get a blood transfusion after an accident. However, this may be a step too far.
The second part of my amendment deals with the concerns of the publican and states: "A licensee or person authorised by the licensee may refuse to sell alcohol to any person who fails on request to produce the official Garda Síochána-issued identity card." In relation to an earlier section the Minister referred to the possibility of a publican being able to demand that a person produce not just an identity card but the official Garda card, with all the details specified by me in the amendment printed thereon. The publicans would then become part of the mechanism to ensure that if people want to prove positively they have reached the legal age to be entitled to drink, they will be obliged to go to the local Garda station, furnish the necessary data and be given the official Garda card with their photograph inserted thereon. They can then produce this card. The Minister should consider this matter for the welfare of the publicans and the cardholders in order to curb the growing tendency towards underage drinking.
The amendment seeks to abolish the national voluntary age card scheme provided for under section 40 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1988, and to substitute what would in effect be a mandatory identity card scheme for those who want to buy alcoholic drink in a licensed premises. As I have said before, a mandatory identity card scheme is not the appropriate response. The national voluntary age card scheme provides a practical method for consumers and those who sell alcoholic liquor to establish proof of age where doubt exists. It must be remembered that we are speaking here of persons who are legally entitled to consume alcohol on licensed premises. A mandatory scheme would apply to persons of all ages, even those about whom no doubt as to age remotely exists. Yet under the amendment the licensee would be entitled to ask for an identity card and if none were forthcoming, he or she would be entitled by virtue of the Deputy's proposal to refuse to serve the person. An old age pensioner might ask for a half pint and a half whiskey, but the publican could ask for an identity card. If the pensioner did not have the card, the publican could refuse to serve him or her. That is obviously not desirable.
The proposal is a recipe for disaster. It could be open to abuse in that it could be used by some to deny access – this is where it could get serious – to a licensed premises without good reason to a person or a group of people, and that is something which would be most undesirable in the context of the equality legislation which has been introduced.
The national voluntary age card scheme, on the other hand, contains all the robust protections required to make it effective. It is administered by the Garda Síochána. It is a high quality card with inbuilt security features against tampering. Forgery of the card is an offence punishable with strict penalties amounting to a fine of up to £1,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or both. Regulations to provide for the introduction of the 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 9,750 cards. I said already that I introduced the age card in advance of this Bill so that its presence would be established and licence holders and others would get used to the idea of asking for the card. I accept that the value of the card would increase if it were publicised and, as Deputies will know, I have undertaken to do this following enactment of the Bill.
The scheme will help to provide an effective deterrent against underage drinking coupled with the substantial changes provided for in the Bill to deal with underage drinking, particularly, as I said earlier, the removal of the reasonable grounds defence in any proceedings against the licensee. A greater onus is placed on the licensee of a licensed premised 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 underage person, and I have outlined that already.
Incidentally, I make no apology that these provisions are tough. They must be tough if they are to contribute in an effective way and not be just window dressing in our attack on underage drinking. As I said, the national voluntary age card scheme serves to assist both consumers and licensees where a doubt over age exists. Where a doubt exists, the best advice to a licensee is to ask for the card to establish proof of age.
The Deputy's proposal that the card might contain a person's PRSI number is a worthy one and I am prepared to have this looked at further. The regulations governing the card might, for example, be amended to make provision for a PRSI number. I would like more time to consider this matter further. Deputy Higgins's suggestion regarding the PRSI number is a good and worthy one and one which I should take on board. I cannot accept the amendment but I will, however, give an undertaking in relation to the PRSI number because it is a very useful suggestion. In those circumstances, I ask Deputy Higgins to withdraw his amendment.
I listened to the arguments on Committee Stage and again today and I am minded to accept the view of the Minister, although I thought he made a better case on Committee Stage because he put forward a set of clear proposals. He might outline, in the couple of minutes he has to respond, the exact promotion he intends to undertake for the voluntary scheme which has been allowed to languish in non-action since it became part of the original Intoxicating Liquor Act.
I was reassured on Committee Stage that the Minister intends to be extremely proactive in this with a dedicated budget, an advertising campaign and a promotion among young people's organisations and clubs and in the education system. I hope he will have direct contact with some of his colleagues, including the Minister for Education and Science, in relation to this. I welcome the reiteration of that determination to have widespread uptake of the voluntary scheme which is already part of the national statute.
I raised this issue on Committee Stage and the Minister undertook to reflect on it further. This amendment seeks to amend the 1988 Act. If we look at the Acts referred to in the Bill, there is a long list of intoxicating liquor and licensing Acts. On Committee Stage I said these Acts dated back to Victorian times but the Minister reminded me that they dated back even before that. There is an urgent need for a consolidation Bill. I ask the Minister, once this Bill is enacted, to commission – externally, obviously, because he does not have the resources and the pressures are great within the Department – a consolidating Bill so that those involved in the trade, the public and the legal profession will have access to a single consolidated Act rather than cross-referencing legislation which goes back centuries. It is extremely daunting to work on amending legislation such as this because one must cross-reference so much other legislation. I hope the Minister will reassure me in regard to the promotion of the voluntary scheme and take it upon himself to make the decision to commission a consolidating Bill.
Acting Chairman:
Perhaps we might concentrate on this amendment for the moment.
(Mayo): I put it to the Minister in relation to his comments on my amendment that there is a national identity card scheme in vogue which is working, all one has to do is to look at the figures. The Minister said it is gaining in popularity and availability. Some 9,700 identity cards have been issued to date. Some 62,000 young people did the leaving certificate last week and 65,000 young people did the junior certificate. Of the cohort of leaving certificate students, 51,000 do not have the official Garda identity card and no junior certificate student has one. The title national identity card is a total exaggeration and misnomer.
The Minister suggested that this, in some way, will create havoc from the point of view of an old age pensioner being refused in a pub because he is not able to produce his identity card to prove he has arrived at the age of 18 years. I do not think there would be a difficulty in relation to the majority of old age pensioners. Indeed, there would be no difficulty in relation to the Minister or me going into a pub. I do not think it likely that we would be confronted with a demand for an identity card.
Speak for yourself.
(Mayo): That is farcical in the extreme. The Minister has had extensive one-to-one dialogue with the different representative groups, apart altogether from those involved in off-licences, and Mr. J. J. Bunyan's group who seem to have a chip on their shoulder in terms of being excluded from deliberations. In his meetings with the vintners federation and the licensed vintners, was this issue not raised by them as extremely important from the point of view of providing them with some assistance and aid in the wake of the removal of the reasonable belief defence?
I welcome, as Deputy Howlin has, the decision by the Minister to launch a nationwide promotion scheme of the age card. We really should do this immediately, the situation is that serious. I ask the Minister not simply to promote the age card but to do so—
Acting Chairman:
I am reluctant to intervene but the Deputy has—
(Mayo): I will be brief. The Acting Chairman has been very tolerant. I ask the Minister to integrate into the advertising campaign some warnings or messages in relation to underage drinking from the point of view of the obvious effects on young people and the consequences for publicans in regard to how the law now operates and how it should be applied.
From the point of view of the promotion of the scheme, it is fine to have a mass advertising campaign on radio, television and in the newspapers, but I ask that in every Garda area a garda is selected to visit the schools, talk to classes and promote the identity card scheme on a one-to-one basis in the classroom. It is crucially important that they communicate the message on a one-to-one basis. The Minister claims this is a mandatory amendment but that is not the case. It is mandatory and non-mandatory. It is mandatory if one wishes to prove that one is entitled to be served alcohol, but it is non-mandatory in that it is optional and no one is obliged to carry a card. One can produce the card if one wishes to prove one's age. I ask the Minister to accept this amendment from the point of view of making the card as widespread as possible. Publicans have stated that such a system is what they need and want.
Acting Chairman:
We may be breaking the rules of Report Stage.
(Mayo): We are making great progress, Acting Chairman.
It is intended to launch an advertising campaign for the national voluntary age card and to target schools, youth clubs and so on. It is also intended to use Garda liaison officers to get the message across to young people. The card is not meant for people doing the junior certificate, for example. It is not meant for anyone under the age of 18 but for those over that age who wish to purchase alcohol. The card is targeted at such people because there may be a doubt about their age in the minds of licensees or their staff.
As regards the old age pensioner situation being an exaggeration, it might sound funny but if, for example, a licensee wished to exclude someone, such as a member of a minority group, under the Deputy's proposal, the licensee could exclude that individual if he or she could not produce an identity card. That would not be desirable, particularly when one considers the Employment Equality Act and, particularly in this context, the Equal Status Act.
The intention is that there will be a fairly large take-up of the card by people over the age of 18 who believe their ages might be doubted by licensees. For the first time there will be statutory provision whereby a licensee will place a sign in his or her premises to the effect that it is unlawful for him or her to sell intoxicating liquor to anyone under 18 years of age. The package of measures is coming together like a jigsaw to create the entire picture which is one of a massive legislative response to the problem of under age drinking.
What about a consolidation Bill?
We will talk about that in a minute.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 16, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:
17.–(1) The name of the owner, and the address, of the premises to which an on-licence or an off-licence is attached shall be clearly indicated on a label affixed to any container in which intoxicating liquor is sold for consumption off the premises.
(2) A licensee who sells intoxicating liquor, or who permits it to be sold, in contravention of subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary indictment to a fine not exceeding–
(a) in the case of a first offence, £250, or
(b) in the case of a second or any subsequent offence, £500.
Amendment agreed to.
(Mayo): I move amendment No. 20:
In page 16, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following:
"(iii) the floor area of the new premises is not in excess of 2,000 square feet,".
This amendment seeks to insert a cap or stricture on the floor area of a new licensed premises created because of the extinguishing of an old licence. It is undesirable that a pub licence transferred from Gweedore to Glanmire, or from Ballyhaunis to Blanchardstown, where the original pub might have had a floor area of 500 sq. ft., could overnight give a licensee the right to build a superpub of up to 10,000 sq. ft.
On Committee Stage the Minister said a cap would be unfair but I do not accept that view. By and large, superpubs are undesirable because of the problems they create in a locality. They are also undesirable because of the undue competition they pose for the traditional Irish pub which is recognised as part of Irish life. Traditional pubs have a maximum square footage and a unique atmosphere and, in most cases, are supervised by family members or staff under the supervision of family members who are the owners.
However, we are now talking about huge industrial-type complexes of advance factory proportions to which a person is appointed to manage and supervise. Invariably excesses and breaches of the law will occur in such premises. I am particularly concerned about the effect of superpubs on the peace and tranquillity of local environments. I am also concerned about the abuse of alcohol by under age people. Supervision has to be lax in large pubs with huge floor areas due to the number of people hoarded into them and this leads to a greater possibility of under age drinking.
It is unacceptable that a licence applying to a premises of 500 sq. ft. in a rural town should become a 10,000 or 15,000 sq. ft. superpub overnight. Publicans who are fearful of this kind of development as regards the extinguishing and transfer of licences have a valid argument and I ask the Minister to take on board these concerns.
The Minister is against imposing a cap in terms of a specified square footage. I asked him to consider between Committee and Report Stage taking regulatory powers onto himself and to insert an amendment to the effect that the square footage of a new premises could not be commensurably disproportionate to the old premises. Such a provision would mean the Minister, the Garda and the Revenue Commissioners would at least retain some say as to the dimensions of the pub being created.
I cannot accept this amendment which seeks to limit the size of a new licensed premises in an arbitrary manner and only in certain circumstances. The amendment is a protectionist measure designed to protect existing publicans who may fear competition from substantial new outlets. A positive element of the new licensing arrangements is that existing licensees will not be able to object to the granting of a new licence on the basis of the effect such a premises would have on the trade of existing premises. To do so would be to ensure no premises would be capable of being established in areas of need. In that context I see no merit in this amendment. It would have the same effect in that while existing licensees would be able to increase the size of their premises, new entrants to the trade would not be able to do so and would suffer a competitive disadvantage.
If I were to accept the argument that a potential licensee who extinguishes a licence should be statutorily constrained as to the size of the premises he or she wishes to construct, should we not also debar existing licensees who operate small pubs from increasing the size of their establishments? Many publicans in cities and towns have extended their premises to meet a demand and we should not exclude new entrants from doing likewise.
The size of a new licensed premises is best determined in the context of planning and market force considerations. These are the factors which will impact in a reasonable way on the size of a licensed premises. While the motivation behind the amendment is protectionist, I accept the Deputy has concerns about the growth of superpubs and the undesirability of this development This may, in some cases, be related to the inflexibility of the existing licensing system, and that is part of the answer.
There is a certain market for such premises, particularly involving the 18 to 35 age group, where a variety of bars offer different forms of entertainment and opportunities for social interaction in different parts of the same premises. Changes to the licensing system which will follow the enactment of this Bill will address the true market situation where a market need is identified by permitting greater mobility of licences from areas which are over provided for – mainly rural areas – to locations where there is a demonstrable need for such licences. Once the provisions of this legislation regarding the licensing of premises are implemented, there will be a greater number of licensed premises in areas of greatest need. This should result in opportunities for the establishment of the more intimate type of premises to which some Deputies referred during the passage of this legislation through the Houses of the Oireachtas. I would not be confident that this is what would be demanded in all circumstances. For the reasons given, I cannot support the amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Acting Chairman:
Amendments Nos. 21 and 25 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
(Mayo): I move amendment No. 21:
In page 18, line 7, after "licence" to insert "or who has held a restricted licence within 10 years of the passing of this Act and who has not been disqualified from holding such a licence".
I instanced the circumstances I am trying to address in this amendment on Committee Stage and my case was strongly supported by Deputy Coughlan. A number of premises have been technically operating illegally but in ignorance of this fact for many years. This particularly applies to premises which were formally designated as hotels and to which a hotel licence applied. Because they ceased to be hotels but continued to trade as pubs, their licences were renewed annually, but in most cases innocently and in ignorance of the law. They met all of the requirements, including having tax clearance certificates, were totally in order and continued to trade.
In a number of cases they have ceased trading because they or a local person became aware of the circumstances or the Garda notified them they were in breach of the licensing regulations. I know one case where the premises has gone out of business in the past three months. The court was extremely lenient because when the case was explained, the judge fully understood the technical difficulties which had arisen and that the person had been bona fide in operating a licensed premises, albeit in breach of the law. We asked the Minister to try to address this situation on Report Stage. He has introduced an amendment and perhaps he will outline to the House the merits and substance of that.
This was a particularly difficult matter which was raised by Deputies Higgins and Coughlan on Committee Stage. Amendment No. 21 proposes to rectify a certain anomaly with regard to hotel licences. As the Government proposes to put forward an amendment to cater for premises which were first licensed under section 2(2) of the Act of 1902, on or before July 1902, I ask the Deputy to withdraw his amendment.
The purpose of amendment No. 25 is to introduce clarity in circumstances where some premises started out as hotels and received a licence under the 1902 Act. I am proposing a conversion scheme modelled on the scheme that is provided for six day and other restricted licence holders under section 18 of the Bill. The amendment applies to premises which were first licensed as hotels on or before 4 July 1960. This date is an important starting point because from then, premises that were hotels were permitted to install public bars on their premises.
Subsection 2 in amendment No. 25 addresses the position of the relatively small number of premises which did not avail of the provision in section 19 of the 1960 Act to install a public bar and which now, because of their location in mainly isolated rural areas, would not be in a position economically to come within the terms of section 19. Under this subsection, those premises will continue to operate as hotels but will be permitted to operate a public bar as part of the licence. The amendment, from subsection 3 on, addresses a further issue which is anticipated in amendment No. 21 in the name of Deputies Higgins and Flanagan. My amendment addresses the issue in a more comprehensive manner. I can hear Deputy Higgins say "You would say that, wouldn't you?".
It has been brought to my attention that there is a small number of premises that started as hotels some time after 1902 but before 4 July 1960, which over time have become de facto public houses. This arose as the hotel part of the business fell away and the premises continued to operate as a public house which would have had its licence renewed annually as if it were a public house. In many cases, the present occupiers of the premises would not even have been aware that it was originally a hotel. This appears to be a problem that is confined to rural areas and sometimes relatively isolated areas off the tourist circuit. The amendment means that all such licences will be deemed to be full publicans' licences but will be subject to the same arrangements relating to their future disposal as applies to other premises with restricted licences which come within section 18 of the Bill.
(Mayo): I thank the Minister for his amendment. I will withdraw my amendment. I am not sure of the date of the acquisition of the premises I used as anecdotal evidence. I wish to clarify that the date in question is 4 July.
Yes. That is an important date because it was a starting point and the first time hotels were permitted to install public bars on their premises. The amendment deals with what were known as "hatch" licences.
Was there a 1960 Act that permitted the transfer of a so-called "hatch" licence into a full bar licence? Is that Act still law and if so, is it possible for premises that have such an arrangement under that Act to provide a public bar? What impact will this amendment have on that?
Yes, it would be possible for such premises to avail of the 1960 Act but the difficulty is they would have to purchase an extinguished licence. Those concerned are mainly in isolated rural areas and are unable to afford to do that. We agreed to convert the six day licences to seven day licences. I felt these people were in a somewhat similar position and that in justice and fairness, if they have been operating since 1902, it was time to—
Regularise them.
—close the hatch and open the latch, so to speak.
How many premises fall into that category?
My understanding is that it is very few. I do not know. The issue was raised by Deputy Higgins on Committee Stage. I do not know if there are some in the west – I think there are.
(Mayo): I know of only one.
I think there are some around the west. I really do not know how many there are. I would say that some of the people who have them might not know either.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Acting Chairman:
Amendment No. 22 is consequential on amendment No. 23 and amendment No. 24 is related. All amendments may be taken together by agreement. Recommittal is necessary in respect of amendments Nos. 22, 23 and 24 as they do not arise from Committee Stage proceedings.
Bill recommitted in respect of amendments Nos. 22, 23 and 24.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 18, line 21, to delete "or".
Amendment No. 24 provides that licensees who are leaseholders with short leases and who are trading with restricted licences would be eligible to avail of the scheme offered by section 18 to convert restricted licences to full licences. As I am putting forward two technical amendments, Nos. 22 and 23, which will provide for such a provision, I ask Deputy Ring to withdraw his amendment. Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 will ensure licensees who are leaseholders and who are trading with restricted licences will be also eligible to avail of the amnesty offered by section 18 to convert restricted licenses to full licenses.
Section 18, as it stands, provides a mechanism whereby the holders of restricted licences can convert them to ordinary seven day licences. The provision, however, does not take account of a situation where a premises to which a restricted licence is attached has been leased. The licensee trading on the basis of the lease is excluded from the amnesty. Where the lease extends beyond the one year amnesty period provided for by this section, the owner of the licence would also be excluded. This could give rise to a situation where licence owners would attempt to break leases with a view to availing of the amnesty. Amendments Nos. 22 and 23, therefore, provide for the inclusion of leaseholders in the scheme and will permit the leaseholder to convert his or her licence in the same way an owner of a premises who is the licence holder can. The leaseholder would be subject to the same restriction as an owner of a premises with regard to the fee, but the provision at subsection (2)(c) which restricts disposal of the licence for five years would not apply as the leasehold would not be in a position to dispose of the premises or licence for reward.
I am glad the Minister is going to try to regulate this. There are only about 105 six day licences here. The last time we had an intoxicating liquor Bill in the Dáil there were about 1,500 and there was concern about the people leasing them. The Minister is now going to resolve that. I hope everybody will be able to avail of the provision and that all the six day licences can be converted to seven day licences and we will know what is happening in relation to all licences. I will, therefore, withdraw my amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 18, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:
"(III) was a tenant of the premises, or".
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments
Amendment No. 24 not moved.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 19, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:
"19.–(1) This section applies to premises which were first licensed under section 2(2) of the Act of 1902 on or before 4 July, 1960.
(2) Where, in respect of premises to which this section applies–
(a) no order under section 19 (public bars in hotels in certain cases) of the Act of 1960 was made,
(b) the District Court, on application to it by a person who or whose predecessor in title was the holder of a licence in respect of the premises, is satisfied that, at any time within the period of 5 years immediately before the commencement of this section, the person or his or her predecessor in title carried on business in the premises as if the premises were an hotel, and
(c) the Court by order declares that it is so satisfied,
the licence shall thereupon be deemed, for all the purposes of the Acts, to be a licence in respect of which an order under the said section 19 was made, and the Revenue Commissioners shall renew the licence accordingly.
(3) Where–
(a) the District Court, on application to it by a person who or whose predecessor in title was the holder of a licence (other than a full licence) in respect of premises to which this section applies, is satisfied that, at any time within the period of 5 years immediately before the commencement of this section, the person or his or her predecessor in title carried on business in the premises at that time as if the licence were a full licence, and
(b) the Court by order declares that it is so satisfied,
the licence shall thereupon be deemed, for all the purposes of the Acts, to be a full licence, and the Revenue Commissioners shall renew the licence accordingly, subject to the conditions set out in subsection (4).
(4) The conditions referred to in subsection (3) are that the person referred to in that subsection–
(a) pays £2,500 to the Revenue Commissioners,
(b) undertakes–
(i) not to dispose of the premises as a licensed premises,
(ii) not to transfer the full licence, or
(iii) consent to its extinguishment,
for reward within the period of 5 years after the date of the first issue of the licence as a full licence.
(5) The sum payable under subsection (4)(a) is in addition to and not in substitution for any sum payable on the licence under section 43 of the Act of 1910.
(6) In the register kept by district court clerks of licences in respect of premises situated within their court area there shall be entered a statement, in relation to any licence issued under this section in respect of any such premises, to the effect that, subject to subsection (7), the premises may not be disposed of, or the full licence transferred, or consent given to its extinguishment, for reward within the period of 5 years after the date of the first issue of the licence as a full licence.
(7) Notwithstanding paragraph (b) of subsection (4), the District Court may waive or modify compliance with the undertaking mentioned in that paragraph if compliance with it would cause hardship to the licensee.".
Amendment agreed to.
(Mayo): I move 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.".
Effectively what we are seeking to do here is to allow supermarkets which have an ongoing licence to sell beer also. Of all of the groups that have lobbied us on licensing, apart from the Pioneer Total Abstinence Association and other groups, the most vigorous and vociferous campaign has been that launched by the small supermarket owners. These are the people who fear the possible abolition of the Groceries Order, 1968, and the devastation to business that would cause. These people have a genuine fear of being cannibalised by the larger super chains, many of which are owned by people from outside the country who are moving into large centres of population and closing down RGDATA members and small supermarkets. These people are in many cases the pillars of local communities in that they are family-owned businesses which provide and excellent accessible service, where one does not have to drive. Their backs are to the wall in terms of keeping their heads above water and their businesses afloat. They can sell wine at present because they have an on-licence for wine. What they are seeking, and what we are seeking to do in this amendment is to allow them to sell beer as well as wine. They make the point that at this time of year backpackers and tourists call into these supermarkets looking for a can of beer or a six-pack only to be told they can buy wine but that there is no beer available. They are not seeking to be able to sell spirits. I do not have the empirical evidence to back up an assertion that that is the largest segment of the market, but that is where the big profits and the real costs lie. From the point of view of increasing the viability and economic welfare of small supermarkets, they should be allowed to sell beer as well as wine. They make the point that in the majority of cases they simply do not have the resources to buy a licence. If one wants to buy a licence now, one has to buy a pub licence which will cost £100,000 to £120,000. That licence can then be converted to an on-licence or an off-licence to permit the sale of spirits as well as beer. However, in most cases, they cannot come up with £120,000. They have developed, enhanced and improved their facilities. They have changed from small traditional across-the-counter businesses to being small supermarkets. However, their backs are to the wall and they are being pushed every single day in relation to their survival and their viability. This is a reasonable amendment. They make the point, which the Minister will deny, that of all the groups who have been looked after in this Bill – and it is in general a good Bill – theirs is the only one which was excluded. The pubs have been looked after in terms of hours and so on. The clubs have been looked at in terms of what they can now offer by way of amenities to the general public. Restaurants have been looked at. Hotels have been accommodated. Every segment of the industry is accommodated in one way or another in this legislation, but there is not a word about supermarkets.
I ask the Minister to accept this sensible amendment as the supermarkets have a justifiable grievance and a justifiable case. That case is underlined by the argument they make that if the Minister is making an exception for restaurants where the availability of wine can now be added to by making beer available, why not do the same for this segment of the retail outlet business which is one of the planks of the community and provides an excellent service.
I strongly support the amendment. On Committee Stage, the Minister had a listening ear for amendments and arguments coming from this side of the House. However, for some peculiar reason, he did not address this issue. It is a segment of industry that feels aggrieved that in the very large measure of consensus that was built about the enactment before us, although it will not satisfy everybody, most people were satisfied with the arrangements that are now laid out, and a reasonably good Bill has been further improved on Report Stage by the further additional amendments the Minister has accepted today. However, there is no amendment in the Minister's name on the issue of supermarkets, most of which are family owned, small and often in small communities rather than in the large towns which have licences to sell wine. they want to be accommodated in this enactment and allowed to sell beer as well.
There would be no damage or danger to the Bill if the Minister were to accept this amendment. It would be very welcome to that sector of industry which is often choked out by very large companies which can afford to buy full licences for their premises. The very large multiples have no difficulty in providing a full off-licence facility within their supermarket chains. This small group of mostly family-focused businesses, many operating garages or small supermarkets in communities that depend on them for their everyday shopping, should be allowed to sell beer, which is often generated and produced locally, as well as wine. This is a reasonable and worthy request. I am surprised the arguments put forward on Committee Stage have not been as positively addressed as all the other issues the Minister seemed well disposed to address.
Of all the issues, this is one on which we will divide the House. As the House is being suspended now, I ask the Minister to reflect further on this. It is the final issue that remains unaddressed. Rather than leaving any group aggrieved, the Minister would greatly improve the Bill by accepting the amendment.
Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.