Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 26 May 1988

Vol. 119 No. 16

Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1988: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Justice (Mr. Collins)

This Bill contains provisions to counter drink abuse, especially under-age drinking while, at the same time, providing for some extension in the permitted hours and enabling restaurants of an acceptable standard to serve a full range of drinks with substantial meals.

The interests of the licensed trade are represented by a number of organisations catering for various aspects of the trade, including licensed vintners, hoteliers and restaurant owners. In framing this legislation, I have endeavoured to take into account the legitimate interests of each of these groups, but I need hardly say that the general public interest must always be paramount. This demands that the licensing laws should not be unduly restrictive so that they do not inhibit the reasonable requirements of the public while, at the same time, being such as to curb actual or potential abuses where these are identified.

Accordingly, in considering new legislation in this field perhaps the most important principle to bear in mind is the necessity for striking the right balance between provisions that are too restrictive and those that are so liberal as to leave scope for abuse. I should also mention that the licensing laws have a very complex statutory background stretching back to 1833 which adds to the difficulty of drafting new legislation.

In my view there is a clear need for the rationalisation and consolidation of the existing legislation but I should emphasise that this will be a major task which the present Bill does not seek to accomplish. I want to make it clear that the present Bill seeks to amend the licensing law in certain aspects only. There are other aspects where, on examination, it may be found that change is desirable but where the necessary examination, consultation and drafting would take so much time that they cannot be accommodated in the present Bill.

Part II of the Bill makes provision for a new type of special liquor licence — the Special Restaurant Licence. The object of this Part is to enable restaurants of good standard to obtain licences which will enable them to supply a full range of drink with substantial meals, without having to extinguish an existing liquor licence. Under the existing law regarding the acquisition of new licences, based largely on the Licensing Act, 1902, the position generally is that it is not possible to get a new licence to sell a full range of drink without extinguishing at least one existing such licence. There are also requirements as to the location of the licence to be extinguished and as to increases in population in the locality that can make it impossible to obtain new full licences in some areas. At the same time, there is clearly a demand, especially among tourists, that a full range of drinks should be available with meals in restaurants of good standard.

In the circumstances it is clearly necessary to make special provision so that restaurants of the kind in question can get full licences without having to extinguish an existing licence. Part II of the Bill makes provision accordingly. Section 12 will enable the Minister for Tourism and Transport to make regulations prescribing standards which must be met in restaurants qualifying for the new licences. It is intended that these regulations will be made before Part II is brought into operation.

Where it is desired to obtain one of the new licences, application is first made to Bord Fáilte for a certificate, as defined in section 6, certifying that the restaurant concerned meets with the prescribed standards. When a Bord Fáilte certificate has been obtained, application must next be made, in accordance with section 8, to the Circuit Court for its certificate. This will be issued unless the court prohibits the issue of the licence in consequence of an objection made to it at that stage. When the Circuit Court certificate has been obtained, the special restaurant licence can then be obtained from the Revenue Commissioners, in accordance with section 9, on payment to the commissioners of a fee of £3,000 as specified in that section. It is reasonable that this fee should be a substantial one in view of the considerable commercial value attaching to a full drinks licence and bearing in mind that the amount of the fee will be quite small in relation to the cost of establishing and running a restaurant of the kind which will qualify for the necessary Bord Fáilte certificate.

I should mention also that this will be a once-off initial fee. The only fee on annual renewal of the special licence thereafter will be the ordinary excise duty payable for liquor licences generally, which is £50 at present. Since it may be necessary in due course to vary the amount of the initial fee, section 9 provides that this may be done by regulations made by the Minister for Justice. Under section 24 a draft of any such regulations, and of regulations under section 12 prescribing standards for the restaurants concerned, must be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and such regulations will not come into effect until a resolution approving the draft has been passed by each House.

I should refer at this point to section 3 of the Bill the effect of which is that it will be construed together with existing Licensing Acts, and also to subsection (2) of section (7), by virtue of which a special restaurant licence will be deemed to be a retailer's on-licence. One effect of these provisions is that all the normal procedural and enforcement provisions of the Acts will apply in relation to special restaurant licences. This will mean that the special restaurant licence will be renewable annually and that any member of the public can object in the District Court to the renewal of a special restaurant licence, as in relation to any other liquor licence. An additional ground of objection to renewal is given by section 10, that is, an objection on the grounds that the premises had not been bona fide and solely used as a restaurant.

As to the particular attributes of a special restaurant licence, I should make it clear that it is a restricted licence which will not allow drink to be sold in the same way as in a public house. Section 7 provides that drink may be sold on foot of a special restaurant licence only in connection with the ordering and consumption of a substantial meal, either in the waiting area of the restaurant before the meal, or in the dining area during the meal and up to 30 minutes after the meal has ended. Furthermore, section 14, as amended in Dáil Éireann, will allow drink to be supplied on foot of a special restaurant licence on weekdays between 12.30 p.m. and 12.30 a.m. and on Sundays and on Christmas Day during the restricted hours set out in the section. The premises concerned will be able to stay open at any other time for normal restaurant business but the sale or consumption of alcohol will not be allowed during such other times.

I have mentioned that a public house trade will not be permitted in the restaurants concerned. In this connection it will be noted that section 16 provides that premises of this kind may not contain a bar. Special restaurant licences will not enable the sale of alcohol for consumption off the premises and section 22 provides that they may not be used as a basis for obtaining occasional licences or special exemption orders.

As I have indicated, special licence restaurants will be subject to the ordinary enforcement provisions of the licensing laws. In addition, they will be subject to the provisions of section 15 of the Bill, which provides a maximum fine of £500 for contravention of the terms of the licence, with mandatory endorsement of the licence itself.

If I could sum up the provisions relating to special restaurant licences, they are intended to facilitate good quality restaurants in obtaining licences to serve a full range of drinks. They will, therefore, help to meet the clearly established demand for such a facility as well as being an important aid to the tourist industry. They are, however, restricted licences and it is not intended that they should unfairly affect the legitimate commercial interests of the existing licensed trade.

Part III of the Bill deals with permitted hours in licensed premises. This is a very important aspect of the licensing laws, an aspect in which the general public shows a particular interest and one, indeed, which is frequently the subject of controversy. On this aspect, as in the case of other aspects of the licensing laws, there is no ideal solution which can be established for once and for all. The correct approach, in my view, is to make a periodic survey of the existing permitted hours so that they may be adjusted to meet public demand and also to help correct any abuses which may have emerged.

The closing hours adopted in 1960 and 1962 have stood the test of time remarkably well and, I think, require comparatively little adjustment to meet the requirements of the present day. The principle of uniformity in permitted hours established in 1960 is still a valid one and should continue to be reflected in the new legislation. This establishes the principle that the opening hours for all categories of licensed premises, and for registered clubs, should be the same that there should be no variation from one locality to another throughout the country.

The main provisions regarding prohibited hours in licensed premises are contained in section 2 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1927. To help in getting a general picture of these prohibited hours, section 2 of the 1927 Act is now reproduced in full in section 25 of the Bill. It is under that section that the aspects on which changes are now proposed are dealt with. Likewise section 56 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1927, contains the main provisions regarding permitted hours in registered clubs and that section is now reproduced in full in section 26 of the Bill. That section, as amended, continues the principle of basic conformity with the permitted hours in licensed premises. Section 28 of the Bill continues the provision in the existing law whereby in licensed hotels and licensed restaurants drink can be supplied with substantial meals up to 12.30 a.m. The existing exemptions in respect of Sunday and Christmas Day are also continued.

So far as evening closing time are concerned — that is to say 11 p.m. in winter time and 11.30 p.m. in summer time — I think these times are still appropriate and I am not aware of any general demand for a change in these hours. Indeed, it is only in relation to Sunday evening that any change is required. I have received a large volume of representations for some extension to the present 10 o'clock Sunday closing time. I have come to the conclusion that such an extension is justified and the Bill accordingly provides that general Sunday closing in licensed premises and clubs should be at 11 p.m. The reaction that I have received to the proposal indicates that it will be generally acceptable.

There are two other aspects of the general permitted hours in relation to which some change is required. The first of these is drinking-up time. This was established in 1962 as a period of ten minutes after the time for the supply of last drinks. During this ten minutes drink may not be supplied, but it is not an offence to remain on the premises to consume drink already supplied. Having considered the views of all the interested parties I have come to the conclusion that the present ten minutes drinking up time is not sufficient to allow last drinks to be consumed in an unhurried atmosphere. Accordingly, I am proposing that it should be extended from ten minutes to 30 minutes. This will allow last drinks to be consumed in a leisurely manner without all the hustle and bustle at present experienced. It will give bar staff an opportunity to begin tidying up before the premises are cleared and will, I hope, help to bring a calmer and more relaxed atmosphere to closing time generally.

The other aspect on which I would like to say a few words is the question of the "holy hour". This is the mandatory closing of licensed premises and clubs in Dublin and Cork between 2.30 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. on weekdays. This was adopted to help prevent continuous drinking throughout the day and was originally applied in Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford. In 1962 the "holy hour" was abolished in Waterford and Limerick, leaving Dublin and Cork as the only areas where it remained. I now propose to abolish it in these remaining areas in pursuance of the policy of establishing uniformity in the permitted hours throughout the country. In any case, I believe the "holy hour" has outlived its usefulness and is no longer desirable, especially in view of the increasing tendency to take midday meals on licensed premises. I have received representations to the effect that it has an adverse effect on tourism and on business generally in Dublin and Cork. Senators may note that there is no specific reference to the "holy hour" in the Bill. Its abolition is effected by omitting reference to it in the new provisions inserted by sections 25 and 26. Under section 25, the fine for prohibited hours offences by licensees is increased to a maximum of £400 for a first offence and £800 for a second or subsequent offence. The present maximum fines of £20 and £40 were fixed in 1927 and are clearly too low now in view of the fall in money values. Conviction of a prohibited hours offence is endorsed on the licence, the licence being forfeited where there are three endorsements. Up to 1986 such endorsement was mandatory for prohibited hours offences but since 1986 endorsement in such cases is at the discretion of the court. Endorsement of the licence is regarded as a more severe penalty than a monetary fine. The fact that endorsement for prohibited hours offences is now at the discretion of the court must be taken into account in fixing the maximum amount of the monetary penalty. I am satisfied that a substantial increase in the fines for prohibited hours offences, as now proposed in the Bill, is fully justified and I am determined that these prohibited hours provisions will be strictly enforced.

The question of special exemption orders arises in relation to Part III of the Bill. The District Court is enabled to grant these exemptions in respect of special occasions in licensed hotels and licensed restaurants. There has been a considerable increase in the number of special exemptions in recent years and there have been complaints that they are now a source of abuse. I have received representations, however, particularly from licensed hotels, that the late-evening drinking allowed under special exemptions meets an established demand, especially in rural areas, and that many hotels have come to rely on the income from these occasions for their economic survival and the continued employment of staff. I have, nevertheless, decided that some restrictions are warranted. Most special exemptions are granted in respect of dances at which substantial meals are required to be served. Such "substantial meals" must be of a kind for which it would be reasonable to charge a sum whose amount may be prescribed by the Minister for Justice. This minimum figure was last prescribed in 1979, when it was put at £2. I am satisfied that an increase in this amount is now justified, but this increase can be effected by ministerial order and accordingly requires no provision in the present Bill.

I am particularly concerned about special exemptions for Monday mornings since for most people Monday is the first working day of the week. Under the present legislation it is a matter for the District Court to decide the time in respect of which any special exemption will be granted. I am satisfied that some restriction on special exemptions for Monday mornings is justified and section 29 of the Bill accordingly provides that they may not be granted for any time after 1 a.m. on Monday.

Finally, in relation to special exemptions, I am proposing that persons under 18 will not be allowed to be present while they are in operation and section 35 of the Bill contains a provision to that effect.

I next come to the question of under-age drinking. Provisions to combat this are contained in Part IV of the Bill. Before outlining these provisions I think it is necessary to say that, while legislation has a useful role to play in this area, its impact must always be limited. Other factors, such as parental control and example, the general social climate and factors such as the purchasing capacity of young people and the power of advertising, are at least equally important. That being said, however, the fact remains that legislation does have a significant role to play and my object in Part IV of the Bill is to ensure that legislation is framed which, if fully enforced, will have the maximum impact on this social evil.

So far as under-age persons are concerned, legislative provisions have two aspects. First, they place controls on the presence of young persons in licensed premises and registered clubs. Secondly, the legislation contains provisions relating to the supply of intoxicating liquor to young persons and the consumption of drink by them.

Provisions prohibiting the supply of drink to persons aged under 18 are contained in sections 31 and 32 of the Bill. Section 31 prohibits licence holders from supplying intoxicating liquor to persons aged under 18 and requires that licensees shall not permit under-age drinking on their premises. This section replaces provisions in an Intoxicating Liquor Act of 1924 which are repealed by section 4 of the Bill.

There are two aspects of section 31 which I should mention in particular. First, under the existing legislation it is an offence for a licensee to "knowingly" supply drink to an under-aged person. Section 31 removes this word from the legislation, so that the licensee can be prosecuted on the basis that he has in fact supplied drink to an under-aged person. Up to the present it has not been possible to bring a charge unless the prosecution could prove that the licensee "knowingly" supplied drink. Subsection (4) of section 31 will give the licensee a defence that he had "reasonable grounds" for believing that the person concerned was over the age of 18 years. Secondly, subsection (3) of section 31 provides substantial increases in the maximum fines that may be imposed on licensees. Section 32 will make it an offence for any person, whether a licensee or not, to make intoxicating liquor available to a person aged under 18. I should mention that section 4 of the Bill, in repealing section 12 of the 1924 Act concerned, will remove the anomaly under the present law whereby drink can be sold in sealed containers of not less than one pint to anyone aged over 15.

Under section 33 it is made an offence for the first time for a person under 18 to purchase alcohol or to consume it in any place other than a private residence.

I next come to the question of the presence of under-aged persons in licensed premises. Subject to certain exceptions, it is an offence for a licence-holder to allow anyone under the age of 15 years to be in his bar. I am satisfied that this provision should be relaxed, because there will be circumstances where it is convenient or even necessary, especially in the country, for a parent with young children to remain for some time in a licensed premises. This could happen, for example, when the person concerned was waiting to catch a bus or to keep an appointment with a doctor or dentist. Section 34 of the Bill accordingly proposes that children should be allowed in bars at any time during permitted hours if they are accompanied by their parents or guardian.

Complaints have been made about drinking by under-aged persons at late night functions. Section 35 of the Bill makes it an offence, both for the licence holder and the under-aged person concerned, where anyone under the age of 18 is on the part of a licensed premises to which an exemption order applies.

Section 36 restricts the presence of under-aged persons in off-licenses. Under this section, persons under 18 will be allowed on such premises only if accompanied by a parent or guardian, or where their employment in the premises is not prohibited. Penalties are provided for contraventions of section 36 by the licence-holder and the under aged persons concerned.

Section 37 is an important new provision giving the Garda power to seize containers of alcohol which are in the possession of under-aged persons in any place other than an occupied private residence, where the Garda suspects that an under-age drinking offence had been committed. The Garda are given a power of arrest in such cases where the young person concerned refuses to supply his correct name, address and age. This will give the Garda powers to deal with the so-called "drinks parties" about which many complaints have been received.

Section 38 deals with the employment of under-aged persons in licensed premises. Under a 1924 provision, now being repealed, no female under 18 and no male under 16, with certain exceptions, can be employed to sell drink in a licensed premises. Section 38 now gives a common minimum age limit of 18 for males and females, with a minimum age of 16 for apprentices and specified relatives.

I should like to deal next with an aspect which has given rise to a good deal of discussion. This is the provision for the introduction of a system of age cards, contained in section 40 of the Bill. What is contemplated is that the Minister for Justice will be empowered to introduce by regulations a system for the issue of these cards to persons requesting them, showing that the person concerned is aged over 18 years. Under section 40, these regulations can prescribe such matters as the person or authority by whom such cards will be issued, the format of the cards and the fee, if any, to be charged for the issue of the cards. Section 41 provides a penalty for the forging or wrongful use of such cards. Subsection (4) of section 31 provides that, where a document which appears to be an age card is produced to a licence-holder, this will constitute reasonable grounds for believing the person concerned was aged over 18 years and accordingly will be a defence to a charge against the licence-holder under section 31 of the Bill. It will also be a defence to a charge under section 35 or section 36 that the licence-holder allowed a person under 18 years to be on his premises in contravention of those sections.

I would like to make a few general points about the proposed system of age cards. The provision is being introduced in response to a widespread demand from public representatives and from the licensees themselves as an aid in combatting under-age drinking. The system envisaged will be completely voluntary, in the sense that there will be no compulsion on any person to obtain such a card and licence-holders will not be compelled to demand the production of them. Such a system would undoubtedly facilitate young persons aged just over 18 years who wish to obtain a drink in a licensed premises and, conversely, it will help to dissuade persons aged under 18 who might wish to purchase or consume drink in licensed premises, since they will know that without possession of such card they are likely to be refused drink. The system should also be of considerable help to licensees who are often in genuine doubt as to whether a particular person is aged over 18. The provision as to age cards in section 40 will, of course, come into operation only when the necessary regulations have been made by the Minister for Justice.

I would like to turn next to Part V of the Bill, which contains a number of provisions relating to the supply of intoxicating liquor in registered clubs. In accordance with the provisions of the Registration of Clubs Act, 1904, intoxicating liquor may be supplied in such clubs only to the members themselves and their guests. Many complaints have been made that this provision is not being observed and that in many such clubs drink is being supplied to the public, especially at late-night extensions, contrary to the intentions of the Act. Part VI contains provisions to help remedy these abuses.

Section 42 will make it clear that the club rules must forbid the supply of drink to persons aged under 18. At present an order from an inspector is required before a club can be inspected by the Garda Síochána. Section 43 will remove this requirement and allow clubs to be inspected by the Garda on the same basis as licensed premises. Section 44 will allow objection to be made to renewal of club certificates by persons living outside the parish where the club premises is situated and will bring clubs into line with licensed premises generally so far as objection to certificates is concerned. There have been many complaints that some clubs are openly flouting the law by advertising drinking facilities, such as late-night extensions, to the public at large.

Section 45 seeks to remedy this situation by making it an offence to advertise functions in registered clubs, save by means of a notice within the club or by circular issued to the club members. The prohibition will not apply to the advertising of any sport or physical recreation in the club which takes place within the ordinary permitted hours for the supply of drink. Section 46 will make it a ground of objection to the issue of new certificates of registration of clubs if they have less than 150 members. Section 46, with the Schedule to the Bill, will provide increased penalties for a range of offences in relation to registered clubs.

Finally, Part VII of the Bill contains a number of miscellaneous provisions. The first of these, in section 47, is a provision to ensure that intoxicating liquor may be sold in mixed premises such as supermarkets only from a separate drinks counter and that it may not be sold by self-service. This provision is included in response to widespread demand for the placing of some curbs on the sales of drink from supermarket-type premises, where at present intoxicating liquor can be sold by self-service with the same freedom as ordinary commodities such as soap flakes and breakfast cereals. It has been strongly represented that this is a source of widespread abuse, both from impulse buying by adults and as a source of supply for under-aged persons. So that premises affected may have time to adjust their sales arrangements, it is provided that section 47 will not come into operation until the Minister for Justice so appoints by order.

Section 49 makes a minor adjustment in the time for the sale of intoxicating liquor at licensed greyhound racetracks. Section 50, with the Schedule to the Bill, increases the penalties for a number of offences under the Licensing Acts and the Registration of Clubs Act, where the level of fines at present fixed has fallen out of line with current monetary values. Many of these fines have been on the Statute Book since the last century and the substantial increases now proposed are justified on that ground alone.

Column 2 of the Schedule gives a general indication of the offence in respect of which the penalty is being increased. One such penalty which I should like to mention in particular is that provided in section 17 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1927, for the offence of being "found on". It is proposed that the present minimum penalty in this instance should be increased from £1 to £25 and that the maximum should be increased from £5 to £50. This will give an incentive to customers to leave licensed premises when licensees are clearing their premises at closing time.

In conclusion, I should say again that this is not intended to be a comprehensive Intoxicating Liquor Bill. There are a number of matters, including, for example, the general question of late-night drinking provisions, which would need to be throughly examined and dealt with in a subsequent Bill. There are many such matters which cannot be dealt with in the timescale available for this Bill, but it would be my intention to bring forward a second Bill to deal with matters which are not covered by this Bill but which require detailed study and to deal also with any provision of the present Bill which may need to be remedied in the light of experience of its working. However, I consider it is important to proceed now as expeditiously as possible with the matters covered by the present Bill.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Manning

First of all, I welcome the Minister to the House. The legislation he is bringing in today has found and will find fairly general acceptance and welcome from all groups in both Houses and throughout the country generally.

The first thing to be said about any licensing legislation is that it must, by its very nature, seek to get the proper balance between the various interests and the various needs. In this case the balance being sought is between the rights of people to drink socially, freely and in enjoyable circumstances and, at the same time, the counter-need to protect vulnerable people, especially young people, against excess or exploitation of alcohol. The other balance being sought in this Bill is between the rights of publicans and the rights of restaurateurs, which has been a continuing area of conflict, uncertainty and perhaps even sharp practice over the past number of years. The uncertainty which existed has, in many cases, meant that the existing law has been brought into disrepute because it simply has not been enforced. Probably there was not much point in enforcing it. Nonetheless, the clarification of that is very welcome.

By and large the Minister has succeeded in getting the balance right. This is a Bill which has been significantly improved in its passage through the Dáil. I welcome the fact that the Minister took on board a number of amendments from different parties in the Dáil. These amendments have meant a better Bill. We will be making a small number of proposals on Committee Stage in this House which we hope will further improve the quality and effectiveness of the Bill.

In many ways we would all like to have a situation where restrictions on hours of opening were not at all necessary. In many other countries the opening hours of licensed premises are dictated solely by the demand. Public houses open when there is a demand for the sale of drink and they close when there is no demand. That is not the case in this country. Many publicans feel an obligation to open at hours when they must be losing money, when there is no particular demand. This is very true especially in country areas where pubs feel obliged to stay open, perhaps for fear of losing some small amount of foothold in the market, when they would be better off being closed.

The idea of no restrictions on opening hours has many very attractive possibilities. It would mean that pubs would not be obliged to stay open when there is no demand. It would mean that pubs could open early where there is a demand, that they could close early where there is no demand, or that they could open late where the demand was for late drinking. It would mean we would not have to rush from public houses in the evening. There is no doubt whatsoever that, no matter how strictly the gardaí seek to enforce the laws against drinking and driving, the fact that the public houses all close within ten, 15 or 20 minutes of each other, especially at weekends, is an important contributor to road traffic accidents and to death on our roads. If we had staggered closing times — it is probably an unfortunate adjective to use — and if the hours of closing could be varied, this problem might not be so great and might allow the gardaí more scope to enforce this law more rigorously.

I am sure the Minister is very well aware of the experiment which was carried out and which has now led to the change in licensing laws in parts of Scotland and in Edinburgh in particular. Variance in the licensing laws and optionality appear to have worked in Scotland, with its particular tradition of very heavy drinking and moving from a situation which was unduly restrictive before this change came about. We saw in Edinburgh a massive change in the whole culture and the whole attitude towards drinking. It appears to have worked reasonably well.

There does not seem to have been any great abuse of the new opportunities. Many people regard the change as being quite civilised and quite practicable. I am sure the Minister and his Department have studied the situation in Edinburgh and I would be interested to hear his comments. However, I think it is somewhat Utopian to hope for a change like that. I am fairly certain that we have not reached the level of maturity in this country where we are ready for such an experiment. We are certainly not ready for the introduction of widespread changes such as have taken place there.

However, I hope that at some stage some future Minister for Justice will be able to come into the Houses of the Oireachtas and say that we have matured in such a way as a society that we do not need these Victorian regulations or this hang over from Victorian days to control the way in which people are allowed to drink. As a Senator said, it probably will be a long day but it would be very desirable if we reached that stage where there was less rather than more law needed.

If I may digress slightly but within the limits of the debate, the Minister has had a very soft run on this legislation compared with some of his predecessors who attempted to bring about major changes in the licensing laws. We have come a very long way and the present debate has seen the various interest groups involved make their case in an ordered way. One of the characteristics which struck me, and I am sure many other Members of both Houses who have spoken with the different interests, is the general acceptance that no group were going to get their way, that each side had their own case. After the initial but strong demand was made, there was a general acceptance that the other groups also had a point of view and that any law would have to take into account first of all the general interest and that there would have to be a great deal of compromise between the various groups.

That has been reflected in the Bill. I regret that in the previous Oireachtas the work of the Committee on Legislation, which had taken upon itself the task of examining the licensing laws and which was providing a forum for the various groups to make their points, was not completed and that the Oireachtas rather than the Government did not have an important initiating role in legislation.

When I say that the Minister may reflect on the fact that he has got off very lightly compared with some of his predecessors I will just come to one or two instances of that. The first major attempt, as the Minister said, to redraft the licensing laws after independence came in the mid-twenties when the then Minister for Home Affairs, Kevin O'Higgins, found that the licensing laws were in a mess. There were far too many public houses. They were generally badly run. They were dirty. Drunkeness was a major national problem. The licensing hours were not in any way enforced and the giving out of licences was not in any serious way restricted.

He tried to bring in draconian changes in the licensing laws but like my hope that someday we will not need laws, the country at that time certainly was not ready. The first thing his Government tried to do was to bring in not the holy hour but to have public houses closed all afternoon. The reason given at the time was that this would help to get the civil servants back to work. Civil servants now have their lunch at their desks, a glass of Coca Cola and a sandwich, so that would not arise. There was a revolt over the closing of public houses for the entire afternoon. Fianna Fáil had not yet entered the Dáil so the revolt was confined to his backbenchers.

The end result was that the intention to close the public houses for the entire afternoon forced the Government into a great compromise. That great compromise was the holy hour. In one sense it is sad today to see the end of another great Irish compromise, the holy hour, which was the result of a successful backbencher revolt against the Government of the day.

A second revolt from that period arose when the Minister tried to bring about widespread changes which would revolutionise the entire licensing laws. The vintners opposed this very, very strongly. The effect of the vintners' revolt was to be the catalyst which got a new political party off the ground. That political party was the National League led by Captain Willie Redmond drawn from Parnellites, Redmondites, ex-service men and from the licensed trade who saw this as the vehicle through which they could impose their views on the Government.

This new party set out — I am not inventing the phrase — to break the civil war mould of Irish politics. They appealed to both Mr. de Valera and to Mr. Cosgrave to retire from Irish politics and to leave the field to those who would represent the new Ireland and the new thinking and those who were not encumbered by any old prejudices. They did very well in the early stages. The National League won eight seats in the election of June 1927. The future had arrived as far as they were concerned. They immediatley tried to form a minority Government. Mr. de Valera was being somewhat mischievous — he supported them. The vote ended in a tie helped by the absence of Alderman Jinx and so the Government survived.

Shortly afterwards Mr. Cosgrave called a sudden general election and the National League were reduced to one seat. Alderman Jinx lost his seat in Sligo but a horse was named after him which subsequently won the Derby, so he at least attained some sort of fame. The mould was not broken on that occasion and I do not believe it will be broken on this occasion either. However, all of this is slightly by the way. I will finish by telling the Minister the type of Opposition which his predecessor faced in those days. I am quoting from a very good book written by an American political scientist who came to Ireland in 1933, Warner Moss. It is called Political Parties in the Irish Free State. It states:

In Dublin virtually all the licensed traders organised to oppose the Government candidates if the Bill was not modified. The spirited Cork publicans organised a fighting fund and directed their secretary to write threatening letters to all members of the: Dáil. The Waterford Vintners' Association accused the Government of treating them like Mexicans and threatened to join with Labour, the National League and the Farmers. One realistic member said the difficulty with the new legislation was that it gave power to the new District Justices who were appointed by the Government and who could not be influenced like the old Justices of the Peace.

So it went on right throughout the country. In every county the Minister of the day had to face the vintners organised and thundering to make sure that the changes did not take place.

Mr. Collins

I have taken a fair share of flak myself over the past 12 months.

Mr. Manning

That may be so, but you have not been accused of behaving like a Mexican. I would like to deal with some of the main features of the Bill as outlined by the Minister. The special restaurant licences are very welcome and they will certainly remove much of the confusion and much of the breaking of the law, not in a very serious way, as it is at present. We have seen over the past number of years a huge growth in the number of restaurants, not alone in number but in quality, inventiveness and the variety of food on offer. If we compare the situation in the restaurant business as it is now with the way it was 20 years ago, it has been one of the big revolutions in Irish social and economic life. The number of young people who are getting into the restaurant business, who are being trained abroad and in this country and who are also playing a very big part in making Irish produce attractive and using it in inventive new ways is very significant indeed. Anything which can help the Irish restaurant industry deserves our full support. That industry has made a very good point in highlighting the ludicrous situation that the only drinks which could not legally be served in their premises were Irish drinks. The removal of that anomoly and restriction is welcome.

By the same token, the increase in the number of pubs serving food over the past number of years has also been very welcome. There is no doubt that right throughout the country as people are taking shorter lunch breaks, as fewer people go home for their midday meal, the pubs are providing a very useful service. They generally serve good food. It is inexpensive. It is fast and very little alcoholic drink is being consumed at lunchtime. Ballygowan, Tipperary or the new County Meath mineral water or soft drinks are being consumed with this food. Every effort should be made to ensure that no restrictions are put on publicans in providing food and that they are playing on the same level playing pitch as the restaurants. Subject to restrictions of hygiene, fire and so forth, they should be given every encouragement to develop along these lines. This is very important, from a health point of view. The more people are encouraged to eat and drink together, the less is the likelihood of people becoming drunk. One of the great problems with drink in the past was that people would start drinking on an empty stomach. There was no food available. Even a few sandwiches would make all the difference. Anything which does that is very welcome.

The question of the granting of licences and the standards has been very extensively debated in the Dáil. I found myself very much taken by the point of view put across by Deputy Patrick Cooney in the Dáil on the question of there being no appeal from Bord Fáilte, a very reputable organisation. The provisions in this Bill go a very long way to ensure that reasons must be given and that there will be a very high degree of openness as far as the decisions about the granting of licences are concerned. Nevertheless, I and other Members have some sort of a niggling reservation about not having some final court of appeal. Clearly, nobody wants to have the courts cluttered up by disappointed restaurateurs or would-be restaurateurs who have refused to get a licence. I am not sure the court is the right vehicle for this.

There could be reasons of vindictivness, or the officers in charge might have some sort of commercial interest. It is unlikely, but these things can happen. Between now and Committee Stage in this House I would like to see if it is possible to put down an amendment which would allow for some sort of inexpensive, straightforward appeal mechanism for those who feel they have been hard done by. It may not be possible to draft an amendment which meets that need but it is my intention to have a go at that and to talk to the Minister about it.

Another point which was mentioned by Deputy Cooney in the Dáil which deserves some attention also is the possibility — I know this was discussed extensively and the Minister has changed the Bill to a certain extent of anterooms to a restaurant in effect becoming a public house, or a restaurant which is not doing a great business which provides some sort of token food but having a large anteroom there which would, in effect, serve as a public house and thus establishing a public house on the cheap and against the spirit of this law. I know the Minister has gone a substantial part of the way in trying to meet this possibility but I am worried about the level of enforcement. I hope if there is any evidence of this happening or any indication that restaurateurs are tempted to try to develop their restaurant into effectively what is a pub, there will be very clear monitoring of this in the early stages and if restaurateurs are seen to behave in this way examples, as far as possible, will be made of the first ones to breach these regulations. Many publicans suspected that this was behind much of the agitation by restaurateurs. If this is seen to be the case, the entire spirit of this legislation will be defeated and the good faith of those who asked for the changes will be brought into question. The Minister took on board a number of recommendations in the Lower House, I wonder if it is strong enough. I will be coming back to this on Committee Stage.

On the question of the prohibited hours, this section is welcome. In spite of what I said earlier about the absence of hours, I believe the Minister has got it right. I believe the old licensing hours worked and they have stood the test of time. If we are to have uniform hours the present hours have just about got it right. I do not think there is any demand for a change. The Sunday change is also the right one.

On the question of the drinking up time there was a need for a change here. I have my doubts about the half hour because, even under the present ten minute rule, it is not infrequent that a publican or a bar man will, under special entreaty, serve a drink during that time. We have all seen it happen, I have anyway and I have to confess that I have on occasion been the recipient of the largesse of the person who——

Mr. Collins

The Senator is breaking the law.

Mr. Manning

I am confessing. Sometimes it is good for the soul. The half hour worries me slightly because I believe there will be enormous pressure on publicans during that half hour of drinking up time to serve more drink. Once people are settled in and they are comfortable, they will frequently want one for the road or whatever it happens to be. Publicans may not be as grateful for this concession as might appear to be the case at this stage because it will put them under greater pressure. It is not a question on which one can be dogmatic. It is an area where the Minister might, a year or two down the road, examine this provision to see if it is leading to widespread abuse. If there is widespread selling of drink during that half hour he can either change the law to extend the time of drinking or restrict the amount of drinking up time. This is an area at which the Minister would be well advised to take a further look.

The Minister spoke at some length on the whole question of under-age drinking. I have no doubt that this is the part of the present licensing situation which most concerns a great number of people throughout the country, parents, teachers, social workers and all of us. There is a problem, and the scale of the problem may vary from place to place throughout the country but the scale of the problem is sufficiently extensive to be a cause for great concern. Like the Minister, I believe that in areas like drinking and the abuse of the drinking laws, legislation can only go so far. You can legislate all you like and you still will not cure the problem of alcoholism. You cannot impose temperate drinking habits on people.

Prohibition in the US was the great experiment which failed, the great experiment to make people good, to make them give up alcohol, to make it impossible for people to drink. It led to the greatest bout of lawlessness, crime, murder and mayhem in the history of that country. Legislation can only go part of the way. I believe, like the Minister and anybody who observes the situation, that there are far more elements involved, and education is one of them.

I appeal to the Minister, in spite of the cutbacks and the budgetary restrictions, to ensure the provision of a much wider degree of education for children especially, but also for adults because there is a greal deal of ignorance about alcohol. The financial provisions should be extended if at all possible in the future. It would be desirable to see some of the lottery money going towards helping the different agencies invovled in the provision of education for young people on the question of drugs and alcohol.

I am not sure how much education can do in this regard. Education of the proper kind can put the whole question of alcohol into a proper perspective. It can warn young people of the effects of alcohol. It can try to show them that there are other ways of enjoying themselves other than going into a smokey public house and drinking their heads off, or buying bottles of cider and going behind some wall and getting involved in a cider party which frequently can lead them to do appalling things which they would never do if they were sober.

I believe we have only begun to look at the possibilities of education as a counter move against saturation advertising, against peer group pressure, against frequently the example of parents which all work against children having a balanced approach to and a balanced view of alcohol. I appeal to the Minister to see if anything can be done to increase the resources available and to ensure that the small number of experts in this field are fully brought into this battle.

I suppose schools are only in the second place and that the example of parents is perhaps the biggest single factor in influencing young people into a proper view of alcohol. Clearly, as is the case if one or both parents are themselves victims of excessive drinking, it is very difficult to expect young children to have a balanced view. In many cases they will have a total revulsion against drinking which itself is perhaps not the healthiest way either. A balance is always desirable. In other cases, they will very quickly be absorbed into the drinking culture of the family and may well have serious drinking problems themselves at a very early age. Again, there is very little we in this House, or the other-House, or the Government, or the Hierarchy, or anybody else can do to bring about change in the free will choices of people in this regard.

The Minister can only do so much in his attempt to curb under-age drinking. Broadly I go along with the line the Minister has taken in the Bill to date. Certainly, I am very pleased, indeed, that the Garda will be given much greater power to act against the drinking parties which are such a frequent part of life in some of our cities especially. I am very pleased indeed about that. I am pleased as well that steps are being taken to make the sale of alcohol in supermarkets that bit more restrictive. I do not believe it actually goes far enough. It certainly is a very welcome step in the right direction. I am not sure that the Bill addresses the problem of other outlets for drink, for cider especially, for young people. I would like to have a word about that on Committee Stage.

On the question of age cards yes, there is a general need for them. Yes, they are generally welcome. It is what the publicans want. It is what many community groups want throughout the country. The age cards will work to the benefit of publicans and they will work to the benefit of those people who may well be over 18 years of age and who have difficulties in getting drink. I am very glad, however, that the Minister has insisted that the system should be voluntary. I would not like to see a system of compulsory cards. Clearly the cards are in the interests of those groups I have mentioned.

I would like to see a uniformity of practice on the part of the publicans, that they would agree that these cards should be needed in all premises. Frequently in the country they are not necessary because the publicans know their customers very well and know their ages. If there was a uniform policy, that would show the public that this was the licensed trade taking a very positive view to curb excesses, rather than an imposition by the State, an imposition by big brother. I am one of those people who certainly do not relish the thought of compulsory ID cards for all. I do not want to see a situation where a person at birth is given a number and is tagged for life with that number and is on every Government computer under that number and God knows what other computers there are.

I believe that any system of compulsory identification cards, compulsory registration of this sort which exists in many other countries is something which we should move into very very slowly indeed, and it has too many shades of Orwell's "1984" about it. It is too much open to abuse and manipulation. I wonder what some of the older parliamentarians who served here, but mainly in the other House, over the years, people like James Dillon, Seán MacEntee and others who always had a very strong sense of individual liberty, would think of the idea of compulsory identity cards. I believe they would be appalled at the prospect and certainly see no need for it. I know times have changed but I believe we should move very slowly in this direction. I am glad the Minister is insisting that this system will be voluntary but I would also appeal to the publicans to ensure that there is uniformity of practice throughout the country so that the system is enforced by the publicans in their interests and in the interest of curbing under-age drinking.

I am unhappy, however — and I will put down an amendment — with one section of the Bill dealing with the card and the Minister referred to it in his speech. Section 31 (4) may take on a new meaning when this Bill becomes law. It refers to a document which "appeared to be an age card". I do not understand the need for the words "appeared to be". Either it is an age card or it is not. The age card should be sufficiently distinctive to have a visibility. It is known that the person has the age card. Even if the person flashes it at the bar man late at night in a crowded pub, there is ample evidence for believing that it is an age card. I may be talking myself out of an amendment here. At this stage, however, I think the words "appeared to be" are unnecessary. They could allow far too much scope afterwards for publicans to say what appeared to be an age card was shown to them. Either we have it or we do not. Perhaps on Committee Stage we could flesh this out a little bit. I am sure the Minister will do so. We can talk about this later, but I am unhappy with the words "appeared to be".

Mr. Collins

The publican should look at it and see that it is what it is. It is not just a case of saying: "I glanced at something and I thought it was or it appeared to be". Either it is, or is not the card. The responsibility must be on him to say it is or is not.

Mr. Manning

This is why it may not be necessary. We can talk about it on Committee Stage. All in all, I welcome this legislation. It has taken a long time to arrive here. It has been well thought out. It will improve significantly the way in which the licensed business in the country is being run at present. I welcome also — but I feel it does not go far enough — the attempt to bring greater control on clubs. There is no doubt that there has been widespread abuse of the position by various clubs throghout the country. The competition from the clubs has frequently not been fair as far as hoteliers and publicans are concerned. The game has not been played on the level pitch and I believe that the removal of the favourable status which clubs enjoyed — which is being removed in this legislation — is long overdue and is something which I welcome. I welcome the legislation. I look forward to Committee Stage when we will be putting forward a number of amendments. I wish this Bill well.

Mr. McEllistrim

I welcome the Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1988. This Bill deals in general with licensed vintners and hoteliers and now especially, restaurant owners. I congratulate the Minister on updating the legislation. An Intoxicating Liquor Bill was introduced in 1962, which is a long time ago. Indeed, it is about time that some of the most important aspects of the legislation were updated. We can be very grateful to the Minister for updating that legislation in this Bill. The Minister has done his very best to satisfy all sections who are interested in the Intoxicating Liquor Bill. I am quite sure that, when he was formulating the Bill, he had many representations from the different sectors, pub owners, hotel owners, and the consumers because they have a certain interest too. The licensing laws are concerned essentially with the number and nature of licensed outlets and the persons to be licensed, as well as the times at which drink can be sold. Naturally the amended legislation has to be carefully thought out and dealt with in a very efficient manner. The Minister has dealt with it very efficiently.

Part II of the Bill introduces a special restaurant licence to enable restaurants to get intoxicating liquor licences in certain instances. This is very important as some of our better restaurants should be licensed. Food and drink go very well together. People found it very unsatisfactory in the past when they frequented certain restaurants and were unable to get a drink with their meal. I come from a tourist county where we have some of the best restaurants in the country, or they are equally as good as anywhere in the country. From a tourist point of view, I welcome the fact that good restaurants can be licensed in future. It will benefit my county and the country as a whole from a tourist point of view. When we want to go out for a meal in the evening, most of us would like to go to a restaurant that is licensed.

This legislation will enable all the better restaurants in the country to get a licence. My county will benefit very much from it as many of the restaurants in County Kerry will qualify for this licence. In the past it was very difficult for restaurants to get a licence because they had to extinguish a licence to obtain one. This caused a certain amount of difficulty and confusion. It was very difficult for some restaurants to purchase a liquor licence. Under this legislation a restaurant can get a licence. If the standard of the restaurant is approved by Bord Fáilte, the Department of Justice can issue a licence to that restaurant.

I would like to emphasise one point which the Minister covered pretty well in his speech. Publicans in my own county and outside it emphasised that the Minister should ensure that those restaurants who are granted a special licence should obey the regulations and should not be allowed to have a bar or any type of counter or barrier. The Minister has dealt with this but I think we should emphasise it. It has been brought to our notice that the special licence can be abused if restaurants are turned into ordinary bars. I understand the gardaí can now visit those restaurants and investigate whether drink is being served after 12.30 at night.

It has also been mentioned to me — and I would like the Minister to give me an assurance on this — that fish and chip shops will not get a licence eventually. That has been claimed by some publicans.

Mr. Collins

I will give the Senator that assurance here and now. They will not.

Mr. McEllistrim

I said that to the publicans who approached me. I had a group of publicans with me during the weekend and they were making the case that restaurants should not be open-until 12.30 a.m. or licensed until 12.30 a.m., which I did not agree with. The publicans pointed out that perhaps a fish and chip shop could be classified in the future as serving a substantial meal for a certain number of people and that they may qualify for a licence. I know the Minister is going to come back to me and say Bord Fáilte would not recommend them for a licence. The publicans I met brought that to my notice and I would like the Minister to take that into consideration.

Mr. Collins

I have squashed totally any doubts the Senator might have in his mind about that.

Mr. McEllistrim

The £3,000 fee to take out a special restaurant licence is just about right. There was a lot of discussion on how much a licence should cost. The Minister has come up with a very acceptable figure of £3,000. I have met some restaurant owners in Kerry who are quite happy with the £3,000 charge. It is quite acceptable.

It is also a great idea that the Garda superintendent can object to a restaurant licence if the owners are not adhering to the law, that is, if they are breaking the law on the serving of drink in any restaurant. It is a good idea and a good safeguard to ensure that they are keeping to the regulations that a superintendent can object to the licence being granted the following year. Some of the publicans were worred that the 12.30 a.m. closing time would not be observed by restaurants. I am quite sure the Minister for Justice will take steps to ensure that those hours will be observed and that restaurants will not be allowed serve drink after 12.30 a.m.

The Minister said there is a 500 fine for any restaurant in breach of these regulations. That is a good deterrent. Also gardaí will be visiting those premises to ensure that drink is not served after 12.30 a.m.

Part III of the Bill deals with opening and closing hours. Licensed premises closing hours are frequently the subject of a great deal of controversy. The closing hour of 11 p.m. in winter time is very acceptable. I am delighted the Minister did not extend this time. The 30 minutes drinking up time is welcome. Legislation on intoxicating liquor has not been introduced for over 20 years in the Houses of the Oireachtas so I suppose it is no wonder the ten minutes drinking up time was not adequate. This 30 minutes extra drinking up time is essential. It is very important because some people are inclined to drink up pretty quickly. They get a drink. It may be one minute before 11 o'clock and they have to drink it up quickly to have it finished at 11.10 p.m.

That 30 minutes extra is very well accepted around the country. It will mean that people will not get in under the influence of drink. We all know that if we drink too quickly we are inclined to get intoxicated more quickly. That 30 minutes will allow plenty of time for drinking up. During the summer the 11.30 p.m. closing time with the 30 minutes drinking up time is adequate for our country. Some people in seaside towns especially, in my own county and throughout the country were anxious that there would be a 12 o'clock midnight closing and a 30 minute drinking up time. I made a case to the Minister when he was formualting the legislation, as representations had been made to me, but I was satisifed with the reason the Minister could not do this.

It is better to have a uniform time throughout the country rather than some seaside towns having half an hour extra; then people might rush from one village to a seaside village because they had a half an hour extra drinking time. Some of our seaside towns have only a three month season. They thought it would be desirable to have a half an hour extra but I can see the Minister's difficulty in enforcing that and differentiating between seaside towns and other towns. I am sure that, in general, the publicans and the people who frequent our seaside town will be happy at the 11.30 p.m. closing time with an extra 30 minutes drinking up time allowed as well.

One of the most important parts of this Bill is the extension of the closing hours from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. on Sunday night, with a half an hour drinking up time. There has been a great demand for this for many years. On Sunday night people found they had to get out of pubs and hotels at 10 p.m. which was unreasonable. Everybody I have met, publicians and people who frequent pubs and hotels for a few drinks on Sunday night, welcome the extended time to 11 p.m. which means they have to get out of the public house by 11.30 p.m. Everybody seems to be delighted with the extra hour on Sunday night.

The closing time of registered clubs has been very contentious in every county, including County Kerry. Some people who had a few drinks in the local village and found out that a GAA club or a registered club, which had a bar down the road was open for a little longer than the pub, would flock to the registered club after the pub had closed. The publicans resented this. I am delighted that in future the registered clubs will have the same closing hours as the pubs. This will be welcomed by the publicans. I do not know how the drinking fraternity will react to it but I welcome it. In Kerry there was a lot of criticism about the registered clubs being open later than the pubs.

I also welcome the provision in this legislation that the Garda can visit clubs and the same regulations will apply as applies in pubs or hotels except where a substantial meal is being served in the registered club when they can stay open later. The fact that the Garda can visit those clubs in future will ensure that their closing time will be on a par with the pubs and there will be more harmony between the club owners and the publicans.

The fines of between £20 and £40 for a publican or a hotelier who breached the licensing laws was outdated. No legislation had been introduced since 1962 so we have to accept that. The £400 fine for a first offence is welcome. Some of the publicans were critical of the extent of the fine but it will make them more vigilant in future in abiding by the law. They will not be anxious to be caught a second time as the fine for a second offence will be £800. The customers will be fined £25 to £50, which will be an incentive to them to ensure that they get out of the pub in time.

The abolition of the holy hour does not apply to people in rural Ireland. I remember when I got into politics 20 years ago when I came to Dublin and found the pubs closed between 2.30 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. I wondered what it was all about. It was strange to have the holy hour. I hope the Dublin people will welcome the fact that it has been done away with which leaves the people free to have drinks between 2.30 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. if they wish to do so.

I would like to deal with the special exemptions and I would like the Minister to clarify something for me. On the Second Stage in the Seanad the Minister said the closing hours on Monday morning would be 1 a.m. but in his Second Stage speech in the Dáil he said 1.30 a.m. That may have been amended in the Dáil, I do not know as I had not time to read the Committee Stage of the Bill. It will cause some difficulty. I am delighted the Minister did not change the special exemption order as this is used by clubs and different organisations for dances where they have a meal. Most of the special exemption orders were used on a Friday night, Saturday night, or Sunday night and I am glad he did not change them. They keep our hotels ticking over in the winter when they do not have the tourist business. This is great for the hotels in County Kerry. I am delighted that the Minister has not changed any of the special exemption orders.

The next item of the Bill deals with under-age drinking in pubs. A practice that has crept into society is that people under 18 years of age are accepted in pubs and are served drink. It is about time the regulation was enforced. It is important that our young people should not be allowed in pubs. The publicans alone are not to blame for this. We are all to blame, and parents, teachers, clergy and so on should encourage young people not to drink until they are 18 years of age. I advise my children not to drink until they are 18 years of age and as far as I know they adhere to my request. All parents should try to do the same thing.

I notice that under this Bill females under 18 years of age cannot serve in bars. This had been a great practice in many pubs, especially in the tourist areas. Many people under 18 years of age get summer jobs in pubs and hotels. A pub is a bad environment for girls aged under 18 years. It is not a proper place for them to be. They are too young for some of the conduct and for some of the abuse to which they might be subjected in bars. I welcome this provision.

I notice that boys and men under 16 years of age can serve in bars. I would have preferred if boys or men under 18 years of age could not serve in bars, but I am sure the Minister has made a thorough investigation into this, and that men or boys of 16 years of age should not be allowed to serve drink.

Everybody congratulates the Minister on not allowing children under 18 years of age to participate in drinking in pubs. I welcome the provision which allows children under 18 years of age into pubs with their guardians or parents. It is very important that they are under supervision. Indeed, if families go to the seaside for a day out, it is not right that their children should have to stay in the car and cannot go into a pub with their parents. I welcome this aspect of the Bill also.

There will be a greater onus on the publican now to ensure that people under 18 years of age are not served drink. It is very difficult for a publican to know whether or not a person is under 18 years of age. I accept the recommendation that identification or age cards should be introduced on a voluntary basis. I presume that any person over 18 years of age who finds it difficult to get a drink because he looks under 18 years of age, will now be able to get an identification card proving that he is over 18 years of age.

I do not agree that identification cards should be compulsory. Recently in Australia the Government there were on the point of trying to introduce identification cards for everyone and they failed. I welcome the way in which the Minister has handled this, so that, the holding of identification cards is voluntary, that if the young people think it necessary to have an identification or age card, they can get it.

In this country we have some six-day licences. I appeal to the Minister to allow six-day licensees to get a seven-day licence. A six-day licence is not much good in this day and age. I presume that a six-day licence was appropriate 30 or 40 years ago but in this day and age a six-day licence is not satisfactory. When introducing legislation in the near future the Minister may consider this or he might make an amendment to this Bill. There are a number of six-day licensees in County Kerry and I have been approached to raise this with the Minister. I am just passing on the request.

The most important provisions in this Bill are the extra half an hour drinking-up time, the restaurant licences, and the 11 p.m. closing time on Sunday nights, which means that pubs need not close until 11.30 p.m. because of the half hour drinking-up time. I congratulate the Minister on the way in which he has handled this Bill to the satisfaction of everyone after 23 or 24 years when no drink legislation was introduced here. I have had very few complaints against the Bill and I assure the Minister that both the drinkers and publicans, the hoteliers and the majority of people are quite satisfied with it. I am quite sure that many parents and probably many young people will eventually thank the Minister for not allowing people under 18 years of age into pubs to be served with drink.

Mr. Ross

I echo the last words of Senator McEllistrim who commended the Minister for his handling of the Bill since it has been published. I would qualify that by saying that I congratulate him for handling it within the very limited parameters of the Bill.

It is indicative of a new and constructive attitude on the part of the Government that this Bill was amended materially in the Dáil this week, when sensible suggestions were made by the Opposition and by vested interest groups. The Government were quite happy, especially as regards the 3 o'clock to 6 o'clock rule for the restaurants, to change the Bill when reasonable arguments were put to them. That is extremely helpful and constructive. If amendments are put down in the Seanad I hope they will be looked at in the same way. I know there is a desire on the part of the Government to get this Bill through as quickly as possible, presumably because of the tourist season, but that does not mean it cannot be improved.

The Bill is well overdue. For the past 15 years I have heard the complaints from restaurateurs and publicans about the licensing laws. Indeed, I sat on the Committee on Legislation which considered this subject and came to no particular sensible conclusions. I am very glad that Committee on Legislation has not been resurrected by the Government. It considered many things like drink, radio and so on, and achieved absolutely nothing. I say in passing that it considered this subject as well and came to no particular conclusions.

Having said that, I welcome the Bill in a limited way. I wonder what is the thinking behind the whole attitude to drink in this country. I believe that there should be virtually no restrictions on opening hours of public houses and restaurants. The attitudes of Governments and of the people is that drink is (a) inherently wrong and therefore should be restricted but not banned and (b) that the people are incapable of coping with it. Therefore, what the Government do is restrict it as far as is possible and set down fairly arbitrary rules to restrict people's consumption, and opening and closing hours. As a result, it seems from the new rules in the Bill, that the drink laws have been liberalised to a limited extent but have not been liberalised enough. I do not understand the reasons for these restrictions. It seems to me that they are plucked out of the air, to a certain extent. The 11.30 p.m. rule, the 10 p.m. rule, and the 12.30 a.m. rules are plucked out of the air as an arbitrary way of restricting people's drinking.

The Bill reflects a movement, a trend in liberalisation of attitudes to drink, but no more. Since the foundation of the State, and before, the rules as regards intoxicating liquor have been seriously abused, and to a large extent ignored, and those rules have not been policed properly. There has been a very simple acceptance by the Government, by the Garda and by the people that the rules are made, but they are not enforced. I challenge anyone in this House to say that he has not been in a public house during the holy hour, that he has not had a drink in a pub during the holy hour and that he has not had a drink in a restaurant after hours. Everybody knows that this has been happening. Everybody knows that the pubs stay open too late. Everybody knows that the restaurateurs have been serving gin, vodka and brandy and everything which is not allowed for years. What we are doing here, to some extent, is legalising an existing situation. That is a pity. The law should be enforced or it should be recognised as being irrelevant.

We should look further down this road and admit that the restrictions which are imposed in this Bill, even though they are more liberal, will also be abused and ignored. Despite the protestations of some people during the debate on this Bill, the law of the land as regards intoxicating liquor will not be enforced any more strictly after the Bill has been passed. That line of thought should being us to a deep re-examination of our attitude to drink and our restrictions on drink. I wonder whether it would be more enlightened if the Government were to say: "Yes, perhaps public houses could be open 24 hours a day". Is it the Government's role to tell people what they ought to drink, when they ought to drink and how much they ought to drink? The Bill is saying that pubs should close at 11.30 p.m. or 11 o'clock in winter time and it is saying that the Government know when people should go to bed, that the pubs should close at 11.30 p.m. because it is bed time.

It is not the Government's role to tell people when to go to bed and when to get up in the morning. The Government might like to be able to do that, and the Minister for Justice might enjoy doing that, but he should not do it. The Minister for Justice ought to be saying that the people of Ireland are mature enough to decide how much they ought to drink and when they ought to drink. I see very little evidence that there would be riots in the streets, or more trouble in the streets, if people were allowed to decide when they drank and what they drank. Indeed, there appears to be evidence to the contrary. It appears that when people know they have to stop drinking at 11 p.m. or 11.30 p.m., they drink too much too quickly. The Minister is giving people a half hour drinking up time, but what he is really doing is just giving them a little more time to drink a little more. The same rush and the same pressure to drink the same amount in the last half hour will be there. The Minister says it is his intention to introduce further legislation on this, but before he does so he ought to re-think the whole attitude about restricting people's times and amounts of drinking. That is most important. The Bill is very limited in that way.

The other principal element in the Bill is the restriction on under-age drinking. This is very necessary. In many ways, the introduction of age cards, as a voluntary method of restricting under-age drinking is a very sensible way of doing it. The Bill also legitimises what happens in many public houses at the moment by allowing children in with their parents. That is quite sensible. It recognises the fact that public houses are not purely and simply places where adults go and get drunk. It recognises the social element of it, that pubs are places where people go to have meals, where families get together and where people meet. The idea of having children in with their parents is certainly a mature and sensible attitude on the part of the Minister. I would like the Minister to look again at far less restrictive legislation on restaurants and on public houses.

Mr. O'Callaghan

Much of the ground has been covered already, and I am sure the Minister has probably heard enough about pub debates. The preamble to the Minister's speech this morning sums it up. We have a long way to go in the whole debate on drink. Senator Ross encapsulated that very well in this contribution this morning.

There are a number of elements in the Bill to which I would like to address myself. The debate on altering opening hours, and so on, has been going on for about ten or 11 years. Public reaction to the Bill has been that the mixture is almost 100 per cent correct. There was a desire in some seaside resorts for pubs to stay open a little longer.

The counter argument about members of the public racing from non-designated areas into designated areas is very valid. While it might have been great to allow seaside resorts a little later opening time the temptation had to be resisted for that very reason. Anybody who lives in a tourist area where there are a number of festivals, regattas and so on throughout the summer, becomes quite conscious of traffic arriving into the town fifteen minutes or half an hour before pubs with extensions are due to close. It is quite obvious that the demand for later opening hours for seaside resorts had to be resisted for this reason.

All in all, the mixture is quite acceptable. The Minister had a particular problem in that there are two pub cultures in this country. City dwellers in Dublin and Cork quite often do not have an understanding of the important and significant role that pubs play in rural parts of the country. The Minister obviously had a great difficulty in trying to get the right mixture. We could almost have two separate Bills to address the subject but obviously that would not be realistic.

On Committee Stage I will deal with the severity of the fines. Anybody who has occasion to peruse provincial papers will see that people will be reported as being found on public house premises playing 25 at 2 o'clock in the morning. This is not a joke, it is dead serious in a country place. A pub is not a haven of debauchery and drunkenness. It is virtually a community centre. I am quite serious about that, and it is why I will be exhorting the Minister at a later date, to be a little more gentle particularly on the publicans, and possibly reverse the penalty and have the person found on the premises fined the £500 and the publican £25. That would be more just.

Mr. Collins

Senator Manning spoke about the revolution in 1926 with the then Minister, Kevin O'Higgins——

Mr. O'Callaghan

We would have many of the publicans getting to bed earlier at night, which might help them.

The Minister is to be congratulated in getting the mixture right. Solomon himself would not be able solve the problem for the publicans. As a publican I must say that, because we are a very difficult group of people to deal with at any time. There is a general acceptance that the mix is now right. The fact that the Minister has committed himself here to an ongoing review of the various alterations is welcome. Publicans and the drink industry generally should use this opportunity.

There has been a lot of unfair criticism of publicans in relation to under-age drinking and so on. I have spent all my adult life working in a pub and I am not aware of any publican who consciously doles out drink to young people. It is a difficult matter that needs to be addressed. If publicans approach this Bill in the proper spirit many of the problems can be resolved. These problems must be addressed because they are becoming a serious national problem.

In England control is exerted by publicans in relation to closing. If one goes into a pub in the UK and the publican says "no," he means very definitely "no," but if a publican in Ireland says "no," it is something that can be negotiated. This provision will have to be used as an opportunity to enforce the law. It is not to be seen as a device to close pubs at 12.30 a.m. which I suspect it may quite easily become. A publican should use this opportunity to say that at 11.40 p.m. he is going to throw the glass cloth over the dispenser and leave. Then we may get a proper implementation of the regulations.

Senator McEllistrim touched on this a moment ago. Most people come into a pub quite often at drinking up time. They come for their last drink at night, or for their only drink at night, at 11.30 p.m. and they are expected to be off the premises at 11.40 p.m. and, of course, they are not, they stroll away nonchalantly at about 12.5 a.m. having availed of an extra 20 minutes. indeed, it is very difficult for the Garda and quite unfair to them to expect them to come, stormtrooper like, into a pub at 11.45 p.m. on an ordinary week night and start clearing the premises. The normal reaction of a drinker is to say "Have you not got something better to be doing with your time?"

It is incumbent on publicans to avail of the opportunity to impose a new procedure in this case and say at 11.30 p.m. that they have served the last drink, and people can then drink in comfort. I have often been confronted at 11.40 p.m. on a summer's night when clearing up glasses in the pub with guys with four or five pints each in front of them——

Mr. Collins

Stock piling.

Mr. O'Callaghan

——and they are supposed to be off the premises at 11.40 p.m. it would be a fair feat to drink three or four pints in four or five minutes, and, of course, they had no notion of doing that. The difficulty is imposed upon the publican, as he has to physically take £6 or £7 worth of drink from every customer and throw it down the drain or put it behind the bar. Indeed, if a garda comes on the premises, that is what he is going to be asked to do and it is not his job. There has to be a new beginning in this regard. It is up to the publicans and it should be used as a new departure. It can and should be done. The Minister has got the mixture right now and it is up to the trade to take the initiative in this regard.

In relation to the other very vexed subject of under-age drinking, everybody who addressed the subject here this morning said that it is not the legislators' job and most definitely not the publicans job to do what is basically the business of parents. I was very amused by a "Today Tonight" programme in Limerick about a year ago where parents were irately saying, "That was the pub where my 13-year-old child was served drink one night last week." I would consider myself a very deficient parent, if I did not know where my 13-year-old child was at any time of the day or night.

It is slightly different in relation to an 18-year-old; because they are now leaving the country at 18 years of age, they are working at 18, are away from home in third level institutions at 18 and so on and. There is a difficulty with the 18-year-old threshold in that the role of an 18-year-old has changed very dramatically in the past ten years. I mentioned to the Minister, that it might have been a better idea to drop that threshold to 17 years and enforce it with all the vigour at the disposal of the law. I know somebody could say, "Why not make it 16?" An 18-year-old today is much more mature than an 18-year-old in the 1962 era. That is an aspect that could possibly have been looked at, but I accept the Minister's point that it is difficult.

The whole phenomenon of under-age drinking has changed dramatically. In Cork last year there was a riot on the streets of the city after an inter cert party. The average inter cert student is 14 or 15 years of age at most, and there was a riot after a party, after they got their inter cert results.

Mr. Collins

Was there a prosecution?

Mr. O'Callaghan

I believe there was. It all happened in the precincts of the court house, which was rather funny. It is an indication of how things have changed and is an indication of the scale of the difficulty. I still go back to the point that there must be major responsibility attaching to parents. If and when we find under-age drinkers being prosecuted under this new legislation, I will be putting it to the Minister that he should include also a facility whereby the child's parents can be prosecuted. The public can be prosecuted and the under-age drinker can be prosecuted but surely there is another responsible party in this whole debate.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Mullooly)

As it is now 12.30 p.m., in accordance with the Order of Business agreed this morning will Senator O'Callaghan move the Adjournment of the debate and will the Deputy Leader of the House move suspension of the sitting until 1.30 p.m.?

Debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended at 12.30 p.m. and resumed at 1.30 p.m.