Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 9 Jun 1988

Vol. 120 No. 2

Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1988: Report and Final Stages.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 9, line 7, to delete "or expose".

As Senator Ferris and myself understand it, it would now be unlawful under the new law for a restaurant after the time for the sale of liquor, 12.30 a.m., to have liquor on display or exposed for sale, even though it will not be sold. For example, under this it would be unlawful for a restaurant to have a display of whiskey or brandy bottles with the containers under them. It would be unlawful for a restaurant which has its wine laid out on a sideboard which is in public view to behave in this way. It might even be unlawful later in the evening if somebody is having a dessert cooked in creme de menthe to have that displayed on a trolley. The whole purpose of this amendment is to say that, if this phrase stays in the Bill, the law will not be enforced. The gardaí are not going to go around raiding pubs where drink is exposed. If the Minister accepted this amendment it would make for greater clarity and would mean that an unnecessary phrase would not be there.

That section also ties in with section 25 where it is also unlawful to expose for sale any intoxicating liquor. That is the same point that has been made regarding the special licensed premises and the public house. A point of clarification could sort out the amendment.

One has to be careful in matters such as this. Under section 14 as it stands, it would be an offence to expose intoxicating liquor for sale in a special licensed restaurant during the prohibited hours. That is what we are talking about in this legislation. On week days that would be from 12.30 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. It would not be an offence to expose drink for sale on the premises during the permitted hours. The effect of the amendment would be that it would not be an offence to expose intoxicating liquor for sale in such a premises at any time. If this was accepted it would mean the special licensed premises would be distinguished from all other types of licensed premises — here is where my problem is — including restaurants licensed under existing legislation. It has been an offence to expose intoxicating liquor for sale in licensed premises during prohibited hours since at least the middle of the last century. I cannot take it now but I will deal with it at the first opportunity.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 9, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following:

"(3) Section 7 of the Act of 1962 shall apply to any premises to which a special restaurant licence applies as if the reference to a premises in that section included a restaurant in respect of which a special licence has been granted with the substitution of ‘fifteen minutes' for ‘thirty minutes' (inserted by this Act) and the Act of 1962 shall be construed and have effect accordingly.

This amendment gave rise to considerable discussion yesterday. It arises from the fact that under the new law at 12.30 a.m. it will be unlawful for a person to consume an alcoholic beverage with a meal. That is the problem which arises as I see it. It stands to reason that restaurants will sell drink and serve drink up to 12.30 a.m. After 12.30 a.m. — the drink having been served at 12.29 — it is unlawful to actually drink it. I regard this as virtually unenforceable and it is something which could bring the law into disrepute. Some sort of provision such as a drinking up time should apply. I have not asked for the half hour which is part of the other legislation. A concession by the Minister of 15 minutes to allow people to drink up legally would meet the objections. It would still be illegal to serve drink after 12.30 a.m. but at least it takes on board recognition of the fact that, if a drink is served up to 12.30 a.m., the person is not expected to gulp it down. Even the Minister, when he was in the SRC, would need more than one minute to drink a pint. This amendment is designed to prevent the law from being brought into disrepute. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment.

I second the amendment.

I can understand the commonsense and validity of the argument the Senator is making but the same provision also applies with regard to the sale of drink in licensed hotels and restaurants and registered clubs that serve meals. The whole thing would have to be taken into context there. It is something I will look at. I could honestly say that I accept your argument, I accept the principles of your argument, and if I could tie in the other things when I am having a wider review of drink legislation, I will try to do something about it.

On a point of clarification, does this apply to wine consumption, especially restaurant licences? For example, an existing establishment could be in a position to sell wine under existing legislation. If it then applies for and receives the special restaurant certificate which allows——

There is no drinking-up time for wine licences.

There would not be a conflict there?

No. In fact, those who are trading now with wine licences will be very glad of the little bit of an amendment we have accepted here.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: ‘That the Bill do now pass".

I would like to thank the Minister for the way in which he has guided this Bill through the House, through Second Stage and Committee Stage. I think the tone and the approach of the Minister has made it possible to have a very constructive debate. We are grateful for that.

As the Minister has given several assurances here that he will be reviewing this legislation on an ongoing basis, perhaps he might give consideration to setting up within his Department a committee or a group of experts that would look at the whole question of alcohol abuse in this country. The Minister was obviously attempting to do something here to alleviate a problem which is getting out of control in our society. I know that in Britain an interdepartmental committee has been set up.

Very briefly, on that point raised by Senator Mooney. I want to commend Senator Bohan for raising the question of education as far as drink is concerned. I did not get a chance to say anything about it. It is something we would all wish to see. I do not mind who is responsible. It is the Government's responsibility in some instances. It is primarily a matter for the Department of Health. But let us not forget that it is our responsibility as legislators to do our bit. Above and beyond all that, it is the responsibility of parents. We cannot do the work of parents. We can only go a certain distance. Unless parents play their part, all the legislation we can enact and put on our statute books will be of no avail. There is little point in trying to protect 14 and 15 year olds from the very odd or rare unscrupulous off-licence holder, or the very odd or rare unscrupulous vintner, who might not be in good health himself, giving drink to 15-year-olds when the parents do not even know where their children are. There are grave responsibilities in parenthood. I am not going to lecture anybody on them. Schools have a lot to do with what is going on. Teachers play their part also. What we can only do is a small section. I think we are doing our part well. I am very grateful to the Members of this House, Members of all parties. At times I was not all that grateful to Senator Cregan, because he was turning me upside down every so often. But I very much appreciate the effort he put into the Bill. I mean that very sincerely. I would suggest to Senator Cregan that, if he were looking — I hope the press will not comment on it — for a position of professional lobbyist, he would be worth about ten times any of the lobbyists that have come into me on behalf of the association. I mean that.

What we are doing is only a start. There is a lot more to be done. First of all, we must be guided by the interest of fair play for those who are involved in the profession, but the overall interest must be the overriding factor. The interests of our community, and in particular of the young people, are paramount. One particular evening I was walking in a country town during a holiday period and I saw youngsters coming out of pubs between 10.30 and 11 o'clock. Out of one particular pub came young girls of 15 or 16 years of age. They were being loaded like cattle on to a bus and being brought 20 or 30 miles to a disco. It made me wonder what life is all about, and what life was like for us in different times and in different places. What chance have those young people of surviving in this day and age? We have a serious obligation right across the divide. We have had nothing but wonderful co-operation from all parties in the Dáil. I am particularly thankful to the Fine Gael Party, to Deputy Sean Barrett and his colleagues, and to the other parties, to the Progessive Democrats and to all who helped in every way to give us what, I think, is a reasonable start and a good piece of legislation. It will not be perfect.

To you, a Cathaoirligh, many thanks for your guidance, your help, your calming effect on us, your strength in maintaining decorum on the one or two occasions when it was required and in helping us get our business done properly, as it should be.

Question put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 1.35 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.
Top
Share