I remind Senators that amendments must be seconded and only the Senator moving the amendment has a right to reply to the Minister's response. Amendments No. 1 to 3, inclusive, may be taken together by agreement.
Intoxicating Liquor Bill 2008: Report and Final Stages.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 7, to delete lines 17 to 49 and in page 8, to delete lines 1 to 4 and substitute the following:
"(a) not later than 6 months after section 8 of this Act is commenced, the Minister shall lay before each House appropriate regulations for the structural separation for the sale of intoxicating liquor,
(b) such regulations shall be approved by each House and shall come into force not later than the first anniversary of such approval,
(c) the Minister shall, prior to laying of the above regulations before each House of the Oireachtas, consult with representatives of the industry to facilitate the practical implementation of the above regulations.”.
I second the amendment.
Is there a list of Report Stage amendments?
They are outside the Chamber.
I apologise. I did not realise the list was issued.
This is an amendment on the structural separation of alcohol in mixed house premises. I do not propose to delay the House on this but I put the matter to the Minister of State. I put this amendment on Committee Stage to the Minister of State but as the amendments will be automatically rejected, I do not propose to say too much on them. The same logic applies to amendments Nos. 2 and 3. Although I do not propose to press the amendments, I am interested to hear the Minister of State's comments.
If there had been time for proper consideration and scope for the Minister of State to make a decision, some amendments could possibly have been accepted and there would be some logic in putting down amendments. The placing of these amendments is almost a futile process given the blanket policy of rejection of any amendments.
I will reiterate what I stated on Committee Stage. I hope the code of practice will generate the result which is presumably intended by way of this amendment. The Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, has indicated his flexibility and pragmatism, as always. My experience of working with the Minister for the best part of four years is that he is flexible and pragmatic with regard to not commencing this section of the Bill in preference to having a code of practice that will act as the guideline for small individual retailers. It is hoped it will, in effect, bring about the position where there is separation without it involving structural building work, etc.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.
Amendment No. 4 in the name of Senators Ross and Quinn is out of order as it does not arise from committee proceedings.
I propose that the amendment be recommitted.
On a point of order, I put down an identical amendment No. 4 in the names of Senator Cummins and myself. It dealt with this issue of the upgrading of restricted licences. It is identical and is included in the list of amendments.
It was not discussed on Committee Stage.
It was.
From the list I have, amendment No. 4 is in the names of Senators Ross and Quinn.
It is the same amendment.
Senator Regan submitted an identical amendment, which is being allowed.
My amendment was submitted to the Bills Office and acknowledged as having been received. That is the reason it is on the Order Paper.
Yes. I kept quiet because I understood we would be able to discuss Senator Regan's amendment, which is identical and on the Order Paper as allowed.
In the event of an amendment having been submitted to the Bills Office and not been returned, of if there is an error, I will suspend the sitting in order to allow Senators check it out and give them an opportunity to speak on it.
There is no need for that. Either the amendment is in order or it is not. I did not press my amendment because I understood Senator Regan has an amendment which is obviously allowed. It is printed and on the Order Paper.
I would like to clarify this.
It was submitted and acknowledged by the Bills Office.
Perhaps we need time to clarify the amendment.
We can just add two names to the amendment. We do not need to delay further because of that procedure.
I will move the amendment on behalf of Senator Regan, with his permission, if it makes life easier.
It would be with my permission.
We can get written permission.
Amendment No. 4 is in the names of Senators Regan, Cummins, Ross and Quinn. Senators Ross and Quinn were first to commit it. It was discussed on Committee Stage by Senator Regan.
The issue of the amendment was discussed.
As I read it, it is out of order. I will discuss the matter afterwards with people if required.
I have a point of order.
I believed we would be allowed to take the amendment and because it was printed, it is in order. Are we allowed to take the amendment? Senator Regan has delegated it to me and will speak on it himself.
It is on the printed list of amendments and on that basis, the matter can be discussed. It should not detain the House.
It is out of order.
I will not delay the House.
It is out of order.
Why is it printed if it is out of order?
It does not arise out of committee proceedings.
I will put down a motion to recommit the amendment.
It is printed so I assume it is in order.
All amendments are printed.
The amendment was not printed in Senator Regan's name. We received a letter stating it was out of order but Senator Regan did not.
I accept that but it arose from confusion about the list. There were two names which should have been on the list but are not. Only two names were attached to the amendment on the list that came to me, which is why it was ruled out at that stage. There are four names attached to it now.
I accept my amendment was ruled out of order.
Yes.
I also accept Senator Regan's amendment was not ruled out of order.
I am ruling it out of order now.
It has been printed.
On what basis is Senator Regan's amendment being ruled out of order?
All amendments submitted are printed.
Was a letter sent to Senator Regan indicating his amendment was out of order?
I notified Senator Ross out of courtesy that his amendment was out of order. I am now informing Senator Regan that his amendment is out of order.
Why has it been ruled out of order?
It did not arise out of committee proceedings.
When an amendment is ruled out of order on Report Stage because it does not arise out of committee proceedings, it is open to Members to move a motion to have the matter recommitted. I have done this in the past.
Will the Government oppose such a motion?
I propose that the Bill be recommitted in respect of amendment No. 4.
Does Senator Alex White wish to speak?
I may be able to resolve the issue.
Senator Boyle appears to be chomping at the bit to speak to the substance of the amendment, although he failed to speak on Committee Stage. He has shown contempt for the House by submitting an amendment and allowing it not to be moved, thus preventing Senators from speaking on it.
Senators are entitled to do that.
I was invited to speak.
The question is, "That the Bill be recommitted in respect of amendment No. 4".
Question put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 15; Níl, 23.
Tá
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Burke, Paddy.
- Buttimer, Jerry.
- Coffey, Paudie.
- Cummins, Maurice.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Hannigan, Dominic.
- McFadden, Nicky.
- O’Reilly, Joe.
- Phelan, John Paul.
- Quinn, Feargal.
- Regan, Eugene.
- Ross, Shane.
- Twomey, Liam.
- White, Alex.
Níl
- Boyle, Dan.
- Brady, Martin.
- Butler, Larry.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Carty, John.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Corrigan, Maria.
- Daly, Mark.
- Ellis, John.
- Feeney, Geraldine.
- Hanafin, John.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- Leyden, Terry.
- MacSharry, Marc.
- Ó Domhnaill, Brian.
- Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
- O’Brien, Francis.
- O’Donovan, Denis.
- O’Malley, Fiona.
- O’Sullivan, Ned.
- Ormonde, Ann.
- White, Mary M.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Eugene Regan and Alex White; Níl, Senators Fiona O’Malley and Diarmuid Wilson.
Question declared lost.
Bill received for final consideration.
Question put: "That the Bill do now pass."
The Seanad divided: Tá, 23; Níl, 15.
Tá
- Boyle, Dan.
- Brady, Martin.
- Butler, Larry.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Carty, John.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Corrigan, Maria.
- Daly, Mark.
- Ellis, John.
- Feeney, Geraldine.
- Hanafin, John.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- Leyden, Terry.
- MacSharry, Marc.
- Ó Domhnaill, Brian.
- Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
- O’Brien, Francis.
- O’Donovan, Denis.
- O’Malley, Fiona.
- O’Sullivan, Ned.
- Ormonde, Ann.
- White, Mary M.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
Níl
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Burke, Paddy.
- Buttimer, Jerry.
- Coffey, Paudie.
- Cummins, Maurice.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Hannigan, Dominic.
- McFadden, Nicky.
- O’Reilly, Joe.
- Phelan, John Paul.
- Quinn, Feargal.
- Regan, Eugene.
- Ross, Shane.
- Twomey, Liam.
- White, Alex.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Fiona O’Malley and Diarmuid Wilson; Níl, Senators Maurice Cummins and Alex White.
Question declared carried.
Is it not customary for the Minister of State to be here for the passing of the legislation——
The Bill has been passed but if the Members wish——
——and that there would be a final statement from him?
The Minister of State is back.
I had better be very careful about procedure. I thank Members for their contributions to this legislation. I hope this Bill and the legislation to follow in the autumn will begin the great journey of compliance in regard to the misuse of alcohol in Ireland. Hopefully, there will be many more occasions such as this where we will get the chance to negotiate and discuss a topic which has been of huge concern to everybody over the past few yeas. I thank Members for their contributions.
I thank the Minister of State for spending so much time in the House. He gave detailed explanations as to why certain amendments could not be accepted. In a sense, the whole process has been undemocratic, an abuse of the procedure of the House and very cynical. We knew no amendments would be accepted which is unfair to Members. The ultimate proof of that cynicism was the fact the Government side voted against its own amendment. I thank the Minister of State for his time, even though there was no scope for refinement of this legislation.
No Government amendments were tabled.
There were. The Senator should ask Senator Daly.
It seems some Members opposite do not know on what they voted. They had to be told they voted against the recommital of an amendment which they drafted. In any event, they will find out in due course if they have any interest.
I thank the Minister of State for his time. I can only endorse what Senator Regan said. At certain stages this afternoon, this exercise approached high farce. Unfortunately, the contribution from the Government side contributed to that farce. Regrettably, it has not been a good day for this House.
I wish to echo what Senators Alex White and Eugene Regan have said. It is unfortunate we had to gallop through the legislation at such speed. It will be important for us to have more time to debate the issues relating to alcohol abuse, late night culture and so on in the autumn. I look forward to making a more substantial contribution then and to being listened to and having my contribution considered more seriously than today.
I thank the Minister of State and his officials for the time and attention they have given to this debate. I apologise and regret that they did not get an opportunity to get anything to eat since they came into the Seanad today. However, I must repeat what was said by others. It was unfortunate that such an important issue as public disorder resulting from alcohol did not manage to get the attention it deserved. The House has been demeaned by the way the debate was handled.
I remind the Minister of State that on the last sitting day of the Seanad some seven years ago, when the Dáil had already risen for the summer, Senator Ross discovered there was a flaw in a Bill that had passed through the Dáil, the Electoral (Amendment) Bill. The Leader of the House verified it was a flaw and the Bill failed. It was worth having debate at that stage, although we entered debate believing it was highly unlikely our amendments would be accepted.
Those of us who spoke and gave much time to this Bill today, believe it is not the best legislation that could be achieved. That is not the fault of the Minister of State or officials, but the fault of the arrangements made to deal with it. I express my disappointment with the manner in which the Bill has been passed. This has neither helped democracy nor the standing of this House.
I thank the Minister of State for his time and effort. Society will thank us for passing this Bill. Since the Bill was published, there have been at least six changes or alterations made as a result of debate. Also, the Minister of State said today that some of the issues raised by the Opposition will be definitively addressed in the autumn in the other Bill that deals with alcohol related issues, and that is a ray of hope.
It is important to discuss alcohol abuse in the House. This is the third time I have been involved with legislation on the issue. We discussed the issue in the late 1980s. Today's legislation is being introduced to close off a loophole and to strengthen the law and powers of the Garda against social unrest as a result of alcohol abuse. This is good for the House. I welcome what has been achieved and thank officials, staff and the Cathaoirleach. Perhaps the Bill was a little rushed but that said, there will be opportunities when we resume to have debate on many of the issues.
While some good amendments were suggested, the Minister of State felt it was inappropriate to delay this important legislation. The legislation we have passed will be good for our communities.
I too join in the vote of thanks to the Minister of State and his officials for steering this legislation through the House. The time necessary to debate the issues today was made available and there was no attempt by the Government side, as is the tradition in the House, to bring about any other business that would have led to a guillotine on the Bill. I accept what has been said about the sequencing of the event, but as Senator O'Donovan said, we will return to legislation on other aspects of the issue in a short period. I am confident that many of the issues that have been raised on Committee and Report Stages on this legislation will be taken into account when that Bill comes before us.
I would like to apologise to the House for the confusion caused earlier. On account of a meeting of Dáil and Seanad representatives with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government I missed being in the House for some of the time I should have been here to address the issue of amendment No. 15 on Committee Stage and amendment No. 4 on Report Stage.
We will not discuss the content of the Bill.
I wish to apologise for the fact that we had two unnecessary votes. The issue has been taken into account and that is the reason the motion was withdrawn.
The Government right wing did not know what the Government left wing was doing.
Had I been available at the time, I would have been able to explain to the matter to the House. I offer my apologies for not being able to do so and for any subsequent unnecessary votes.
That concludes our discussion on the Bill. I thank all Senators for their efforts. I wish them well and hope they have a good break.