Can the Minister give an indication to the House why the former definition of "bar" in that section has been used? It relates to an amendment which I put down in relation to section 16. The form of a bar seems to be unusually restrictive when applied to restaurants.
Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1988. - Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1988: Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill".
The term was not previously defined as the Deputy has said in Intoxicating Liquor Acts. However, it was defined in the Children Act, 1908, in section 120 as "any open drinking bar or any part of the premises exclusively or mainly used for the sale or consumption of intoxicating liquor." Section 120 of the Children Act has been repealed so it is necessary to restate the definition for the purpose of Part 4 of the Act. It is also necessary to extend the definition to exclude the operation of bar facilities in restaurants with special restaurant licences. In this part of the definition the word "bar" means any counter or other type of barrier at which the public can stand or sit and across which drink can be served either for consumption there or in some other part of the premises. The waiting and dining areas of a restaurant could not be described as being exclusively or mainly used for the sale or consumption of intoxicating liquor and will not therefore be excluded from areas where alcohol can be sold or consumed. It is envisaged that the sale of alcohol in these areas will be by waiter service or by collection or through service hatches. It was felt necessary to restate it because of the repeal of the particular section of the Children Act.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."
I rise in order to ask the Minister when he or his Department intend that the Act should come into force — or when this part of it will come into force.
I did not hear the Deputy's question.
Would the Minister care to tell the House when he intends, assuming this Bill passes the House and the other House, Part II to which section 5 relates will come into force?
It will come into force when the restaurant regulations are made.
Has the Minister any idea whether these regulations can be made in time for this part of this Bill to be of any use to the restaurant and tourist business this season?
I assure the Deputy that as far as we are concerned there will be no undue delay. We will try to get it out of the way as quickly as we possibly can so that the restaurant people will have their licences to operate for the season.
Can the House assume that the Minister's Department are already engaged in drafting these regulations in anticipation?
I understand these are already in draft form.
I understand the draft has been in preparation for 13 months.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Here we have a number of amendments. It seems amendments Nos. 4, 7, 8, 9, 12, 20 to 23 inclusive, Nos. 25, 26, 31, 32, 34, 37, 42 to 45, inclusive, Nos. 47 to 54 inclusive, and 56 and 57 are all related to amendment No. 1. I suggest, therefore, that by agreement, they be debated together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 5, line 17, after "licence" to insert "or temporary special restaurant licence."
As you Sir, pointed out, all the amendments you mentioned deal with the issue of the granting of temporary special restaurant licences.
If this Bill is passed as it is presented to us a problem will arise for many restaurant owners around the country who have a trade which does not extend beyond a short period during the year, particularly the summer period in many seaside and holiday resorts. They have a season of approximately eight to ten weeks or, if lucky, a 12-week season. It would manifestly be unfair for such restaurant owners to have to pay the same licence fee as that for a restaurant which opens the 12 months of the year.
What is proposed in this amendment would be welcomed by the restaurant trade. It is reasonable and would bring fairness into the operation of the Bill. I press the amendment strongly. The fee involved for such temporary special restaurant licences should be commensurate with or at the very same rate as the special restaurant licences allowed for in the Bill, the yearly fee being £3,000 whether on a monthly basis or a three monthly basis. I suggest it should be three months, but I leave that to the Minister to decide. That fee should be pro rata to the £3,000 for the year.
The problems which would arise for a restaurant which opens for only the three months or ten weeks would be immense, certainly in the first year where the owners would have to find another £3,000 if the restaurant, as envisaged under the terms of this Bill, is to be properly designated for the purpose of granting a special restaurant licence. If they have a full-time restaurant bona fide providing the service envisaged in the Bill, they should be entitled to have a licence but it is unfair if that is made uneconomic for them.
The turnover in any of these restaurants gives a false impression of the profit restaurants make. Some restaurant owners tell me that before VAT was removed from their business they had in Dublin approximately 1.5 per cent profit rate and outside Dublin it was about one half of 1 per cent. Since then it has risen to the magnificent rate of 2 per cent and approximately 1 per cent outside Dublin. Out of that for a three month period it would be unreasonable to ask restaurant owners to pay on top of their existing overheads a further£3,000. I hope the Minister will agree with me on this and will not bring in something that is manifestly unfair.
I will not be supporting this amendment put forward by Deputy Colley. There is some justification for the points she made but in the introduction of these special restaurant licences one has to strike a balance. We have to cater for people who are at present in business and who have tremendous fears, perhaps rightly, that abuses could take place as a result of the introduction of these special restaurant licences. I am attempting with a couple of amendments to tighten up even further what is already in the Bill.
One must remember that there are people who provide service on a 12-month basis. In rural towns and villages and, indeed, in city areas they are providing a service all year around, giving employment to people and they have to pay rates and keep other overheads covered. It would be unfair to them that an individual or individuals could come in for the height of the season, for three months and scoop the pool so to speak and then leave it high and dry for somebody else to provide the service for 12 months. In our attempts to introduce licences for genuine restaurants we have to take into account the fact that other people who have considerable investments in their properties and businesses are very fearful that the introduction of these special restaurant licences could in some way jeopardise their business.
Competition is healthy and I support fully the concept of being able to have a drink with a meal in a restaurant, but it would be unfair, taking into account all the other aspects, to cater for somebody who wants to operate for just two or three months and leave it to somebody else to provide the service for the rest of the year.
I agree very much with Deputy Barrett's general approach in this. I understand very well the arguments Deputy Colley has made but one has to strike a balance. I have a sheaf of post here, as I suppose every Deputy has, one from one side of the fence saying the fee is too high and another from the other side saying it is too low. I think it is about right. Although I have no first-hand experience of the restaurant business I have a great deal of experience of it at the receiving end, not so much in this country because I cannot afford it here but in other countries where I can. I feel that if the restaurant business in Ireland as a whole is operating on a profit margin of 0.5, or 1 or at best 2 per cent, there is something wrong somewhere with our system, with management or the industrial relations structures forced on them which contribute to that result. The State perhaps have a role in trying to induce a better management system and a better industrial atmosphere in that trade and business. I am inclined, therefore, to share the sympathetic unwillingness of Deputy Barrett to support Deputy Colley's amendment.
Another consideration which occurs to me is that if there was such a thing as a licence at a reduced rate covering only, say, July and August, in this country where we do not like pedantry, least of all in the enforcement of the law, it would impose a very odious burden on inspectors monitoring the legislation to tolerate a full service of drink in a restaurant on 31 August but who would be expected to initiate proceedings which may deprive the owner of a licence if his staff mistakenly — or perhaps just because they think they might get away with it — continue to serve drink on 1 September. A restaurant which, during the tourist season, has a full range of drink services will enjoy a lot of sympathy and the law will look rather silly if when they throw their full bar open without permission around Christmas they have the State around their neck. There was a certain virtue in Deputy Colley's remarks but it would impose an impossible and very disagreeable policing duty on the State if such a rule was made.
I agree with the sentiments expressed in Deputy Colley's amendment. In my constituency the tourist season operates for a short season only in places like Lisdoonvarna. They continously complain that there is a bias against them and they are looking for some kind of relief. In practice, intoxicating liquor licences already issued in the form of six and seven-day licences have also caused difficulty and it is peculiar that people now on six-day licences are now asking the Minister to convert early closing licences to full licences for a fee. If the Minister were to establish temporary licences for restaurants it would not be long before temporary restaurant licence holders would be looking for full licences. Will the Minister impress on the Department of the Environment that perhaps local authorities might relieve rates on people who operate restaurants on a part-time basis in constituencies like Clare?
As a good local representative, will Deputy Carey say whether refunds on rates should be given before the potholes are filled? Where will the priority list start? These amendments propose the establishment of a temporary special restaurant licence; in other words, seasonal or short-term licences. Regrettably, I cannot accept the amendments for reasons I explained on Second Stage. The only valid reason for allowing seasonal licences is that the initial fee would be lower than the sum of £3,000. I impress on Members that this fee is a once-off fee, not an annual one. That is a very important point.
They said that about income tax when it was introduced in 1914.
This is written into the Bill and if Deputy Taylor wants to strengthen it in any way we will certainly consider an amendment from him. The renewal fee is £50 which is also written into the Bill. Of course, it could be £50,000 in 50 years if governments were prepared to go along with it.
It might not be the right-wing of the House which would push it up.
I accept that——
It is time we moved to feed Deputy Kelly as he cannot get a meal in Ireland.
The question of a seasonal licence was taken into consideration when the Bill was being prepared and, as Deputy Barrett and Deputy Kelly said, there is no doubt that the fee of £3,000 would be much higher if seasonal licences could operate on the basis of a given percentage of the full fee. However, seasonal licences would be inflexible. It would mean that a person having a six months licence from April to September could not open for Easter if it fell in March and could not open in October if, for some reason, the tourist season was extended. After considerable examination of the arguments, including the practical, procedural and operational problems, we cannot accept this group of amendments. In fairness to Deputy Colley, there is some merit in her arguments and if something could be done to help the smaller licence holders I would be happy to do it. However, I would not do it in this way.
I realise that other Members have generally spoken against the various amendments. Deputy Barrett referred to a fear on the part of existing restaurant owners and he thought that a number of temporary restaurants might suddenly mushroom——
That is not what I said, I referred to licence holders.
The Bill states that only bona fide restaurant owners and providers of proper premises and facilities can obtain a licence. The same criteria would extend to those obtaining a special temporary restaurant licence. They would already be serving the public in this manner and providing bona fide restaurant facilities. With regard to the fear that there would be unfair competition in some areas from those who would cream off the profits in the couple of months of the year when tourists would come, many towns close at the end of the season anyway and there would be no question of unfair competition because everybody would be in the same boat.
Deputy Colley knows that in such cases they are not given any financial relief by way of exemption, at present. If we were to do that, we would be changing legislation from now until Kingdom come and there would not be restaurant licences for the tourist season this year.
I understand the Minister's fears. However, they are not a good reason for continuing the discrimination against businessmen and restaurant owners who are desperately trying to provide a service. Despite Deputy Kelly's disparaging remarks about the restaurant industry, there is a growing industry which should be helped in any way possible. This Bill would allow us to do that if we seize the opportunity. By not doing so, we are preventing those who are trying to get started.
The Minister said that the fee of £3,000 is reasonable and that he had regard to those who might have a seasonal trade. Nevertheless, the fee is based on a restaurant which would, in general, be in business for 12 months. It is unfortunate that we cannot make an allowance for restaurants who are not in that position. Deputy Carey asked what would happen if these extended to full licences. It would be beneficial as it would show that business was better and that things were expanding. I would encourage business to look for a full licence at that stage and to pay the full fee then. For Heaven's sake, let us help them to get off the ground and provide facilities which the public are seeking. I have no doubt that after we pass the Bill there will be many areas where nobody will take out these licences because they will not be able to afford them. Those who visit those areas will be denied the facilities. I am referring to seaside and tourist areas where restaurant owners will not be in a position to take out such a licence.
I should like to make a number of observations on what has been suggested. When considering this section it was a concern of The Workers' Party that the fee of £3,000 was not adequate. However, following a commitment by the Minister on Second Stage to keep the amount of the fee under constant review we did not table an amendment to it. The making available of the facility, and the opportunity to retail alcohol, other than wine, by restaurants is a major advancement in the services that restaurants provide. In my view the once-off fee of £3,000 is, as Deputy Kelly indicated, just about right. That fee may be increased or decreased in the future, depending on how the trend develops but the concern at the moment is that the existing licence trade may be set at a disadvantage. If the cause of the amendment is being advanced on the conversations Deputy Colley has had with some restaurant owners who say that they work on a profit margin of 1.5 per cent——
The conversations were subsequent to my putting down the amendment.
——it is my belief that she has been misled. I do not believe that there is a restaurant in Ireland that works on that type of profit margin. It would be impossible, as has been hinted on this side of the House. In any event if that was the position the £3,000 would be quickly written-off against the obvious losses the restaurant was incurring and it would not represent an invasion on the profit margin. I am aware of a licensed premises in Dublin known as An Béal Bocht but I have not seen too many restaurants borrowing that name. We must keep this argument in the realm of reality. From my superficial knowledge of restaurants my impression is that the margins of profit and gain are greater than has been suggested by Deputy Colley.
In regard to the argument about the short season in some areas I should like to state that while the season may be short it is very generous to those who can avail of it in seaside resorts and so on. On balance the fee fixed is a fair one. In fact it may be too generous but we can look at that later. I do not think the House should support Deputy Colley's amendments.
Will the Minister indicate the means he is considering to give relief to seasonal restaurant owners, as mentioned earlier? He said that we could consider other means of relief for restaurant owners who find themselves in difficulty.
The Deputy must have misunderstood what I said. I do not propose to give any relief whatever in the Bill.
I accept that it was not to be under this Bill.
The Department of Justice are not in a position to give relief to anybody in the way the Deputy would like relief to be given. If I was interested in opening a pub in any seaside resort where trade is seasonal — as Deputy McCartan pointed out, it is a good trade for as long as the season lasts — I would not get a licence to set up for £3,000.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 5, line 26, after "public" to insert "for consumption on the premises".
It is the intention that under the new system for licensing restaurants the take-away type premises will not qualify for licences. The standard regulations should make that clear. However, I think it would be desirable to copperfasten that intent by writing it into the definition of a restaurant. This was suggested by Deputy Jacob and a number of other Deputies during the Second Stage debate. I am accepting that point, and, accordingly, putting it forward as an amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
The next amendment is No. 3 in the name of Deputy Colley. I observe that amendments Nos. 38, 40 and 41 are clearly related and I suggest that the four amendments be taken together.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 5, lines 26 and 27, to delete "at midday or in the evening, or at midday and in the evening" and substitute "at any time from midday each day".
The purpose of these amendments is to bring some sense of reality into the provisions regarding special restaurant licences. The Bill provides that an applicant who receives a special restaurant licence may serve alcohol during lunchtime and in the evening but not between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. I cannot see any good reason for that restriction and my amendments are intended to remove it and permit restaurants supplying substantial meals to the public to provide alcohol with meals at any time after mid-day. I do not understand the thinking behind restricting the serving of alcohol with meals to the hours mentioned while at the same time the Minister is seeking to remove the `holy hours' from public houses which do not serve meals as the main part of their business. We could have public houses who serve pub grub, sandwiches and so on serving alcohol throughout the day while a restaurant which is in the business of providing substantial meals all day will be restricted because they will not be permitted to serve alcohol with meals between the hours of 3 p.m. and 6 p.m.
I cannot understand the reason for that restriction. The people I have raised this issue with are puzzled about it. Tourists travelling on ferries to this country arrive at unusual hours and they may wish to have a glass of beer with their meal after their journey but if they go to a restaurant between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. they will not be served beer. The whole purpose of the Bill, as I understand it, was to accede to public demand but that will not happen in this case. There are bona fide restaurants in Dublin who serve substantial lunches or grills throughout the afternoon — I am not talking about fast food outlets — and they will be restricted under this provision. In fact, not alone will they be prevented from serving beer or spirits between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. but they will be obliged to relinquish their existing wine licence when we adopt this measure and cannot serve wine. I cannot understand the reasoning behind this and I oppose it very strongly. I hope the Minister can see reason in this instance.
I am not sure to what extent my feelings about this matter represent those of my party — very likely they do not, as usual. I must confess that this time I find myself strongly in agreement with Deputy Colley, more or less for the reasons she gives but also because on the European Continent, of whose outward tourist trade we enjoy a disgracefully small percentage, people are not psychologically tied to the idea of breakfast, dinner and tea to the extent we are. It is impossible to get that through the heads of Irish people who when they think of abroad, think of America. I have been coming and going on the European Continent since I was a student and I spend as much time as I can there. It is very common to see people eating at various times during the day. Perhaps some of these people choose to work through what we regard as the dinner hour. Perhaps they are actually keen enough on their work not to bother going to eat at the times when we find it impossible to carry on with a low blood sugar count. These people suddenly find they get a bit peckish around 4.30 in the afternoon. I have very often seen people take a substantial meal at an hour which my metabolism would rebel against. To impose our village timetable for eating and drinking on people from Germany and Italy and hope they will come here in numbers ten times greater than they have so far is pitiful.
With all the understanding and sympathy I have for the Minister in having to deal with the crotchety lobby who have effectively prevented this legislation being enacted for 66 years, I ask him to listen carefully to the points Deputy Colley has made and to ask himself what his reaction would be if he were a busy, overworked man from Wuppertal or Milan who arrived off a ferry or who had business here and worked through the lunch hour, as even Irish people now do, and suddenly felt like a steak and chips and a pint of stout at around 4.30 p.m. Where is the reason or the morality in this? I cannot see the reason for the Minister's line except that he has to pacify a lot of people whom it has proved difficult to pacify over the last two generations. They have had a long enough crack of the whip by now.
The purpose of these amendments is to abolish the period during the afternoon when specially licensed premises cannot serve alcohol and alcohol cannot be consumed in them. It must be remembered that this licence is restrictive in its operation. The cost reflects that restriction. The main purpose of the licence is to allow consumption of alcohol with substantial meals at a time when a demand for such a service could reasonably be said to exist. If the person to whom Deputy Kelly refers feels peckish around 4 o'clock and goes to a restaurant he will not get a substantial meal, which he must have if he is to have alcohol as well. I suggest that we would probably go somewhere else. It is normal to assume that the service we are talking about would be provided at lunchtime, teatime and evening. I do not think the type of restaurant I envisage would be providing substantial meals at 4 p.m.
I concede that in Germany or Italy a very large proportion of restaurants close their kitchens at 2.30 p.m. or thereabouts and do not open again until 6 p.m. for reasons of convenience and to give their staff a rest. It does not suit those restaurants to make a meal between those hours, but that is not true of all of them. Virtually every continental town of any size with a population over 6,000 or 8,000 will have at the railway station a perfectly run and usually very cheap restaurant operated by private enterprise to whom the national transport company have let out the facilities on a concession, something which CIE should consider in their beautifully built but increasingly dilapidated premises throughout the country. In the places to which I am referring it is possible to get a substantial meal from early in the morning until near midnight. I am not suggesting that people whom it does not suit should be asked to serve meals to come under the benefits of this Bill but those whom it may suit to keep their kitchens open throughout the day ought not to be deprived of this facility. I feel that there will be a demand for the removal of the section on which the Minister now insists.
This amendment raises an important issue. Taking with it amendment No. 28 which relates to section 14 delineating the hours, there are a number of questions which concern me about the scheme. Perhaps the Minister could explain the workings of the licence as it would be issued. Subsection (1) (b) seems to suggest that a restaurant will have to close between certain hours, even if it is not intended to make alcohol available. A better reading might be that the restaurant could remain open without serving alcohol.
It can do that.
Immediately there is a problem in terms of policing. There is no drinking-up time allowed for in the context of the Bill. We can begin to see almost comical scenes developing where the proprietor will bang the table while his customers are halfway through their meal, telling them it is time to stop drinking. They can continue eating while bottles are being whipped from the table.
Or decanted into teapots.
Deputy Kelly has learned a few tricks from his infrequent visits to Irish restaurants. We get into the difficulty of all kinds of devices being employed. We are dealing with a relatively short time in the day. Is this regime for restaurants enforceable? A party may arrive into a restaurant at 12.45 p.m. and order a meal. They may see a party next to them drinking beer in the course of a meal but if they order the same they will be told they cannot be accommodated because they arrived 15 minutes too late, but if they come back in two hours and 45 minutes they will have better luck.
I am concerned that this regime will be first, unworkable, secondly, cannot be policed and, thirdly, probably will be the source of more jokes and jibes against our restaurant business than we would care to invite. On balance, one would have to agree with Deputy Colley's suggestion that it would be better to extend the licence over a continuous period through the day. I ask the Minister to look again at this proposal and, if it cannot be immediately acceded to, to look at the whole question before Report Stage.
Will the Minister indicate what regulations exist with regard to drinking up? What is the position if a person embarks on a meal, is served, for example, with beer to accompany the meal and crosses over the time limit? Is he or she to be allowed finish that meal? How is it proposed to deal not just with the problem of decanting drink into teapots but of people taking their time over their meals and drink and finding themselves left with something to consume over the time period? Those are all practical problems that spring immediately to mind. Does the Minister seriously believe they can be overcome in the way proposed?
These amendments are both reasonable and sensible. It should be a broad general principle that what we enact in this House is reasonably capable of being enforced and the House should have a good measure of confidence that it will be enforced. The restrictions imposed here, I agree with Deputy McCartan, do not have the remotest likelihood or probability of being enforced, except perhaps on a very odd occasion. I cannot visualise the spectacle of Garda raids on restaurant premises to see if wine is being consumed between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. The measure, allegedly, is being introduced largely for continental tourists and the Minister for Tourism and Transport is given a major role in this. Such people have their lunches late in the afternoon. One sees lunches going on well after 3 p.m. in restaurants on the Continent and they would expect to find the same happening on their holidays in Ireland.
The overall imprimatur, the main thrust running through the Bill is that such drinking must be in conjunction with a substantial meal. I would have thought that a sufficient condition to satisfy any reasonable requirements that there would be no abuse, providing undue or unfair competition with the public houses. The idea of having a cut-off point at 3 p.m. and reinstatement at 6 p.m. has no reality in this context. One cannot compare such a situation with a pub that has a closing time at the end of the day, with Garda presence, or whatever.
This legislation will not be enforced and will be a joke. It will appear, to people who know of the law, to be ridiculous and we should not deliberately bring the law into disrepute and make it a laughing stock. I cannot foresee prosecutions being brought for breach of the regulations. The gardaí have much more important functions to perform. There are much heavier demands on their time than seeing if some hapless, bewildered Frenchman is having a glass of beer while finishing his lunch at 3.30 p.m. We should not expect the gardaí to carry out that kind of activity. I appeal to the Minister to be reasonable about this. The practicalities are that it will not be enforced or be enforceable. Why enact it into law in those circumstances?
There seems to be an impression that tourists coming to this country cannot be served alcohol at certain times, that we are backward and have not the facilities that are available on the Continent. Like many others in this House, I have been on the Continent and the type of restaurant envisaged in the special restaurant licence do not exist there. There are no pubs as we know them on the Continent but there are places outside which people can sit and where drink is served without having to have a meal. That really is a pub. What I envisage in connection with this special restaurant licence is a genuine restaurant. Pubs will still be able to serve drink, meals and snacks, as will hotels.
The impression is also given that there are many thousands of people waiting with bated breath for us to change our licensing laws so that they can rush into Ireland as tourists. I do not accept that at all. The tourists are being catered for at present and will be in the future. Changes will take place. Licensing laws of their very nature, because of changing ways of business, will need to be regularly updated. The implementation of the Bill, in itself, will prove whether the genuine restaurant will be in business or whether there will be abuse of this special restaurant licence. Time should be allowed to see if this legislation will work. We are endeavouring to provide restaurants with a special restaurant licence. We are not trying to deprive people of a having a drink at certain times during the day; they can already do that. I may be wrong, but the type of restaurant I can see getting this special restaurant licence does not open for business at 4 p.m. or 5 p.m.
People may be finishing their lunches at 3.30 p.m.
They may be. At 3.30 p.m. there are very few people in restaurants which I envisage getting this type of licence. If others want to get a licence they can get an ordinary publican's licence or a full restaurant licence. We are talking about special restaurant licences. Hotels have to employ staff, pay PRSI, rates, overheads and all the rest and provide the service. There are, I understand, over 10,000 pubs in the country and in many rural parts of Ireland publicans are struggling for an existence. This has nothing to do with pressure groups or lobby groups. I can make up my own mind about what views to take on board from various interest groups. People are entitled to make points and points have been made to me over the past two or three weeks that I must admit I had not thought about but that I am thinking about now. These people are providing an essential service for a tourist industry, giving employment, paying substantial amounts of money for their property and business and for licensing. They are catering very well for the tourist industry and the home industry. They feel there is a danger — and there is — that someone, for a once-off payment of £3,000, can get a licence to remain open all day for the sale of alcohol. One must take that into account in introducing something new.
The kind of restaurant I envisage being entitled to get one of these licences by and large, even in the city of Dublin, is not open for business at 4 or 5 o'clock. They open for a certain period. Between 12 noon and 3 p.m. they close and they are open again at 6 p.m. or 7 p.m. in the evening. There are other café-type restaurants who provide a service throughout the day but they are not covered under this special restaurant licence. To compare it with the Continent is not to compare like with like. The sort of restaurant one gets on the Continent is our type of pub and it is not fair to say that one can go on the Continent and get a drink but that one cannot get one here. One can get a drink here in a pub, in an hotel in the same way as one can on the Continent. The sort of restaurant we are talking about here does not open for business on the Continent at 4 pm.m or 5 p.m. in the afternoon. It is wrong to say that there is an urgent need for the sake of the tourists to start giving licences to enable restaurants to serve drink all day. We have to take into account that there are other people in business who have made a heavy investment and who give a lot of permanent employment throughout the year——
So do these restaurants.
One must take into account that these people are in business and I do not want to see them being put out of business. A balance has been struck here and, as Deputy Kelly says, there is nothing wrong with the Minister coming back in 12 months or two years if times change, if there is a gap in the market and people cannot get a service. In that event we should change the law but we should first see how this works bearing in mind that we are not selling ourselves short as we are providing a very good service to tourists. The hoteliers and publicans have done an excellent job for the tourist industry and we should not allow it to go abroad that we feel that we are not catering for tourists. We should remember that we are talking about special restaurant licences for special premises.
I would like to answer the points which have been brought up and I appeal to the Minister in regard to these amendments to recognise that life in Ireland has changed. I do not look for changes because a horde of tourists are arriving on our doorsteps demanding change. The reality is that life has changed. People do not eat their dinner in the middle of the day, their tea in the evening and their breakfast in the morning, without any change in routine. There is a different emphasis in Ireland on eating out nowadays. Whether the person eating out is a tourist, Irish or foreign, or whether he is simply eating out in the course of his normal daily life, it is obvious that life has changed. Some people work on shift or only eat two meals a day. I appeal to the Minister to recognise that in this Bill, and not to put it off for another 12 months or two years so that we miss this opportunity and have something in place that we do not need or want.
I understand, as Deputy Barrett said, that there are many public houses who provide snacks that, in Cork and Dublin, after the passage of this Bill will be open during the "holy hour" so that there will be no break in service. I understand they have put a lot of investment into their businesses, but so have the people who own restaurants. I have withdrawn the amendment concerning the temporary restaurant licences, so we are left with those who are in business all year. We must try to develop the industry. One of the major purposes of this Bill is to develop the tourist industry and to allow restaurants to be in existence that would otherwise find it very hard to exist. The vintners are mistaken in seeing this as a direct threat to them.
I agree with Deputy Barrett that the type of restaurant envisaged in this Bill is one which will serve a high class meal. It will be a bona fide restaurant. There will not be a proliferation of those. Not every restaurant will come within the definition in the Bill. The vintners are mistaken in trying to restrict the development of this business. It is a fact that the public houses are offering a different service to that of restaurants. The question at issue is not whether one can obtain a drink between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. but whether one can obtain a meal with a drink between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. After all, the purpose of this part of the Bill is to allow alcohol to be consumed with meals. We are inhibiting ourselves and restricting the growth of a sector of the market which provides for tourists whether they be Irish or foreign if we prevent restaurants from serving drink between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m.
Some restaurant owners are saying they will lose 1,000 hours trading in a year which they would not lose if they were trading on the same basis in the restricted hours. That is not right. Deputy Barrett said they could remain as they are at present with a restaurant certificate, but the purpose of this Bill is to allow bona fide restaurants which serve a high standard meal to serve alcohol with their meals. Therefore, why restrict them to a wine licence if the purpose of the Bill is to do otherwise?
In relation to enforceability of this rule, we should have regard to a situation which could easily arise where alcohol could be sold for consumption on the premises before 3 p.m. with a substantial meal, and a licensee could also sell alcohol after 3 p.m. with a meal. A garda could come in at 3.45 p.m. and find two tables with two sets of drinks one of which was sold before 3 p.m. and one sold after 3 p.m. both for consumption with a meal. How will that garda know which was which? It simply is not enforceable.
I appeal to the Minister to be reasonable and farsighted in regard to this amendment and to recognise that what we are about here is not protecting one version of the licensed trade from another. We are trying to provide the basis for the development of an industry and one industry will not cut across the other. The public houses will certainly provide snacks, pub grub, etc. with alcohol between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. but the purpose of this part of the Bill is to allow alcohol with substantial meals and if someone wants a substantial meal between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. he simply will not be able to have one with alcohol. That is a grave mistake and it is unnecessary. It will not affect the pubs. If somebody wants a snack he will go to a pub. If somebody wants to have a full meal they will go to a restaurant and they should be entitled to have a beer or a gin and tonic before having that meal. It is perfectly reasonable that they would be allowed do so. Let us say again that I do not think there is any conflict between the two divisions in the licensed trade.
Let me sound a word of caution. Deputy Colley referred to the development of the industry but this Bill, although in one sense concerned with the development of the industry, is also geared towards curtailing the abuses which exist at present. On Second Stage I referred to the increase in the number of clubs and I sound a word of caution when people speak about the development of the industry. What are we developing? I think we should concentrate on curtailing the abuses which exist.
The rationale behind this part of the Bill is to permit restaurants to serve drink with meals yet because of the restrictive hours outlined in the Bill I think we are taking an illogical stance in that a restaurant would be able to serve drink with substantial meals between 12.30 p.m. and 3 p.m. and between 6 p.m. and 12.30 a.m. but would not be allowed serve drink with substantial meals between 3 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. This is crazy and just does not stand up to reason. As other Deputies have said, this provision will result in derisory situations so far as enforcement is concerned. For instance, subsection (2) of section 14 would apply the provisions of the Act of 1927 relating to prohibited hours and I would like to hear the Minister tell us how he would see those provisions impacting on restaurants which have special restaurant certificates. Of course, the provisions of the 1927 Act also enable members of the Garda Síochána to go into a restaurant and demand names and addresses. It is odd that a person would be legally able to have a drink when eating his joint at 3 p.m. and yet when having his pudding at 3.10 p.m. he would be breaking the law by having a drink also and could have his name and address taken by a garda. As Deputy Seán Barrett has said, there are some restaurants who may not engage in business during the afternoon but for those restaurants who do want to engage in business all through the day, why not let them serve drink with meals at whatever time they have customers wanting to be served with meals?
I listened to the reasons Deputy Colley gave for withdrawing her amendment — that these new special restaurant licences would only be available to those restaurants which open 12 months of the year. Is that correct? The reason I ask the question is because the answer would affect my attitude towards section 9 which outlines the proposed cost, £3,000, for a special restaurant licence. As I understand it, the reason that amount is so low is to enable us to cater for restaurants which would only open during the tourist season.
Deputy Cowen asked me whether I withdrew my amendment on the basis that these special restaurant licences would only be issued to those restaurants which open 12 months of the year. I can tell him that that was not the basis for withdrawing my amendment.
Has Deputy Cowen concluded?
I would like the Minister to confirm that special restaurant licences would be available to those restaurants which will not remain open all year round.
Can the Minister tell us why it would be necessary for restaurants to close in the middle of the day? I am more concerned that they would be allowed to stay open late at night. Under this Bill, they would be allowed to stay open longer than public houses. Having listened to Deputy Colley I think too much emphasis is placed on the consumption of drink. I always understood that a restaurant was a place where someone went if they wanted to have a meal. In this Bill the Minister is proposing to do away with the `holy hour' so if someone wants to have a drink, surely the place to go is a public house. There are those who do like a drink with their meals but I do not think, as Deputy Colley tried to argue, that there is a great public demand to have drink served in restaurants and I would like the Minister to tell us why it would be necessary for restaurants to close for a period during the middle of the day.
I am inclined to agree with what the previous speaker, Deputy Michael Barrett, has said, that it is likely that there would not be a great demand for what is being sought in the amendment but that is a reason for acceding to the amendment. I think it should be agreed to. If we are going to establish the principle in this Bill that when you have a substantial meal you will also be able to have a glass of beer, let us accept that principle and provide that a person can have a glass of beer with a meal at 2 p.m., 3 p.m., or any other time. Deputy Barrett made the point that most restaurants close during certain hours anyway. That is fair enough. If they are closed a person would not be able to be served with a meal, a glass of beer or a glass of wine so the problem would not arise. In the case of someone who starts to eat lunch at 2 p.m. or 2.30 p.m. which, even for Irish people is by no means unusual, they could be in trouble after half an hour if they were to have a glass of beer.
Deputy Barrett gave as one reason for not acceding to the amendment the fact that the business of so many publicans could be affected. That is one line of argument which is divorced from the principle contained in this Bill. Quite frankly, I do not think it is likely or probable that the relatively minor alteration in the principle which is being proposed in this amendment is going to affect publicans up and down the country or the people who work for them. It seems to me that the amendment is fair and reasonable.
I would like to follow on the point which was made by Deputy Lynch who referred to the curtailing of abuses. Any member of the Garda Síochána responsible for enforcing the licensing laws would tell you that drinkers have used restaurants, because of their special licences, to continue drinking. While I can see the point which has been made on the other side of the House in relation to opening hours in the afternoon I think there would be some abuse and that, therefore, we would have to move cautiously in this regard. These special restaurant licences could be purchased for the very small sum of £3,000. A publican's licence on the open market would be worth about £10,000 so if I were a publican I would be very aggrieved if restaurants were to be allowed to stay open for more hours of the day than a publican albeit with the substantial meal provision. As previous speakers have pointed out, restaurants are places where people go to if they want to have a meal but not necessarily a drink.
I should like to pursue the argument advanced by Deputy Taylor that it would be impossible to police a 3 o'clock closure. Deputy Cooney made the same point. I would contend that the difficulty of so ensuring will be much greater at 12.30 a.m. How is one to go into a restaurant at 12.30 in the morning and get people out? I suggest that the real difficulty will not arise at 3 o'clock in the afternoon but rather at 12.30 in the morning. The majority of people frequenting the types of restaurants that will be granted these types of licences will be people who eat late in the evening. The demand or market for lunches in these types of restaurants is dying. The majority of people I know of, business people and so on, do not eat heavy lunches in the day any longer: it is a thing of the past and people eat snacks and so on. Either we have licensing laws or we do not but there must be a cut-off time and whenever one chooses to have that cut-off time, one will experience difficulty in implementing the provisions of the law. I would say to Deputy Taylor that there will be more difficulty experiencing in trying to do so in 12.30 in the morning.
This is not a party political issue. It is an endeavour to achieve a balance. One must recognise that when one is introducing something new, one is endeavouring to fit into an existing pattern and it will be extremely difficult to get across to the public in general exactly what will happen.
What we are doing here, in terms of the special restaurant licence is reasonable. If circumstances change in the future, then let us change the provisions. I want to know whether Deputy Taylor has a solution to the difficulties that will arise at 12.30 in the morning, seeing that he has pointed out all the difficulties that will arise at 3 o'clock in the afternoon.
There are different considerations.
What different considerations?
A closure at 12.30 a.m. presents one problem only; closure at 3 o'clock in the afternoon presents another.
One will experience difficulty enforcing any licensing laws, even in the case of a proper hotel, in regard to getting people out.
May I say a few more words on this point. The nub of the matter has been stated, not for the first time, by Deputy Taylor a minute ago. The point of the change which this House is making, about 66 years later than it first had jurisdiction to make it, is to enable people have a drink whenever they are having a substantial meal in a restaurant. That is the main purpose. That purpose is being, admittedly marginally only, but from the point of view of logic and morality — if there is any morality in this area — indefensibly and irritatingly qualified by the Minister's section. It is not really a question of merely trying to suit tourists. I am not going to say anything disparaging or anything of that sort at all but I believe that a lot of continental tourists would not regard their gastronomic experience in this country as one of the high points of their visit. However, without unduly stressing that point, it is not really a question of trying to provide a service for tourists. It may even be a question of trying to haul ourselves into Europe, into the European patterns in which we seem to be interested only from the point of view of it providing a market for our surplus bullocks and butter.
There is something to be said for trying to adapt our system of life and even our tastes to those of our neighbours, of course not to the point of abandoning things that we like eating and drinking, of course I do not mean that, but we should realise that there is such a thing as a choice, that it is possible to have a meal consisting of a relatively modest collection of food on a single plate and not to go through four or five courses, finishing with tea or coffee and some biscuits, that would sink a battleship, which is the perception of many Irish people of a meal in a restaurant. Indeed, there are many restaurants which will not deliver a single dish on a single plate and let one go with a good heart. They will feel that somehow they have been done down if that is all one is having.
It may appear something easy to make fun of but our patterns in this regard are like almost everything else, derived from our immediate neighbours, the British, who themselves have very little to teach anyone when it comes to food, very little, much though I respect them in many other areas.
There is a case to be made for endeavouring to offer Irish people — leave alone the tourists — a sight of and the possibility of the benefit of a different mode of eating out, a different mode of eating outside their own homes. Deputy Colley is the only woman present but no doubt there are plenty of other women in the House who would appreciate this point — that any such evolution which will simplify, cheapen and rid of complications, financial or otherwise, access to private enterprise-provided food in places of public resort will be a considerable enhancement of the lifestyle of ordinary Irish women. These things are important and have nothing to do with tourists.
If we are going to think about catering for tourists, the point I am endeavouring to make becomes a great deal more important because, for tourists, certainly those from central and southern Europe — where the climate is said to insulate its inhabitants physiologically against excessive consumption of drink, against the drink culture obtaining here — then it should be remembered that one is catering for a man or woman to whom eating and drinking are part of the same total experience. It is very hard to explain to a continental, who himself would not take much to drink, who would take very little to drink by ordinary Irish standards — by my standards or those of the kinds of people I know, very little — that there are such people in this country as total abstainers, that there is such a movement here as the Pioneer Total Abstinence Association, the roots of which lie in an effort to drag people out of the degradation to which excessive indulgence in alcohol had thrown them at the end of the 18th or beginning of the 19th centuries. That part of our existence will be completely strange to the continental tourist. He would not understand the sort of official terror of drink, which is officially present here, for the past 66 years.
I remember hearing a story — I will let the House hear it for what it is worth — I cannot swear that it is true but I heard it as being true when I was a student. I was told that the late Pope Pious XII received a pilgrimage formed of a large number of members of the Garda Síochána who had this in common, they were all members of the Pioneer Total Abstinence Association. I was told that His Holiness had been mistakenly briefed by monsignori in the Vatican who had mistakenly misunderstood what the Pioneer Total Abstinence Association was all about so that, when the Pontiff came to address the teetotal policemen, at Castle Gondolfo, or wherever it was, he read them a script in which he deplored and sympathised with their unfortunate malady which deprived them of one of the great gifts of God's bounty on earth and made it impossible for them to enjoy——
I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy but I would strongly recommend that he would confine his remarks to the amendment before the House.
This is precisely on the amendment.
Admittedly, the amendment has had a fair amount of hop; it has been going for about an hour. But it is important to make this point, that there is a sort of official terror in this country which leads us to have this battery of licensing laws. I believe we have more complicated licensing laws than any other country in western Europe except the British who have even loonier laws. There, it is a sin to have a drink between 2.30 in the afternoon and 6 o'clock in the evening in an ordinary pub, at least it appears to be, and it must be a moral-based reason because there is no practical reason against it I can think of.
If we are talking either about tourism or about giving our people an opportunity of seeing other modes of existence, the very modes of the Continent into which we should be seeking integration at more levels than butter and bullocks, then this kind of legislation constitutes quite an important element. We must understand that other people see these things differently and that we might get some benefit from allowing our people to do so.
These amendments already have helped to drag us down a road never intended to be taken when the provisions of this Bill were being considered. Deputy Colley should recognise that what she is endeavouring to do is to meet a demand that does not exist at present.
That is not true.
I am quite satisfied that it does not exist at present. I have had, as have other Members of the Oireachtas, long discussions with the various groups involved in the liquor laws over a lengthy period of time. At no stage was there any substantial case made, with any degree of credibility, that such a demand existed at present, or that restaurants could not function or provide substantial meals between 3 o'clock and 6 o'clock in the afternoon unless they were allowed to sell drink. If there is a demand there it is certainly a matter that should be looked at. If it can be shown after the first season of operation that there is a demand there I will certainly be prepared to look at it. I hope that whoever is Minister for Justice at the time will have a look at it, and I would encourage him to do so. Certainly the demand is not there as of now and there is no point in saying there is a demand, that the tourists who are going to come in by the shipload — and we hope they will — will not be satisfied if they cannot have beer with their meals. That is not so because, as Deputy John Kelly said earlier, if somebody is peckish at 4 p.m. there are good meals available in many establishments which can meet the needs of those people.
In an effort to make a case for the amendment the argument was made that enforceability would not be possible. I say that it will be possible, the same as it is possible in any other area where enforceability is to take place, and it takes place right across the board. Would the argument that one cannot enforce the law at 2 p.m. or 3 p.m. apply even more so, as Deputy Barrett said, at 12 a.m.? If we are to have enforceability then we are going to have it. We have to remember that licences by their very nature are restrictive. I do not think it is any mystery that when special restaurant licences were introduced in Northern Ireland at the beginning there was great abuse of the system and in a number of instances a new type of pub flourished in a very short period of time. I do not think anybody here wants a new type of pub flourishing for any reason. That is something we want to try to prevent but if, as Deputy Colley said, a case can be made to show us that there is a demand for the type of service she wants given as of now that will be considered down along the line.
People eat meals. That is a simple fact.
Of course I recognise that people eat meals but there are many people who eat meals without alcohol——
That is fine but there are people who like to drink while they are eating.
——and many of them feel they are damn lucky to have meals without alcohol. Deputy Colley suggested that we have to have regard to the fact that life has changed. Of course it has. I think many Members of this House know that the number of Deputies who go to the restaurant for their mid-day meal has diminished considerably. Most people take a snack in the middle of the day and not a substantial meal, and I can assure the House that it has nothing to do with the prices in the restaurant. Of course life is changing and I recognise that it is.
We are hardly tourists.
We are providing in this special licences that people may drink up to the times specified, 3 p.m. and 12.30 a.m. There is no drinking up time allowed and last drinks have to be consumed at those times.
With regard to enforceability, there is a problem with enforceability in areas other than the one we are dealing with here. The question of enforceability arises when gardaí are not given permission to enter certain buildings to see what is going on there. That is a matter we will be talking about during the course of this debate. I am trying to frame an amendment to deal with that and if I do not have it on Committee Stage I will certainly have it on Report Stage. Enforceability is a difficult issue and it is something we have to try to deal with. Licences allow people to work under certain conditions and there are restrictions on these licences. I want to say to Deputy Colley and to the House that if after this season I am satisfied there is a need to meet the point raised by the Deputy I will not wait for 12 months to do so; I will come back in September or October so that the matter can be considered by the House.
What criteria will be put on it?
If I am satisfied there is a demand there for the service, which I do not believe is there at present.
If there is no demand it will not be used.
One of the basic arguments advanced by the vintners' trade in submissions made to us throughout the debate on the Bill, has been that a balance has to be drawn and there has to be uniformity of conditions applying to restaurant licences on the one hand and to licensed vintners on the other hand. This is one of the areas where there is a major departure from uniformity. I think the point was made by Deputy Ahern that if we agreed to this amendment the restaurants could operate for longer hours. In fact, it would not amount to that because a restaurant licence starts from 12.30 p.m. onwards. The granting to them of three hours from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. would not mean, because they close at 12.30 a.m. that they would have longer hours. If anything, the advantage, to within an hour, would still be with the licensed premises.
I believe the argument advanced that there is not a real demand for this, or that it would affect so very few people — Deputy Barrett made this point and the Minister borrowed it from him — makes the case for the amendment. It will not mean a major disruption of trade between the licensed vintners on the one hand and the restaurant trade on the other hand but against that it will introduce a degree of uniformity and consistency to the principle that if and when a person sits down to consume a meal at whatever hour — and the Minister made our case by suggesting that eating patterns are changing and people do not have three set meals at particular hours of the day — the basic point has to be that it is a "substantial meal". That being so, I urge the Minister to look again at the amendment. If he is prepared to come back in six to nine months, I say to him that he should not impose that burden on himself or on a busy Government. He should consider how small a change this represents and, borrowing both his and Deputy Barrett's point, because it will affect so few people he should amend the law at this stage and allow it to run in a uniform consistent way.
I make that point also because, as has been said already, hotels can provide a meal with alcohol of whatever sort at any time of the day. We do not hear arguments being advanced that that is being abused or that it represents a serious incursion on the licensed trade at large.
They have their own licences. They are part of the licensed trade.
The point about hotels is that they present a certain atmosphere that attracts people who want to sit down at leisure for a period of time to consume a substantial meal and have an alcoholic beverage with it. They are a different type of clientele from those who like to have recourse to pubs. The pub will always have its intrinsic attractions and granting facilities to restaurants and hotels will not seriously invade on that but it is a consideration.
I can only speak from my experience of Dublin but in Dublin there are two phenomena developing. On the one hand there are a number of restaurants that have bought pub licences and have coupled them, and they can and will be able to continue as restaurants-cum-pubs providing substantial or other meals and any kind of alcoholic beverage throughout the licensing hours of the day. On the other hand, there are also a number of pubs that have developed a lucrative restaurant business in conjunction with their pub business. So, slowly building up in Dublin are premises that either started out as restaurants and acquired pub licences or started out as pubs and have developed restaurant businesses and are now in a position where they can provide the meals and the alcohol throughout the full pub licensing hours. They will still be there irrespective of whatever we enact in the legislation here today and we will have that disparity.
It is a further non-uniformity that will exist in the licensing laws and uniformity is something we should work towards in the licensing trade generally. Pubs, restaurants and hotels each have their own intrinsic atmosphere and attraction that will balance out in time and will not seriously infringe on each other. For that reason, rather than seeking to come back in six to nine months time, we should look at it now.
The argument was made that the case was not made by restaurateurs or their representatives in meeting with the Ministers but they are not legislators. We are here to make legislation that will work and to improve on it as presented. We are dealing today with a significant advance on the somewhat archaic licensing laws in this area. We are merely suggesting that the Minister could, in a small way, make the legislation even more workable. I do not believe that the proposal would represent an invasion on the trade of vintners or on the moral fabric of those who do not seek to drink at meal times. I would ask the Minister to give this a fresh thought.
The people who are pushing this amendment are missing the whole point of Part II of the Bill. This was a special measure brought in as a result of pressure from restaurateurs in reasonably high-class restaurants whose customers asked for this facility. These restaurants are open mostly at night time. Subsequently, these restaurants began to build up a lunch time trade because of the huge increase in the pub restaurant lunchtime trade, mainly in the city areas. This is a special measure mainly to facilitate the people who run high-class restaurants. While I can see the point that is being made in relation to the middle of the afternoon, as the Minister has said there is no demand at present in that regard; the demand is late at night and perhaps around lunch time but at no other time.
I agree with the Minister that there is no demand for substantial meals at midday. I am a former member of the joint services committee which was faced with debt and decided to establish a self-service restaurant here because of the lack of demand for the substantial meal that was served in the restaurant. Anyone going into the Dáil restaurant during the day will notice that very few people drink during midday meals. Deputy Colley is over-emphasising the need for drink. There is not a great demand.
This Bill is about allowing certain forms of alcohol to be sold in restaurants in conjunction with meals. We can huff and puff about property rights and vested interests but the reality is that this measure is designed to allow bona fide up-market restaurants to serve liquor such as beer and spirits with meals.
A publican who has a licence can serve these spirits and beers with a meal at any time of the day under this legislation so there is nothing wrong with it in principle. To say that there is no demand is no reason that it should not be extended to bona fide restaurants. What is the logic behind saying that a publican can do it but a high-class restaurant cannot? One can have a low class meal or even a bun or a bread roll with one's spirits or beer all day in a pub under the legislation as it will end up if the Minister's Bill goes through unamended yet a reasonably high-class restaurant which opts to serve beer or spirits will be prevented from doing so during three hours in the afternoon. That is totally illogical. What about a restaurant which decides to stay open all afternoon and not to apply for one of these special licences? It will be allowed to continue to serve wine all afternoon with meals. Restaurants do not have to opt into this new system.
So now we have three forms of institution under this Bill if it goes through unamended. We will have pubs serving low or high-class meals entitled to sell beer and spirits all day; we will have restaurants, low or high-class, able to sell wine with a meal all day and there will be a new, hybrid form of institution, a high-class restaurant approved by Bord Fáilte, which must stop serving any form of alcohol during three hours in the afternoon because only up to that time and after it is it entitled to sell beer and spirits in conjunction with a meal.
Can anybody honestly say that creating three new institutions is a logical way to reform our laws? We are saying effectively to those who apply for these special licences that the downside, the legislative catch, is that if they go into the business of serving hard liquor with meals they will have to desist from all alcohol sales during three hours in the afternoon. That is just stupid legislation. It is being enacted, not because we think it is desirable — if we did think it was desirable to stop the sale of alcohol with meals during the afternoon we would stop publicans from doing so — not because we think there is too much drinking in conjunction with meals in the afternoon because restaurants at the moment can serve wine and fortified wines and so on with meals at any hour of the day, but because we want to assuage the publicans' lobby in that we are giving away some of what they consider to be a monopoly right but are putting a catch in which will mean that those who take it up will find they are obstructed, that it will not be a licence to print money, it will look entirely illogical but it will see the publicans' lobby right. That is what we are doing.
Maybe the Minister will provide for the sake of Deputy McDowell a nice piece of card explaining in five languages the purpose behind this legislation. I would not like to be the man who would have to explain it if I owned a restaurant of that kind.
The licensing laws were not designed to create monopoly rights for anybody. They were designed to limit the amount of alcohol that was sold and not to create property rights for publicans in the piece of paper which their licence represents. They have — and it would be idiotic to suggest that it is not the case — a monopoly value and the vintners as a group have decided to protect that monopoly value because they put an investment into those licences. They were never intended to create private monopolies or to confer on publicans a property right. This is a shabby exercise. We are making a silly illogical gesture which nobody in their right mind would think up from first principles to publicans in order to assuage their feelings that their property rights are being interfered with.
A Deputy
They are a strong lobby in this House.
They are a strong lobby in this House and they are a fine group of men but on this occasion the Minister is throwing them a very fine bone to chew on as a consolation prize. I wish we would not put ourselves through this absurd procedure of enacting laws and throwing bones at interest groups just to keep them quiet. It will not affect the publicans as a group. Where there are two restaurants, one which does not offer the new special licence and one which does, both of them will be conducting business on a street and one, because it has the right to serve spirits as liquor and beer with meals, will have to close down and stop serving alcohol for three hours in the afternoon. The other restaurant, which has not opted for the new licence, will continue to serve wine during the entire afternoon. A pub up the road will be serving fantastic meals with all kinds of liquors available all day and the publican's interest will, in the last analysis, not be protected. I am suggesting that this is nonsensical legislation. We should not go along with it. It is designed as a consolation prize for the vintners and it is making fools of us, as legislators, in this House. I ask the Minister to accept Deputy Colley's amendment.
Deputy McDowell referred to monopolies and strong lobbies from the vintners but what has not been mentioned here today is the responsibility that goes with the holding of a licence. I think that Members in this House would agree that when the family publican held that responsibility almost solely down through the years we did not have the problems we have today. I would be very worried if we were to pass legislation that would lead to an escalation of those problems. The responsibility that goes with the holding of a licence for the sale of intoxicating liquor must be respected. We have almost reached a position in this country today where no law is enforceable with regard to the sale of intoxicating liquor. We have a law in existence at present which is impossible to comply with and impossible to implement. The Minister has taken a very brave and courageous step in introducing this legislation. While I do not want to see curtailment in any particular sector that would be seen as irresponsible, at the same time I must warn the House that grave responsibility rests on the shoulders of anyone who applies for a licence. It was mentioned here that good class restaurants are applying for licences. I know, on good grounds, that many restaurants which I expected would apply for licences, will not apply for licences because they are in the food business.
Do they know the drink business?
They know the food business but do they know the drink business? I know the drink business but I do not know the food business. Let us call a spade a spade.
I would like to say a final word on this matter. I concur with everything Deputy McDowell has said. In my final appeal I would like to remind the Minister that on Second Stage he indicated that he would be more than willing to accept reasonable amendments to the Bill, and, I would submit that my amendments come within that description. They are reasonable and logical amendments and are in keeping with the spirit of the Bill which is to allow alcohol in the form of spirits or beer to be served with substantial meals. If we remind ourselves of what Deputy McDowell said about the other forms of restaurants and pubs which will be serving food and alcohol throughout the day, it is absolutely anomalous to restrict these types of restaurants to the hours outside of 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. I appeal to the Minister to consider this amendment because it is very reasonable and it is of the type, I would submit, that on Second Stage he said he would be willing to accept.
I would like to refer to the abuse factor that has been mentioned by a number of businesses. Possibly there is no other business that is more subject to abuse than the licensed trade and the practicalities of policing the licensed trade are immense. My colleague, Deputy Ahern, applied for this licence and all I can say is that I hope that that will be the case. I know that is the spirit of this legislation and that is the Minister's intention but down the line from now I hope we will not see glamorised fish and chip shops acquiring this type of licence for the paltry sum of £3,000. We have referred to the lobby of the vintners who have served this country and the trade for a long number of years. During recent years family owned businesses have been at the pin of their collars to exist and keep the business going. We have some excellent amendments before us but I would not put this one in that category. That is all I would like to say except that I want to highlight the abuse factor. I am worried about that aspect of this legislation and the difficulties which will be presented in terms of policing the section.
Deputy Jacob used a formula which I remember using in the same sense and with the same opinions behind it when I was Minister with responsibility for Tourism and when I was doing my best in that shortlived Government to get this legislation into this House. I did not have any success nor did any other Minister, until the present one, for the last 66 years have any success in this regard. There is a possibility that the fish and chip syndrome or what would now be called the fast food joint would get into the position of being able to compete with publicans of the traditional kind. I share Deputy Jacob's views about that but I do not think this legislation in general will have that effect. I would have understood that the expression "substantial meal" did not cover such things. Of course, it will be left to the District Court and, I suppose, the High Court ultimately to make a decision about that and maybe the High Court will decide that a plate of fish and chips is a substantial meal. Many a time I have lunched on that just by itself and it would be substantial enough for most people, but probably the legislation will not be so understood.
The other point Deputy Jacob makes in the context of Deputy Colley's amendment is one I would have more difficulty in accepting. First of all, I agree with the idea of the family-run business as a very important part of Irish society and we should have a special eye to trying to help family run businesses. That is why, in a general way, while trying to help the consumer, I am against seeing the retail trade in any shape or form gobbled up by huge, impersonal multiples.
The family vintner has had difficulty down the years but probably that springs from a conjunction of two factors for which the restaurant trade should not be asked to pay. One is there are simply too many public houses in the country. That fact, which was notorious at the end of the last century, was the factor responsible for inspiring the 1902 licensing law which prevented any more licences being offered unless other ones were extinguished. The other factor is the crushing extent to which the State relies for income on excise imposed on liquor.
These two factors unquestionably must weigh very heavily on the small family vintner who is competing with perhaps too many other businesses in the same street, compared with what it would be in some other country in these latitudes, and he is competing with a product which is becoming almost unaffordable — or many parts of it are becoming unaffordable — for so many people. I sympathise very strongly with that point of view, but I am damned if I can see why the restaurant trade — or the tourist industry which to some extent depends on the restaurant trade being conducted in a reasonably internationally recognisable way — should be penalised for it or made somehow to prop up the weak situation which the Deputy described.
Acting Chairman
Deputy Colley, are you pressing your amendment?
Yes.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand".
The Committee divided: Tá, 72; Níl, 28.
Tá
- Abbot, Henry.
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Blaney, Neil Terence.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Matthew.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John.
- Burke, Ray.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Coughlan, Mary T.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Lynch, Michael.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Mooney, Mary.
- Morley, P. J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
- O'Dea, William Gerard.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hilliard, Colm Michael.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Paddy.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Swift, Brian.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wright, G. V.
Níl
- Bell, Michael.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Colley, Anne.
- Cullen, Martin.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Gibbons, Martin Patrick.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Harney, Mary.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kennedy, Geraldine.
- McCartan, Pat.
- McCoy, John S.
- McDowell, Michael.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- O'Malley, Pat.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Briscoe; Níl, Deputies Kennedy and Colley.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 4 not moved.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 5, line 33, after "restaurant" to insert "which may be designated in size by the Board".
This amendment is designed to control the waiting area of the restaurant given that the waiting area will be licensed under the new arrangements. Section 6 defines it as an area set aside as a waiting area in a restaurant for persons intending to have a meal in the restaurant. Within that definition, there is no indication as to the size of the waiting area, how large it should be and what ratio it should bear to the size of the restaurant so it is open to abuse. Most restaurants licensed under this section would not wish to abuse the provision but some of them might attempt to extend the meaning of the waiting area and to have it larger than the restaurant. It would be reasonable to look for some delineation.
My amendment suggests that Bord Fáilte should, in their inspection, have regard to the size of the waiting area in relation to the restaurant, have the power to say that it is too large and that they could not certify the restaurant in its present form. I am open to other suggestions as to how we can cope with this problem but we should adhere to the principle behind the amendment, that there should be some regulation concerning the waiting area in a restaurant.
I might add that there should be a waiting area in a restaurant. It is quite reasonable for a person to be able to relax with a pre-dinner drink before moving to the table for a meal. That is what the public want and we should accede to that wish but we should guard against any abuses of such a facility.
Would it be in order for me to deal with my amendment No. 46, in conjunction with Deputy Colley's amendment?
Perhaps Deputy Seán Barrett will include his amendment, No. 6, in the debate.
Yes, I would agree to my amendment being taken in conjunction with amendments Nos. 5 and 46.
The Deputies are suggesting that for the purposes of discussion we should take amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 46 together with separate questions being put, if necessary. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I tabled amendment No. 46 because section 16 (1) states that a restaurant in respect of which a special restaurant licence has been granted under this Act shall not contain a bar. The definition of a "bar" contained in section 2 is: "bar" means any open bar — that is a circular definition and in my view is not a definition at all — or any part of a licensed premises exclusively or mainly used for the sale and consumption of intoxicating liquor and shall include any counter or barrier across which drink is or can be served to the public. On that wording an ante room to a restaurant would, inevitably, come within the definition of "bar". All restaurants would have an area where they would keep the drink and be serving gins and tonics and aperitifs to the customers. It would be part of a licensed premises exclusively or mainly used for the sale and consumption of intoxicating liquor because it would not be the restaurant but the ante-room to it where people would be having their pre-meal drink. Consequently, there will be a conflict between that definition and the requirement of section 16 (1), that a restaurant shall not contain a bar. A "bar", as defined, inevitably, means the normal type of ante-room that would be outside a restaurant and I tabled amendment No. 46 to provide that the ante-room of a restaurant should not be deemed to be a "bar".
I tabled my amendment for the same reason that Deputy Colley did, to tighten up on the definition of a waiting area. I have no doubt that abuses could creep in in relation to the designated waiting area. The words I have proposed inserting, "the purpose of which is solely to accommodate persons who are waiting bona fide to have a meal in the said restaurant", will overcome the difficulty. The Minister may say that my amendment is not necessary because I understand that the regulations to be made by the Minister for Tourism and Transport will incorporate a provision in relation to the waiting area. However, it would be worth while accepting my amendment so that there will not be any ambiguity as to what is meant by a waiting area.
I do not think anybody will object to a restaurant having a waiting area where people can wait on a table and have a drink. However, like many provisions in our licensing laws, there may be a lot of abuse of that. A waiting area inspected by Bord Fáilte may be extended later to cater for a big number of people who could not possibly be accommodated in the restaurant area. Those people could be held to be legally entitled to drink on the premises while in the waiting area and it would be impossible to check that. For that reason we should clearly define what we mean by "a waiting area". I appeal to the Minister to accept my amendment.
I do not have any special preference between the various amendments which relate to this matter. I would be happy if the Minister assured the House that he is not going to sponsor legislation the end effect of which would be to impose, effectively, a certain decor on the waiting area of a restaurant. From my slight familiarity with restaurants here, always in the posture of a guest, I am aware that some of them in their waiting area have a sort of bar or half bar. It is not a structure that one would lean against in an old fashioned Victorian establishment but it may be five foot or six foot long. Behind it would be a counter with a mirror or glass up against it with a sparkling array of bottles. I hope it is not the Minister's intention to outlaw that decorative feature which, perhaps, bears the same relation to the ritual of drink as a throne room does to the ritual or monarchy. In my view it will impose problems of decor on the proprietors of restaurants if they are not allowed to have something which is not a bar in the colloquial sense of the word but is built in that shape in minature.
I should like to be assured that whatever we sponsor in the end — this thought comes to my mind when looking at Deputy Barrett's wording — the waiting area, or whatever it is called, will not be understood in the statute or in the regulations as meaning that people may only sojourn to that part of the restaurant while they literally are waiting for a table to become free or for their meal to be prepared. I do not get any pleasure out of lengthy rounds of drink before eating but in my view we will annoy people, and make a difficult job even more difficult for a restaurant proprietor, if we forbid him to leave a table which may be set or a meal which is ready to serve at any moment until such time as the party going to dine in the restaurant have had what they regard as a reasonable number of aperitifs. That may not be what the Minister or I would want to drink but I hope that we will not police this to such lengths that the legislation can be understood as entitling people to drink before their meals only until such time as something becomes available. The table may be ready and the brigade in the kitchen may be ready to serve the food but the party may not be complete or when the last guest joins the group they may want to have a further drink with him.
Let us not make ourselves ridiculous by interpreting the waiting period too narrowly. I agree that this will be defeated and abused if the bar or waiting area, with or without this or that decorative feature, is to be occupied by people who have no intention of eating anything afterwards. I quite agree that the bona fide element which Deputy Barrett mentioned in his amendment must be upheld but I do not think the restaurant proprietor should be compelled to adopt or refrain from adopting any particular decor in the waiting area. He should not be tied to dictating certain lengths of time or a certain number of drinks which may be consumed before eating a meal.
I was interested in Deputy Cooney's description of a bar. Perhaps we should ensure that we do not leave a loophole here. I suggest that the word "lounge" could be substituted for "bar". My definition of a lounge is of an area where intoxicating liquor can be served but which must be sealed off or obscured.
I wonder what criteria there are in regard to waiting areas in ordinary restaurants, the majority of which serve intoxicating liquor? Most restaurants have wine licences. We are suddenly confronted with the problem of the size of waiting area to be allowed. Are we to expect that the restaurant trade will increase their potential by 100 per cent just because they have a licence? I would exercise extreme caution in this matter. We must ensure that people who get these licences do not abuse that privilege.
One of the purposes of this legislation is to provide for the availability of beer at meal times. I have some difficulty in understanding how a restaurateur is expected to accommodate dispensers and barrels unless he has some kind of counter. The customer should always be entitled to see his beer poured.
Slowly.
Is it envisaged that restaurants will sell beer in bottles and that the draft dispenser will not be a feature of restaurants? The definition of "bar" may be the standard one borrowed from some other part of the intoxicating liquor code. If so, it must stand and Deputy Cooney's suggestion that it should not apply to the waiting area is sensible.
I am somewhat concerned about the capacity of Bord Fáilte to police or oversee the designation of areas but if the Minister tells us that this is possible then Deputy Colley's amendment should be supported. The idea behind Deputy Barrett's amendment is the very essence of the Bill. I do not think any court would have any difficulty in understanding the intention. If the Minister thinks this is a useful amendment I will not raise any doubts or obstacles.
The definition of "waiting area" could be construed to mean that one is only allowed to make use of this area before a meal. There are many restaurants where diners retire to the waiting area after a meal, thereby allowing others to take their tables. Provision should be made for allowing diners to use the waiting area after a meal. I am not sure whether this is precluded or whether an amendment is needed to make it clear.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 should be dealt with separately from amendment No. 46. Deputy Colley's amendment gives Bord Fáilte the power to designate the size of the waiting area. Section 12 gives the Minister for Tourism and Transport power to make provisions for the maximum accommodation in such areas. It is the intention that the seating accommodation in the waiting area cannot be more than 20 per cent of that in the dining area. I accept that this aspect of the Bill is sufficiently important to warrant specific statutory provision and I propose to bring forward an amendment on Report Stage to specify more particularly the size of the waiting areas in the special licence restaurants.
The intention in the definition of "waiting area" in section 6 was to make it clear that it meant an area in a restaurant whose sole purpose would be to accommodate persons waiting to have a meal in the restaurant. This seems to be the intention of Deputy Barrett's amendment. It is not clear that it adds anything to the existing definition. I am having the proposed amendment examined urgently by the parliamentary draftsman to see if it tightens up the existing definition of "waiting area" and in the light of his decision an amendment may be introduced on Report Stage.
I presume the intention behind Deputy Cooney's amendment No. 46 is to allow alcohol to be consumed in a small room or area adjacent to the dining area of the restaurant both before and after a meal.
In the waiting area.
Section 7 already allows alcohol to be consumed in the waiting area of a restaurant as soon as the meal has been ordered. That would be equivalent to that part of the amendment which seeks to allow alcohol to be consumed in an anteroom while waiting to commence the meal. Once again, I emphasise that while liquor can be consumed in the waiting area before a meal there can be no bar trade as such. I am specifically thinking of the comments by Deputy Kelly. There is no specific waiting period. Customers will not be told to wait for a certain number of minutes and they will not be told what to drink. There is no question of dictating the decor. I cannot agree to alcohol being consumed in the waiting area or anteroom after a meal has been consumed. To do so could very well lead to the abuse of the system of licensing, mainly through the development of a bar trade or the consumption of alcohol which would only be remotely, if at all, associated with a meal. It gets us away from the principle of what is involved.
Referring to the comments of Deputies Colley and Barrett, having regard to what I think I am interpreting correctly from amendments Nos. 5 and 6, it is not their wish, nor indeed would it be mine, that a waiting area would be of such size as to allow a bar business to be conducted there.
Separate from the restaurant business.
Separate from the restaurant. What we are trying to provide for — and I think Members would agree with this — is a place where people who go out for an evening to have a meal must wait for a certain amount of time while the table is being prepared and their order is being given, have a number of drinks, which is their business, and then have their meal and drinks with that. That is the extent to which I can go. I cannot go, as Deputy Cooney seems to suggest in his amendment No. 46, to the point where they would be allowed to return to this anteroom and drink there.
But that happens at the moment. The Minister is ignoring the present practice.
I am only telling the House what the situation is going to be.
But surely in the Minister's own Bill——
We should organise our business. Perhaps Deputy Cooney wants to come in.
Amendment No. 46 is designed to cover two points, one of which the Minister has dealt with. I can understand his apprehensions about giving authority for the consumption of drink after a meal, in a place other than the dining room. What we have in mind is that people would be asked to have the last course of their meal, their coffee, in the anteroom so as to vacate tables for other diners. They could have their drink then with their last course. I take the Minister's point that the policing of that could be difficult and it might lead to abuse. If the Minister does not want to accept my suggestion, that is all right with me. However, the effect in the restaurant will be the same — alcohol will be consumed at the table with or without the coffee. My proposal was in ease of the restaurant management so that tables could be vacated and that part of the meal completed in the waiting room.
The more significant point I wanted to make in my amendment has not been addressed by the Minister. It is that a restaurant to get a restaurant licence cannot contain a bar. As "bar" is defined in the Bill, inevitably and unavoidably a waiting area will come within that definition. Technically, all premises could be excluded. I cannot conceive of a waiting area that does not come within that definition. If it does so, it will lead to a breach of section 16 (1) unless my amendment to delete the phrase about after dinner drinking is accepted.
I want very briefly to draw attention to and support what Deputy Colley says in this respect. It is, in fact, the practice — and I am imagine one which is to some extent in ease of the restaurant management — that guests at the end of the meal, when having coffee or whatever it may be and some wishing to have a liqueur or brandy or whiskey with their coffee, are encouraged to leave their tables and go back to the lounge or the waiting area from whence they came. It may be that the restaurant proprietor wants to serve a new lot of guests or that his staff want to get the tables cleared. In either event, it is a convenience for them.
To go back to the contradictions which Deputy McDowell mentioned in reference to a former amendment, it will be legal in hotels, in public houses, in places which serve food and which also have a full public house licence and, so far as the service of wine is concerned in restaurants which at the moment have wine licences, that people move from one part of the restaurant to another. The only case where it will not be possible will be in the special licensed area. There the coffee and liqueur or whatever it may be must be consumed at the table. This is not a matter about which I would be fanatical. I only mention it as perhaps an unreasonable irritant which the Bill may contain. Since the Minister has shown anxiety to meet the wishes of the House and to look again at this section on Report Stage, perhaps he might look also at this aspect.
The whole history of intoxicating liquor law is riddled with anomalies and complexities. We are not doing anything in this Bill or this sequence of amendments that will help that situation one iota. In fact, it is becoming somewhat ludicrous. As the Bill is drawn, we already have three categories of areas within the restaurant premises. There is, first, the restaurant proper, secondly, the waiting area and, thirdly, the bar area or possible bar area. To those three categories Deputy Cooney seeks to add a fourth which he describes as an anteroom.
That would be a waiting room.
It is still a fourth designation, a fourth type of description. A bar presumably means an area where liquor is sold per se on its own, but a bar will rapidly turn itself into a waiting room under the definition if a person who is there is in the position of having ordered a meal. The whole concept of prosecution taking place for infringement of these definitions and triple divisions of a restaurant premises does not bear thinking about. Was the customer there with somebody? Had he ordered his meal yet? Was he genuine about it? Had he come there after the meal? We ought to seek to simplify this whole position. There is the restaurant area with the designations given under the various provisions of the Bill and there is a waiting area. The sole parameters ought to be as laid down in section 7. The intent should be whether the people drinking in the waiting room are there in connection with a meal or not.
The introduction of this bar concept and the prohibition of the bar idea in this Bill has no relevance or logic and it should be taken out. My guess is that it has been introduced as a result of the vintners' lobby. We are talking about restaurants and drinking in connection with a substantial meal. One can see perhaps how it arrived there, that it was feared that the waiting area would be used solely to be a mirror image of what a bar would be in a pub and the vintners feared that their business would be interfered with on this account. This is contrived; it does not hold a natural place in the Bill. We should be confined to two descriptions, waiting area and restaurant. The parameters are fairly reasonably set down in section 7 as to the permitted use of the waiting area. Whether it is necessary to go into a breakdown of maximum percentages that may be attributable to a waiting area vis-á-vis the entirety is another matter. We should not be too strong or lay down too firm decisions on that score. Different restaurant premises may be divided up in different proportions. That should be a matter for the owners.
I refer to line 10, page 6, where the maximum time permitted in the waiting area after a meal is ended is 30 minutes.
The restaurant.
The waiting area, or in the dining area. Certainly, there should be some provision for use of the waiting area after the meal has ended, perhaps one hour or something of that sort. Subject to that, we should confine our controls within the parameters of section 7 rather than introduce this new concept of bar or anteroom.
As appropriate, I must now call time and ask Deputy McCartan to report progress.
And there is enforceability here, too.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.