The commission was appointed just over two years ago and was given specific terms of reference, to which it has had to adhere at all times. We were asked to produce a report on certain issues, particularly with regard to the nature of off-licences, and we were given a three-month period to do so. It was during this period that we realised the enormity of the problems we faced.
Our first step was to advertise for submissions in the national press. We received an enormous number of them and, having read them, we discovered that far from wanting an increase in the number of off-licences and helping competition matters, as our terms of reference suggested, the public thought there were already quite enough licensed premises in Ireland. They also suggested that the problems Ireland has experienced during the past ten years would not justify any marked increase. In dealing with that and reviewing the scope for the system of additional licences, which was a specific part of our appendix, we had a two-fold problem.
First was in the composition of the commission because it contained a large number of people from the trade. Many cynical people thought it would be extremely difficult to produce any reports on which the public would agree. Throughout our term, we attempted to consult as much as we could with the public and with Oireachtas Members. On two occasions, we wrote to the political parties and their leaders and offered to meet any of them who wished to meet us to hear their submissions or remarks and exchange views on the licensed trade in general. As a result, I met a number of people who are present at this meeting, including Deputy Ardagh who had just taken over the chair of the committee, and discussed the issues. We took what they said on board and, in many cases, the submissions and requests made to us are embodied in one or other of the four reports we produced.
Our first report had to be provided within three months and, under our terms of reference, was to deal with off-licences and access to additional off-licences, with competition as its principal theme. This proved difficult. We discovered the enormous body of opinion held by the public which highlighted, for those of us who did not know, that there was an enormous problem with regard to underage drinking. As the commission continued in its role, the problem was made more manifest to it.
We reflected this in our first report when we dealt with issues of underage drinking and found a number of problems that confronted us. Regardless of the way one looks at it, there are conflicting priorities for different Government Departments. However, that is in the order of things and I am not being critical. For example, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment is interested in fair trade and competition, which, of necessity, involves an increase in outlets. On the other hand, the Department of Health and Children takes the exact opposite view, namely, that we already have too many off-licences.
It is reasonable to look at the past in this context. We are the third commission on liquor licensing, the first was established in 1925, since the formation of the State. It is interesting to note that the objective of the first commission was to reduce the number of liquor licences to one for every 400 people. It did not achieve that and neither have we, some 80 years later. The then commission introduced a system whereby people could sell licenses they were not using back to the State. However, not many people accepted that scheme because, by the time the 1902 Act came in, far too many licenses had been granted by the old Irish RMs at the end of the 19th century.
The 1925 commission faced the same problem of how many licenses there were, how many there should be and what should be done. The other peculiar thing about the licensed trade is that it is the restrictions imposed by the licensing Acts which have actually given rise to today's super-pubs. In areas of hugely increased population, such as Tallaght, Celbridge or Maynooth, people found it impossible to get new licences because, up to the passing of the 2000 Act, one could only get a license by extinguishing a licence in the immediate vicinity. If there were no licenses, which could be extinguished, for sale in the immediate vicinity, nobody could open a new licensed premises. This meant that areas where the population has multiplied several times had the same number of licenses. The owners of the existing licenses, being sound businessmen, made them bigger and bigger, leading to the super-pubs about which we are all complaining. It was brought about not because of the liberal licensing regime, but because of its narrowness and we are now paying the price. This is one of the big difficulties we encountered.
How does one cope with what has happened? The focus of this committee, from the chairperson's introduction, is looking at underage drinking and excessive binge drinking. They have been dealt with in several recommendations from the commission. We have gone into the issues deeply and found a number of problems in dealing with them such as the different agendas of various Government Departments. For example, a person can change from selling shoes to selling alcohol without getting planning permission because he or she is already dealing with retail goods. I was interested and disappointed to see that Dublin planning authorities are changing that because they are worried about what is happening in O'Connell Street. Unfortunately, however, the reason they are changing it has more to do with Anne Summers than the licensed trade. This has upset me somewhat and the commission views it as disappointing, considering our efforts in this area. We have always felt that for this to happen sent the wrong message to the public.
There has been a large number of other problems with which we have had to deal. Long before problems arose in Blackrock, we had highlighted efforts made by certain members of the licensed trade to encourage binge drinking. Some licensed premises would charge an entrance fee of €5, whereupon people could buy a drink for €1 less than its normal cost. One does not need to be a financial expert to realise that on one's sixth pint, one is in profit. If that is not an invitation to binge drinking, I do not know what is. We were against that and indicated that the Garda Síochána should object to the renewal of the licenses of publicans who indulged in such practices. We have made a number of efforts to deal with this question, but it is a difficult one with which to deal.
We also favour some more lurid advertising campaigns in dealing with it, but we have not received encouragement from Government Departments because they are reluctant to spend money on doing so. I met a number of student representatives who were all adamant that something akin to the unpleasant road traffic accident advertisements, which were, perhaps, a means of getting across to people how undignified and awful young people look when they are drunk, and more lurid images would take away the macho image that exists in respect of drinking.
There must be a concerted effort because, so far, they have just tinkered around on the edges of it. We will not change people's habits by having one or two fewer pubs. If there are ten pubs in an area and we reduce the number to eight, nobody can tell me that means one fifth of the drinking will stop - it will not. The eight pubs that remain will absorb the excess.
In our final report, we are attempting to introduce a small attempt to change people's attitudes. It will not change them overnight, but, if we can start to change the attitude and get support from bodies such as this committee, we may manage to do something about it. To date, the only thing that has been done about young people's drinking is to hold seminars and discuss it in general terms. What happens at the end of these? Nothing, people pass resolutions to say that it is a bad thing and it is forgotten about. It is time for us to look at the issue and see what can be done about it in practice.
We have made a number of small suggestions, but enforcement is a terrible problem. I did not realise that a garda, when entering a licensed premises for the purposes of enforcing the licensing laws, had to wear his uniform. One can imagine the difficulties in prosecuting people for under-age drinking if a garda appears outside the place with his uniform on. It is not a twenty-first century approach to the problem. I did not know that this was the law until quite recently. Others may have learned it in the past, although I suspect not. We learned a lot in dealing with these issues, of which there are a huge number. The important thing is that somebody sits down and tries to deal with them.
There has been quite enough talking about the related problems such as social difficulties. We have recommended that pubs close at the normal time on Thursdays. Why Thursdays? Because in third level institutions many people go home for the weekend so this is their last night in college during the week. Absenteeism on Fridays in third level institutions is so high that some of the presidents of universities have decreed that no important lectures take place on Friday mornings. This, again, came as a surprise to us and that is why we made the recommendation. I hope that each recommendation in our report has a more or less sensible reason behind it.
Although the members of the commission came from diverse backgrounds, in the end it functioned very well. I pay tribute to a number of people who helped very much in bringing that about. Many of the recommendations were unanimous and where people disagreed with them, it was often known from the beginning that they would so people knew where they stood. Many surprising people took a broad-minded view of the issues and dealt with them on that basis and for that I am very grateful.
I do not know whether the Chairman wanted me to go through the recommendations; it seems a rather thankless task to go through each of them and the reasons they were made. One or two, however, are of interest. One is that there should be a national alcohol policy. In fact, a policy was initiated in 1996, but nobody knew about it; certainly, very few people on the commission knew about it. I do not know why, but people in the Department itself did not know about it, nor did many Members of the Oireachtas. It turned out, when this was discussed in the commission, that the information that led to the policy was from 1990. One of the members of the commission had given evidence in 1990. It took six years to bring out the report and after that nothing happened. We have recommended that there be a national alcohol strategy and that all Government Departments subscribe to it. In this case the varied terms of reference of our commission, for example, should not be used because they would not necessarily conform with the national policy.
Another recommendation was that all our recommendations be prioritised. This is because every time an idea is introduced to the public - there have been many - everybody says it is a very good idea and then nothing happens. The most important thing about this issue is that somebody should do something about it quickly.
Are there questions on what I have said or on any of the recommendations? We have dealt with a huge number of issues: franchising, which is really theoretical and does not matter very much, jobs, which probably matter a lot more, advertising and many others.
