Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 7 Oct 2004

Vol. 589 No. 5

Intoxicating Liquor Bill 2004: Committee and Remaining Stages.

Amendments Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, are out of order as they are outside the scope of the Bill.

Why are the amendments out of order?

They are outside the scope of the Bill.

The Bill relates to under age drinking and licensed premises, and these amendments are all related to those matters.

Amendment No. 1 would insert a new section 1, which would allow a court considering an application for the grant or renewal of a licence to attach conditions requiring the installation and operation of a CCTV system inside or outside the premises. The Bill refers only to the circumstances under which children may be present in licensed premises. It makes no reference to the renewal of licences or the monitoring of premises. Therefore the amendment must be judged out of order as it is outside the scope of the Bill.

What about the other amendments which relate to under age drinking?

The other ones similarly are outside the scope of the Bill.

The other amendments relate to under age drinking and the sale of alcohol from off-licences to under age people and advertising targeted at under age people.

Again the Bill refers only to the circumstances under which children may be present in licensed premises. It makes no reference to the advertising, sale, display or marketing of alcohol or related products.

It should do so.

The amendments must therefore be judged out of order as they are outside the scope of the Bill.

Amendments Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, not moved.

Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 8 and 9 are related and amendment No. 12 is consequential on amendments Nos. 4 and 5. Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 8, 9 and 12 may be discussed together by agreement.

Would it be possible for the Minister to indicate which amendments, if any, he is likely to accept. This might expedite the process as we have a very limited period of time to discuss this mater.

On amendment No. 8 in the name of Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, if "10.30 p.m." were changed to "10 p.m.", I could accept the amendment.

Is the Minister satisfied with the holiday period mentioned in my amendment?

I could offer the Deputy an alternative wording, which would achieve that result.

Has the Minister a copy of the alternative proposal?

I need to do a small amount of work on it.

We will leave it until we have an indication of the Minister's thinking on the matter. When we come to discuss that amendment perhaps the Minister will have copies of it available at that stage.

I am in the hands of the Ceann Comhairle provided we have an opportunity to tease out the matter during the limited time available.

The Chair is anxious that we have a written text of the proposed amendment, before dealing with it. We should take Deputy Ó Snodaigh's amendments now.

NEW SECTION

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 3, before section 1, to insert the following new section:

"1.—Section 14 (restrictions on presence in bars of persons under 18 years) of the Act of 2003 is hereby repealed.".

I had not expected these to come up so quickly. I saw the logic in Deputy Costello's amendments, which have been ruled out of order. My amendments are ones I had indicated during the passage of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003. I was unhappy with the construction of these provisions in that Act. Since we now have another opportunity to change intoxicating liquor legislation, I took the opportunity to resubmit some of those amendments. These amendments deal with under age people in bars and the production of evidence of age of persons between 18 and 21.

As I said, the past decade has seen a huge increase in alcohol consumption. This is a major problem for us, as legislators, to grapple with. The media and the Minister appear to be obsessed exclusively with under age drinking when the national tragedy of alcohol abuse by those outside teenage years has increased dramatically. Many of the public order offences that precipitated much of the media coverage relate to those of 18 years and older who can legally consume alcohol on premises.

Last weekend the president of the National Youth Council, Mr. Kevin Hickey, said:

There's no doubt about it, alcohol is a major problem for Irish society. But let's stop blaming Young People for the problem. Our society as a whole is responsible, now we must work together to address it. Each sector has a part to play, including Government, Health Professionals, Youth Organisations, etc.

He went on to say:

Young people are often scapegoated as the perpetrators of alcohol misuse rather than the victims of a societal problem. We need to ensure that whatever policies we develop that all sections of society are engaged in their formulation and that young people's voices are heard.

He emphasised the need for concerted action across sectors by saying "we must be cognisant of the fact that alcohol misuse is a problem which pervades our society and has done so throughout history". He and others have stated that the steps we will take to tackle this problem have to be taken across the board and should not be discriminatory.

I said at the time that sections 14 and 15 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003 are discriminatory and I remain of that opinion. It is ridiculous that a person under the age of 21, who may have been drinking legally in a pub, a bar or a nightclub from 10.30 a.m., has to wave his or her ID as soon as 9 p.m. comes to prove that he or she is over the age of 18, but that is the effect of section 15. It is discriminatory because such people are legally entitled to be on the premises and to consume alcohol. If a person is over the age of 18, he or she is entitled to be on a licensed premises from 10.30 a.m. Regardless of the need for ID cards for those under the age of 18, it is discriminatory that those over that age are asked to wave ID cards as soon as 9 p.m. comes to show that they are legally entitled to be on a licensed premises after that time. One of my amendments seeks to remove that part of the 2003 Act.

I also propose to remove the section of the legislation which prevents those under the age of 18 from being on licensed premises after 9 p.m. Some people have to be accompanied by adults. Those under the age of 15 are prohibited from being on a licensed premises at a certain stage of the day. I have travelled with my children to many places in Europe and elsewhere. It is appropriate, especially in holiday periods, that one should be able to relax by enjoying a meal after one has spent the day on the beach, for example. In Ireland, one may have spent that day indoors, in most cases. Most tourists prefer to wind down with one's children — they do not budget for babysitters when planning a trip to Spain, France, Greece or Portugal.

While the amendments proposed by Deputies Costello and Jim O'Keeffe are laudable, I do not feel that a change to 10 p.m. or 10.30 p.m. would make a huge difference to the tourism industry. I understand Deputy O'Keeffe's argument that a different time period could be imposed in the summer period. I have no problem with that. A deadline of 10.30 p.m. would be more reasonable than that which the Minister indicated his willingness to accept. Such a regulation would be more appropriate to the long summer evenings when it is bright until 10 p.m. Some type of leeway should be introduced because the legislation is too restrictive as it stands.

Is it the case that if a local authority area wanted to introduce time restrictions, it could do so under the 2003 Act? Perhaps the Minister can clarify that matter. If Kerry County Council wished to promote tourism, it could state that the bars in that county could stay open until 10 p.m. during the summer months, but not during the rest of the year. It could decree that those in charge of children would have to comply with normal intoxicating liquor legislation during the rest of the year. The same could apply in Dublin, as tourists go to places other than Kerry.

I have proposed my amendments to try to undo the damage we did to the intoxicating liquor legislation last year. We should try to ensure, if at all possible, that the steps I have suggested are taken. We should also repeal the law allowing the District Courts to prohibit certain conduct in licensed premises in its jurisdiction.

I wish to raise a number of points. Perhaps I will speak about the 10.30 p.m. closing time when the Minister makes the relevant document available.

Perhaps I could intervene at this point, as the order in which we speak does not matter. I have seen the amendments tabled by Deputies Costello and Jim O'Keeffe and I have heard Deputy Ó Snodaigh's thoughts on the matter. The Government has considered whether the issue in question should be addressed in this Bill. A change has not been proposed because I could not argue that this subject needs to be dealt with as a matter of urgency. Such a change might be considered if there is a general view in the House that this is an appropriate time to deal with the matter. Members should bear in mind that the legislation on the Cabinet table, to which I have referred, will take some weeks or months to be brought to its final form. One should also consider that people might like to have a clearer picture of the situation before the next tourist season begins next summer. Therefore, I propose to table an amendment to Deputy Jim O'Keeffe's amendment. The amendment to the amendment is being photocopied at present. I ask Deputy Jim O'Keeffe to move his amendment so that it can be amended. I would then be disposed to accepting the amended amendment.

That is reasonable. I am glad the Minister is open to the suggestion that we should deal with the problem in this Bill.

The question of moving Deputy O'Keeffe's amendment will not arise until the two preceding amendments have been disposed of. It is not necessary for the Deputy to move his amendment at this stage.

I thank the Chair for his guidance. I wish to make a general point about some of the issues which arise from the amendments before the House and the Bill as a whole. I understand the importance of the Bill before the House — I do not fault the Minister in that regard.

I have always agreed with the DPP's interpretation of this matter. I operated as a lawyer on the basis that if a premises is licensed, a bar is a bar. It is clear that there were different interpretations. We should think about that. If possible, law should not be made in the House that gives rise to different interpretations. Such legislation will probably not be passed if the Bills before the House are properly analysed and debated.

The Minister said he felt he had to bring this Bill before the House. I agree that it was important to bring the Bill before the House. However, I object to legislating on the hoof without time for proper analysis. It would have been better to have provided for an unrestricted Second Stage debate today and the subsequent Stages next week. Such arrangements would have given us an opportunity to analyse the Bill in full. Some parts of the Bill——

The Deputy will appreciate that the information available to me was that immediate directions to prosecute were tendered. It is not a matter of waiting until next week.

Yes, but Deputy Kenny pointed out this problem last November. I pointed it out——

Yes, but the directions to prosecute are of immediate effect.

I do not see that as a reason for us to legislate with unseemly haste. I would have liked to have analysed the Bill over the weekend and perhaps to have received legal advice on different parts of it, before coming back to the House with a more considered list of amendments next week. The amendment I have tabled, which the Minister is disposed to accept in whole or in part, is a revised version of an original amendment. I decided on the first version at 10 a.m. On reflection, I decided that it should be pinned back and that it should apply in the summer season rather than all year round. It should also apply only to under age people on the premises in a family situation and not on their own. I believe that——

The Deputy does not say that.

There were time constraints.

It applies only to subsection (2)(a).

The phrase "family situations" is discriminatory against those who do not have two parents. There are all sorts of problems.

A supervisor, then.

Accompanied by his or her parent or guardian. It is subsection (2)(a) that I propose to amend. We will return to that once we hear the reaction of the Minister. Perhaps I might touch on some other issues. Several arise, as mentioned by the Minister, regarding GAA clubs and so on. The Minister might know about the Old Wesley Club, which gave rise to the difficulty regarding the night the junior certificate results were revealed. Is it clear that the way the Bill is framed referring to a holder of licensed premises covers clubs? I appreciate that in section 2 there is reference to the Registration of Clubs Acts 1904 to 2003.

The next issue that does not arise in this section is that of part of a premises. Has enough consideration been given to the situation of a modern hotel where there might be three or four function rooms and where only one is allocated for an under age disco? Then there is the question of the bar on those premises or part of those premises being securely closed. We are not clear about the definition of "securely closed". Must it be locked? If so, should it be so provided? I can envisage that being open to argument regarding what constitutes the bar counter.

A curtain would not be a secure closure.

What if one put down a shutter and it was not locked and could be pushed up again? Is that securely closed?

The staff go under the hatch to get glasses. What is "closed"?

"Securely closed", it is a matter of interpretation.

They could be serving. I am concerned——

That is the problem. That is why we are back here in the first place.

I am concerned——

Perhaps we might allow Deputy O'Keeffe to conclude his contribution.

I accept that. All I am saying is that there is a fair number of issues, even in this alleged one-section Bill, which has two sections, which I feel should be fully and properly teased out. Perhaps I might mention another. In my Second Stage speech I referred to the Australian situation. There is a lower age limit there. Under the Minister's Bill, would a child of ten be covered by this or is there any lower age limit? Can a baby be present? There is no lower age under this Bill, but I understand that in other jurisdictions, particularly Australia, there is one.

The Deputy is talking about under age discos, but that is only one manifestation of this. One could have judo practice in the main hall of a GAA club with a bar in the corner. Age restrictions would be completely inapplicable in such circumstances. The view the Deputy agrees with is one that is radical in its effect, meaning that any person under the age of 18 in any hall or GAA club in Ireland where the shutters are down on a bar is committing an offence if he or she is on the premises after 9 o'clock. It also means that those between 18 and 21 doing judo practice in those circumstances are obliged to have a card in their possession stating their age. That is the view the Deputy says is so obviously correct. I wonder whether, if he thought about it, he would find it that obvious.

I believe that it is correct since the way the Minister framed the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003 is what created the problem.

It was the 2003 Act that caused this problem. Perhaps I will return to my original point. There should be time to tease out these issues in a full and adequate debate and discussion, but that has not been accorded us. The Minister is doing an injustice to his own legislation in not ensuring that adequate time is available. I do not pretend to have all the answers and we are in very difficult territory here, but at least it would give us the opportunity to raise the questions, suggest options and tease them out so that the Legislature might be as happy as possible that the ultimate outcome of our deliberations was the best Bill possible in the circumstances. I am not happy because of the inadequate time available.

I regret that the Ceann Comhairle had to rule out of order some of my amendments which are pressing and deal with what needs to be done. It will be difficult for the Minister to get together his codification of the legislation, which he states comprises nearly 100 Acts that must be brought together, within a short space of time. I am a little concerned that the Minister seemed to be blaming the DPP for the problem.

I am not blaming him.

I believe that the Minister is doing that. Effectively he is saying that it is all the fault of the DPP and that had he not decided to prosecute, there would be no problem. The only reason the DPP has——

It is not his fault. He is entitled to his view.

The only reason the DPP is prosecuting is that he interprets the legislation as stating: "The holder of a licence of licensed premises shall not, subject to subsections(2) to (4) of this section, allow a person under the age of 18 years to be in the bar of the licensed premises at any time.”

That makes no reference, good, bad, or indifferent, to whether that bar is open. It also refers to "any time". There is a problem there, and the DPP has a perfectly valid argument in that respect. That must be acknowledged, and we must get on with the work of dealing with it, as we are doing at present. I tabled an amendment, and I will limit myself to dealing with that for the time being. It was the amendment concerning extending the hours that someone under 18 may be in the bar from 9 o'clock to 10 o'clock. I tabled it in that fashion because it is clear-cut that serious drinking on licensed premises by and large takes place after 10 o'clock. With the extended hours that we have now, 11.30 p.m. or 12.30 p.m., that is even more so. Any problems arise after 10 o'clock and not before. I held back from the idea of making it seasonal. I am not in any way reflecting negatively on the amendment tabled by Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, but it is not simply a seasonal issue. That is one thing regarding a tourist or notional tourist season that begins on 1 May and ends on 30 September. Bord Fáilte is doing its best to have the tourist season begin on 17 March or earlier, when the first US tourists arrive in Ireland in their droves, and also to extend it at the other end. That is one aspect of it. The other is the one on which Deputy Paul McGrath reflected on with reference to Westmeath, which, for the first time in a million years, has won the Leinster championship. God help us if they go a step further and head off towards the all-Ireland; we would certainly need to extend the hours for them to celebrate. Sporting events are another aspect, taking place in all seasons. GAA games are played in the summer, soccer and rugby in the winter, and there is a lot of family activity around sporting events. I am putting the argument for a clear-cut timescale that would be open to no interpretation other than what is clearly there. The need for the change has arisen over the past few months. It would be good if the Minister came up with an appropriate formula for dealing with the problem.

The issue of the bar counter has been raised. Deputies Stanton and English noted that there could also be a mineral counter. The implication of the Minister's statement is that there will have to be a separate mineral counter because one cannot use the existing bar counter. Is a mineral counter within a bar a bar counter? There is a point to be addressed there.

Though we may not get to amendment No. 10, which I have tabled, the Minister might have a chance to reflect on it. That amendment proposes to delete section 1(b) which deals with the bar counter. It is not really the bar counter which must be secured. It is the availability of alcohol which must be secured against. My amendment proposes securely preventing physical access to intoxicating liquor on the premises. In other words there would be an alternative mechanism to deal with the issue that would be more clear-cut than the means proposed in the legislation.

I would like to see the formula at which the Minister arrives. It would be best if he had a clear statement of time, for example from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m., rather than dividing it. Deputy Ó Snodaigh made the valid point that an application can be made to the courts for a seasonal liquor licence in a particular tourist area. The courts could decide that in Killarney, Sligo or Galway, for example, extensions might be allowed over a set period of months, which would cater for the tourist trade.

The issue of securely closing the bar needs to be clarified. The bar might be closed, with its shutters down, yet the staff usually go in under the hatch at the end of the bar in order to get glasses, to use the machine to clean glasses, to get drink etc. Are they then breaking the law? If a garda enters will the staff be in trouble? The cash registers are also behind the bar. This is a serious issue.

Nightclubs and under-age discos are only one aspect. Someone at a karaoke bar might want to buy a 7-Up. Can a staff member go behind the bar to get that person that mineral? Dancing lessons might be going on in the back of a pub, and the publican might like to sell 7-Up to those attending, because the function room might have been freely provided. This matter must be talked through.

Most nightclubs will not run junior discos because they are a lot of hassle. That is why there are so few of them, and so much trouble at them. People from many different towns arrive in one place. In my county there is only one place running discos for 16 and 17 year olds, so they come from many towns to that one place. The Minister knows what happens when one mixes young people from different towns at night-time.

We should therefore be encouraging nightclubs and hotels to run functions for young people. There will be a great deal of hassle involved in running a function if one has to close a bar and otherwise facilitate the young people. Those who are aged 16 do not want a small bottle of Coca-Cola. They want to be able to get it in a glass, not a plastic glass. They see themselves as adults and want to be respected. They want to go to clubs, discos or wherever, and to be treated as adults. That does not mean they drink alcohol. A step further would be to turn off the beer kegs, remove the liquor and clear the bar, but to be disallowed the use of the bar is silly and unnecessary. That matter needs to be clarified.

Alcoholic drinks in a bar can be put away, so that it becomes a mineral bar, but clubs and hotels will not bother running functions for young people if there is so much hassle involved. Young people who want to do the right thing will miss out. I am sure that is not the Minister's intention, but if the Bill's provisions are left unclarified, clubs and hotels will be afraid to take any chances and we will be back in this House with another Bill.

Bar closure has to be enforceable. If a garda walks into a disco, he must be able to see if the bar is open or closed. If we are to return to the situation where the garda must check what is in the glasses, whether there are alcopops on the counter, we will go back down the road of unenforceability.

What is the Minister proposing instead?

In most cases, bars are secured by shutters. If people are bringing children to those premises after 9 p.m., the proprietors will have to choose whether to close the bar. It might be more convenient to do as Deputy English suggests, to clear away all the optics and beer kegs and padlock the beer taps.

They just turn off the kegs. That is what is done every night.

That may be one way of dealing with it.

Deputy English will bring the Minister on a training course.

What I am providing for is that in a place which has a securely locked bar, children may be there after 9 p.m.

That is not the same thing. The Minister is changing the definition again.

I know it is not the same. I am not changing what I have said. The bar must be securely closed. If people do not have shutters on their bars, that is too bad. That is clearly the basis on which I am legislating. Deputy English should reflect on the reason.

The Minister should reflect. Reflection is a two-way thing.

The reason is that the law must be practical. A garda sergeant walking into a premises must be able to see at a glance if the bar is open or closed. He should not have to root around in the bar, asking if there is liquor there, or if the beer kegs are open. He does not have to do that. I am trying to provide a workable law.

The Minister is not doing so.

I am trying to provide a law which is reasonable in all the circumstances, and the Deputy is trying to provide a lazy man's law.

I am not.

He is trying to provide a lazy man's law which is convenient for anyone.

I want to make a point.

We want to bring some order into this debate. That applies to all sides of the House. The Deputy should allow the Minister to conclude his remarks.

I will finish soon, and the Deputy can reply.

I will not be allowed. The time will be up because the Minister is guillotining the Bill.

The Deputy need not worry. I will not continue speaking until 3.30 p.m.

The Minister is ranting and raving.

What I am saying to the Deputy is very clear. I am faced with a situation where GAA clubs with their bar shutters down and the premises secure cannot allow an Irish dancing class with 10-year old children in the same room. That is the interpretation that some people are putting on the current law. It is not self-evidently so to me. I have looked at all the documents and I still believe it is not correct to think that.

I am faced with that situation and want to end it. I do not want a situation where it is a defence to say that no alcohol was being served or that all the bottles had been moved down under the counter, or whatever. That is not what I want to bring about.

Will a separate mineral bar be allowed?

Clearly, one can have a table in the hall with minerals on it.

Would that be a bar counter?

It would not be considered a bar counter unless it were set up as a bar counter, which it need not be.

For 2,000 people.

This is being done in this way for the simple reason that I do not want these premises being used as bars but as discos. Those attending will not mimic adults drinking Coke in pint glasses on a bar stool at the bar. The purpose is to allow premises which happen to have a securely closed bar to be used for other purposes which have nothing to do with the consumption of alcohol.

I want a workable system so a garda sergeant or inspector entering a premises can tell the owner that discos for young people cannot be held on the premises because there are no shutters on the bar. If a garda enters a premises at 10 p.m. and sees the shutters up, he will know an offence is being committed. I want a clear law not one designed to create chaos so far as enforcement is concerned. It may inconvenience some if they cannot use cash registers behind the bar for non-alcohol sales but that is just too bad. If I go down the other road, I am effectively saying that the law is becoming unenforceable. While children sat at the bar, gardaí would have to sniff at glasses to find whether there was vodka in orange. I will not go down that road and should not be asked to.

The Minister told us what he is faced with and that he is bringing in the Bill to get this matter off his back. As a representative of the young, I am faced with people who want to go out to socialise. An 18 year old can go into a bar and drink a pint. What is wrong with a 17 year old just a few days younger sitting at a bar drinking a Coke? The Minister stated he wants the law to be enforceable by gardaí entering a premises without them having to sniff glasses. However, whether the bar is open, people could have vodka in a glass, as the Minister is aware. The Minister should not patronise me by telling me about gardaí entering a premises.

It is illegal to consume alcohol on these premises and no defence is provided by the statute if alcohol is consumed.

Whether the bar is open, a person could have vodka in his or her glass and the garda would have to sniff it to know.

The Minister stated it might be possible to have a table for soft drinks. I am talking about venues which might hold 2,000 yet the Minister wants a table in a corner. It is not practical. I understand the Minister's point but I do not like the way he pushes my point to one side. Mine is a common sense perspective. I hope young people will not miss out. Venues will not bother to run functions for young people if they have to go through all this hassle.

Before the 2003 Act which prevented young people from being on licensed premises after 9 p.m., I was not aware of any case where a hotel running a function specifically for young people was questioned or prosecuted for selling alcohol directly over the bar.

I think the Deputy is correct. It was rare.

If it was not a problem, why is it now a problem? To have a bar is practical and gives a venue a proper appearance for young people to enjoy their night out. It is neither unenforceable nor impractical. Listening to both sides, some common sense would help. The Minister may wish to return with another Bill following this, although I accept he may want to rush this one through. However, I will not accept my suggestion being rubbished as not practical.

I did not intend to rubbish the Deputy.

My suggestion was rubbished.

I wish to return to the question of the bar counter and the appropriateness of section 1(b) which states that any bar counter on a premises would be securely closed. The intention of the legislation is not to close bar counters but to close off or prevent access to the drink behind the counters. What exactly does the Minister mean by “bar counter”? A bar counter is the platform on to which the drink is served but the thrust of the legislation is to prevent access to the drink. Will the Minister consider my amendment which aims to ensure that physical access to intoxicating liquor on a premises is securely prevented. While that might involve shutters along the bar counter, it might involve another mechanism whereby the supply is properly policed and which would allow soft drinks to be served while the alcohol behind the counter is securely prevented from being accessed by a minor.

This might assist the valid point made by Deputy English regarding large numbers of young people entering a premises. They will dance and be thirsty and there will be a demand for refreshments. To set up a little table and expect it to suffice without glasses or running water is unrealistic.

This needs to be teased out more before we reach a final version and the Minister should give it more thought. Alcohol is not purchased and consumed on premises where young people come for discos but at off-sales prior to a disco, although alcohol may be brought on to a premises. We must be careful to be pragmatic in our efforts and recognise that the real issue is not properly supervised non-alcohol discos. The problem which leads to alcohol being consumed is often extraneous to a particular venue.

A different description of the bar section of a licensed premises would facilitate the Minister's purpose far better than the one before us. It would allow the premises to operate properly and cause no difficulties. At the same time, it would allow the sale of non-alcoholic drink in a proper and orderly fashion while accommodating the needs of the young.

I have sympathy with both sides of this issue. As one who worked behind a bar, I understand how difficult it is to separate soft and alcoholic drinks. However, unless our society begins to provide other venues, it would be difficult, for example, for a GAA club with limited hall space to run a disco. Health and safety issues would arise if a table was placed in the middle of a floor with many bottles and perhaps a fridge.

I would prefer to make the Minister's proposal work. It also highlights that we are debating something which is central to this legislation and even at this late stage there is no input from the industry on whether it can deliver what the Minister wants. Deputy English is right when he says many hotels will refuse to provide the facility with the result that GAA halls, some of which may not be suitable, will be used. We should encourage more building of community centres which have no bar facilities, and these should be the location of discos in future. We should allocate money for the provision of such centres.

The amendments we discussed do not directly relate to it, but in the little time I have left let me mention that Ireland is being sold abroad, particularly in the United States of America and in Britain, as being inviting, family friendly, warm, on a par with holiday destinations anywhere else in the world with the exception that we do not have temperatures of 30° or 40° Celsius in the summer. Many hotels, pubs and other establishments have invested heavily in improving their facilities in the hope of attracting families to holiday in Ireland and to persuade Irish people to view Ireland as a holiday destination. In passing the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003 the Minister discriminated against people with families using Ireland as a tourism resort and prevented them from enjoying their holiday by forcing them out of licensed premises at 9 p.m. if they have children.

The Minister got it wrong in this instance. That is why he is here. He got it wrong on the time factor, and on the other issues included in my amendment, by implementing a policy which targeted one group over another. In this case the measures taken in the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003 targeted young people exclusively in terms of their being on licensed premises after 9 p.m. or, in the case of 18 to 21 year olds, having to produce identification.

My amendment No. 6 relates to the jurisdiction of the Equality Tribunal. We probably will not reach it. However, I will still take every opportunity in this House to pursue that issue.

The Deputy should confine himself to the amendments before us because Deputy Jim O'Keeffe is anxious to contribute and has been indicating for some time. We cannot move on to other amendments which are not before the House.

The last three speakers, including the Minister, spoke about matters which were not in the amendments before us. I mentioned one issue and I am returning to that issue which relates to young people on licensed premises. The amendment is to change the law to allow young people to be on licenses premises after 9 p.m. The original submission of the ICCL stated that licensed premises are places that, as a whole, offer a range of social, cultural and entertainment activities. There is a perception that they are unsafe for children in the legislation which provides that those under 18 years of age should not be there after 9 p.m. They are no more dangerous than supermarkets which sell poisons or chemist shops which sell drugs. We need to get real in this society and to see this in a proper and holistic way.

In the interests of allowing Deputy O'Keeffe to contribute, I will withdraw my amendments.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Will Deputy O'Keeffe give way for a moment?

The Minister has provided the text of an additional amendment. As we have begun consideration of section 1, the amendment is technically late. However, if the House agrees, I will accept the amendment.

On the basis that the Minister is accepting the thrust of my amendment, I am prepared to agree. However, I would like it to be explained.

On Deputy English's argument, I did not mean to rubbish him. I am persuaded by his and Deputy Costello's argument. It would be better if paragraph (b) in subsection (1) was “physical access to intoxicating liquor on those premises or, as the case may be, that part is securely prevented.” I agree with Deputy English that if there is water on tap and other equipment it would be ridiculous if the management were told it could not use it for washing glasses and would have to bring a tub.

Perhaps the Minister will provide an exact wording for the amendment.

That deals with the first point I was going to make. One does not close a bar counter. Deputy Costello's formulation is much better.

The second point was that if we are to deal in three and a half minutes with the problem of families not being able to——

I cannot deal with the families in three and a half minutes.

I understood the Minister was accepting my amendment. It relates to the issue of families, on holiday in particular, between May and September. The Minister has accepted the thrust of my amendment but has reformulated it. Would he tell me the basis on which he is reformulating it and then I will respond and accept the reformulation?

Amendments Nos. 5 to 10, inclusive, not moved.

I accept the point that has been made. I have been conscious of the fact that the 9 p.m. limit in cases of people coming off boats on the Shannon or from beaches in rural Ireland in summertime is too tough on occasions. A limit of 10 p.m. for the summer months would be better. I suggest that the threshold should be 10 p.m. during the period from 1 May to 30 September each year. The normal time for children to leave pubs is 9 p.m. but the threshold will be 10 p.m. from 1 May to 30 September.

It may be that we will think of something better when we deal with the consolidation Bill. This is the best I can do now and what, as far as Government is aware, I intended to accept if the Opposition puts it forward.

The Minister has gone most of the way towards accepting my proposal. He has accepted the thrust of my amendment in allowing families extra time during the summer months. I agree, therefore, to the amended version of my proposal. I emphasise that I accept this on an interim basis. It is extremely important that we have proper debate and analysis of the various proposals and that adequate time be allowed for that.

Did the Cabinet agree only to an extension to 10 p.m. on a seasonal basis or across the board?

It is seasonal. It applies to the summer months, and I am taking a liberal view of what constitutes the summer months, from May to the end of September.

In order to be clear, amendment No. 10A has already been circulated by the Minister. On the Minister's other amendment to section 1(1)(b) the wording is “physical access to intoxicating liquor on those premises or, as the case may be, that part is securely prevented.”

As it is now 3.30 p.m. I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day: "That the amendments set down by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform for Committee Stage and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill, in respect of each of the sections not disposed of, that the section or, as appropriate, the section as amended, is hereby agreed to in Committee, the Title is hereby agreed to in Committee and the Bill as amended is, accordingly, reported to the House, Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed."

Question put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn