Committee Stage is to conclude within one hour if not previously concluded.
Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1999: Committee Stage.
Question proposed: "That section 1 be deleted."
As the Bill is now only intended to provide for the millennium and as sections 2 to 6, which deal with permitted hours and special exemptions, are proposed for deletion, this section is no longer required, consequently I propose that it be deleted.
I did not take any intoxicating liquor today, but given the state my brain is in I might be excused for thinking I may have. This Bill was published last summer when the debate on Second Stage commenced, and it concluded today. The Minister now proposes to delete practically the entire content of the Bill and we will be left with a small section dealing with the millennium and the amount of time we will be allowed to drink during the evening of the millennium.
It is impossible to understand the present position. Surely there has been plenty of time between last summer and now to introduce the various other wide-ranging issues the Minister says he intends to address in the next session. My late colleague, Pat Upton, published a Bill which dealt with a number of the issues we hoped to address on the question of reforming the laws on intoxicating liquor. None of us would deny the need for a wide-ranging review of the laws, but it is most unsatisfactory that we are deleting large sections of a Bill that was published in the summer without addressing any of the issues that have been subject to debate in the meantime. We are simply introducing a small measure to deal with the millennium.
It is highly unsatisfactory for Members of this House and for those involved in the trade to deal with this issue in a piecemeal and unorthodox manner. I wish to express the dissatisfaction of the Labour Party with the way in which the issue has been dealt with. As Opposition Deputies, we put our minds to this Bill in its original draft, took on board what the Minister proposed during the summer, submitted amendments and attempted to get our viewpoint across. We held discussions with various people involved in the industry, including those who represent people working in it. Yet, today we will only be able to deal with a very small aspect. It is unsatisfactory and is not the way to do business.
I object to the fact that we are being asked to rubber-stamp a series of deletions from a Bill that has already been published and we will not have the opportunity to deal with the amendments we submitted. I see no point in moving the amendments in my name because they relate to a Bill that is effectively not before us. For example, the Minister referred to heritage centres, which is the subject of an amendment in my name. However, it will make no sense for me to propose it because it will apply to a Bill which will contain only one small section.
We will deal with that amendment when we come to it.
I reiterate our objection to the way this issue has been dealt with. It is very unsatisfactory. It is unfair to us as Opposition Deputies and to the public.
I endorse the views expressed by Deputy O'Sullivan. The Minister knows we are engaged in a sham. When it was originally published the legislation met an outcry from publicans, and the Minister ran scared and abandoned the legislation. He then decided to resurrect the Bill to deal with the millennium and in so doing he proposes to delete six of the eight sections and dramatically amend the other two sections. I hope this is not as big a disaster as the millennium candles.
This sham illustrates the Minster's gross incompetence. Second Stage was guillotined and Committee Stage will also be guillotined. The Minister is attempting to gag the Opposition. Why did he not take this opportunity to introduce more comprehensive legislation? He had six to eight months to amend the Bill or introduce a new one which could have included provisions for the millennium. Publicans will lose out, but consumers will be the big losers.
I am disappointed with the Minster's attitude to reform of the intoxicating liquor laws and with his gross discourtesy to Members of the House. It does not surprise me, but I am disappointed he did not give us the opportunity to fully debate the issues which arise from the Bill. There are a number of sections on which my colleagues and I will comment when we come to them. We give notice now that we believe this Bill is a disgrace and will be known as the one night stand Bill. It is concerned only with the millennium night. It is disappointing that the Minister did not use the opportunity to amend the legislation radically.
I have allowed an amount of latitude to Deputy O'Sullivan and Deputy Naughten. We are now discussing section 1 and I do not wish to have a general debate. I have allowed a Member of the Fine Gael and Labour Parties to make the points they wished and perhaps I should not have done that. I ask Deputy Higgins to confine his remarks to section 1.
(Mayo): I appreciate that ruling, Sir. However, on a point of information, the Minister telephoned me last week to ask for co-operation and he agreed that as there would be no Second Stage debate – Second Stage was obsolete and referred to a Bill that is now redundant and has been sidelined on Second Stage – and as we are now beginning the process of dismantling, we could debate, in a short and general way, the reason for the Minister's embarking on this most unusual step. I will take no more than two minutes.
I will allow two minutes. I remind Deputies that there is one hour allocated and there are a number of amendments. If Deputies wish to speak to their amendments I advise that not too much time be spent on this stage of the discussion unless it is relevant to what is before us.
(Mayo): I agree that it is important to discuss amendments. It is farcical that last December the Minister published a Bill, sent the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, into the House to debate it on Second Stage and proposed four changes, three of which were excellent. He proposed that the holy hour be abolished, which was a long sought measure, that disco licences be regularised and that hotels and restaurants be permitted to serve intoxicating liquor with meals between 2 p.m. and 3 p.m. on Sundays without the exemption which had been previously required. The fourth proposal, which was the most unsought and controversial, was to allow licensed premises to stay open all night on next new year's eve. This would have been a 36 hour orgy of drink for which there was neither public nor publican demand. Because of a revolt by Fianna Fáil backbenchers led by Deputy Healy-Rea this was reversed, the Bill was grounded and now appears in its reincarnated form. I have never seen anything like this before.
In the House we have sought clarification as to what would happen to the existing Bill which was on Second Stage and had been run aground, and what was being done to deal with the millennium situation because there was much public disquiet about the 36 hour drinking orgy. On the Order of Business on 6 October, the Taoiseach replied to my question on this and another matter: "There are no proposals on that matter [the separate matter], however, in relation to the Intoxicating Liquor Bill, No. 2, this is going to be published shortly". The Taoiseach subsequently confirmed in the House that we were talking about a new, short, crisp Bill which would deal with this issue only and would bring into effect the 1.30 to 2 o'clock opening on new year's eve. We have seen a ridiculous charade. Such a situation has never before been seen and it is simply designed to save the Minister's face.
We are dealing with section 1. The proposal is that it be deleted. Because of the short time available, some Members were allowed some latitude, although they should not have been, and went outside the scope of what we are discussing. We are discussing section 1 and I will not allow any general debate on the Bill itself at this stage.
Section 1 is concerned with the deletion by the Minister of references to the Intoxicating Liquor Acts, 1927 and 1988. The Minister's proposal is made so that other provisions contained in the Bill as originally published will be rendered inoperable.
I begin by making two declarations. First, from time to time in my capacity as a lawyer, I have been consulted by the Vintners Federation of Ireland for legal advice on issues relating to the intoxicating liquor legislation. I say this in case anyone wishes to allege at some future date that I represent the views of a vested interest. Second, I enjoy having a drink and going into a public house and spending a reasonable time there. I expect this is a declaration of interest that every Member could make, bar one or two who are more abstemious than myself and some of my colleagues and perhaps the Minister as well.
The amendment the Minister proposes goes to the fundamental core of the legislation he presented, that was legislation to extend opening hours and provide something resembling a modern and common sense legislative framework to deal with issues relating to pub opening hours. In this regard, I come from a position at variance with the Minister. My view, with which the vint ners association does not agree, is that we should have no legislation concerning opening hours beyond ensuring that public houses are closed on a couple of days of the year when it is inappropriate that they be open. My general view is to let them open when they wish and let the market determine opening and closing hours as it does with restaurants and a variety of other service and retail outlets. That is not a view which commends itself to the Minister nor one that is propagated by the Fine Gael Party at present, although I believe it is a view that, in years to come, will be seen as the correct approach. It is the approach adopted in European Union countries.
By the amendment he proposes, which is to delete what is effectively the definition section of the Bill, the Minister is turning the legislative process into a total farce. In doing so he is seeking to ensure that future sections of this Bill cannot operate in the context of amending and extending opening hours to later times than those provided for under current legislation. I believe the vast majority of residents and tourists find it inexplicable that at 11 o'clock on winter evenings, pubs must announce that last drinks are being served and must close within the 30 minutes drinking up time. This makes no sense, it is detrimental to the tourist industry and young adults regard it as a throwback to the bygone era of the 1920s and 1930s when the local parish priest used descend on the public house to take the names of those who were frequenting it so that appropriate comment might be made at Sunday Mass about the evils of alcohol and direct it to the appropriate parishioners. It is a throwback to an age we have long since grown out of and the approach of the Department which is to tinker with outdated, anachronistic and irrelevant legislation deserves no credibility.
The final nail in the coffin of the Department's and the Minister's credibility and capacity to address this issue is the fact that, having published the Bill on 21 June 1999 and given it a gestation period of six months, the Minister now comes to the House to emasculate the measure, delete most of its substance and leave us with a provision to deal with the dawn of the new millennium. The amendments tabled by the Minister relate to the millennium holiday. That may be desirable. The original Bill envisaged public houses being open for 36 hours and not closing as we enter the millennium. My view on that would have been, so what? Publicans should be able to make their own judgments and determine, within that latitude, how long they will open for and when they will close. Apparently, however, the view is that if publicans are allowed to open, it is compulsory that they do so. There is opposition to this proposal and the Minister is now changing it.
There was nothing wrong, in principle, with the Minister hearing representations on his millennium proposal and seeking to amend it on Committee or Report Stages in the Dáil. However, to propose to delete the substance of the Bill and simply provide for a millennium measure is such a politically crass and odd exercise that it deserves to be highlighted. It is most unfortunate that the Minister, after two and a half years in office, appears to be incapable of reaching a conclusion as to what reforming legislation should be enacted in this area. It has been indicated that he has a view on the more basic reforms required and on what he now favours. If that—
The Deputy is moving away from the section being discussed.
—is the case, instead of proposing the deletion of this definition section and excluding from the Bill substantial reform and amendment of the 1927 and 1988 Acts, the Minister could have drafted the amendments necessary to enact the Bill as a reforming measure. It is most unfortunate he is not doing that. It indicates a lack of competence on the Minister's part in the context of an issue which should not be the most important and confusing within the broad range of the brief for which he is responsible.
The Minister's proposal deserves to be opposed not just because of the substance of the amendments he is proposing, particularly the amendment of section 1 which is the foundation stone of the other deletions he wishes to make, but also because he is turning the legislative procedures of this House into a farce. Over the years I have introduced approximately 17 Private Members' Bills in the Dáil, some of which were ultimately enacted. I clearly recall Government Ministers criticising Private Members' Bills because something was not drafted correctly or because some aspect of the Bill might require amendment on Committee or Report Stages.
Here we have the extraordinary spectacle of a Minister who published a Bill containing nothing more dramatic than eight sections effectively obliterating the original Bill and seeking, in so far as any portion of it is retained, to amend that as well. Not a single section or subsection will survive the Minister's cutting. It will just about retain its Title and the long definition and, perhaps, we should not retain the latter. This Bill should be called the Year 2000 Drinking Extension (Intoxicating Liquor) Bill, 1999, because that is the extent of its application.
The Minister has failed the vast number of adults who look to this House to put in place a modern statutory framework to deal with our drinking laws and their application to both public houses and sports clubs. What he offers is a measure which could have been published and enacted over approximately ten or 15 minutes if it had been properly thought out. The debate we are having today, which has been delayed for six months since the publication of the Bill, should have introduced modern legislation to bring common sense to bear on the oddity of the 1927 and 1988 Acts. Sadly, that will not happen.
Does Deputy Belton wish to contribute on this section which is very narrow?
It is a narrow section because it is a narrow Bill. It is seldom one gets the opportunity to speak on a Bill that is not a Bill. It is a phantom Bill. The Minister opted out six months ago.
There is only one hour for Committee Stage.
I know but I will not take an hour.
Yes but the Deputy should not discuss points that are not relevant to section 1. The amendment seeks to delete section 1 of the Bill and the Deputy should speak to that amendment.
What I have to say is brief. The Minister might not be aware of it but independent councillors in certain parts of the country claim that he buckled under the Independent Deputies. That is the type of thing we have to listen to with regard to a most important issue. Why could the Minister not introduce a measure to permit opening all day Sunday? It is astounding that a Minister who speaks about changing the licensing laws could not, at least, do that. He has a major problem with pubs and clubs and we know it; he had it previously. However, he could not introduce a measure today to permit all day drinking on Sunday even though it will be possible to drink Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday. That is unbelievable.
It is important that I put this in context. This legislation was published following calls from various sectors, not least in the House, for something to be done in respect of the hours between 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. on Sunday and in respect of Saturday night exemptions. This was intended to assist the summer tourism season. It was also proposed by the national millennium committee that I introduce all night opening on New Year's Eve and New Year's Day. I was open to making such changes so I published the legislation.
On the week the legislation was criticised I was involved in the talks in Hillsborough and spent the week there. It was not possible for me to leave Hillsborough, to return to answer criticism of the legislation in the Dáil and to explain that we were working on more comprehensive legislation. I had to stay in Hillsborough. I have the odd feeling that, had I returned to discuss minor legislation dealing with alcohol, I would have come under assault from some of the people who attack me now. I might be wrong and if that is the case then my suspicions are poorly founded. That said, it will be clear what happened subsequently. The Dáil went into recess and it was not possible for me to explain the situation. In those circumstances, the Bill stayed on the Stat ute Book so that it would become a vehicle for the changes for the millennium.
The two proposals in the legislation relating to opening hours between 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. on Sundays and the issue of special exemptions for Saturday night into Sunday morning will be included in the draft legislation which is to come before the House and which will deal comprehensively with the licensing hours and other issues, including the provision of additional licences. The legislation which will come before the House in this respect in the new year is the most comprehensive legislation in the liquor licensing area since 1960-1. Deputies opposite may criticise me in respect of the vehicles which have been used for this purpose and, perhaps unfairly, for the fact that I was obliged to be absent from the House. However, I am sure they cannot and will not criticise me for the changes I am about to introduce.
If I wanted to save face, as Deputy Jim Higgins suggested, it would have been very simple in that all I had to do was forget about the legislation. However, I did not want to do that because the National Millennium Committee returned to me saying that, on reflection and having examined the matter, it now proposed that the hours be extended until 1.30 a.m. on the eve and into the morning of the millennium. The reason advanced was that a considerable number of publicans had intimated that not only did they not want to be open all night on the millennium but that they would be closing early in the evening. It would not have made sense for me to proceed against the legitimate wishes of those involved in the trade.
I find it difficult to understand why Members should criticise members of a parliamentary party, be they Ministers or backbenchers, for having views on legislation which were expressed legitimately in their party rooms. I thought this was what was meant by democracy. If those opinions are the expression of the will of my party, then, as I am not a dictator nor am I in a position to be one, I am happy to accept them. As it happens, none of the provisions of the legislation other than the provision to introduce all night opening hours for the millennium are being abandoned. The provisions dealing with Sunday afternoon opening and the matter of special exemptions on a Saturday night into Sunday morning are contained in the new legislation.
Perhaps Members opposite forget what season we are in – we are not facing into the summer season, as we were when the legislation was first proposed. However, we will be facing into the summer season in April and May of next year, by which time I hope to have the comprehensive legislation on the Statute Book. In that respect, it is incorrect and disingenuous of anyone to suggest, as Deputy Higgins suggested, that an individual Deputy led a charge on the legislation. That does not stand up, is incorrect and is being said for mischievous purposes. I understand why that would be done.
It may be true that the legislation and its amendments may have had an elephantine gestation period. However, following considerable consultation, the finished product seems to be what people want. They also want the vast majority of the measures contained in the original Bill, but that is now being included in the more comprehensive measure because that makes sense. It is the logical thing to do, but there are times – who would know better than me – when logic may not be the best way to approach a matter in the House. With regard to our being incapable of reaching a conclusion or having exhibited some degree of incompetence on this matter, I strongly disagree with that for the reasons I have outlined.
Amending the licensing laws may have taken two and a half years and it will probably take longer before the new legislation is before the House, but it is a complex issue. I have had innumerable meetings with representatives of the trade and various groups in Dublin and throughout the country in that time. I am especially pleased that, when the comprehensive proposals were published, they received a broad welcome across a major spectrum of society. I challenge anyone to prove me wrong when I say that this is a considerable achievement given the number of factors which had to be balanced and the complexity of the laws. There are as many views about the time a pub should close as there are varieties of drinks, and there are as many views on whether public houses should open for 24 hours a day as there are minutes in the day. That is the truth. My difficulty has been and is to ensure that I achieve the correct balance. If anyone on the Opposition benches was of the opinion that I would be stampeded into making an error in a matter of this seriousness and complexity, I am sorry to have disappointed them. They may now continue with their criticism.
The Minister ranged far and wide. The new proposals he had in this area could and should have been incorporated in this measure for no reason other than we know how long it takes for proposals, especially those from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, to translate into a Bill which finds its way into the House. I would be pleased to be proved wrong and if this is an incentive for the Minister to do so I welcome it. I would be astonished if the comprehensive Bill which the Minister informs us he has were enacted before the Dáil rises for the summer vacation. I would welcome it if the Minister proved me wrong and I invite him to do so. I referred to the gestation period of this measure which was published in June and is now being emasculated in December. We could best describe the Bill as a phantom legislative pregnancy.
Question put and declared carried.
NEW SECTION.
Amendment No. 1 is outside the scope of the Bill and is therefore out of order.
Surely it was within the scope of the Bill as originally published. It may be outside the scope of the Bill which will result from today's debate.
Amendment No. 1 provides that heritage centres become a special category of licence holder. It must be ruled out as it is not relevant to the provisions of the Bill as read a Second Time.
The Minister intends including it in his proposals and to address the issue of heritage centres.
It is not relevant to the provisions of the Bill as it was read a Second Time.
It seems the Minister can pick and choose what is relevant. We should deal with the liquor laws in as broad a manner as we wish.
Amendment No. 2 is in the names of Deputies Flanagan and Jim Higgins. Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are alternatives and amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 may be discussed together by agreement.
Amendment No. 1 not moved.
(Mayo): I move amendment No. 2:
In page 3, before section 2, to insert the following new section:
"2.–Section 2(1) of the Act of 1927 (as substituted by section 25 of the Act of 1988 and as amended by section 2 of the Act of 1995) is hereby amended by the deletion of the words from 'licensed premises—' to the end of the subsection and the substitution therefor of the words 'licensed premises during the period between 12.30 a.m. and 10.30 a.m. on any day, the period between 11.30 p.m. on 24 December, and 10.30 a.m. on 26 December, and the period between 11.30 p.m. on the day before Good Friday and 10.30 a.m. on the day after Good Friday'.".
The amendment seeks to broaden the scope of the Bill in a number of respects to meet largely what the Minister was seeking to do in his now emasculated Bill which has been aborted in the House and which is in the process of being dismantled. The amendment introduces a situation whereby the holy hour, a misnomer as it is two hours on a Sunday from 2 p.m. until 4 p.m., would go by the wayside. As Deputy Belton said, such a move is long overdue. The holy hour has outlived its usefulness. It had a specific purpose, as had closing during an ordinary week day allegedly to ensure civil servants went back to work after lunch. Its removal would also meet the requirements of tourism.
The amendment would eliminate the farcical situation whereby a nightclub that remains open after midnight on Saturday is effectively breaking the law, thereby addressing something owners of clubs and nightclubs have been calling for for some time. The Garda are expected to turn a blind eye and in the interests of public order effectively do so. However, each club is breaking the law.
Third, the amendment extends the opening hours for pubs throughout the year. As has been said, it is ridiculous that a bus load of tourists, which stops at a pub at 11.30 p.m. on a Wednesday, Thursday, Friday or Saturday night, are only in the door when last orders are called, with glasses having to be gathered and lights out by midnight. That is absolutely ridiculous in this day and age. We are seeking to introduce a little flexibility at the end of the night with opening until 12.30 a.m. all year round and an additional half hour for extended drinking up time.
Finally, while we are extending opening until 12.30 a.m. all year round, there are two days on which this will not apply, namely, Christmas Eve, when we will revert to 11.30 p.m. with a half hour drinking up time to ensure people consuming alcohol will be off the premises by Christmas Day, and on Holy Thursday – in order to retain the sanctity of Good Friday we are proposing a closing time of 11.30 p.m. with half an hour drinking up time. This would retain the traditional closing of public houses on Good Friday.
By virtue of the fact that the Minister is going to introduce such provisions, I do not see why he cannot accept the amendment in the interests of harmony, to show that he has a little magnanimity, openness and receptiveness and is prepared to show a certain amount of flexibility towards enlightened measures proposed by the Opposition. I think he would make many people happy if he accepted the amendment.
The amendment in my name extends opening hours until 12.30 a.m. We have been putting forward this view for quite some time. It was included in the Bill published by the late Deputy Pat Upton. It is basically in line with the practice in many places where a blind eye is turned to the length of time people have to drink up. I know there are many variations around the country but it seems logical that 12.30 a.m. is a reasonable time with additional drinking up time. This provision should be for every day of the week. We are a relatively mature nation and I think we would be able to cope with such a provision.
I again wish to express disappointment that the Bill is not taking such issues on board and is so narrow in scope. It is of minute proportions and is of no great relevance in terms of the major issues we have been asked to deal with in terms of intoxicating liquor legislation. I suggest that a time of 12.30 a.m. would meet with approval among the public, publicans and those working for them. I hope the Minister will at least take the principle on board even if he will not do anything about it in this Bill.
I share the exasperation of other speakers regarding the passage of the Bill. In my short tenure in the House I cannot recall a more incompetent performance on what is clearly very important legislation. Earlier this afternoon I voted against the proposal at the conclusion of Second Stage, not because I oppose the content of the Minister's even more contracted Bill, but because, as I stated in my contribution on Second Stage in June, the proposals do not go anywhere near far enough to meet the real needs in society regarding consumption and sale of intoxicating liquor.
I will treat the reduced content of the Bill with the disdain it deserves. The so-called millennium night binge, now to be accommodated, is the least important issue which needs to be addressed by the Minister. Towards the end of the coming year and in advance of the real new millennium, 2001, will the Minister provide for yet another long night? Indeed, why not make it an annual event and be done with it?
My amendment, like the others, seeks to address the key area of year round opening times for pubs and lounges, to assist a new maturity in Irish drinking habits and, very importantly, to keep those with drink, and those seeking more drink, away from the licensed entertainment venues, mainly catering for our youth. It seeks too, to cater to our indigenous and visiting tourists' markets, a very important and long identified area for redress. My amendment would involve the deletion of section 2 and its replacement with proposals that would have the net effect of allowing for the serving of alcoholic drink in licensed premises between the hours of 10.30 a.m. and 12.30 a.m. on each day of the week, excluding Sundays and St. Patrick's Day when opening hours would be between 12.30 p.m. and 12.30 a.m. I concur with earlier speakers on the special arrangements that should apply on Christmas Day and Good Friday.
Exasperation is the key word reflecting the views and sentiments of Members. Many months have passed since the Bill was first mooted and presented. We had the opportunity to present amendments and six further months have passed. Yet the substantive Bill, the real measure that needs to be discussed and adopted in the House, is not before us. I urge the Minister to take on board the very important points being put forward in the amendments. If it is our lot that these are not to be accepted and included in the Bill I hope they will be reflected in the substantive proposals that will come before us at the earliest opportunity in the New Year.
The Minister said the issue of clos ing time is an important one. On Sundays pubs should be allowed to remain open, without a break, from opening time until closing time. I do not know if the Minister played rugby but there is an old rugby song:
There are lots of pubs in Wales and they sell all kinds of ales
If you want a drink on Sunday you'll have to wait 'til Monday.
If someone wants a drink on Sunday afternoon they cannot get it until Sunday evening. It does not make sense. The statement issued by the Minister's press office stated he would extend closing hours on other nights of the week and possibly he will do so at some stage. However, I am asking him to consider pub openings on Sundays. The present position is a hang over from British rule. We should make our own laws as regards Sunday opening.
I support the amendment tabled in the names of Deputies Higgins and Flanagan. I give notice that we will resubmit sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 for Report Stage. The amendment will ensure the abolition of the holy hour and introduce the Minister's proposals which he announced last October. The Minister does not have any reason to object to the amendment. He said he would introduce these proposals early in the new year. Why not do so now? The only reason he could object to the amendment is if he has no plans to bring in the proposals in the new year. I will be surprised if the legislation is introduced before next Christmas. We know how slow the Department is in dealing with even minuscule legislation.
This amendment would facilitate the tourism industry. Will the Minister's proposals be in place before next summer? Why rush legislation through? The Minister said it would be the most comprehensive legislation on intoxicating liquor. We must deal with it in detail and ensure there are no loopholes. Why not introduce these changes now? They would be of help not only to the tourism industry but to the Garda. Can the Minister envisage a group of German tourists on their way to Galway pulling up at a pub at 11.30 p.m. and the local garda trying to take their names? There is also the ludicrous position on Sunday afternoons. In my constituency many tourists use the River Shannon. Many of them visit the local villages and towns for Sunday lunch and would wish to have a drink afterwards. Some have lunch in the pubs. They are ushered out at 2 p.m. and told they cannot have any more drink, as if they were adolescents. In this day and age, in a mature society such as ours, there is no reason to have such restrictive licensing laws.
It would remove the current anomaly in regard to night clubs. I dealt with this at length on Second Stage. It would improve food hygiene if the anomalies were removed. If I or anyone of my age goes into a night club on a Saturday night we are breaking the law. I can go into a night club on a Friday night and not break the law but if I do so on the most popular night of the week I break the law. This amendment will extend the closing hour to a more realistic time of 12.30 a.m. It makes sense and I know the Minister agrees with me. Why does the Minister not introduce it now and accept the amendment? If he does not do so there will be a guillotine on the new legislation and he will seek to have it before the summer, that is if he keeps to the timetable of publishing it early in the new year. Tourists who visit this country see this strange, outdated concept and it is time to change the system. The Minister has that opportunity now and I urge him to take it.
I have listened to speakers from the Opposition and while I agree with some of what they said I disagree with the rest. I understand the Minister is to introduce a comprehensive Bill early in the new year.
Which new year?
Deputy Collins without interruption.
I will let the Deputy judge that.
We have judged it.
The Deputy is not a good judge if he cannot judge that.
The Deputy obviously does not know the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
The Deputy made a statement about the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I wish he would check his facts because the Department introduced more Bills this year than any other Department. I did not interrupt the Deputy when he spoke.
I understand the reason the Deputies want a 12.30 a.m. closing time on Thursday, Friday and Saturday. I have an involvement in a licensed premises, lest anyone think I am pushing for late hours. The licensed vintners have not requested the hours the Deputies are requesting in their amendments. They are happy with the proposed hours in the Bill which will be a 12.30 a.m. closing time on Thursday, Friday and Saturday night, with 30 minutes' drinking up time. Closing time on Sunday will remain the same all year round, while closing time on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday will be 11.30 p.m., with 30 minutes' drinking up time. I am surprised by this amendment because the public, the publicans or the employees in the trade are not demanding it. I was surprised also to hear my colleague, Deputy O'Sullivan, call for a 12.30 a.m. closing time on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday nights.
We are here to represent—
She knows people do not drink much on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday nights.
(Mayo): What about the tourists?
Allow Deputy Collins to continue without interruption.
He is inciting us to interrupt.
The tourists stay in hotels. They have no problem getting a drink.
What about Shannonbridge, County Offaly?
Deputy Naughten, please allow Deputy Collins to continue without interruption.
The tourists do not demand late night drinking. The tourists I meet, and I have met more of them than anyone in this Chamber, are the first to go to bed. We have late night extensions in Limerick and on those nights, when the pubs are officially allowed to stay open, there would not be two people in the pub at 1 a.m. The people just drift away. On special occasions like the eve of the millennium—
Or if Limerick won the All-Ireland.
We would be like the other counties then, Deputy. We would have a bit of home rule. Deputies talk about the extensions for the eve of the millennium but many pubs will close early that night to accommodate staff and for other reasons.
They have a choice.
We have a choice to stay open until 1.30 a.m. under the Minister's proposals, with 30 minutes' drinking up time. That is the choice Deputy Higgins spoke about earlier. We are giving the Deputies opposite the choice but Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday nights do not warrant a 12.30 a.m. closing time. Deputy Belton is nodding his head in agreement with me, and he is a man of the world too. Does a publican have to stay open at that hour of the morning with perhaps two or three customers on the premises? That is not fair.
No one is putting a gun to the publican's head.
No one is putting a gun to anyone's head but a publican will find it very difficult to chuck out two or three customers.
Some of them.
In addition, they have to try to cater for the staff and it is difficult to keep staff in the trade because of the unsociable hours. That is the real problem and anyone working in the trade will say that. I am not in favour of the Deputies' amendment in respect of Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday nights but I agree with the proposal for Thursday, Friday and Saturday.
And Sunday. What about Sunday?
The Minister has 30 seconds to reply.
Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are being taken together. The net object of the amendments tabled by Deputies Flanagan, Higgins, O'Sullivan and Ó Caoláin is to seek to increase the opening hours of licensed premises to 12.30 a.m. on virtually all nights of the week all year round. They were never my proposals, they are not the proposals of the trade and I do not believe they are the proposals of the public. They are the Deputies' own proposals.
What about Sunday?
The time permitted for the proceedings on Third Stage having expired, I am required to put the following question in accordance with an Order of the Dáil this day: "That the amendments set down by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill, and in respect of each of the sections undisposed of, other than sections 2 to 6, inclusive, that the section or, as appropriate, the section as amended is hereby agreed to and that the Title is hereby agreed to."
Question put.
Tá
|
Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Andrews, David.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Blaney, Harry.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Matt.Brennan, Séamus.Briscoe, Ben.Browne, John (Wexford).Byrne, Hugh.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cowen, Brian.Daly, Brendan.Davern, Noel.de Valera, Síle.Dempsey, Noel.Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fleming, Seán.Flood, Chris.Foley, Denis.Gildea, Thomas.Hanafin, Mary.Harney, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Healy-Rae, Jackie.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy. |
Kenneally, Brendan.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Michael.Kitt, Tom.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McDaid, James.McGennis, Marian.McGuinness, John.Martin, Micheál.Moffatt, Thomas.Molloy, Robert.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Donoghue, John.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Keeffe, Ned.O'Kennedy, Michael.O'Malley, Desmond.O'Rourke, Mary.Power, Seán.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Treacy, Noel.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Woods, Michael.Wright, G. V. |
Níl
|
Barnes, Monica.Barrett, Seán.Bell, Michael.Belton, Louis.Boylan, Andrew.Bradford, Paul.Broughan, Thomas.Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).Bruton, John. |
Bruton, Richard.Burke, Liam.Burke, Ulick.Carey, Donal.Clune, Deirdre.Connaughton, Paul.Cosgrave, Michael.Coveney, Simon. Crawford, Seymour. |
Níl–continued
|
Creed, Michael.Currie, Austin.D'Arcy, Michael.Deasy, Austin.Deenihan, Jimmy.Dukes, Alan.Durkan, Bernard.Enright, Thomas.Farrelly, John.Ferris, Michael.Finucane, Michael.Fitzgerald, Frances.Flanagan, Charles.Higgins, Jim.Higgins, Joe.Higgins, Michael.Hogan, Philip.Kenny, Enda.McCormack, Pádraic.McDowell, Derek.McGahon, Brendan.McGinley, Dinny. |
McGrath, Paul.Mitchell, Gay.Mitchell, Jim.Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.Noonan, Michael.Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Perry, John.Quinn, Ruairí.Rabbitte, Pat.Ring, Michael.Shatter, Alan.Sheehan, Patrick.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Upton, Mary.Wall, Jack.Yates, Ivan. |
Tellers: Tá, Deputies S. Brennan and Power; Níl, Deputies Barrett and Stagg.
Question declared carried.