Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 18 Apr 2000

Vol. 163 No. 1

Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 2000: Second Stage.

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

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. O'Donoghue)

The Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 2000, marks an important milestone in the Government's approach to the modernisation of our licensing laws. It can, with a good deal of justification, be described as the most comprehensive single package of reform measures ever introduced to the Oireachtas on this issue.

It is reasonable to suggest to the House that the Bill introduces a system of permitted hours in line with public expectation and demand and on terms that are socially and economically acceptable. It does away with decades old restrictive legislation governing access to the market, without undermining the economic basis which obtains for the holders of licences. It introduces innovative, workable and strict penalties against those who engage in the criminally irresponsible practice of selling or supplying intoxicating liquor to under-age persons and it introduces complementary and in certain areas much needed reform of our law in relation to registered clubs.

The gestation period for this Bill has been long but I prefer to think it reflects a solid process of consultation, reflection and determination to deal with the issues. Anyone who knows the licensing laws knows that they are labyrinthine in their complexity. They were once described as something like an enigma inside a puzzle or vice versa. It is also the case that everyone has a view on the licensing laws. I am sure this will be borne out by the debate here today. I expect there will be many contributions, all of them worthy and reflective of Senators' personal and political views on a subject dear to our hearts.

It was because of the keen interest in the laws on intoxicating liquor that I took the time to canvass widely for views before I put forward my policy proposals to the Government. I can safely say that in developing the proposals in the Bill I have, through seeking written submissions, through formal and informal meetings and through visits the length and breadth of the country, got a firm indication of what is demanded by way of change, but more importantly what changes will work and gain acceptance across many different strata and interests.

I do not claim that what I propose will fully satisfy, on an individual basis, every member of the drinking and non-drinking public, or every individual publican, restaurateur or other licence holder. There will be some who consider that I have not gone far enough, as there will be some who hold the view that I have gone too far. The proposals in the Bill, I am convinced, represent the best possible deal for all in that they strike a fair balance among the many different interest groups, be they groups representing the licensed trade, such as publicans, hoteliers, restaurateurs, night club operators and off-licence holders, or groups in society generally, not least the consumer and parents who are deeply worried about the negative consequences of under-age drinking.

The process of examination and change to our licensing laws does not end with this Bill, comprehensive as it is. I recognise that more remains to be done. For this reason, I will shortly establish a commission on licensing. Following the publication of this Bill there is a clearer picture of what is to be the new law and, consequently, it is possible to establish a clear remit for the commission. The commission will continue the process of fundamental change to the licensing laws by, inter alia, reviewing the scope for a system of additional licences. This will be achieved in a programmed and coherent way, consistent with public expectations and the common good. The commission will be a representative one, whose membership will include Departments, representatives of the trade, representatives of consumers and other interests. The details are being progressed following on the Government's approval in principle for the establishment of the commission.

I wish to pay tribute to the joint Oireachtas sub-committee which undertook a study of the licensing laws and whose report represented an informed basis for my own detailed policy examination of this area. I have taken many of the recommendations of that sub-committee on board in this Bill and I was grateful for the informed view it offered me of cross-party thought on reform of the law. I also wish to acknowledge the interim report of the Competition Authority and the many submissions I received from interest groups and members of the public.

I will now deal in as much detail as possible with the main provisions of the Bill. Senators will be aware that an explanatory memorandum has been circulated with the Bill and every detail is mentioned there. It is no exaggeration to say that almost every provision in the Bill is of importance and of very real effect on persons in varying degrees depending on whether they are licensees of one class or another, or customers. For that reason there is much to inform the House on the Bill, but I shall be as brief as possible.

Part 1 of the Bill contains standard provisions, dealing with the Short Title, collective citation, construction and commencement, and defining some of the terms used in the Bill. Part 2 of the Bill deals with the general question of hours of opening of licensed premises and registered clubs. Section 3 provides for the abolition of the distinction between summer and winter time so that licensed premises will be permitted to remain open from 10.30 a.m. to 11.30 p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays, and from 10.30 a.m. to 12.30 a.m. of the following day on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays. Sunday opening will be from 12.30 p.m. to 11.00 p.m. – this means that Sunday closing between 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. is abolished, while no change is being made to Sunday night closing time.

The exceptions to this general rule are that it will not be lawful to open at any time on Christmas Day or Good Friday. On St. Patrick's Day, no matter on what day this falls, opening times will be between 12.30 p.m. and 12.30 a.m. on the following day. On 23 December, if it falls on a Sunday, opening will be permitted between 10.30 a.m. and 11.30 p.m. On Christmas Eve and the eve of Good Friday opening hours will be between 10.30 a.m. and 11.30 p.m. and on the eve of any public holiday premises may remain open until 12.30 a.m. on the following day. Drinking up time of 30 minutes will also be permitted on all days.

These changes are progressive. They introduce trading hours which reflect the changed pattern in drinking habits without applying a free-for-all, as would be the case if the Government had opted to provide for 24 hour opening of licensed premises. I am sure most Senators will agree that there is simply no demand for 24 hour opening. There is probably no closing time which will suit the needs and expectations of every individual. My view was that if I had to place a time limit on closing, it should be one which would satisfy the greatest number, and that is what I have done.

Section 4 introduces important changes to the law relating to premises engaged in a mixture of retail activity, licensed and non-licensed. I have brought together the position of permitted opening times for premises engaged in mixed trading with either an on-licence or an off-licence attached. All such premises will be permitted to open for non-licensed business between 7.30 a.m. and 10.30 a.m. on weekdays and on Sundays that fall on 23 or 24 December, and between 7.30 a.m. and 12.30 p.m. on other Sundays. This means that premises, such as supermarkets with an off-licence attached, which up to now could not open before 9 a.m. on any day of the week and not before 12.30 p.m. on Sundays, will be in a position to commence trading much earlier. Such premises will also be permitted to open for the sale of intoxicating liquor at 8 a.m. on weekdays. This is a consumer friendly change. It means that the customers of retail grocery outlets will be permitted to carry out their full range of shopping from 8 a.m. The Bill enhances the opportunities of supermarkets and other retail outlets. They may open for non-licensed business from 7.30 a.m. all year round except on Christmas Day and Good Friday.

Section 5 is an important one for night club and disco operators. It changes the law as it applies to special exemptions. These are granted by the District Court and permit the sale of intoxicating liquor on special occasions in licensed premises after normal closing time. The section abolishes the need to provide a meal as a condition of an exemption in the case of a special occasion, which is a dance held in a ballroom licensed under the Public Dance Halls Act, 1935, as well as the requirement that a premises be a hotel or restaurant. It also removes the restriction on the granting of a special exemption for any time on Sunday, that is, after midnight on Saturday night and after normal closing time on Sunday evening. It retains, however, the restriction on special exemptions for Monday morning beyond 1 a.m. except on a Monday morning that is a public holiday. The special exemption orders will be granted in normal circumstances to 2.30 a.m. unless the court considers it expedient, for stated reasons, to grant an exemption for a shorter period. The special exemption order, coupled with the dance hall licence, is the means by which a nightclub operates. The reality is that many customers in a nightclub do not frequent these venues in order to partake in a meal, rather the main activity is dancing to music and socialising. It is widely accepted that the meal requirement under the law as it stands makes little sense in those circumstances and should be abolished.

The need to provide a meal in respect of a special event organised for the entertainment of the members of a particular association, organisation or other such group, or on the occasion of a private function remains on the basis that a meal forms a particular part of such events in the first place.

The number of special exemption orders which may be sought in respect of a day of general or local festivity is being increased from six to 12. This change in the law will serve to benefit local areas where dances are held in conjunction with a local festival.

Section 5 also introduces a requirement that the grant of a special exemption order will not cause undue inconvenience to persons residing in the vicinity of a premises. This is a new requirement and one which is useful and necessary. It means that the court will act as the guardian of the rights of local residents and will be in a position to protect local residents where the late opening of a licensed premises might not be appropriate.

Section 6 provides for an exemption to the permitted hours where alcohol is served in a hotel or restaurant. It extends permitted hours in these circumstances by one hour over and above the time to which these premises may lawfully sell intoxicating liquor provided it is supplied with a meal. Section 7 applies the revised permitted hours to clubs registered under the registration of Clubs Acts, 1804 to 1999, and for the exemption allowed in respect of hotels and restaurants in section 6. These are necessary modifications to the permitted hours in respect of these premises arising from the changes in permitted hours generally which are provided for in section 3.

Drinking up time of 30 minutes will now be allowed after a period of a special exemption in respect of licensed premises or a registered club following a club authorisation. This means that in cases where a special exemption has been granted to 2.30 a.m., for example, customers will no longer be forced to stop drinking at that time but will be given adequate time to finish their drinks in an orderly manner.

I am providing in section 9 for a small but desirable change in relation to area exemption orders. These are granted for special events such as local festivals outside the Dublin county borough. At present, the orders cannot be granted for more than nine days in any one year in respect of a locality. The section provides for an increase, from nine to 12, in the number of days for which licensed premises may seek area exemption orders. Likewise, in section 10 I am removing the prohibition on the granting of an occasional licence on Sunday. Occasional licences are granted to a licensee by the District Court in respect of an unlicensed premises for a particular event. Many festivals, shows or exhibitions are held over a weekend and it has been represented to me that the relaxation of this prohibition will greatly benefit such activities. Persons who attend such an event over a weekend will now be able to enjoy a drink there on Sunday as well as on Saturday.

Section 11 amends the period for which a general exemption order may be granted. It is a technical amendment which follows as a consequence of the amendment of permitted hours in section 3.

Section 12 extends to restaurants having a special restaurant licence, that is, a full drinks facility, the revised permitted hours available to all other licensed premises under section 3. It also extends permitted hours by one hour over and above the time to which these premises may lawfully sell intoxicating liquor provided it is supplied with a meal.

Part 3 contains important provisions in relation to under-age persons. These will be by way of amendments or additions to particular provisions contained in the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1988.

There will be a new penalty, by way of section 13, to strengthen the provisions against the supply or sale of intoxicating liquor to under-age persons. This section inserts a new section 36A in the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1988, and provides that where a conviction for the sale of alcohol to an under-age person is upheld a licensed premises will be the subject of a temporary closure order. Premises which are the subject of such an order will have to display a sign indicating the reason they have been closed temporarily. Endorsement of licence provisions in existing law will remain, but endorsement will now be discretionary, not mandatory. The purpose of the new temporary closure of a premises provision is to provide a strong deterrent to abuses of the law in this area as it is designed to hit at the pockets of offenders and publicly identify them without necessarily having the looming prospect of forfeit of a licence. Because it is draconian, that sanction has rarely been applied by the courts.

Section 14 provides for further strengthening of the law relating to under-age drinking. The 1988 Act permitted a licensee to rely on the "reasonable grounds" defence in any proceedings against the licensee. The section removes that defence. This will place a strong onus on the licensee and his or her staff to demand proof of age, and the national voluntary age card is proposed as the appropriate means open to a licensee to establish such proof. Provision is also made in the Bill to remove the mandatory endorsement of a licence which follows conviction for an offence relating to under-age persons, though forfeiture of a licence remains available at the discretion of the judge under section 12.

I am introducing clarification in the law in relation to the employment of young persons in certain licensed premises. Section 38 of the Act of 1988 prohibits persons under the age of 18 years from being engaged in the sale of intoxicating liquor, with certain exceptions for apprentices and relatives of the licensee. The Bill makes clear that lounge staff may be employed to serve on tables but not from behind the bar of a licensed premises.

Part 4 deals with the issue, upgrading and transfer of licences. The effect of section 15 is that there will be a requirement simply to extinguish one licence from anywhere in the State when applying for a certificate from the Circuit Court entitling a person to receive a licence from the Revenue Commissioners. Restrictions such as population increases, opening within a mile of an existing premises and the prohibition on the use of a rural licence in a town or city are abolished under this section. The need to prove rateable valuation is dispensed with in relation to the granting of a new licence.

The court will take into account the fitness of the applicant and the unfitness or inconvenience of the new premises, their unsuitability for the needs of persons residing in the neighbourhood and the adequacy of the existing number of licensed outlets. The latter requirement of adequacy is not a condition as to the effect new premises will have on the business of existing premises. Rather it is designed to permit the court to assess whether a particular locality is sufficiently served by a particular form of licensed outlet, be it on-licence or off-licence. It will require the court to also assess whether a premises would be suitable in a particular location allowing for the needs of persons residing in the neighbourhood proposed to be served by the new premises.

The effect of this provision relating to the grant of new licences will be greater mobility in the movement of licenses from over-provided for and mainly rural areas to locations where there is a demonstrable need for such licences, particularly on the fringes of our major conurbations. It could have the effect, for example, of inducing existing licensees, persons experienced in the trade, to move from areas where they may or may not be operating in a commercially viable way to areas where there will be greater opportunities for them to provide a service to the public. It will also permit new entrants to the trade by making access to licences easier. I was not convinced, and neither was the Government, by the arguments put forward for full deregulation of access to the licensed trade, as if a licence for the sale of intoxicating liquor could be equated with a licence to sell postage stamps or sweets. Whether we like it or not, alcohol is not the same as other retail products and, as Minister, I am mindful of the very negative consequences of alcohol abuse and the effect of a totally deregulated regime, introduced all at once.

Section 16 provides a mechanism whereby the holders of restricted licences, for example six day licences, can convert them to ordinary seven day licences. Currently, the holder of a restricted licence can acquire a full seven day licence. This involves extinguishing an existing licence or licences. Arguments have been put forward that many of the holders – they number about 110 – cannot afford to extinguish an existing seven day licence and are finding it difficult to compete in the licensed trade. The cost of the conversion under the Bill is a once-off fee of £2,500, payable to the Revenue Commissioners, and is an attempt to pitch the amount to match the ability of genuine traders. Arguments have been advanced that many holders of six day licences are operating on the margins of economic activity and would not be in a position to afford a substantial conversion fee. Holders of restricted licences are being given one year to avail of the provisions of the conversion scheme.

I am concerned to avoid speculation in restricted licences which would appreciate considerably in value if converted as a result of any conversion scheme. This will be avoided as subsection (4) of section 16 ensures that the scheme of conversion will be subject to certain conditions. These are, in addition to the payment of a fee of £2,500 to the Revenue Commissioners, that the premises and restricted licence attached to it have been held by the applicant for a period of five years, that the licence holder inherited the premises, was given the premises by a relative or purchased the premises as a going concern. Additionally, on conversion the licence holder must, under subsection (4) paragraph (c), undertake not to dispose of the premises, transfer the licence or consent to its extinguishment for reward for a period of five years after the date of the first issue of the new full licence.

Should circumstances arise whereby the holder of a newly converted licence experiences a difficulty, for example a financial difficulty, and would be subject to hardship if he or she had to comply with the conditions provided for in paragraph (c), the District Court may, by virtue of subsection (7), waive or modify compliance with those conditions.

Section 17 ensures that an examination of the character of the person applying for an ad interim transfer of a licence under section 1 of the Licensing (Ireland) Act, 1855, is undertaken, and the court will refuse such an application unless it is established that the applicant is a fit person. Currently, the ad interim transfer arrangement is subject to three criteria: notice given of the application; the reason for the transfer; and that the applicant is not disqualified by law. These criteria will continue to apply. The addition of the requirement that the character of a person applying for an ad interim transfer of a licence will be examined will ensure that the Garda Síochána will be in a position to challenge applicants who are not of good character and who might otherwise get a foot in the business without proper scrutiny. Section 18 simply ensures that in any proceedings under this Part of the Bill relating to licences, the premises may be described by reference to a map, for ease of reference.

Section 19 extends the scope of the licences already available to race tracks, licensed under section 18 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1962, and racecourses licensed under section 65 of the Irish Horseracing Industry Act, 1994. Under the section, greyhound race tracks and racecourses will be permitted to supply intoxicating liquor at certain authorised events such as trade fairs, exhibitions or concerts. The purpose of the section is to provide an opportunity for these race tracks and racecourses to generate additional income on days when race meetings are not being held, and thereby contribute to their viability. The types of functions envisaged are ones which could not be held in ordinary licensed premises, and the number of such events is being restricted to 15 per year.

Significant increases in fines are provided for a range of offences. These are set out in the Schedule to the Bill. I draw Senators' attention in particular to those for under-age offences, which are the subject of the greatest increases. I am concerned to ensure that the increased opportunities available under the Bill for the sale and consumption of intoxicating liquor do not lead to an increase in the incidence of under-age drinking. I am placing the highest onus on licence holders to act in a responsible manner in this regard, hence the increased penalties for breaches of the law. Coupled with the tough new provisions in Part 3 of the Bill regarding temporary closure of premises, I am confident that the law in relation to under-age persons is being suitably strengthened under the Bill.

Section 22 introduces a relaxation to the law as it relates to the sale of alcohol in restaurants. It permits the holder of a restaurant certificate and wine on-licence to serve beer in conjunction with a meal. It will not be open to such a person to offer off-sales of beer or to have a bar on the premises. The restrictions are not designed to make it difficult for the licence holder to operate. They are by way of recognising the essential nature of the commercial activity under way, that is, a place where the main activity is the provision of food. It is somewhat anomalous that one can drink wine in such restaurants and not beer, both of which products can be regarded as accompaniments to a meal. This section should assist restaurateurs to realise the economic potential of their establishments, provide a better service to customers and assist the attraction of such restaurants from a tourism perspective.

Section 23 amends the 1988 Act in relation to special restaurant licences, that is, a restaurant which is already permitted to serve a full range of alcoholic drinks. The 1988 Act requires a premises with a special restaurant licence to have a waiting area not exceeding 20% of the floor area of the dining area. I am removing this requirement, the purpose of which was, I under stand, to counter the possibility that such restaurants might become drinking emporiums in their own right. In reality, however, other restrictions, for example the ban on a bar and the definition of the premises as a restaurant, where other business is ancillary, achieves this purpose. The limitation on the size of the waiting area has given rise to design and architectural difficulties for many restaurants, particularly country houses, and these difficulties are being addressed in the Bill.

The Bill also removes the requirement for Bord Fáilte certification before the Circuit Court issues a certificate entitling a person to a special restaurant licence. The reality is that after some 12 years of operation, and notwithstanding the unprecedented economic success enjoyed by the country, the number of premises having a special restaurant licence remains around the 200 mark. The representative body for restaurants, the Restaurants Association of Ireland, has pointed to unnecessary regulation and the slow take-up of special restaurant licences as indicative of the fact that these regulations are overly restrictive. The joint Oireachtas sub-committee, in its review of the licensing laws, called for the relaxation of the standards and I am happy to oblige. It would remain open to my colleague, the Minster for Tourism, Sport and Recreation, to introduce a grading structure for restaurants, independent of the special restaurant licence, which would operate as a standards and/or marketing vehicle.

I am also introducing some changes to the code governing registered clubs. Section 24 serves to clarify the position in relation to the holding of functions. It sets out what is and is not an acceptable use of a private club premises, while not disadvantaging the use of the club premises in relation to functions that are of benefit to the community, from a charitable or benevolent perspective. The section also removes any doubt as to the use of a private club premises by a member of the club for a private function, such as a member's retirement or wedding anniversary celebration.

Section 25 deals with the circumstances in which intoxicating liquor can be supplied to non-club members. Under existing law, visitors may only be supplied with liquor on the invitation and in the company of a club member, and the name and address of the visitor must be kept in a book showing the date of each visit. I am making no change to that provision because it is central to the principle that liquor is supplied in a club premises for the enjoyment of club members. The purpose of the section is to make special arrangements for visiting teams as opposed to individual visitor guests. In the case of a visiting team or other body of people who are members of another club or organisation, it will be sufficient for a club official to enter the name of the visiting team and their number in the visitors' book. While these visitors are on the club premises they can be supplied with liquor at the request and in the presence of an official of the club. This will allow a club to cater for visiting teams in a more flexible way. It would mean that the essential private nature of the club is protected while easing the arrangements for the provision of refreshments to bona fide visiting club members.

Section 26 provides for registered clubs to advertise community events held on their premises where intoxicating liquor will not be provided in conjunction with the event. Existing law restricts the advertising of social functions by clubs. This provision was put forward as being specifically designed to curb abuses which had arisen in relation to the holding of discos on club premises. The argument is that by virtue of the private nature of clubs, their functions should be for the entertainment of members and their guests and not members of the general public. Although they may supply alcohol to members and their guests, clubs are not licensed premises and ought not to be in competition with such premises. However, the effect of current law has been that it is unlawful for a group to advertise the holding of a meeting, for example, to form a residents' association if the meeting is to be held on the premises of a registered club. Such an advertisement cannot even appear in a parish newsletter or community magazine. Many clubs are now seen as a community resource and have received substantial public support in the form of capital grants precisely because they are seen as contributing to the social fabric of a locality. They are sometimes de facto social centres and even call themselves such. Section 26 permits such advertisements, but only in respect of functions at which intoxicating liquor will not be served.

Section 27 repeals section 8 of the Intoxicating Liquor (General) Act, 1924, which requires that all sales of alcohol in an on-licence must be for "ready cash". In the context of present circumstances, including widespread use of credit cards, this prohibition is regarded as unenforceable.

Section 29 relaxes the conditions under which a wine retailer's off-licence may be obtained. Under current law a person who requires a licence only to sell wine off the premises is obliged to seek a wine retailer's on-licence as this also permits the sale of wine off the premises and does not have a court application procedure. In effect, a person who wishes to engage in the off the premises sale of wine is obliged to apply for a licence, the underlying definition of which is to be a "refreshment house" as defined under section 50 of the Finance Act, 1989.

Section 30 tightens the law where a company seeks a licence, renewal of a licence or transfer of a licence. It requires the company to be in good standing with the Companies Registration Office in that it has filed proper returns. The section also deals with the situation where an incorporated entity or an individual applicant trades under a business name which is a name that is different from the true name of the owner.

The Bill is ground-breaking in many respects and will represent a modern code of law for the coming decade and perhaps beyond. It removes provisions which, though long-standing, no longer represent what the market expects or demands. The proper balance has been achieved in this Bill which is forward-looking, its thrust is genuinely positive and it is responsive to the expectations of the vast majority of our citizens. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Connor

This legislation is welcome despite the fact that it does not go all the way towards simplifying and modifying the liquor licensing laws. Everyone agrees that the legislation governing the public consumption of alcohol is complex and convoluted to the point of being almost impossible to implement in a rational way. For a long period legislators never tackled or put in place a truly rational liquor licensing law and this is true of the Liquor Licensing (Ireland) Act, 1902, which was passed at Westminster and to the debate on which I am sure members of the Irish Parliamentary Party contributed. That Act established six grounds for granting new licences and they were the obvious response to conditions that existed in society at that time. Those grounds were to remain in place and untouched for a long period.

It was not until 1943 that further consideration was given to the liquor licensing laws in Ireland. Many changes had taken place in society and in the demographic patterns on this island between 1902 and 1943, but the new Act only added two more instances for granting licences. The changes were hardly on the Statute Book when it was recognised by almost everyone that the needs which existed at that point had not been addressed.

In 1956 a commission of inquiry was established to give general consideration to the liquor licensing code. From its deliberations emerged the 1960 Act which, by and large, remains in place today with the exception of the changes introduced in 1988. The legislation governing this area is of a 1960s or, perhaps more correctly, 1950s vintage. However, one thing is certain, it is divorced from needs of the first year of the 21st century.

The need for new policy objectives in the liquor licensing system was well recognised and was a major item of public debate from the mid-1980s onwards. In response to that debate, the former Dáil Select Committee on Legislation and Security appointed a sub-committee in 1996 to consider the liquor licensing laws and to make a comprehensive report on how they could be modernised. That sub-committee, under the chairmanship of Deputy Flanagan, undertook the task of examining in great detail the convoluted and complex corpus of law that governs this area and it made much progress by the time the 1997 general election took place. However, it had not reported at that time and it ceased to exist on the dissolution of that Dáil.

In November 1997 a new Joint Committee on Justice, Equality and Women's Rights was established and in January 1998 it appointed a sub-committee on legislation and security, again chaired by Deputy Flanagan, to continue the review of the liquor licensing laws which had been commenced by the former sub-committee. It was my pleasure and privilege to join that sub-committee in January 1998. The task given to the sub-committee was to finish the work of its predecessor and introduce a report at the earliest possible date. The sub-committee completed its work late in June 1998 and the report was published and presented to the Minister at that time. I am glad that many of the recommendations in the sub-committee's report are reflected in the Bill before us. However, I must point out that many other worthwhile and germane recommendations are not included, and that is a great pity.

The governing principles that inform public policy in relation to the consumption of intoxicating liquor had to be identified by the committee and its sub-committee. It was around these principles that the sub-committee constructed its work. I am sure the Chair will permit me to recite these principles, lengthy as they are, for the information of the House because it is important in setting the tone for today's debate that they should be referred to.

The committee saw it as its governing principle that the retail sale of intoxicating liquor for all on-premises consumption serves an important leisure function and contributes to the enhancement of the national tourism product. The operation of a licensed premises possesses constitutionally protected rights in relation to the owners of these businesses and licence holders. Given that intoxicating liquor involves the use of a drug, the immoderate consumption of liquor can provide a range of undesirable individual, family, workplace and social consequences from which the individual, family, workplace and society should, as far as practicable, be protected.

The public good requires the imposition of licensing controls over the operation and conduct of the retail trade in intoxicating liquor. Licensing controls should be rationally constructed and operated in accordance with these principles. That is not often the case in practice. Licensing controls should be expressed in legislation in such a way that they are unlikely to become dated and are sufficiently flexible for future application. That is a lesson we have learned from the past. These controls should be simply constructed and complexity should be avoided as far as possible. While this Bill goes some way towards getting rid of complexity, it does not go as far as it ought.

Licensing controls should require obtaining initial and renewed permission from the State to operate. That is already the case. The criteria involved in granting initial and renewed permissions should reflect awareness of all matters relevant to the public consumption of liquor and should not be constrained in their scope. An applicant should demonstrate suitability of premises, fitness of character and professional competence before permission is granted to him or her to trade as a licensee.

The committee felt that the permission process should be open and transparent and should be conducted in accordance with the requirements of constitutional justice. There should be an individual examination in each case of the effects of granting a new licence on all aspects of the public good involved and the onus should rest on the applicant to establish the entitlement to be a licensee. The permission process should require evidence of compliance with all the regulations but should not involve consideration of matters already covered by legal controls, such as workplace safety, building controls, fire safety, planning permission and food hygiene, to avoid duplication.

Licensing controls over the retail trade in intoxicating liquor should treat similarly positioned operators equally. Protection of existing operators against loss of business or profit should not be an aspect of public policy in licensing. The granting of a liquor licence implies its reasonable use and the failure of reasonable use should entitle the State to reclaim the licence after proper procedures are followed and without payment of compensation to the person at loss.

The committee also believed the public interest should be served and included in any redefinition or reform of the liquor licensing laws. The major public interest issues are curtailment and avoidance of public disorder and criminality associated with the consumption of alcohol; avoidance of public drunkenness and the misuse of alcohol; protection of the young, particularly from the evil of underage drinking; education of the public in alcohol consumption and avoidance of drunken and dangerous driving.

The committee also looked at the economic, social and health issues involved. It was felt that the duty to ensure there is a reduction in the adverse impact of liquor consumption on the individual, the individual's health, family well-being, work attendance and performance in the workplace and its effects on the health service and in the economy were major considerations that could not be lost sight of in any change or reform of the law. The effects on communities and neighbourhoods were also considered. It was felt that the avoidance of nuisance and disturbance and the disruption arising from the operation of a licensed business were of great importance.

The issue of the consumer, value for money and quality of product was also examined in the context of prices charged for intoxicating liquor. It was felt that prices should at all times be reasonable. There is plenty of evidence that there is a lack of price competition in the trade. It was also felt that the market should be consumer driven rather than controlled by the trade. The provision of internal and external consumer facilities should include the provision and availability of transport to bring consumers or customers safely away from premises, given the huge percentage of traffic accidents involving driving by people who had recently left a licensed premises.

We looked at issues that concerned the licensee. Trading conditions should be created which seek to ensure a reasonable return for the licensee and obviate tendencies for illegal and undesirable trading such as trading long after the hours legally set down. There should be, as far as possible, avoidance of excessive competition between licensed premises. In relation to the broader issues of consumption, it was felt that taxation in prices can be legitimately used to discourage excessive consumption of liquor and anything that might artificially or unduly stimulate consumption, thereby encouraging additional consumption, should be avoided as far as possible.

The other issue of the artificial monetary value of some licences and their distribution was considered. It was felt that a rational distribution of licensed premises around the country should be based on need, however defined, and should avoid both excesses and scarcities of licensed premises. Scarcity of licensed premises in one area should be a reason for granting new licences while an over-sufficiency of licences in another area should be a reason for refusing a licence. It was felt too that the avoidance of artificial value on liquor licences was paramount. The removal of the requirement to extinguish one licence in order to obtain another was also most important and I am delighted this is dealt with in the Bill.

The committee felt that any future legislation which seeks to introduce reforms in the licensing law should attempt to remain true to clearly stated policy objectives which represent all elements of public concern involved in liquor consumption and that there is a strong case for incorporating these principles into law. In that regard the Bill is weak. The complex scope of current liquor licensing law is illustrated by the fact that there are approximately 25 different types of liquor licences. Ten of these are granted by the Revenue Commissioners on certification of court certificates. Another 12 are granted by the Revenue Commissioners without court certification and three are granted by the Minister through a ministerial order.

Most of the law in relation to retail licences dates to the Finance Act, 1910. Indeed, finance legislation that impinges on liquor licensing is usually as out of date and inflexible as the licensing laws. Innovations after 1910 such as airports, the sale of drink on aircraft and the National Concert Hall have required special legislation to permit the serving of drink in these places because of the lack of flexibility in the 1902 and 1910 Acts. The committee made a good recommendation in this area which I regret is not followed up in this Bill. It felt there was a need to identify in law and to have licensed through the Circuit Court certain centres of leisure and entertainment and other places such as interpretative centres, leisure and sports clubs, commercial conference centres, museums, galleries, theatres and so forth as locations which may serve drink in association with other activities which are different from those of the centres which are licensed to serve drink as their main activity.

I welcome the provisions in the Bill which tackle the skewed demographic distribution of licences throughout the country. There is a huge under-supply of licences in larger towns and cities, such as Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Galway. These places have grown enormously in recent years. This problem exists because the underlying licensing code dates from a time when the demographic distribution was different from now. It was the opposite. In 1902 the vast proportion of the population lived in rural areas, and Dublin and its greater suburban area had barely 200,000 people. Today there are more than one million people in the greater Dublin area.

The Dublin suburb of Tallaght is a typical example that is often cited. There is a handful of licensed premises in Tallaght, even though the population of the suburb exceeds that of cities such as Galway, Waterford and Limerick. The committee made a short but relevant recommendation in response to this problem. It said that the issue of licences on the basis of consumer need should be the objective of any new licensing system. That recommendation is not well reflected in this legislation.

The committee looked at licensing administration which is split between the Circuit Court and the Revenue Commissioners, with a small role for the District Court. The Circuit Court is the most important player in that it has the power to issue a certificate of entitlement, following which the Revenue Commissioners issue the licences. The committee felt it was difficult to see a case for the involvement of two such bodies and it recommended that the licensing and administration should be carried out by one body.

The nature of that body and how it should go about its work was examined exhaustively and it was recommended that a specialist licensing court should be established within the Circuit Court, with permanently allocated judges who would become conversant with the wider range of issues than their schedule currently permits. It is a pity that recommendation was largely ignored in the legislation.

The rules governing the renewal of a liquor licence were also considered. It was noticed that most if not all liquor licences last for one year, expiring on 30 September each year. The Revenue Commissioners renew liquor licences nowadays without any pre-court intervention. In most cases, as long as the licensee can produce an audited certificate of his turnover and a certificate of tax clearance, the licence is renewed. Objections can be made to the renewal of a licence on the basis that the business was not properly conducted during the year and that the licensee is no longer a fit person to hold a liquor licence.

The committee recommended that the renewal of a liquor licence should also be the function of a special licensing court. It would make sense that a single court would have the sole authority in all licensing matters. There is a major shortcoming in the current process of objection to the renewal of a licence. One need only look at the inflexibility with which a judge of the District Court is faced if there is an objection to the renewal of a licence. He or she can only refuse to renew a licence, on the one hand, or uphold the licence, on the other. Occasionally a judge will adjourn a case but at the end of the day he or she only has the power to grant or refuse a licence. Judges should have much greater discretion in this area and a wider range of sanctions or penalties, as appropriate, available to them.

There is also the difficulty of objection by a member of the public to the renewal of a licence. That can only be made at the annual renewal of licences on or shortly after 30 September each year. The committee felt that following the application at any time of the year by any ordinary member of the public to a court, based on a reasonable objection to the manner in which a premises is run, that the court should be free, if satisfied with the substance of the complaint, to order a temporary closure of the premises or to impose temporary restricted closing times on its operations. It was also felt that the licensing court, on foot of a complaint by the Garda of improper running of a premises, should be empowered to order the temporary closure of the premises for a proportionate number of hours, days, weeks or months if the objections of the Garda are upheld by the court.

These recommendations are only reflected in the Bill's response to the major problem of underage drinking and the serving of alcohol to people under 18 years of age. It is a pity these wider powers are not applied in the case of objections by the public or Garda and that there is an inflexible time limit of one year in which to do so.

We looked at the reasons for controlling trading hours and who should be responsible for the establishment of trading hours, in addition to the trading hours themselves to which I will refer later. This matter was the subject of lengthy examination. We looked at the general justification for imposing prohibitive trading hours on licensed premises. Despite many people in Government and others arguing to the contrary, the decision was unanimous that the control of trading hours remains relevant. Keeping these hours in place is fully justified in law in the name of the public good, which can be defined as the need to minimise public disorder, the traffic hazards caused by excessive drinking, individual health and family difficulties associated with the excessive use of alcohol and the cost of the illness burden to the State which is directly related to the use and abuse of alcohol.

A large proportion of the health burden which the State has to carry is related to the use and abuse of alcohol. There is a culture of public consumption of alcohol which is quite unique in its scale. It was felt that trading hours can and do control public drunkeness. Control of trading hours minimises nuisance and neighbourhood disruptions associated with the operation of a licensed premises. It is self-evident that the operation of late night bars in or near residential areas can and will continue to cause disruption. The committee was conscious not to be overly particularist in its recommendations in this area.

The encouragement of a healthier lifestyle and the moderate consumption of intoxicating liquor should be another objective of controlled hours of trading. At the end of the day, it is up to the individual to decide the amount of time he or she wishes to spend in a licensed premises and the amount of liquor he or she wishes to consume. A number of people pointed out that the controlling of hours alone will not necessarily force people to act responsibly. It was noted that there was a clear association between traffic hazards and drinking and between drinking and criminal assaults and public order incidents on the streets of our towns and cities. We had to consider whether recommending longer hours of drinking or the complete deregulation of prohibitive hours of drinking would lead to more traffic hazards, public drunkeness or public order incidents. It was felt that longer hours of drinking may not necessarily mean more problems but rather the same problems occurring later at night. Therefore, it was recommended that the total deregulation of hours of trading was not appropriate at this time but the extension of hours of drinking on three nights of the week was recommended.

The issue of who should have responsibility for the establishment of trading hours was considered in some depth. Currently it is the sole responsibility of the Oireachtas. We looked at the possibility of involving local authorities, that is, from the reserve function of county councillors or the executive function of county managers, the Garda, health boards or a local fora consisting of licensees, gardaí, health officials, councillors, local community workers and so on. We considered whether it should be the sole responsibility of the District Court or the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform by means of delegated legislation. Perhaps it might be the function of a new national liquor authority.

The question of regional variations in the hours of trading was considered. However, it was concluded that there should be no change in the responsibility of the Oireachtas for setting licensing hours because it was felt local authorities, by way of the reserve function of councillors, would not work well since local authority representatives would too often be influenced by vested interest and the consequent danger that they might prove unduly generous or unduly strict in the hours they might set out. Approaching the matter by way of the executive function of the county manager was felt not to be appropriate because it would bestow on a single individual very substantial powers. It would be questionable whether the fortunes of the local licensed trade should have to depend on the views of one person, even if he or she was obliged by law to follow some established consultative procedure before setting the hours.

With regard to the health boards making the decision, it was felt they might have too narrow a focus, although the views and focus of the Garda on public order, drink driving and the criminality associated with the excessive use of alcohol or the focus of the health boards on unintentional serious injury associated with alcohol and the high proportion of the disease burden directly related to excessive drinking could not be ignored by the Oireachtas. Following lengthy discussion on these aspects, no departure from the current position was agreed.

On the provisions in the Bill which fixes new hours of trading, I was party to the committee's recommendation of an extension of time on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights. There has always been an element of controversy in relation to the retail sale of drink on Sunday. Some people still argue that pubs should not open on a Sunday because of its religious significance. I welcome the streamlining of Sunday trading hours. The requirement to close between 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. was an anachronism and the committee recommended it should no longer be the case.

I expressed the view at the sub-committee that Sunday night trading should be extended to 12.30 a.m. In leisure terms, Sunday night is seen by most people as similar to Friday and Saturday nights. The point is made that Monday is the first working day of the new week and that late drinking on Sunday night could lead to unusual levels of absenteeism from work on Monday. There is no evidence to show this would happen. Nobody has suggested that Friday as a working day will be adversely affected by the proposed later closing on Thursday night. The major reason offered for extending closing time on Thursday night is the demand for it by trade in Dublin. Most rural pubs favour Sunday opening in line with all other weekday nights and their point of view should prevail.

The Minister has wrongly addressed the issue of under-age drinking in the Bill. I repeat what I said on the intoxicating liquor legislation enacted last December. We must do everything possible to outlaw under age drinking. Publicans who knowingly and deliberately sell intoxicating liquor to under-age persons, as set out in the 1988 Act, should be severely sanctioned by law. This should include the loss of their licence to trade. Minors, at least between the ages of 15 and 18 years, should be made amenable to the sanctions of the law if they are found purchasing alcohol for their own use, to be untruthful about their age or to have tampered with or altered in any way an identity document to procure alcohol for their own consumption.

The Minister has attacked under-age drinking by placing the responsibility on the publican or the licensee by abolishing the defence of reasonable belief. This defence allows a licensee to defend him or herself in court on a charge of sale of drink to an under-age person by showing that he or she had reasonable grounds for believing that the young person was 18 years of age or over. In fairness and justice to all, the defence cannot be abolished without introducing a mandatory identity card system to be carried by every young person seeking alcohol in a pub. This law must also extend a responsibility to teenagers under the age of 18 in a way I have outlined.

Mr. Bohan

I congratulate the Minister on the preparation of this Bill. He put much work and time into it and he met practically everybody with an interest in the licensing laws. On behalf of the Dublin licensed vintners and the federation I thank him for the many times he met with us and listened to our concerns.

Apart from a couple of aspects this is a very good Bill. With regard to the provision for the mandatory closure of a licensed premises because somebody under-age is caught there, the vast number – some 99.5% – of publicans in Dublin and elsewhere in the country will not tolerate serving under-age people. However, it is very hard nowadays to tell the difference between somebody who is 17 and 18 years of age, especially young women. Only yesterday a publican spoke to me about a function on his premises. It is a big premises and he had people on the door to check the identification of patrons with the instruction that nobody under 19 years of age was to be admitted. During the function a lady became inebriated, there was a row, gardaí arrived and she was taken to the Garda station. She had her identification card which showed she was 19 years of age. While she looked that age it turns out that she was 16. The introduction of the new identity cards may address this problem, but at present cards are routinely forged in all the colleges, universities, etc.

The problem with the provision on under-age drinking will be most apparent in busy houses on Saturday nights where 200 or 300 people may be present. If a 30 year old man orders five drinks at the bar what is the busy barman to do? Does he leave the bar to ask for the identification of the people the man is with? It will be very hard to implement this provision and the mandatory aspect makes it draconian.

I would fully agree if the matter was left to the discretion of the courts. Several establishments are abusing the current provisions. In some cases the District Judge has warned that their licences will not be renewed if there are any more complaints from the Garda. They are the best placed to realise whether a house is being run properly or not.

Many of the problems arise in discos and in premises where people pay an entrance fee. Greed is involved because once the money is taken at the door those involved do not care if the patrons are 17, 18 or 19 years of age, although such instances are rare. I ask the Minister to look again at this aspect. I do not object to the closure of a place that abuses the law, but it should be left to the Circuit or District Courts to listen to the Garda and take account of those who, like the publican to which I referred, let somebody slip through despite their best efforts.

I am very happy with most of the other provisions in the Bill. I am glad to see that six day licences can be converted to seven day licences for the very reasonable one-off fee of £2,500. Sunday is now one of the biggest trading days. The five year limit offers a form of protection here.

I am confident the Bill will stand the test of time. While relatively short in content, it is extensive in scope. When enacted it will change the liquor licensing code. The Minister is to be congratulated on a job well done. Over the past century four major licensing legislative measures were enacted, the latest of which was the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1999. Normally, it would be expected not to revisit the licensing laws for ten years or so, yet the rapidly changing nature of society demands a major overhaul of the licensing laws. This Bill achieves the required objective.

I am aware that the delicate task of striking a balance between the many conflicting interests is not easy, yet the Minster has achieved it in the Bill. To a considerable degree it reflects the work of the sub-committee of the former Oireachtas Joint Committee on Legislation and Security, which published a comprehensive review of the liquor licensing laws two years ago.

From the public's point of view the most obvious changes which the new legislation will implement cover the hours of trading. The abolition of the Sunday 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. closing is long overdue and is much welcomed, as is the decision to abolish the distinction between summer and winter time closing. There will always be a minority seeking 24 hour opening, but those of us in the trade know that such a proposal is neither socially nor economically desirable and it is not sought by the public. At first sight, the proposal to allow pubs to open until 12.30 a.m. on Thursday, Friday and Saturday followed by Sunday closing at 11 p.m. and 11.30 p.m. closing time for the rest of the week may seem confusing, but these new trading hours are rooted in sound common sense. They reflect the current pattern of public drinking practice with its emphasis on weekend drinking followed by an early finish on Sunday. These new hours will reflect the necessary balance between the demands of the public and the capacity of the trade to adequately service these demands.

Likewise, on the issue of licences, there have been demands for many years, usually from the media, to deregulate the licensed trade. These demands were bolstered some time ago by a highly dubious report from the Competition Authority which, I am glad to say, the Government disregarded. Deregulation of pubs could never deliver the same benefits as would deregulation of public transport or telecommunications. Expert knowledge of the pub trade suggests it would do the opposite. In a deregulated environment, standards would fall and drink prices would rise. One only has to look at the UK pub trade, a sector in serious long-term decline, to prove my point. The Minister's proposals are based on the concept of adequacy in licensing and getting the balance right. While the trade will not be deregulated, there is a shortage of licences. This deficiency can be addressed if residents in areas where pubs are to be located do not decide to object. This is a sensible way to address the problem of licence shortage in the new growing suburbs around cities and towns.

The Bill provides for restaurants to have a wine on-licence to serve beer with meals. This proposal should be carefully examined and it follows logically that it would be only a matter of time before spirits were also permitted. The Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1998, provides perfectly acceptable arrangements for the restaurant to acquire a special restaurant licence to allow for the sale of beer, wine and spirits. In this context, I fail to see the need to go further. This proposal has serious implications and I request the Minister to reconsider it.

I wish to refer to what the Minister so aptly described as the scourge of teenage drinking. For as long as I can remember, both the Licensed Vintners' Association and the Vintners' Federation of Ireland have consistently refused to support any of their members found to be engaging in this unsocial and undesirable practice. Furthermore, we have actively supported measures taken by the Oireachtas and the Garda to suppress under-age drinking. I have serious reservations that the abolition of the concept of reasonable grounds, coupled with the mandatory provision of a temporary closure order would be unduly harsh in circumstances where a genuine error was made by a publican or a member of his staff. I urge the Minister to revisit this section, especially in the absence of a national identity card system, which I understand we will not see for some years. The problem might be addressed by the introduction of a commencement order and by the removal of the mandatory aspect of the temporary closure order.

These reservations apart, I strongly endorse the Bill on behalf of the licensed trade. The Minister has provided us with a blueprint of legislation which is as wide-ranging as it is well thought out. It will stand the test of time. I compliment the Minister on a job well done.

Mr. Quinn

I wish to share my time with Deputy Henry.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Farrell)

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Quinn

I welcome the Minister and the Bill. The introduction of the legislation in the Seanad is a welcome development. I do not agree with Senator Bohan on a number of items in this area. I welcome the general thrust of the Bill. I welcome what the Minister is attempting to achieve and I listened carefully to what he said. He said it had not been easy, that he had canvassed widely and that he did not fully satisfy everyone. That is a sign of a good Bill. If one side is satisfied, others are not. It is interesting to look at how legislation has changed over the years. The concerns about alcohol remain – the Acting Chairman has strong views and concerns and is a vocal exponent of them. However, the concerns about drugs are now greater. Perhaps it is incumbent on us in the Bill to recognise that the world has changed since previous legislation.

I have a view on the Competition Authority, but I will not express it too strongly now because I know the Minister has had difficulty in satisfying as many as he could in this area. The Competition Authority has a strong point to make, which is that the interests of the consumer are catered for by less regulation in almost every area. I have expressed the view in the House that if there were no control of taxis and if anyone who wished to drive a taxi and was able to meet the safety legislation and other concerns was granted a taxi licence, we would have a much more competitive situation which would be much more in the consumer's interest. We do not have legislation for grocery shops and that creates much more competition, which is in the consumer's interest. I do not know why we need legislation for the sale of alcohol. More competition would benefit the sector, although there would certainly have to be constraints from a planning point of view.

In an ideal world, in which we certainly do not live, we would not have licensing laws. I do not mean that we would not have to worry about excessive drinking, under-age drinking or problems of public order, I mean a world in which we would have the courage and perhaps the common sense to realise we could achieve all we wanted without restrictions of the type which have become a tradition in this country since the previous century. How long our way of licensing can remain a tradition is anyone's guess. It surely cannot be long before Europe takes a hand and forces us to face up to the uncompetitive situation which exists here. Much of the system exists not to protect the public but to protect various vested interests. That is why I would much prefer to see more competition. As we have heard in the past few days from various sources, our national commitment to a truly competitive marketplace is probably among the weakest in Europe. Therefore, any change is likely to be forced upon us from outside rather than rising naturally from inside Ireland. Given the situation which exists in the licensed trade, our obligation is to make the best of it and this is what the Minister is attempting to do. On that basis, I welcome the Bill.

Over the past 40 years much of the thrust towards liberalisation in the licensing laws has stemmed from our wish to encourage the tourism industry, and that is as it should be. It makes no sense to attract tourists on the one hand while pushing them away with the other. Some of the quirks in our licensing laws might strike a tolerant tourist as quaint, but most of them have been a nuisance. Over the years, we have gradually pushed the boat out in terms of extending closing time. I have never been one to frequent pubs, but I remember a time when they closed at 10 p.m. and at 10.30 p.m. in the summer. It does not seem very long ago. Tourists then, who would not have been as numerous as now, must have found that inconsistent with our image as a friendly welcoming people. However, one must question to what extent that was the case.

In truth, the licensing laws have been applied with varying degrees of vigour and consistency. While that may have met the needs of the time, I disagree with that approach in principle. If a law exists, it should be applied or it should be scrapped. Having a law for show which is diluted or ignored with a nod and a wink is bad because it brings the whole corpus of law into disrepute. This has especially been the case in recent years where, for a variety of reasons, people have started watching sport on Sunday afternoons at a time when, legally, pubs should be closed unless they serve meals. The law has been broken on a wide scale in this area and children have been involved in that. Young people have received the wrong kind of training in regard to the observance of the law. Ideally, this Bill should be realistic in terms of market needs and give customers what they want. In that way, there would no longer be any possible reason for wide-scale evasion.

As far as opening hours are concerned, the Bill seems to be in line with the wishes of publicans and those in the tourism industry. With that will behind it, there is no reason the Bill should not be workable. However, the Bill's provisions will result in the pub day being very long and that will cause problems for staff and employers wishing to attract staff. People seem to think that if they are entitled to open for a certain length of time, they must open for that length of time, whereas shops open and close at different times. The market should decide when each pub opens and if we cannot allow pubs to close according to market needs, we should at least encourage them only to open when there is a market. There is no reason why all pubs should do the same thing. Some restaurants and shops open on a 24 hour basis whereas others do not. When I went into business, there was a law in Dublin which dictated that hairdressers and butchers had to close at six o'clock. We should have less legislation in regard to opening hours and greater flexibility.

I want to touch on the desire to respond to market needs rather than artificial considerations and on the need for the law to be respected, not ignored by tacit agreement. Let me declare my interests in this issue and apply those principles to my own area of business. The Bill is progressive when it comes to licensing but it does not go far enough in regard to opening hours. Nowadays, drink is not only sold in pubs and off-licences attached to pubs, it is increasingly sold by businesses in which it only accounts for a small part of the total trade. This applies to supermarkets, such as the one run by my company, and increasingly to small convenience stores and petrol stations. Petrol stations are expanding into general convenience retailing and many of them have wine licences. That makes sense as many people drink a glass of wine with their meals as a matter of course.

We have moved from a situation in which off-sales occurred almost exclusively in pubs to the current situation in which it is possible to purchase off-sales from a wide variety of outlets. Over the years we applied rules which were originally devised to deal with completely different circumstances. This created difficulties and the Minister seems to have availed of the opportunity to sort those out.

Opening hours lie at the heart of the matter. When off-sales were exclusively from pubs, it followed that the permissible hours would more or less mirror pub opening hours. When the pubs were closed, the off-licences were also closed. However, off-licences which are located in grocery shops or petrol stations face problems. In the past, it was not sufficient in terms of the law for a shop not to sell drink outside licensing hours. The entire shop had to close, although an exception was made between 9 a.m. and 10.30 a.m. A small shop which has a wine licence could open for business at 9 a.m. but could not sell alcohol until 10.30 a.m. On one occasion in the past in the run-up to Christmas, my supermarket opened at 7.30 a.m. When a local publican complained, we discovered for the first time that we were not allowed to open before 9 a.m. because the premises were licensed.

Over the years, retailers and law-makers have gone into contortions to apply common sense to this issue. One partial solution to the problem involved the restriction of the area in which alcohol was sold, but that proved very inconvenient for customers. The Minister has taken that on board and the Bill sets out to resolve the problem. However, I believe the wrong approach is taken in the Bill. A great deal of shopping is done between 9 a.m. and 10.30 a.m., largely involving people who drop their children to school and find it convenient to shop at that time. However, the law stated that they could not purchase alcohol until 10.30 a.m., by which time they would be long gone from the shops. The bad solution – similar to that which applied in regard to pub opening hours in tourist areas – was that many small shops with wine licences opened at 6 a.m., 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. to suit their customers and, although they were actually breaking the law, a blind eye was turned. That was profoundly unsatisfactory because the law was not being enforced.

This Bill attacks the problem but does so in the wrong way. It returns to the old concept of setting times for entire businesses to open, rather than focusing on the sale of drink. The Bill proposes that a shop with a licence, usually a wine licence, will be able to sell drink from 8 a.m. onwards but the shop will be forbidden to open before 7.30 a.m. If a shop were to open at 6.30 a.m. or 7 a.m. to meet demand in its local area, it would break the law.

I hate to see legislation going through the House which will not work and which is not sufficiently far-sighted to look to the years ahead. People working on shifts in companies such as Intel and Hewlett Packard finish work at 6 a.m. and 7 a.m. and shops open to cater to their needs. If those shops have wine licences, even though they will not sell wine until the designated time, they will no longer be able to open before 7.30 a.m.

The correct approach would be to tell shops, big and small alike, that they can only sell alcohol at the permitted times and allow them to open whenever they want. All-night petrol stations which have wine licences should only sell alcohol at the designated times but should be allowed to sell petrol and other commodities. This legislation will fall into disrepute because it will not be operated in the correct manner.

Technology now enables the Garda to identify the exact time a sale occurred, with the aid of computerised receipts. If a person buys a bottle of wine, other than during the permitted times, the receipt will show that. That applies in supermarkets, petrol stations and small shops. The legislation should make it very clear when it is permissible to sell alcohol and the rest of the shop should be allowed to remain open.

The Minister's approach in this Bill, namely controlling the sale of drink from outlets which sell other commodities, is the wrong way to go as it puts control in the wrong place. Controls should be imposed on the selling of drink and not on the hours a shop opens its doors for business, which has nothing to do with drink.

We in the supermarket business have gradually extended our opening hours in response to public demand. There is a growing demand for prolonged night openings and although that does not impinge on this problem, there is also a certain level of demand for Sunday openings. My company does not yet open on a Sunday. Some chains even experimented with opening around the clock before Christmas in order to relieve pressure. This Bill will not allow that to happen. In other countries such as America, around the clock opening is quite common. I am not encouraging that practice and I am not sure it would happen here. However, this legislation will prevent that.

This issue applies more to small shops than bigger ones. Some convenience stores and petrol stations open around the clock, but under the Bill in its present form such stores and petrol stations which have wine licences would break the law by opening around the clock regardless of whether they sold drink. When I asked why these outlets were not up in arms about the Bill, I was informed that they did not make a fuss because the word is out that the law will not be applied to them. That is a real worry because, if that were the case, it would represent a major backward step for us as a law abiding nation.

We want to bring everyday practice and the law closer together. Surely the era of the nod and the wink has passed. We want simple, fair and clear laws which can be enforced. It is entirely improper, quite apart from being illegal, to expect the Garda to be selective in the way they apply the law. That is not their job. We should give them solid workable laws to apply without fear or favour.

In the case I am talking about there is a better and simpler way. For businesses that sell drink as a sideline the law should specify whatever time limit it chooses as to when drink may be sold, but the law should be utterly silent about when those businesses open for other trade. That is a matter that only the marketplace should be allowed to decide. In that way we would have a law that is enforceable. The present law is not enforceable in this respect and I would not for a moment expect that it would be fully enforced. That à la carte approach to law enforcement is not the kind we should be talking about in this day and age. I urge the Minister to think seriously about that matter.

In respect of new licences, section 15(1) refers to "premises to which a licence was never attached". There are situations where a wine licence was held previously and now it is possible to have a full licence, so a licence was attached before. The Minister may have to look again at that reference.

I fully support anything we can do to stop under-age drinking. Where alcohol accounts for a very small part of a premises' total sales, however, perhaps the removal of the licence or some other penalty for a few weeks would be a better punishment than providing the premises must close.

I look forward to making a number of other points on Committee Stage.

Dr. Henry

I welcome many of the changes in the Bill. We do have a serious problem with our pub culture, but changes have been made so that licensed premises have now become more involved in serving food and the entire focus is no longer on drink. There is a problem, however, for the restaurant industry which has become confused by different legislation covering pubs and restaurants. Some attempt has been made in this Bill to level the playing field. I welcome the fact that a Bord Fáilte certificate is no longer needed. This proved to be very difficult for new restaurants setting up as they had to obtain such a certificate and it could take several months to do so. I also welcome the fact that beer can now be served in restaurants. It seemed unfortunate that while we do not make any wine of our own, wine could be served but not beer which is the basis of a substantial indigenous industry.

I am also glad that the waiting area regulation no longer applies. If one is looking at a menu in a large veranda or courtyard while waiting to order a meal, it is ridiculous to claim that people are trying to run a pub in such a waiting area. It is perfectly obvious that they do not want to do anything like that.

Like Senator Quinn, I am anxious about the law not being enforced. On Committee Stage I intend tabling an amendment to section 6(b) dealing with a restaurant being able to sell intoxicating liquor which states:

if in each case the intoxicating liquor is–

(i)ordered by that person at the same time as a substantial meal is ordered by him or her,

(ii)consumed at the same time as and with the meal,

(iii)supplied and consumed in the portion of the premises usually set apart for the supply of meals, and

(iv)paid for at the same time as the meal is paid for.

Suppose that someone insists on paying for the wine or whatever drinks they had before the meal? It all sounds a bit ridiculous. Subsection (b)(iv) will fall into disrepute and I hope it can be deleted because I do not see what good it will achieve. There are small matters such as that which frankly do not help the Bill.

In general, I think the legislation has been improved but I worry about introducing laws which may be abused because people will take no notice of them. I am worried about under-age drinking but I am even more worried about people who are under-age working in pubs. I have found this to be very prevalent and we should tighten up the law in this area.

Miss Quill

I also welcome the Bill which is a reasonable step in the right direction. It represents the first major effort to liberalise our drinking laws, perhaps since the foundation of the State. The existing legislation had become something of a joke. It badly needed to be dismantled and something more in keeping with modern times put in its place. The previous legislation was the butt of music hall jokes as well as being celebrated in ballads and some of John B. Keane's plays. It really did not serve the best needs of the country and for that reason it is high time the legislation was overhauled.

The Bill has been the object of mixed opinion. There are those who say the Minister did not go far enough, while others argue that he went too far. That is the standard greeting for any change in legislation nowadays and it is difficult to get broad public support. In overall terms, however, the Minister has struck a reasonably fair balance. When the Bill is enacted, the Minister should let the matter rest and see how the legislation works out over the next three years. He should monitor exactly how effective it is and how it is being enforced and implemented. It can be revisited if needs be.

We are living in a time of extraordinarily rapid changes. These include economic changes as well as changes in population trends and drinking patterns. We can no longer feel secure that legislation will suffice for three or four generations without being re-examined and amended if necessary. The Minister should see how the legislation works out and if it achieves the intended results. If not, we should be mature enough as legislators to re-examine it.

It is high time that the liquor licence application procedure was made simpler and more streamlined, and the Bill deals with that. I also welcome the provision in the Bill whereby licences that have been dormant for years will be examined. There are hundreds of such dormant licences around the country which should be activated and redistributed, if that is the correct way to proceed.

We have a strange attitude to drink in this country and perhaps that is due to historical reasons. The provisions concerning guesthouses in the previous legislation were patently nonsensical for a country that is so dependent on the tourism industry for its economic success. The previous regime created obstacles for restaurants that wished to obtain liquor licences. These included a requirement to have a certain floor space. The arguments were mechanical and did not serve any real purpose.

Tourists are often bewildered when they book into a guesthouse. They have come off the boat and have driven a long way. They would love a glass of wine or beer, but under the existing licensing laws they cannot have it. What do we expect of them under the law? We expect them to sit into a car, drive to the pub, have two, three or however many drinks they feel they need and then drive home. This needs to be examined. If we are serious about being able to offer a mature licensing regime to tourists, we must consider enabling guesthouses of a certain size to serve a glass of wine or beer. In these times, the bread and wine so celebrated in the Bible are still part of the nourishment and hospitality that we should be able to offer in a mature and proper way to our visitors and to ourselves when we go out for the evening. I am glad that changes have been made in the licensing laws as they have applied to restaurants in particular.

Having referred to the good things about the Bill, I share everybody's concern about certain outcomes of this Bill. I am concerned, and I do not know whether this has been voiced by others, about the situation that will inevitably arise when all the pubs are emptied of a cohort of people at the same time and the implications for public order and for transport provision. The Garda have to contend with a great difficulty when hundreds of people in different states of inebriation, some highly inebriated, pour on to the streets at the same time. I do not know how one can guard against that unless one staggers closing time.

I would like to see the trade itself seeking to respond to that difficulty, examining ways and means whereby perhaps closing hours can be staggered. Having a set closing time, particularly in cities, is causing huge public order problems and we should seek to re-examine the matter. Perhaps in the context of the discussion on this Bill and as it goes to Committee Stage, a Member might find a solution to that. I do not have any solutions to it. As I said, I would like the trade to respond to it.

Perhaps we should consider the introduction of a noise pollution law because, without question, people suffer greatly as a result of these nocturnal eruptions, very often under their windows. At least if there was a law on noise pollution, it would strengthen the ability under law to enforce certain public order patterns. That should also be considered.

Pubs are very big business. We are moving away from the nice, cosy, village pub with the romantic image we all yearn for. We all want to have a cosy pub with a snug and so on where everybody could chat and we could hear one another talking and where drinking was a relished social event. However, the move is towards very big pubs in the cities. That presents its own set of challenges. Using the planning laws and the licensing laws, we must ensure that there will not be the disruption and nuisance to neighbours. We must ensure that the concerns of neighbours who have the right to live in the suburbs, to get their night's sleep and to raise their children in an orderly fashion without disruption from the outside, will be taken fully into account when new licences are being granted or when existing ones are being renewed. That is fundamental. We must keep a balance of rights. The planning laws and licensing laws must have regard to protecting the rights of neighbours in suburban areas.

At one level a great maturity is coming in to the Irish drinking habits. Ten or 15 years on a Friday in Cork city, men would go out to lunch and have half a bottle of wine. Now they go to lunch and have half a bottle of mineral water. There is a change in the attitudes among young people at work – they drink mineral water when they go out to lunch, whatever they do in the evening time, which is good. It is a sign of a society which is learning to handle itself.

We need to bring about a society which can handle its drinking habits and itself. We need to do that but, unfortunately, we are many miles away from that in certain instances and, like everybody else, I am deeply concerned about the scourge of under-age drinking in the cities. I have seen many promising young people who have had their life prospects wrecked because they started drinking when they were too young and they were not able to handle themselves and one thing led to another. We cannot ignore that reality.

It has been the practice before, when the owners of licensed premises were before the law for breaches of the law, there was always an attitude, particularly if it was a family owned business, that they were really bad but they could not be closed down or have the licence denied because they would robbed of their livelihood. I remember arguing as far back as ten years ago, that if the Garda were empowered to get an order and close a pub for one day or two consecutive days, it would send a very clear message to the pub owner without depriving the family of their livelihood. That is taken into account in the Bill and it is a provision of this Bill which I welcome greatly. The Garda will be able to get a temporary closure order. If that is really put into force it will make a huge difference. Not alone will the temporary closure take effect, but also the publicans will be identified. In other words they will be named and shamed. I warmly welcome these two sanctions built into this Bill.

We must seek to preserve licensing laws that will serve the best needs of everybody but we must seek to protect vulnerable young people. There is a practice, mainly fed by off-licences, where young people are buying alcoholic drink. They call it "bush drinking" in Cork, where young people buy cans or six-packs and take them to gang gatherings to drink, which is only the beginning of a night's destruction, sadly sometimes to themselves as well as to others. In Cork that was responded to by the making of a by-law dealing with drinking in public places. This is a very tricky issue because, given the weather, there is a great pleasure in sitting outside a restaurant on a summer evening and having a glass of wine or beer, and that should not be killed off. As against that, there is a habit among young people of buying in the off-licence – somebody who is of age buys drink on behalf of everybody else. This must be examined and maybe the context for dealing with that and eliminating it would be with by-laws made in different areas which could be enforced locally. That would be a great help.

The key point I make is that we will not and cannot enforce the under-age drinking laws unless young people are required to have a standard mandatory ID card which is recognised, no matter the situation. Currently, young people are obtaining ID cards from all manner of outlets. They are falsifying their ages, which not only breaks the law but brings them into a culture of deception at a time when we are spending billions of pounds in education. We are trying to form the character of the citizens of the next generation, but they are entering a culture of deception. That should be rooted out, but we cannot enforce under-age drinking laws unless we have mandatory identity cards.

No young garda can be reasonably expected to enter a bar and know the difference between someone aged 16 years and 11 months and those who are 17 or 18. That is not possible. I spent a long time teaching secondary school students of up to 18 years and once they took off their uniforms I could not tell whether they were 16 or 22. Anyone who deals with teenagers or young adults will say the same. A young barman or woman may not be much older, and certainly not much more mature, than those who ought to be challenged and one cannot expect bar workers to challenge young people without the fallback of requiring someone to produce an identity card. If this legislation is to be fully supported by parents, teachers and all who are concerned with the next generation, that measure will have to be introduced. Temporary closure of premises for one or two days, as I have mentioned, should also be considered. Those measures would go a long way towards dealing with under-age drinking.

I know of night clubs where drugs are freely available. The Garda know drugs are freely available there and can see young people coming out of these places with glazed eyes, yet they are allowed to carry on trading. In fairness to Mr. Barry Galvin, who is now in charge of the CAB, he is the one person who, when on the Cork circuit, moved in and assembled enough evidence to close down one of the ongoing offending clubs in Cork. It can be done. We talk a lot about these things, but we do not put them into practice.

We have the basis of a very good Bill, but it must be enforced, as enforcement of the drinking laws is a bit of a joke. I was in a certain village in a certain county last Saturday and we were discussing this Bill among ourselves. One person said that if the Bill were enacted a person in the village would have to close early. Tuigeann tú cad tá á rá agam?

Acting Chairman

Tuigim.

Miss Quill

This Bill rests on its enforcement. It is an honourable and honest attempt to put modern legislation in place which serves the best needs of where we now are as a society. I hope the Garda and publicans take it seriously and play their part in the correct approach, the liberalisation of our licensing laws working to the benefit of everyone.

Mr. Coghlan

I welcome the Minister of State and I welcome the Bill. As Senator Quill has said, it is an honest attempt to update a complex area of law which has long required legislative attention. Given the growth in tourism and the huge change in social patterns, the relaxation of hours of trading was needed. I agree with the system provided for granting licences for premises not hitherto licensed and the extension of the scope of licences for greyhound racetracks and racecourses. I also recognise, as other Members do, the tremendous contribution of the sub-committee of the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality and Women's Rights under the chairmanship of Deputy Flanagan, which did a lot of the ground work. The Minister recognised this in his opening remarks.

It was equally important to put clubs registered under the Registration of Clubs Acts on the same footing as licensed premises for the purposes of the revised permitted hours of trade. There are many different categories of clubs and the Bill does not differentiate between sporting and other types of clubs. However, the Minister has maintained a difference, as I understand it, between licensed premises and late night drinking emporiums or clubs where there is late night entertainment, though some have argued that he should have levelled the playing pitch, except in the case of exemptions for special occasions.

I welcome the provision that allows the holding of functions in clubs registered under the Registration of Clubs Acts. This relates particularly to club functions for the membership but which also may be for the wider community. That is important for GAA clubs in many rural areas. It may also be relevant to other clubs where, as stated in the explanatory memorandum, it may cover a member's retirement or a wedding anniversary celebration.

Section 25, for example, provides that a team visiting a club may be registered under one name or entered en bloc by a club official. The section states that an official of the registered club being visited shall enter the name of the group concerned and the number of persons in it in the book required to be kept under paragraph (g) of section 4 of the 1904 Act. That provision is more honoured in the breach than in the observance. I frequent a number of clubs and, with one exception, I have not seen a book where one's name must be entered. However, the Minister made a judgment call to keep that provision.

What plans does the Government have to update the antiquated 1904 Act? The legislation refers to Acts from 1904 to 1999, but as I understand it, the subsequent Acts refer to trading hours, a garda rather than an inspector being able to inspect premises and so on. Does the Government plan to address this area and to bring the law regarding clubs up to date? Given this Bill and the Equal Status Bill, it is logical that the Government address the matters requiring attention in this regard.

I welcome the abolition of Sunday afternoon closing, which had become a complete anachronism. I cannot understand why the extension of opening times to 12.30 p.m. for Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays should not also be applied to the other days of the week. Tourism has always been strong in my county, but it has now extended throughout the country. People on holidays are relaxing and enjoying themselves, and they often do not distinguish between one day of the week and another. If they want to go out to a pub, they may not be conscious whether it is Wednesday or Friday.

I am concerned about the provisions relating to under-age persons. I share the views of other Members on the scourge of under-age drinking. However, in the absence of mandatory ID, which I would welcome, and given the clothes young people wear, it can be difficult to ascertain their age with certainty. Because of this and the fact that most pubs serve food and kitchens would have to be closed, I differ from Senator Quill in preferring a stiff fine to closure as a penalty. I respect the discretion of judges but they can also err, as we have seen.

I welcome the uniform treatment regarding applications for licences in rural and urban areas. There is now a requirement to extinguish one licence from anywhere in the State when applying for a certificate from the courts to receive a new licence from the Revenue Commissioners. Any licence offered for extinguishment, if it is a full publican's licence, may be used to apply for an off-licence, which is important. I welcome the provision allowing the holder of a restrictive licence, that is a six day or six day and early closing licence, to apply to convert to a full seven day licence on payment of £2,500 to the Revenue Commissioners, which should be used to ensure that eventually there will only be one licence for all categories of licensed premises and off- licences, as distinct from clubs, hotels and restaurants. However, I am surprised the Minister has made no provision for the name transfer of an existing licence, particularly in the light of recent events, the need for which, given the correspondence engaged in by his Department, he could reasonably have anticipated.

As a member of a fully constitutional party, I appreciate the Minister's comments on natural justice requirements, fair procedure and due process. There is serious concern about another licensing issue. In the case which recently came to light, the Revenue Commissioners refused to accept an authorisation. They sought clarification regarding the status of the authorisation, whether it was made in open court, whether gardaí were notified and their attitude. This resulted in the judge issuing a court order requiring the Revenue Commissioners to issue the licence. Has the Government decided to appoint a High Court judge to deal with the issues involved? Will the Minister introduce a suitable amendment following the comprehensive statement he has promised? It is necessary to ask whether the judge, given the circumstances, should have disqualified himself from dealing with the matter.

The impact of the licensing laws on retailers and their customers needs to be addressed by the Minister. Members received a letter from an interested group today, for which I do not speak. However, there is concern among independent shopkeepers about this matter. Several retail grocers have called for greater liberalisation of the liquor licensing laws to enable grocery shops sell a full range of alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premises. At present most of the large multiple and independent supermarkets have full off-licences which enable them to sell beer, wine and spirits. Most other supermarkets and food shops have wine licences only and cannot sell beer and spirits. I understand the frustration of retailers who want full licences to enable them sell beer and spirits and compete with the multiples.

Naturally, my sympathies lie with them. However, alcohol is different from any other product sold by grocers. It is a substance which is open to abuse and before we introduce such widespread liberalisation of the law, we need to assess the impact of that change on society. It is not just a question of introducing blanket liberalisation to benefit the consumer. Serious issues such as alcohol abuse, under-age drinking and health are involved. I hope the proposed commission will look at this issue fully and fairly and that it will have representatives from retailing organisations and groups concerned about proposals to liberalise the law in this regard.

Until the commission investigates this issue further, we should not restrict the sale of alcohol. I deplore the attempt in this Bill to prevent shops licensed to sell wine from selling alcohol during the same hours as pubs and shops with full off- licences. As I understand it – the Minister may correct me if I am wrong – section 4 proposes to equalise the opening hours for premises engaged in mixed trading, either with an off-licence or on-licence attached. However, it is not clear if the equalised opening hours will also apply to shops without a full off-licence but which are only licensed to sell wine. Will they be required to respect the previous hours of opening or should they also benefit from the liberalised and equalised hours? The Minister needs to clarify the effect of this section and to introduce amendments to rectify any anomaly, intended or accidental.

Subject to my reading the Bill further and getting satisfactory answers to my questions, I am reasonably happy that this Bill is an attempt to suitably update antiquated legislation.

Mr. J. Cregan

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Hanafin, to the House. I commend the Minister and his officials on producing an extensive and comprehensive set of provisions to reform our licensing laws. The Bill includes a range of practical, pragmatic and balanced measures designed to reflect social attitudes and change regarding alcohol and seeks to protect in a fair and equitable way the many and varied interests involved in this important sector of our economy.

The Minister and his Department are to be further congratulated for adding to the enormous volume of significant legislation on a wide range of matters of great public concern which has been introduced since the Government took office in 1997. As spokesperson on justice, I have seen a great deal of legislation introduced by the Minister and his officials since I entered the Seanad a short time ago, on which I compliment them. It contrasts more than favourably with and far surpasses the record of any previous Government. It was mentioned that the Minister is satisfying most interested groups with this legislation. The Minister who can fully satisfy all interested parties probably has not been appointed yet, and I presume is not even born yet.

The Bill is the culmination of a long process of review of existing legislation, much of it going back to the 19th century, which no longer adequately reflects social attitudes and habits. Economic realities, demographic change and the growth of the tourism industry have had a major effect on our society and economic life.

The Bill is intended to update the law in many areas relating to the sale and consumption of alcohol. We are aware from personal experience and observations that the law has become increasingly out of touch with the needs and wants of consumers and has fallen into disrepute in many areas. Some of its provisions, such as the prohibition on public houses opening on Sundays between 2 p.m. and 4 p.m., are openly flouted throughout the country. Many families have tended to go out to lunch on Sundays in recent years. Where both partners are working they may opt to go out to lunch on a Sunday rather than spend time cooking in the kitchen. They can choose to bring their children to a public house rather than a hotel for Sunday lunch, as pubs offer quite extensive menus at a reasonable cost. It was naive and silly that people were expected to finish eating their lunch at 2.10 p.m. and then leave the premises. The law was probably not enforced and rightly so – common sense prevailed. This Bill provides that families and licensees can be more independent and need not hide behind closed doors. The lifting of that prohibition on pub opening hours is important.

Any situation where the law in a particular area of social and economic activity is widely ignored and treated as irrelevant is corrosive of respect for and compliance with the law, the State and the forces of the law in general. Gardaí used their common sense in enforcing this measure on many occasions and they are to be commended for that, as it would be embarrassing for them to have to enforce such a draconian measure in these modern times.

The Bill represents a comprehensive approach to tackling this problem. It is the most extensive legislation in this area since the foundation of the State. There are many and varied interests in the licensed liquor trade, manufacturers, publicans, restaurant owners, hoteliers, night club owners, thousands of employees and consumers. The Bill seeks to strike a fair and reasonable balance between those interests and responds to the public demand for changes to existing laws to reflect considerable change in social patterns in recent years. The Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, has been at pains to engage in a wide-ranging consultation process during which the interested parties I mentioned have had an opportunity to put forward their views. He listened to what they said and included many of their views in this Bill.

I am particularly pleased about the provision to create a single national licence area. That together with the abolition of the two for one rule and the need to prove a population increase to justify the granting of a new licence represents a significant dismantling of the barriers to entry to the trade.

As a Senator from a rural area, I regard the changes in this area as also providing a long overdue opportunity for the holders of relatively inactive licences, many held by families who may have been in the trade for generations, with an opportunity to realise their economic and commercial value and perhaps use the proceeds to reinvest in more promising business ventures in their own areas.

The provision of a single national licence area facilitates the transfer of inactive licences from under-populated rural areas to major urban centres, towns and villages. The abolition of the two for one rule further facilitates the process and makes it commercially more attractive as well as easier. The abolition of the prohibition on the granting of a licence within one mile of an existing licensed premises can only serve to increase the demand for licences in urban areas, such as greater Tallaght, which is frequently mentioned in the context of the lack of public houses in that area. By any stretch of the imagination there is a lack of public houses there.

The abolition of Sunday afternoon pub closing and the general extension of opening hours to permit later opening throughout the week and in special circumstances is also a positive measure, which will be welcomed in rural areas not only by domestic consumers but by those involved the tourism industry, not to mention tourists. The existing position is regarded by many visitors as ranging from farcical to incomprehensible and can only be regarded as a major obstacle to the development of our tourism industry, which is of major and growing importance to many small rural communities.

Many rural communities reinvest the gains from our new found national prosperity in the development of heritage, historical and architectural restoration projects. They do so not only with the aim of preserving what is worthwhile and may have been long neglected due to a lack of funds but also to create local tourist attractions that inform and further sustain heritage development in the locality. These developments are a great source of community pride and cohesion. The ability of those in the licensed, hotel and restaurant trade to provide readily accessible services in terms of food and beverages in the vicinity of such developments can only contribute further to their attractiveness and success. The abolition of the prohibition on the serving of beer by restaurant owners must be regarded as a major plus. The current situation served only to deprive the consumer of choice and was inexplicable to foreign guests. Restaurants owners are able to serve wines that are not produced here but are prohibited from serving home brewed beers. The lifting of that prohibition will be welcomed by consumers and the industry.

The provision enabling off-licences, whether attached or otherwise to licensed premises, to commence sales from 8 a.m. rather than 10.30 a.m. will be welcomed by consumers. Given that some supermarkets now open at 8 a.m., it is farcical that the shutters on a part of their stores are not lifted until 10.30 a.m. It was ridiculously that customers who wanted to avoid the queues at Christmas and decided to do their shopping at 9 a.m. or 9.30.m. could not purchase alcohol or alcohol related products until 10.30 a.m. The current position is not consumer friendly and it has created operational difficulties for those retailers operating other lines of business in conjunction with an off-licence. This is a common-sense measure that epitomises the pragmatic approach that informs the Bill.

The provisions in the Bill intended to curb the scourge of under-age drinking, which has become such a regrettable feature of our society, are posi tive. In many ways that feature is one of the effects of prosperity. Previous generations did not have the level of disposable income to engage in serious drinking as teenagers. With the growth of widespread affluence, ready pocket money, widely available part-time employment and ready access to alcohol, there has been a major increase in teenage drinking and drunkenness in all communities. That has contributed to a variety of anti-social activities, criminal behaviour and disregard for parental influence and social control. It increases the prospect of many of those engaged in serious drinking at an early age developing alcoholism and all its associated medical and social disorders in the long term.

The "reasonable grounds" defence made it inordinately difficult for the Garda to secure convictions in terms of the minority of licensees in a community who persistently sell alcoholic drink on or off their premises to those who are under age. The abolition of that legal anomaly will radically change the position in law. Publicans who openly flout the law and are prepared to serve alcohol willy-nilly to people of 15 to 17 years of age can face a mandatory closure of their licensed premises for a seven day period. That provision must be welcomed in terms of dealing with the minority of publicans who openly flout the law and give an extremely bad example to our young people. However, the majority of publicans endeavour to run their businesses in a proper manner. If they make a reasonable and good effort to ensure that the customers they serve are over the age of 18, discretion should be allowed in the imposing of that mandatory closure provision.

We heard about the young lady who showed the staff on the door of a pub identification indicating she was 19 years of age, but later when trouble broke out and the Garda were called it transpired she was only 16 years of age. That publican had staff on the door who checked the ID of his customers and that girl's ID appeared authentic. Where publicans are genuinely caring and do not wish to serve under-aged customers, the district justice or the person who hears such a case should exercise discretion and not close such a premises for seven days. A previous speaker said a severe fine would be preferable to a ruling to close a premises for seven days. The closure of a premises for seven days is the strictest fine possible because publicans are hit in their pockets when their premises are closed.

There is no defence to strict liability. No defence is acceptable for the selling of alcohol to minors. For some time, the Garda, parents' groups and youth organisations have been calling for legislation with teeth to tackle this problem. I welcome and support the Minister's stated intention to instigate a nationwide crackdown on offenders in the wake of the passage of this legislation.

The provision enabling the closure of licensed premises for a specified period for under-age offences must be implemented because it will have a major detrimental effect on offenders. I hope the Judiciary will pay heed to society's wish to tackle this problem and that it will have due regard to these new powers in framing their sentencing policies.

In a broader sense, this measure complements other Government measures to control and remedy the social and medical ills associated with a range of illegal intoxicants. The Minister has gone a long way in satisfying most interested groups. I took the opportunity to consult with 160 publicans and nightclub owners in the west Limerick area, the vast majority of whom were extremely pleased with the measures being introduced. Silence speaks volumes in this case. The publicans are a large and loud lobby group which we have all seen over the past months but they appear to be satisfied that the Minister has struck the correct balance, which is welcome.

It was pointed out to me by a nightclub owner in my constituency that under the current by-law he is entitled to remain open and serve alcohol until 1.30 a.m., but the district justice has reduced his opening hours to 1 a.m. In the new legislation, that nightclub owner will be entitled to remain open until 2.30 a.m., but the district justice will still have discretion to ensure he closes at 1.30 a.m. or 2 a.m. In order for his business to remain viable, the least that nightclub owner is entitled to is to be allowed remain open until 2 a.m. so that people who pay £6, £7 or £8 to enter can enjoy themselves. He has invested in the business and he should be entitled to accommodate the people who, by choice, want to continue their entertainment. I welcome the Bill and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Costello

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I am giving a very qualified welcome to this legislation and the more I listen to the debate, the more qualified it becomes. This appears to be legislation that we have heard about before – an Irish solution to an Irish problem. The more I read it, the more unhappy I am that it will not be of any assistance in dealing with the enormous confusion and anomalies in our licensing legislation.

Senator Cregan said he had consulted widely with 85 or 185 publicans. That is very wide consultation indeed. The Minister said that he canvassed widely for views. I would be delighted to hear how wide was that consultation. He stated: "I can safely say that in developing the proposals in the Bill I have, through seeking written submissions, through formal and informal meetings and through visits the length and breadth of the country, got a firm indication ." I was not aware that the Minister travelled the length and breadth of the country obtaining the views of people.

Mr. Connor

Of course he did not. That is rubbish.

Mr. Costello

He certainly did not come into my constituency. What is the sense of saying that when it is not true? He did not do anything of the sort. He canvassed widely among publicans, disco and club owners and hotel and restaurant owners, but did he go beyond that? I would be delighted to hear the extent of public canvassing in which the Minister engaged. He should not say that in his contribution if none of us has any knowledge of it having happened in our locality or the areas we represent.

The Bill proposes an extension of licensing laws beyond those we have at present. It is ridiculous that in the course of seven days we will have Sunday closing at 11 p.m., closing on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday at 11.30 p.m., and Thursday, Friday and Saturday closing at 12.30 a.m. – three different closing times each week. What is the sense of that? The opening hours have been made uniform in that there is a provision for an opening time of 7.30 a.m. There should be no difficulty in allowing the publican decide on the time of opening. Why is it necessary to have a uniform opening time? Why do we need to prescribe an opening hour? What is the purpose of it? Why was 7.30 a.m. chosen? People have said that supermarkets open at 8 a.m., but what has that to do with it? Why did the Minister decide on 7.30 a.m.? The opening time down on the docks was 5 a.m. or 6 a.m. – I am sure Senator Bohan will know that—

Mr. Bohan

Seven o'clock.

Mr. Costello

—because of the type of business that was being done. Should we prescribe for an opening hour of that nature? We should not. Should we bother providing for a closing time of 12.30 a.m. on the eve of a public holiday, including New Year's Eve? What is the reason for having different closing times in the course of the week and at different times in the course of the year? I suspect that it is because the vintners want it. It suited them. Not a single member of the public would have wanted these closing hours. They want to be able to go out for a drink Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday, and that is it. They would not have prescribed the ridiculously artificial hours in the Bill.

The end result of this is the same point the Garda object to again and again, the fact that everybody will be put out on the street at the same time, even though the closing times are different on different days of the week. Was that not part of the problem, that people were being forced to finish their drinks hastily and then they were put out on the street where, occasionally, a fracas occurred and where people had to wait for taxis at the same time? How can the Minister say that this is a liberalisation or a major step forward? He cannot because we have not addressed the problems. Did the Minister consult the Garda about this legislation? I would like him to indicate in his reply the views of the Garda on this proposal. Did they say that everybody should be put out at the same time every night of the week? I do not believe they said that.

This legislation has been in gestation for a long time. This time 12 months ago the Minister told us he would get the legislation through the Houses before the summer but he was called to Northern Ireland and he was unable to get back to deal with the complaints from the vintners in relation to the then proposals. He is now dealing with them 12 months later. The Minister has talked about this legislation since he came into office two and a half years ago. He has not produced a bang but a whimper. I do not know the extent to which the Minister can stand over it, considering the enormous changes that have taken place in people's lifestyles, the tourism industry and the development of our capital city. It is difficult to understand the Minister's reasoning. In my opinion he has been influenced by the vintners, but I see no reason for that. He should have been far more flexible in his approach to the licensing laws.

The United Kingdom, which previously had legislation as restrictive as that which applies here, is currently in the process of introducing total deregulation. Scotland has far more liberal licensing laws than Ireland and these were introduced because, again, people were being forced to drink up hastily and they were all leaving pubs at the same time, pouring out on to the streets and encountering difficulty in getting home. As a result, trouble often flared because gangs of people were hanging around late at night.

A wonderful proposal has been put forward to regularise the position vis-à-vis urban and rural licences. A person will now be able to transfer a rural licence to an urban centre where there is more business. That is being done without the imposition of even the slightest restriction. As a result of this development, major pub owners in Dublin and elsewhere will purchase the licences of small public houses in rural areas where there is not much profit to be made. They will transfer these licences to premises in major urban areas and make a killing. We should restrict the ability to transfer these licences because, if we do not, the vintners will have won again. As it stands, the major publicans and the larger operators will benefit most from this new liberalisation. The Minister has made no provision to prevent such behaviour and I do not believe this will improve matters.

The real difficulty affecting urban areas is the absence of new licences. There is an unwillingness to cater for the needs of the greenfield sites in Tallaght, Clondalkin, Ballymun, Coolock, Blanchardstown and other major urban areas we have created. Huge, sprawling, barn-like public houses which offer no intimacy because they are not run by families are being built in these areas. Residents object to the construction of such establishments because they are not family run, intimate pubs, they are major operations which are virtually uncontrollable. They will be completely uncontrollable as a result of the passage of this legislation because crowds of people will be obliged to leave these establishments between 12 p.m. and 1 a.m. on a Saturday night or Sunday morning.

There is a need not merely for the transfer of rural licences to urban establishments but also for the issuing of further licences. This would lead to the development of smaller, more intimate public houses run by more responsible landlords. There is nothing in the legislation to suggest this will be done. There is a need to establish a licensing authority to consider the issuance of new licences in order to ensure that decent people who are spending enormous sums of money to purchase new houses in the urban areas to which I refer will be able to socialise in decent public houses, not in the barn-like establishments of the kind that are dotted around the outskirts of Dublin.

I welcome the proposal to issue temporary closure orders in respect of premises where it has been proved that liquor was sold to under-age persons. I am not sure that I welcome the fact that the forfeiture of licences in such cases will be discretionary rather than mandatory. However, I accept the argument the Minister offered in that regard. I welcome the fact that the onus will be placed on licensees to ensure that they do not sell alcohol to under-age persons. However, the Bill is silent in terms of how it is proposed to implement this provision, how it will be enforced and who will be responsible for enforcing it.

As Senator Henry inquired, who will be responsible for policing the employment of under-age persons in this sector? Who will monitor the number of hours these individuals work, which often contravene the organisation of working time legislation? Who will be responsible for ensuring that young people employed in public houses on a part-time basis who are also attending school, are allowed to go home early enough to do their homework? These matters must be addressed but the legislation is silent in that regard.

The Bill also fails to deal with the lot of full-time employees in this sector. How is it proposed to address the question of the new hours they will be obliged to work? Obviously, there will be a need for negotiation between the trade unions and the vintners' association in that regard. Nevertheless, the legislation will have a major impact on the lot of employees and we must address the question of whether shift work will be introduced. The fact that at weekends pubs will be opening at 7.30 a.m. and remaining opening until 12.30 a.m. with 30 minutes drinking up time the following morning means that employees will have an extremely long working day.

A number of days ago, Marian Finucane interviewed a group of people who are employed in the licensed trade and they indicated the difficulties they face in having a normal family life in view of the unsocial hours they work. The legislation will change their lives further, particularly if new structures are put in place, and I do not believe we can avoid introducing shift work in public houses. Did the Minister broach this subject with members of the industry during the comprehensive consultation process in which he engaged? There is a danger that the implementation of the legislation could lead to any number of industrial disputes.

I intend to table a number of amendments to the Bill on Committee Stage. I hope the legislation will be enacted by the summer. Yesterday marked the first day of summer opening hours in public houses and I hope this will be the last occasion on which there is a distinction between winter and summer opening hours. The Minister indicated that he intends to establish a commission on licensing and said, "The process of examination and change to our licensing laws does not end with this Bill, comprehensive as it is." He also recognised that there is more to be done.

I would not call this a comprehensive Bill because it barely addresses the problems in this area. In my opinion the Minister will be obliged to revisit this issue in the near future. It is a shame it has taken so long to introduce the Bill. I am sure this limited legislation was introduced because it is as far as the Minister has been allowed to go. I would like him to have addressed the needs of consumers rather than those of the traders in this area, but perhaps he will do so in the future.

Mr. Farrell

I welcome the introduction of the Bill. Senator Costello's only real point of contention relates to the opening hours. As the Minister stated, an Oireachtas sub-committee considered this matter. I am sure the Labour Party made its contribution to that committee's work and agreed with its recommendations.

Mr. Costello

If the Senator reads the sub-committee's report he will discover that it contains many recommendations which are not included in the legislation.

Mr. Farrell

I agree with Senator Quill's point about guesthouses, particularly those which provide evening meals. In Northern Ireland, guesthouses are allowed to provide alcoholic drinks for residents. It is a limited licence and a similar type of licence should be available here. I welcome the fact that restaurants with a wine licence will be allowed to sell beer. However, the Minister should have permitted them to serve Irish coffee. Many people prefer an Irish coffee to a dessert after a meal. I appeal to the Minister to consider this. It is part of a restaurant menu and anything that is part of a menu should be permitted.

There is much talk about identity cards. I am not particularly enthusiastic about them because the regulations can be flouted in many ways. Speakers have also put a great deal of emphasis on publicans. Everybody is aware of my view of alcohol abuse – it has been well known for the past 20 years. As I have said on many previous occasions, if there were nobody except publicans selling alcohol, there would be no alcohol abuse problems. Publicans in this country are, by and large, family people and they too have teenage children. Most of the bar staff are family people as well. They know what teenage drinking is and they would control it.

The problem is that there are no restrictions on off-licences and supermarkets. If one goes into any town one will see youths coming from these premises with carry-out packs in each hand and bottles in their pockets. They are drunk before they go near a pub or disco because they go to the off-licences for cheap drink. If we are serious about curbing teenage drinking, we must start with the off-licences. If one asks anybody who lives near these off-licences what they think, they would say it is worse than living beside a big bar. The people who go there used to be known as cider gangs but now they are known as beer gangs. When they drink the beer they throw away the tins. If one goes into a park one will see people drinking there all day. Where do they get the drink? In the off-licences.

The publican only sells what can be served in a glass. The off-licence and supermarkets sell alcohol by the bottle and cans of alcohol by the dozen. That is where the problem lies. However, our attitude appears to be that the big bad dog is the publican, but that is not true. Another practice that should be outlawed is where people go into pubs, buy one drink and top it up for the evening from a bottle of gin in their bag. It should be an offence to do that. That is where the abuse occurs and it is abuse we do not see.

Drink in discos is another problem. When I went out dancing in the 1940s and 1950s, no dance hall was allowed to serve drink.

Mr. O'Toole

That was the problem.

Mr. Farrell

There were bouncers at the doors of the big dance halls and if there was a sign that somebody had been drinking, they were not allowed in. We danced until 2 a.m. and went home sober. It was a good night and we enjoyed ourselves. I do not understand why people who go to a dance cannot enjoy the night without drinking. Dances are now the places where there is the most trouble. There are rows in which youngsters are badly injured. They are beaten up on their way home, usually by louts who are out drinking in parks and elsewhere. They are drinking alcohol from the off-licences and supermarkets, not the pubs. That is where the trouble arises.

Discos should be controlled. Indeed, they should have licences for shorter hours than pubs. If a pub closes at 12.30 or whatever, the discos seek an extra hour for drinking to make their money. Their entertainment should be dancing and they should make their money from that. They can increase the entrance prices if necessary. I would have no problem with them increasing the price to £10. There is not a parent in the country who would not be delighted with dance halls where teenagers could dance and neither drugs nor alcohol were available.

It is some time since I said in this Chamber that where drugs are being sold in a disco or dance hall, the owner should lose the licence and be put out of business for at least one year. That type of measure would come to grips with the abuse in society. There is no need to talk about the pub because that is not where the trouble arises.

I wonder why nobody has ever called for an inquiry into the cost of buying a mineral or Ballygowan. Everybody knows they can be bought for 40p or 50p in the shop. However, in a lounge bar or hotel they cost anything from £1 to £1.30. Why are they so expensive? Teenagers have told me it is cheaper to buy a beer than a mineral. That should not be the case. The argument will be made that a mineral drinker will only drink one or two minerals and will sit in the pub all night. However, if they keep their eyes open they will see that many people go to the pub, buy one gin and tonic and top it up from their bag for the night. The places are so big that the staff do not see what is happening. People like me who do not drink, however, have a sharp eye and see it many times. I see many such practices which should be nipped in the bud.

Mr. Connor

It is usually a bottle of duty free as well.

Mr. Farrell

That is right, although duty free is not as common as it was.

Extensions should not be permitted. In any village in Ireland the local pub is obliged to close at 12.30 a.m. In the next town, however, there is a licence extension until 2.30 a.m. People leave the local pub, get into a car and drive to the next town. They have enough drink taken before they leave but they will go where there is an extension. I would not object to every place staying open until 2 a.m. but there should not be extensions. In the absence of extensions, the local pub will keep its customers. There will be none of this racing to the next town and, as a result, fewer road accidents. The Bill will improve the situation a little because pubs were closing far too early in rural villages. I am aware of many accidents which were the result of people leaving the local village to drive to where there was an extension. There should not be extensions. There should be a single closing time.

Have the licensing laws failed us? They were introduced many years ago to get rid of the manufacture of poteen and the like. Despite all the laws, however, we have more alcoholics and more alcohol related problems today. A large conference was held by Alcoholics Anonymous in Bundoran at the weekend. I never saw more people at a conference anywhere and I have attended many of them over the past 25 years. Thank God, it was great to see so many people had given up the beer, but at what price?

We talk about drug abuse but alcohol is the forerunner of all drugs. It is the most potent drug on the market and causes more family breakdowns. I believe that 70% of our social problems are caused by alcohol abuse and we will not get to the root of the problem while we continue to permit off-licences and supermarkets to sell beer by the dozen and by the bottle.

I appeal to the Minister to look again at the Bill, with which I agree. However, I ask him to look again at the legislation to allow restaurants sell Irish coffee. I would also like more restrictions on off-licences in supermarkets. Last week, in an upmarket area of the city, teenagers came out of an off-licence and went to drink on a flat roof. They used a Stanley knife to cut the felt on the roof, pulled up the lead, it poured rain and hundreds of pounds worth of machinery and computers belonging to a unit which deals with people with disabilities, the weakest section in the community, was destroyed. I could give a dozen such instances. People are afraid to go out at night because of the drinking which is taking place in their areas. This drink is being bought in off-licences and supermarkets, which is the kernel of the problem.

I was reared beside a pub, the owner of which left the bar every night at 11 p.m. He believed that if he got people out of the pub before 11.30 p.m. or midnight, they would be able to go to work the following day, but if they stayed in the pub until 2 a.m. or 3 a.m. they would not be able to go to work the next day and would lose a day's wages. I agree that pubs should close at midnight on Sunday so that people can go to work on Monday morning. This is a very serious problem.

Someone said recently that school children are falling asleep in school because they are working late at night. In a recent survey teachers said that children as young as 12 years of age were going to school with a hangover. A lot of secret drinking is taking place in the home and we must come to grips with this problem. Alcohol abuse is a serious problem. There is nothing wrong with having a drink or with publicans. If it was left to publicans, we would not have the trouble we have today with alcohol abuse. The problems are caused by those who are selling alcohol by the bottle. If identity cards are introduced, older people will still buy the drink by the dozen in off-licences. Off-licences and supermarkets should be compelled to have their names on cans so that they can be identified. There should be some means of restricting such outlets.

Mr. O'Toole

I have been looking forward to this legislation for some time. I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on it and I welcome the Minister to the House.

I do not believe this is good legislation. Senator Farrell made a "drink is the root of all evil" speech, the like of which we have been listening to since the day we were born. A view seems to inform the legislation that by controlling drink we can control society and that there should be particular laws about people's use of drink. No philosophical case is made as to why this should be the case. There is a long-standing tradition in this country that some things were made difficult for the poor to achieve. For example, salmon and drink had to be acquired through a licence. This was an attempt by the oligarchy in society to control the weaker people. This legislation is no more than a piece of social engineering. It effectively tries to control social habits. All that can be said is that it is an improvement on the embarrassing set of regulations governing the sale of drink today.

It is time we saw ourselves as a democracy with 80 years of democratic experience behind us. It is time we saw ourselves as a mature society taking our place in the global community. People with far less experience of the world and democracy manage to control their lives safely without becoming alcoholics or drunkards and without needing legislation to stop them drinking at particular times. I do not know why as a society we cannot allow people make up their own minds. The perception that the only way to get people to work in the morning is by clearing them out of the pubs at 11.30 p.m. will do no more than facilitate a social problem. It will do no more than facilitate someone who cannot learn to control an incipient or innate drink problem. People must confront their difficulties and deal with them. It will not help people to say, "We are stopping it now, come back tomorrow for more." That is not the way to deal with the problem.

I do not understand why in a European pluralist society I cannot buy a drink on Good Friday. We would respect each other's cultures far more if we acknowledged differences in society. It is absolutely in order for the Catholic Church or any other church to say to its members that they should not drink on Good Friday. However, this is where it begins and ends. After that it is a matter of personal choice. It does not help us to mature as a society or in terms of our openness to pluralism to introduce legislation which prohibits the opening of a pub on Good Friday. It does not bring us one step forward. I do not say this from a liberal point of view, rather from the point of view of a tolerant society where people can learn to make their own choices.

The differences between closing times on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday and the rest of the week is extraordinary, particularly given that we have reached a stage where work practices have moved far beyond the norm. People now work shifts, week-ends and so on and the day of the traditional 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. work day with the week-end off has long since passed. I ask the draftspersons to consider this point. Nowadays the majority of people have days off at various times over the course of a month.

I would like to hear the philosophy behind the requirement to have a licence to sell drink. Why should a retailer need a particular licence to sell drink? This does not make sense and is unnecessary. It is a form of prohibition. The prohibitionist, absolutist approach clearly did not work in the United States when it was introduced. It did not work because it was not acceptable to people. It did not meet society's needs. The arrangement here is a halfway house. We are saying one can only drink during certain hours and not beyond that. What is the difference between 12.30 a.m. and 1.30 a.m. or whatever other time? If we are making a distinction between Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday and the rest of the week, it must have something to do with getting up in the morning. We are also saying that people are staying out later at the week-ends. I do not understand the logic behind that. Why do we do it this way?

The Bill is a compromise to accommodate the views of the different groups in society. To that extent I understand what the Government is doing, but I do not agree with it. I do not agree that as a mature, democratic society, we should waste the time of the Legislature by passing silly, nannyish laws telling people when they can drink, publicans when they can sell drinks and retailers the basis on which they can get a licence to sell drink. It is a complex apparatus of social engineering which does not advance us as a society, is unnecessary and adds nothing to the quality of our lives. It puts together a complex system of laws which takes up the time and effort of the Garda when they would be better, and I am sure more enthusiastically, involved in dealing with other affairs.

I do not understand the distinction between bars and discos and I would like an explanation. I do not drink in that many different places, although on the basis of what previous speakers have said I probably drink too much. Nevertheless, I am aware that many pubs have discos attached, leading to the ridiculous situation where people leave one part of the premises and pay to enter another part to enable them drink for another two hours. What are we doing here? It is like a pantomime – one steps out and another steps in. It is nonsense and it is time we grew up as a society. It does not add anything to us as a community.

I understand the pressures facing the Government. From reading the newspapers I can see what is involved. I also understand the compromises that are necessary in political office. I do not criticise my county colleague, the Minister, for introducing this legislation. If I were Minister I could perhaps do no better in response to the various pressures on me. However, speaking from the perspective of a member of the community, this is appalling.

It is wrong to debate licensing legislation in the context of the abuse and the dangers of alcohol, treating alcohol as if it was the root of all evil. I spoke here last week about the different kinds of corporal punishment, where there was use, misuse and abuse. The same applies to alcohol. It is comforting for people in pretending to speak about the use of alcohol to speak about the effects of the abuse of alcohol or how we need to manage people who apparently have a problem because they cannot go home when they should. They take the view that we should pass laws to make them go home because in some way that is good for society. It is not. It sweeps a problem under the carpet. If people cannot keep away from drink it is a problem that needs to be addressed, not by pretending it is not there and sending them home, but by getting them to deal with it.

If we were to deregulate the sale of drink and the licensing of retailers to sell drink, the people in charge, mainly the publicans, would manage it very effectively. Everybody in this House has seen this in operation in other countries, where somebody tells customers the premises is closing, not because the law of the land or the local authority requires it but because he will not make any more profit that day, or because he wants to get up in the morning or because he only wants to work a certain number of hours. Following his request customers leave, in the same way they would leave a restaurant or any other area of entertainment or gathering. It means people organising themselves effectively.

There has always been, and always will be, a need in our society to be aware of the dangers of the abuse of substances, whether they be hard or soft drugs, tobacco or alcohol. That is the reality, but there has always been a double think. Anybody who has wanted a drink in this city on Good Friday or on Christmas Day could get one. Often they would be the people most vehemently in support of the closing of pubs for other people.

There is nobody on this island who could not get a bottle of poitín for sale. There is a kind of tolerance for it. Every December the Garda turn over a few stills and pour the poitín into the bogs in front of the cameras and everybody thinks a great job is being done. Is it not time we grew up as a society and decided that people should be required to manage their lives and to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions? In the cause and effect world, we are all the causes of our own eventual effects and that is the time to deal with them, not by deciding to stop the effect by specifying when pubs may close or by disallowing the building of a pub. We need to educate and help people to make proper decisions.

This legislation does not reflect what people want. If next Saturday I asked people in a pub at closing time whether they considered it right that the State should tell them they should not have more drink and should go home, they would disagree. Yet the polite people in society, including those in both Houses of this Legislature, would consider that there should be rules about drink because that would be the responsible thing to do. It is the programmed response which important people and legislators, who are elected to be public representatives, should make. However, it is balderdash. People should be allowed to grow up and society should be allowed to mature. We should see ourselves as part of a global community and we should train people how to deal with substances.

Drink is no different from hard drugs in that we deal with the demand side, not the supply side. Stopping the supply of drink does nothing to address the question of abuse or misuse; stopping the demand for drink does. Let us give people the courage and education to decide when, where, how and at what time they want to drink, rather than trying to stop the supply side. It never works. When prohibition was introduced in the US it created crime and more problems than before. When it was done with drugs in Europe the response was the development of designer drugs like ecstasy. It does not work because the supply side will always find a way out. People will go somewhere else to drink, to the disco, or they will find another way by getting drink from the take out or whatever. There will always be a way around prohibition. The supply of a commodity which somebody wants will never be stopped because the market will ensure that where there is demand supply will be found.

I accept this legislation is a vast improvement on the extraordinarily repressive drink legislation in operation. I regret the Minister did not introduce a simple one line Bill repealing every intoxicating liquor Act to allow us get on with living our lives and drinking or not drinking when we want.

Labhrás Ó Murchú

Senator Farrell's speech was a cry from the heart. It is not the first time he has expressed such sentiments. Many might say it is a voice in the wilderness. Perhaps it is, but I am sure that many of the examples he cited and the sentiments he expressed reflect what he has heard and experienced outside. What he is telling us is legitimate and it is right that we should have the opportunity to hear those views. There has been a habit in recent times in debates of this nature to ridicule a view which runs counter to what might be considered a popular view and to denigrate the messenger. I would not like that to happen where Senator Farrell is concerned.

The Minister has had a difficult task and he made that point earlier. He explained that, after much consultation and listening to the different views expressed, he endeavoured to reconcile those views while at the same time endeavouring to consider the freedom of the individual and keep in mind the common good.

Senator O'Toole was simplistic. His comments would be relevant in a perfect world, in which we know we do not live. To suggest that control is not necessary in one case means he would have to extend that argument and say that control is not necessary in any case. In other words, a person can park his or her car in the middle of O'Connell Street if he or she so wishes or travel at 150 miles per hour. After all, as he said, we live in a democracy and we are mature people. It should not be necessary for us as legislators to waste our time discussing those matters and we should rely on the individual. In the same way as he would ask the person in the public house at night if they thought it was right for the State to interfere and place constraints on the consumption of alcohol, I am sure if he asked anyone if he or she thought the State was right to collect income tax they would all say that it was not right in doing that. We know that is not a sensible scenario.

Alcohol is a drug. There is a great deal of debate on drugs and drug control. We talk of lives being ruined and we have seen it happen. Alcohol is a drug and lives have been ruined by it. Those of us who have had the opportunity of talking to a partner in a house where a person abuses alcohol will know that the consequences of that abuse do not cease with the individual concerned and that the partner and children and even the extended family suffer. When we talk about an individual's rights and democracy and maturity, we should also talk about the rights of those who suffer the consequences of alcohol abuse.

In my travels abroad in recent years to many countries and after having spoken with people and listened to the kudos extended to us because of our economic progress, the character of our people, the scenery and the hospitality, one further comment is added to that list and increasingly so each time I go abroad. In the past four weeks, I have been in Singapore, Washington and Prague. I have heard the same discussion in those locations between people familiar with Ireland about the abuse of alcohol, especially among young people. They talk of the unruly scenes which result from that abuse. They cannot believe it because they have not seen it to the same extent in their own countries.

I do not know if it is tradition or historical inheritance. I am not sure of the reason, but there is the feeling abroad, sometimes justified, sometimes not, that we are one of the nations which can be accused of abusing alcohol. If that is the case, it does not necessarily follow that one set of laws in one country would be suitable for our country. The Minister is right to approach this by designing legislation to suit our needs. It is clear from the widespread consultation he has had that he has been able to take both sides on board.

My experience of the publicans of Ireland is that they are decent, honest, hard-working and caring people. They have had good control of their business and premises. They have played a role over and above the call of duty in ensuring people do not suffer as a result of the abuse of alcohol. Those publicans are deserving of our thanks and gratitude for having done that. They have also provided an excellent service, nowhere more so than in rural Ireland where in many ways the pub is the social outlet and is at the heart of social activity. Many publicans do not make major profits but they have continued to provide that service. Any time I have ever been in a pub, I have always found the publican and the staff to be willing to listen to people. One could even say that at times they have been the confessors. I would not like the caricature of a publican to go abroad as a person who has not been responsible because that would not be correct.

It is not fair to ask the publican to become the legislator, to say when we will stop, to say to people that they must go home at 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock because he does not want to make any more profit, because he can no longer stand on his feet or because he does not think it is socially correct to do what is being done. We would be opting out of our responsibilities were we to do that. We would be abdicating the very duties and responsibilities which we sought as legislators when we went to the electorate. Therefore, it is especially important for us to regard the discussion and this legislation as part of what we should consider.

I know from experience that drink is an integral part of many of the major social and sporting occasions in Ireland. On most occasions it is not abused and is used in a manner we would all like to think would happen. However, we should think in terms of influence, and this comes back to a comment I would like to make about Senator O'Toole when he spoke of freedom and liberty. What about the influence on young people? If we have such flexible laws and no constraints, guidance or markings put down for young people, what do we expect will happen? The same family influence does not exist anymore nor does the same discipline and control exist in schools, nor the same respect for authority. I do not associate any of this with alcohol. However, because they do not exist, peer pressure is the influence which will exist.

We all know that the average young person is subjected to peer pressure when it comes to drink. I have often spoken to young people and asked them why they became involved with drink at the age of 16, 17 or 18 and they said because their friends were doing it. In fairness, when they attend any social occasion, they are exposed to it anyway because there are practically no alcohol-free events at present. Therefore, it can be taken for granted that the moment they attend an event they are presented with drink. It is vital we con sider the interests of young people. Whatever decision they might make when they are 18, 19 or 20, it would be criminal to think we would allow ten, 12 and 13 year olds to do exactly as they wish in that regard.

If people think that is an exaggeration, they should look at the survey conducted in Arklow within the past year among under-13s. The survey showed that in excess of 50% of under-13s were imbibing on a regular basis. A significant percentage had already experimented with drugs. Would any parent or responsible person suggest that this is something we would like to see develop? This is what is happening at present. It is important for us to analyse and realise why it is happening.

I will not deal with the nitty gritty of the legislation. We must accept that the Minister has done his best and has engaged in widespread consultation.

As a people, we should not always aim for the lowest common denominator. It is easy to make liberal arguments about particular issues and, by and large, the media is happy to present such arguments. However, we must ask ourselves whether the net results of those arguments have been desirable or have resulted in the creation of a desirable environment which can be passed on to future generations. If more people from the silent majority spoke out about some of these issues, as Senator Farrell did today, we might create a more balanced debate and a happier environment in which people would not become dependent on drink.

A former president of the GAA, Dr. Mick Loftus, who is a coroner in Mayo, has continually spoken out about sponsorship where drink is concerned. He has argued from the standpoint of someone who has been at the coalface in regard to the effects of drink abuse. He has witnessed accidents and other horrific results of drink abuse. I compliment Dr. Loftus because, although he may seem like a voice in the wilderness, we need people like him to provide balanced material for the media when it reports on issues such as these.

I wish the Minister well with this legislation and I hope it will make a contribution to the creation of an acceptance of the social aspect of drink on the one hand and at the same time assist the victims of drink, the immediate victims and those who suffer as a result of others' drink abuse.

I want to put my comments in the context of a response to Senator O'Toole. This is not a case of being old-fashioned, penalising people or taking their liberty away, rather it is a case of considering the common good and the rights of young people to grow up in a protected environment in which they can make their own decisions.

Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Ms Hanafin)

I thank the Senators who contributed to the debate on this Bill. As expected, the Bill has created a great deal of interest both within the Oireachtas and among the wider public. In general, the Bill has been very well received and achieves what the Minister set out to do less than two years ago.

The Bill is a genuine attempt to meet the needs and expectations of a modern society. Senators have made some important comments on the Bill and on the need to change the law in certain respects. I contend that the Bill achieves a radical transformation of the licensing scene and does so with minimum fuss without adding to the burden of regulations which has been a long-standing feature of the licensing code. The Minister has undertaken to ensure that the commission on licensing will examine other aspects of the licensing code, including a review of the scope for a system of additional licences and the nature of premises which could be licensed. In that respect, I acknowledge that more needs to be done but I submit that Senators will recognise a measure of bona fides in this Bill as far as reform of the law is concerned. That has been acknowledged by Senators Farrell and Ó Murchú.

I am in favour of changing many aspects of our intoxicating liquor law. There is no doubt that from the perspective of social legislation, this is an area of the law which demands to be reviewed from time to time and changed, as appropriate. It is also a highly complex area of law which has the capacity to be very controversial.

Much of today's debate centred on under-age drinking. I know that Senators support, without equivocation, the Bill's provisions in this regard. In framing the Bill, the Minister was most anxious to ensure that a particular effort would be made to make our protection of young people as effective as possible. For this reason, an intensive review of the existing provisions relating to under-age drinking was undertaken. Senators will be aware that the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1988, already contains significant specific provisions in this area and it is worth recalling some of these.

Section 33 of the 1988 Act states that it is an offence for any person under 18 years of age to purchase alcohol whether in an on-licence or off-licence premises or to consume it in any place other than a private residence. Section 32 states that it is an offence for any person to purchase alcohol for consumption by a person under 18 years of age in any place other than a private residence. Section 31 states that it is an offence for a licence holder to sell or deliver alcohol to a person under 18 years of age or to permit consumption of drink by, or the supply of drink to, under 18s. Section 37 states that intoxicating liquor in the possession of under 18s in any place other than a private residence may be seized by the Garda.

Section 34 states that persons under 15 years of age are not allowed into the bar of a licenced premises unless accompanied by a parent or guardian. Section 35 states that no person under 18 years of age is allowed into the part of a licenced premises where an extension under a special exemption order is in force. Section 36 states that under 18s are not allowed on off-licence premises unless accompanied by a parent or guardian. The new provision introduced in this Bill will significantly improve the situation. Other legislative provisions of general application in liquor licensing, public order, road traffic and public health legislation aimed at controlling drinking in public places reinforce the specific under-age drinking provisions, a matter about which Senator Farrell expressed concern earlier.

I wish to refer to the national voluntary age card scheme. Regulations to provide for the introduction of this card scheme came into effect on 19 April 1999. Close to 8,000 cards have been issued by the Garda. The scheme will help to provide an effective deterrent to under-age drinking. Coupled with the substantial changes provided in the Bill to deal with under-age drinking, particularly the removal of the reasonable grounds defence in any proceedings against a licensee, a greater onus is placed on the licensee of a licenced premises to ensure that intoxicating liquor is only supplied to those who are legally entitled to purchase or consume it on licenced premises. The removal of the reasonable grounds defence is complimentary to the voluntary age card scheme and will serve to make licensees' reliance on it more important because no defence will be permitted where a person wilfully supplies liquor to an under-age person.

Senators Bohan and Connor raised questions about the reasonable grounds defence. I do not want to send out a message that those who break the law in the area of under-age drinking will not be punished. Therefore, we would not be disposed to changing the Bill's provisions in this regard.

Senator Quill and others asked whether a mandatory age card scheme might prove more effective. The view is that in the first instance the age card scheme is for persons who wish to purchase or consume alcohol. A mandatory scheme would apply to everyone, even people who would not wish to enter licensed premises. Moreover, the age card scheme is directed at people who are legally entitled to consume alcohol on a licenced premises. It would be necessary to investigate at what age or stage the mandatory card would no longer be required. The voluntary scheme serves to assist both consumers and licensees where a doubt exists about a person's age but it does not confer any special right to be on a licensed premises or to be served alcohol.

The report of the sub-committee of the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights made specific reference to the problem of under-age drinking. It called for stiffer penalties, including increased fines and the temporary closure of premises. These suggestions have been taken on board in this Bill. Inciden tally, Senator Costello questioned the opening times outlined in the Bill. The committee proposed the split week of Monday to Wednesday and Thursday to Saturday and the Government subsequently decided on Sunday.

I have already stated that the Minister is providing for a new scheme of temporary closure of a licensed premises. This will act as a strong deterrent to abuses of the law. It is designed to hit the pockets of offenders and publicly identify them without necessarily having to forfeit their licences. The ultimate sanction of forfeiture of a licence in the event of persistent offences will remain an option open to a judge. If the closure were not to be mandatory, I would not be confident that that would be a sufficient deterrent. The combination of the above provisions, together with the national age card scheme introduced by the Minister last year, will further strengthen the hand of all agencies in the fight against the scourge of under-age drinking. I share the concerns raised by Senators Henry and Costello about the number of young people working in pubs, particularly during the school week. It is something the Tánaiste is reviewing in the context of working hours.

It is important to assure Senators that there will be a tightening up of the enforcement of laws by the Garda Síochána. When the Bill was published, the Minister indicated that hand in hand with the relaxation of opening hours, greater ease of access to the trade and other liberalising measures, there will be a major crackdown on abuses in the law. When the Bill is enacted, the Minister will request the Garda Commissioner to pursue vigorously those who persistently flout the law, particularly those who engage in the criminally irresponsible trade of serving liquor to under-age persons.

Senator Quinn mentioned the opening hours of supermarkets. The Minister has relaxed the law considerably by way of this Bill as far as weekdays are concerned, and this will benefit supermarkets and their customers greatly on those days. There is still a sensitivity relating to trading on Sunday mornings and at this point the Government view is that the status quo should prevail.

Under the terms of the Bill, supermarkets will be permitted to open for non-licensed business at 7.30 a.m. on Sundays, should they so wish. The question of allowing licensed premises to open for the sale of non-licensed goods at other times may have to be looked at again. For the present, however, I think we would accept that opening hours from 7.30 a.m. to approximately 11.30 p.m. or 12.30 a.m., 364 days a year, are sufficient.

I would advise Senator Coghlan that any off-licence holder engaged in mixed trading will benefit from the provisions of section 4.

Senator Connor and others raised the issue of licensing leisure centres. This is a matter which must be considered in the context of overall pol icy for developing the potential of such places. I am sure Senators will agree it is important that such amenities are viable in their own right and not contingent on the granting of such licences.

The Minister has obtained Government approval to establish a new commission on licensing which will examine other aspects of the licensing system. The type of licence is one such matter that may require more detailed consideration and falls to the remit of the commission. The commission will have ample scope to deliver quality advice to the Government on such diverse areas as access to licences, the nature of premises that can or should be licensed, the distribution of licences and the licensing system.

It is envisaged that the commission will examine the scope for a system of additional licences together with certain other aspects of the licensing system, including licences for theatres and places of public entertainment, the licensing of residential accommodation which does not come under the definition of a hotel, the licensing of interpretative centres and other places where the sale of alcohol is ancillary to the main business being carried out. These are all areas where additional thought is required and consideration must be given to overall licensing policy and the consequential effects of any proposed changes.

The details of the terms of reference of the commission will be a matter for final determination in the light of discussion with relevant interests. The commission will be representative not just of the licensed trade and Departments, but also of interested groups in society.

Sunday opening is an issue that was dealt with in view of the fact that Sunday is the beginning of the working week. This was a factor in the decision to retain 11 p.m. closing on that day. The market itself has changed on Sundays, with midday rather than midnight being a major time for such activity.

Senator Connor expressed regrets that the Bill does not address reform of the administrative system for licensing. The Minister accepts that reform of the licensing laws is not an easy task and cannot be undertaken lightly. Areas of reform which have achieved general consensus and where a fair balance can be struck between the diverse interests of various groups are addressed in the Bill. Anyone who is familiar with the licensing laws will appreciate that a good deal of work remains to be done.

Senators argued that tourism requires longer opening hours. I would be very hesitant, however, to subscribe to the view that the only, or main, reason tourists visit our country is to have a drink. While it may be true that some tourists find our licensing laws different from or more restrictive than those in their own countries, this is not a valid reason to further extend the permitted opening hours. According to Bord Fáilte, that is not a universal demand of tourists. I am sure many members of the public, if confronted with the prospect of public houses or clubs opening for longer hours, would wish to register their opposition on the basis of noise, threat to their person or property from drink-induced violence or just common nuisance. The Bill provides for a system of permitted opening times that will serve both the domestic and tourist market well.

Fear was expressed that all restaurants will demand the right to sell spirits. As Senator Bohan said, however, a restaurant which operates under the special restaurant licence, as provided for in the Act of 1988, or a restaurant to which a publican's on-licence attaches, may supply all forms of intoxicating liquor – that is, wine, beer and spirits – with a substantial meal during the hours set out in legislation.

The amendments to the law relating to restaurants will have the effect of encouraging more restaurants to apply for the special restaurant licence, thereby increasing the number of outlets that will be able to offer the full range of drinks. The Bill complements this desirable change by permitting restaurants with a wine licence to serve beer with a meal. Taken together, these measures greatly assist the restaurant sector.

The rather bizarre situation where wine could be supplied in a licensed restaurant but not local beers has been corrected. This provision reflects consumer demand and will also facilitate the tourist trade. It provides the opportunity for restaurateurs to provide the type of service they wish to provide, or that which would be workable in a particular locality.

Senator O'Toole mentioned the need to restrict entry to the licensing trade, but we would have opposite views on that point. I do not believe that the total deregulation of entry to the licensing trade, even if it was warranted, is something that could be achieved overnight. The sale of alcohol and, therefore, liquor licensing cannot be equated with other forms of retail trade, such as newsagents or groceries. The strategy in the Bill will work. It can have the effect, for example, of inducing existing licensees, persons experienced in the trade, to move away from areas where they may or may not be operating in a commercially viable way, to areas where there will be greater opportunities for them to provide a service to the public. It will also permit new entrants to the trade by making access to licences easier.

Neither the Minister nor his Government colleagues were convinced by the arguments put forward for full deregulation of access to the licensed trade, as if a licence for the sale of intoxicating liquor could be equated with a licence to sell postage stamps. Whether we like it, alcohol is not the same as other retail products. The Minister is mindful of the negative consequences of alcohol abuse, which were highlighted by a number of the contributions to this debate, and the effect a totally deregulated regime, introduced all at once, could have on society. For the present, the Bill goes far enough in opening up the licensed trade. The Minister would prefer to see the effect of the new law before going any further.

We have reached a point in our social development where we can dispense with some of the paranoia surrounding the consumption of alcohol, something that is really a throw-back to a bygone age. As part of the consultation process, the Minister met many interest groups and continued to meet them even after the proposals were published.

There were those who held that it would be virtually impossible to satisfy the demands of all sides in any comprehensive liquor measure. What one group advocates as essential is portrayed by other sectors of the trade as an unjust attack on their ability to make a living. It was as if any licensing measure had to have winners and losers. The Bill is able to lay that fallacy to rest. I am pleased the Bill has been welcomed, almost universally, as a genuinely reforming one and that it is seen to represent a balance or, indeed, a number of balances. The Minister has found the middle ground between those who advocate no change in the law as it stands and those who see regulation in this area as the personification of the "nanny" State.

Society has changed significantly for the better over recent decades as far as our attitude to alcohol is concerned. We are much less likely now to dwell on the negative side of alcohol, that is alcohol abuse. Our maturing attitude means we can speak not only about the licensing laws in the context of what must be done to limit abuse but also about the role of alcohol within the tourism industry, as part of our social fabric and as something which can be celebrated in a positive way. Social drinking has for many moved on to a new plane where the consumption of alcohol is only part of the enjoyment of some other activity and is not an end in itself, while we must always be cognisant of the problems associated with the abuse of alcohol. Tugaim buíochas leis na Seanadóirí á labhair anseo inniu agus molaim an Bille seo don Teach. Go raibh maith agat.

Question put and agreed to.

An Cathaoirleach

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Mr. Farrell

On 11 May.

Committee Stage ordered for Thursday, 11 May 2000.

An Cathaoirleach

Is that agreed? Agreed. When is it proposed to sit again?

Mr. Farrell

At 10.30 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The Seanad adjourned at 6.35 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 19 April 2000.