The Minister was right when he said pubs do not open their front doors. They open their back doors instead. That is what happens on Good Friday throughout the country, and it makes a sham of politics. I contrast the approach taken here with the approach of the Pioneer Total Abstinence Association. I am not surprised by its approach because the chairperson of that august body wrote the definitive work on prejudice and tolerance in society in the two most important tomes which have ever been written. It is from those books that I have learned many of my views on tolerance and prejudice which are pertinent in the context of the debate on immigration and racism.
The only reason which has been given for the retention of Good Friday closing is tradition, but that was of a different Ireland. That is not to say it was better or worse or that people should not be entitled to express their views. My view is in line with what Senator Quinn said – self-regulation beats national regulation any time. The more we devolve responsibility from the national to the local and the individual, the stronger we become as a community. It enables people to take control of their lives. Therefore, the approach of the Pioneer Total Abstinence Association is to ensure that young people are protected, that health issues are dealt with, that the Garda has proper resources and that those who sell or hand out drink to young people or others take responsibility for their action. That is the proper way to deal with it.
I will give a simple example. The Education Act requires teachers to reflect on and show consideration for the various denominations and values and diversity of beliefs of different communities. I visited a school in this town this week where more than 25% of the children are from abroad. How does the teacher explain to the parents of those children why pubs do not open on Good Friday? The only reason is one which has a vague connection to religion or tradition. Nonetheless, it means a certain message is sent out.
I do not wish to overstate the matter but I use the Good Friday issue because this argument and discussion should take place. This will probably be voted down and many of those who will vote against it were in pubs on Good Friday. It is ridiculous, a sham and hypocrisy at a time when we are trying to make politics relevant and say that public representation is real and honest.
Pubs are not required to open and people are not required to drink. They can make that decision for themselves. However, people do not demand it nor do they need to demand it. Similarly, a huge number of premises have ignored the law which requires pubs to close between 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. on a Sunday afternoon. People voted with their feet. If people want to drink on Good Friday, they do not have to plan. They go to the pub, tap on the window and go around the back. Is it not a good thing that local publicans have the sense to deal with these issues and to see that the law is an ass? We should ensure that anyone who votes against this amendment would not dare consider or give a moment's thought to going to a pub for a drink on Good Friday.
The Minister's reference to St. Patrick's Day is a good one. It shows how society changes. It does not mean that it is good or bad, just that different demands arise and that is as it should be. We should be able to show young people that, if pubs are open, it does not mean that they have to go in or, if drink is for sale, that they have to buy it. People must learn to make decisions for themselves.
The argument is similar to the drugs problem in Europe. Every time we have tried to deal with it by stopping the supply chain, something else has cropped up. Designer drugs such as ecstasy have only become available because supply chains have been stopped. People will always find either another supply route or find something to replace what they originally sought. It is not the way to deal with a mature society. Eighty years into independence, people should be old, wise, able and educated enough to decide when and where they can drink. We, as a society, should also put in place the strong, strict rules for people who deal with that drug. The argument has not been made here, although the Pioneer Total Abstinence Association has made it, about the greater social, economic and other negative fallouts from drink than from heroin.
We should take the education route and allow people to deal with this issue rather than bowing in the direction of tradition. Tradition is not static but organic. It changes and continues to evolve. Traditions become such because people are brave enough to take decisions at certain times in our history. They are not cut and dried and do not exist forever. The fact that closing on Good Friday is traditional is no argument.
The Minister spoke of consistency. I have never understood the value of consistency. I have never accepted it as an argument. It is usually used by people who lack creativity, who do not have an answer to an argument, who talk about policy and about the way things were, and who say "If it's not broke, don't fix it". Consistency is not an answer to an argument such as this. If it is time for change, it is time for change. If it is not, so be it. There is no case to retain this measure. People are voting with their feet. It is not as if its repeal would be offensive to any group in society and I would be conscious of that fact. It is a matter of dealing with and responding to the views of majorities and minorities in society, reflecting the diverse values in society at present and recognising that, among other things, Good Friday is also a bank holiday and that people are old, wise, educated and able enough to decide whether they want to drink in the pub on that day.
