This is a Seanad Bill which has been amended by the Dáil. In accordance with Standing Order 103 it is deemed to have passed its First, Second and Third Stages in the Seanad and is placed on the Order Paper for Report Stage. On the question, "That the Bill be received for final consideration", the Minister may explain the purpose of the amendments made by the Dáil and this is looked upon as the report of the Dáil amendments to the Seanad. The only matter, therefore, that may be discussed is the amendments made by the Dáil. As Members are aware, they may speak only once on this question. For the convenience of Senators, the Cathaoirleach has arranged for the printing and circulation of those amendments.
Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 2000 [ Seanad Bill amended by the Dáil ] : Report and Final Stages.
Acting Chairman
Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."
Amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 4 are technical only. They provide for the deletion of section 3(3) of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1927, and are consequential on the revised arrangements permitting premises engaged in mixed trading to open for non-licensed business at any time.
Section 3(3) of the 1927 Act provides for exceptions to the restrictions imposed with regard to non-licensed business carried out by premises engaged in licensed and non-licensed business, so-called "mixed trading". The exceptions were provided for business carried out in hotels, restaurants, theatres, etc. These exceptions are now no longer necessary because the restrictions generally in respect of mixed trading are being removed under section 4 of this Bill.
Amendment No. 2 provides for a further extension to the extension provided for in the Bill in relation to the hours during which premises engaged in mixed trading will be allowed to sell their licensed products. Businesses engaged in mixed trading, typically supermarkets, will by virtue of the amendment be permitted to open for the sale of licensed products off the premises from 7.30 a.m., rather than from 8 a.m. as was originally proposed on all weekdays and on a Sunday which falls on 23 or 24 December. They will be entitled to open at any time for all other business.
I am not sure how to proceed. This is Report Stage.
Acting Chairman
Yes. You may speak once on the amendments that were made by the Dáil.
On all the amendments made by the Dáil?
Acting Chairman
Yes.
So we do not go through them one at a time?
Acting Chairman
No.
I am not quite as experienced as I thought I was. I welcome the Minister. I am impressed, and I do not often say this as those who are here will know, by the amount of work that has been put into this—
I am sorry to interrupt the Senator but the Minister may also speak on all the amendments now.
It would be very helpful.
I do not think the Minister knew he could speak on all the amendments.
No, I did not. I am sorry, I am more inexperienced than Senator Quinn.
The Minister is in good company.
Acting Chairman
All the amendments are being taken together.
I will happily give way to the Minister.
Yes. I will go through the amendments. The next amendment is at section 6. Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 are related. They amended sections 6, 7 and 12 of the Bill and relax the times during which it will be lawful for premises that are hotels, restaurants or registered clubs to provide alcohol with a meal on Christmas Day. Instead of the present situation where premises may open for three hours in the afternoon – between 1 p.m. and 3 p.m. – and a further three hours in the evening – between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. – they will now be permitted to open from 12 midday right through to 10 p.m.
The purpose behind the exemption is to permit persons to enjoy a drink with a meal on a day that is, for the purposes of the licensing laws, a closed day. This amendment gives ample opportunity to people who wish to enjoy a drink with a meal outside their own homes on Christmas Day to do so.
The next amendment occurs at section 13. Amendment No. 8 is consequential on section 16 of the Bill and is merely technical. It involves the deletion of certain words in the heading to Part III of the Bill. The heading as it stood might have indicated that Part III deals only with the amendment of provisions relating to under-age persons. Part III no longer simply amends the 1988 Act and the heading makes that clear.
Amendment No. 9 is a purely technical amendment to correct a misprint in the Bill. Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 to section 13 of the Bill, relating to the temporary closure of premises where the licence holder is convicted of an under-age offence, ensured that where a licensee is convicted of several offences of selling liquor to under-age persons on the same occasion, say, where four or five persons were detected by the gardaí on a premises at the same time, the court cannot impose a temporary closure order in respect of each conviction.
The next amendment occurs at section 15. The amendment introduced a new section to the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1988, and is designed to strengthen the law further in relation to under age drinking. The amendment consolidates the current law on the requirement to display notices under Part IV of the Act of 1988 relating to under age offences. There are already provisions in the 1988 Act relating to the display of notices in relation to children in section 34(4), where exemption orders are in force banning under 18s in section 35(3) and banning under 18s from off-licences in section 36(3). However, there was no requirement in existing law for notices to the effect that it is an offence to sell or supply liquor to under age persons or that it is an offence for under age persons to demand liquor. These are obvious omissions and the amendment rectifies them.
The form of the notice would be prescribed by order allowing a certain flexibility, in that subsequent changes to the notice, if they were required, would not need to be provided for in primary legislation. The notice will be in a form that would apply to all outlets and will set out the law and the offences in clear language.
The next amendment also occurs at section 15. The amendment extends to clubs registered under the Registration of Clubs Acts important provisions of the 1988 Act relating to under age drinking. The purpose of the amendment was to bring registered clubs within the same regime in relation to offences for under age drinking as apply to licensed premises. Under existing law, a registered club must contain in its rules the following: "That no excisable liquors shall be sold or supplied in the club premises to any person under the age of eighteen years"– that is provided for in section 42 of the 1988 Act. However, unlike licensed premises, there is no range of provisions that apply to clubs to cater for under age offences. Notwithstanding the fact that a registered club is not a licensed premises, it was con sidered appropriate that where a club is in breach of its own rules, there should be appropriate sanctions that could take effect immediately. Many club premises are frequented by young people and it is desirable that young people and adults alike are left in no doubt as to the law.
The next amendment also occurs at section 15. This amendment introduced a new section into Part 3 of the Act. The object was to ensure that licence-holders engaged in off-sales of liquor will identify the premises concerned on the container in which the alcohol is sold.
This is intended as a further provision in the law to assist in the curbing of under age drinking. It is a useful initiative that will not offer a panacea. It will, however, assist in the overall campaign to track down those irresponsible licence-holders who engage in the criminally responsible act of supply intoxicating liquor to young people. I realise that people will have practical and logistical difficulties in implementing this provision immediately. Therefore, it will not be implemented immediately and traders will be given time to ensure such containers display the necessary labels. This provision will be brought into law at the appropriate time.
The next amendment also occurs at section 15. This amendment was made for the purposes of clarity. It makes it clear that where an applicant has already begun the procedure for the issue of a licence under existing legislation, that is, under sections 3 or 4 of the 1902 Act or section 13 of the 1960 Act which are repealed by this Bill, the applicant may proceed with that application.
The next amendment occurs at section 16. Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 were technical in that they ensured that licensees who are leaseholders with short leases and who are trading with restricted licences will also be eligible to avail of the scheme offered by section 16 to convert restricted licences to full licences.
The next amendment occurs at section 17. The purpose of amendment No. 18 was to introduce clarity in circumstances where some premises started out as hotels and received a licence under the 1902 Act. A scheme, modelled on the scheme that allows six-day and other restricted licence-holders under section 16 of the Bill to convert their licences, was introduced by the amendment. The amendment applies to premises that were first licensed as hotels on or before 4 July 1960. This date is an important starting point because it was from then that premises that were hotels were permitted to install public bars on their premises.
The amendment in subsection (2) addressed the position of the relatively small number of premises that did not avail of the provision in section 19 of the 1960 Act to install a public bar and which now, because of their location mainly in isolated rural areas, would not be in a position economically to come within the terms of section 19. Under the subsection, those premises will continue to operate as hotels, but are permitted to operate a public bar as part of the licence.
The next amendment occurs at section 17. Amendment No. 19 was purely technical and corrected a misnaming of the relevant Act.
The next amendment occurs at section 19. Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 provided clarity in relation to the operation of authorised events at race tracks or racecourses by placing a limit of seven consecutive days on the duration of any authorised event and by making it clear that where an authorised event extends beyond one day, the sale of intoxicating liquor will cease 30 minutes after the end of the event on each day of that event.
The next amendment occurs at section 22. Amendment No. 22 was a technical amendment to correct a misprint in the Bill.
The next amendment occurs at section 24. Amendment No. 23 was consequential on sections 31 and 32 and provided for further amendments to the Courts (No. 2) Act, 1986. Section 31 removes restrictions on the grant of a wine retailer's off-licence. In consequence, it was important that the Bill would permit persons to object to the renewal of such licences. Section 4 of the Courts (No. 2) Act, 1986, provides for an objection to the renewal of a wine on-licence. Amendment No. 23 ensured that the right to object will also apply in the case of renewal of a wine off-licence.
Section 32 removes the occupancy requirement in relation to the grant of a beer retailer's licence, therefore, it was necessary to further amend the 1986 Act in that regard. The opportunity was also taken to remove the requirement to prove rateable valuation as a condition of renewal of the beer retailer's licence. This was in line with section 15, which did not require proof of rateable valuation for the grant of a new licence.
The next amendment occurs at section 25. Amendment No. 24 provided that a registered club, in addition to hosting functions for charitable or benevolent purposes, could hold a function, the proceeds of which would go to some community purpose. Amendment No. 25 was for the purpose of clarity. It ensured that a club member is not prohibited from using the club premises for the purpose of organising a function for his or her family members.
The next amendment occurs at section 27. Amendment No. 26 to paragraph (b) of section 27 relaxed further the ban on advertising of functions held by registered clubs. It provided that, in addition to functions at which no alcoholic liquor is being supplied, other functions, permitted under section 27(2) of a community, charitable or benevolent nature, could be advertised. This should adequately meet the needs of registered clubs without doing damage to the underlying principles by which a club is permitted to supply intoxicating liquor – that it is a private institution for the benefit of its members and not a licensed premises.
The next amendment occurs at section 31. Amendment No. 27 removed an anomaly in the law as between section 37 of the Licensing Act (Ireland), 1874, that required an application for an intoxicating liquor licence to be lodged within the first six months of the licensing year, that is, by 31 March and section 4(2) of the Courts (No. 2) Act, 1986, that requires an application for an automatic renewal of a licence to be lodged during the course of a complete licensing year, that is, by 30 September of the following licensing year. The 1874 legislation, which applies a six month deadline, was contradictory to the more recent legislation.
The next amendment occurs at the Schedule. Amendment No. 28 ensured that certain administrative procedures relating to the grant of a licence would be tightened up. It provided that where there is an application for a new licence or a licence granted by virtue of an ad interim transfer, the appropriate certificate of application must be presented to the Revenue Commissioners within a specified time, that is, 12 months. The concern of the Revenue Commissioners was that as no time limit exists in current law, persons are submitting certificates that are a number of years old. This practice is not conducive to good administration of the licensing system and the amendment will strengthen the law in this area.
Before I call Senator Quinn, I remind Senators that they may speak only once and only on the amendments made in the Dáil.
This is the second time I have spoken during this debate. I stood up to speak before but we realised there was an alternative way to proceed.
I welcome the Minister to the House. I am impressed by the competent and capable manner in which he and his team of civil servants have dealt with this legislation. It is evident that they listened to all stages of the debate on this Bill.
I will not go through all the amendments, rather I will deal only with those on which I wish to concentrate. The first few amendments that deal with changing the time from 8 a.m. to 7.30 a.m. make sense, in that if shops are allowed to open at 7.30 a.m., there is no reason they should not be allowed to sell beer or wine at that time, although from my experience very little trade takes place at that early hour. Similarly, the provisions regarding Christmas Day make a great deal of sense. They are logical and understandable and they reflect that the Minister listened to the case we made.
During the debate on this Bill in this House and in the other House, on which I sat in, I was impressed by the Minister's strength of feeling and clear commitment regarding under age drinking, and the steps he is taking will enforce that.
The Minister explained the position well in the Dáil yesterday regarding the small number of licences that related to and reflected the provisions of the 1960 Act in terms of hotel hatches. I grew up in a business to which a hotel licence attached and we had a hatch. I do not know whether the use of the hatch gave way to counter trade as I did not pay any attention to that after 1972, so it may have changed.
I also compliment the Minister on the amendment he tabled regarding the advertising of functions in community halls or clubs that are licensed premises. The existing law created a problem. The Minister listened to the arguments put forward and acted on foot of them.
With regard to amendment No. 14, the Minister has put my mind at rest. I intended to ask him not to implement the provisions of that amendment immediately and I am pleased he said it will not be implemented immediately but at the appropriate time. I was not arguing against its implementation but to ensure it would be implemented. This is the amendment that refers to the container. Its wording is understandable. It states, "The name of the owner, and the address, of premises to which an on-licence or an off-licence is attached shall be clearly indicated on a label affixed to any container in which intoxicating liquor is sold for consumption off the premises." It is well worded and is clearly understood. If a person wishes to take it away from an on-licence or an off-licence and drink it elsewhere the Minister would like to see the name of the licensee of the premises on it. I have a number of queries on this but there will be time to consider them.
I was not sure what exactly is a container. I can understand that a case of wine is a container. Beer is often sold in packs of four, where each of the cans is identified and touchable and easily reached. The pack has a flimsy top. Is that a container, or is each of the four a separate container? A six pack is made in a different way in that there is cardboard around it. Is a two dozen pack in a shrink wrap a container? In supermarkets people open the container and take one out. What is the position if the name of the licensee is on the outer pack and a person breaks it and takes the inner one? These are technical queries but there will be time to look at the question of shrink wraps. If the label is removable then almost every 15 or 16 year old who lays a hand on it, even if they do not buy it, will remove it.
There is a problem with requiring a label which has the address of the licensee on it. I do not know the solution to it but at airports great big labels are put on. It would be outrageously difficult to do that and it would have to be done in store. The security label put on at an airport breaks into little pieces if one tries to remove it. It is not possible to do this centrally in the case of a company with half a dozen different outlets because a label bearing a different address would have to be put on for each outlet. If I understand it correctly, it should have the address of the licensee where it is sold and there is a different licence for each premises. It needs some teasing out to see how best it can be done.
If a young person is found in possession of a container which contains alcohol which has the address of the licensee on it, is that capable of being used as evidence of proof of purchase? Given that it is not in the Bill, it is not intended to be used as evidence of proof of purchase. Since somebody else may have purchased it and the licence holder was not guilty there could be a difficulty if the label was still on it. As I have not seen anything in the Bill about using this as evidence in court, I gather that is not the intention and clearly it would not work. A stick-on label may be put on a beer can, but if put into a fridge many stick-on labels will come off.
I mention these points to ensure these considerations are given attention. We do not want a law that is unenforceable or bad law but law that is capable of being enforced. A judge would quickly dismiss a case if the defence was that the label was removed. I am not sure that the law will be implemented exactly as it should be. There may be some tweak before the Bill comes into operation. Given all the effort the Minister has put into it, I would not like to find that the Bill which he intends to implement is not operational because somebody claimed the label came off or was removed. Each individual shop, and there are many thousands, will have to put on its own label or stamp. It is not possible to do this centrally as in the case of a bar code which is more capably handled. It presents a problem in regard to how it will be done.
If this is not used in court as evidence, is it the correct solution? It seems we are going to a lot of trouble in insisting that every single container – every bottle, jar, and can – has the name of the licensee on it. So far as I can see, it is not intended that this should be enforceable in law. From the point of view of evidence of under age drinking, is this the right way to go? A case may well be made that chemists put the name and address of the pharmacy on any prescription but only on prescriptions, to the best of my knowledge. If one buys any other product the name and address of the pharmacy is not on it. This is costly.
While I do not like to touch on cost when talking about under age drinking, because clearly one cannot count the cost to the nation of the damage caused by under age drinking, I question whether this is the ideal way to go in the long term or whether it should be tweaked. Chemists have had a cost increase in the past year which has added to inflation, but it is nothing compared to that caused by the increase in alcohol prices. The Minister referred to this in the Dáil yesterday. When speaking about the 5.2% inflation he said, "However, we do have control over the price of alcoholic drink, the contribution of which to the rate of inflation was 1.2%, a relatively significant percentage. For this and other reasons which have been mentioned I will be asking the commission to seriously examine the matter." The Minister recognises that the cost of alcohol is highly inflationary. It seems to me that putting a label or stamp on every single unit at the point of purchase will be highly inflationary and I question whether it is the best solution.
The Minister proposes a licensing commission to investigate other questions and to report in three months. Will he also ask this panel to advise him on the implementation of this one? In that case the Minister said yesterday, "I will ask the licensing commission to immediately examine this concept with a view to bringing a report to Government within a very short period." It might be interesting to have that commission look at this to see if there is an easier way or if that is the ideal way to do it.
I wish to raise one other aspect which seems to be the only flaw in the Bill. Will this apply only to drink purchased in the State and not to drink brought in across the Border? If a young person buys alcohol in an off-licence in Dundalk, that off-licence will have the cost of ensuring the name and address of the licensee is on it, but across the Border in Newry where this legislation is not in force there will be no such cost. The Minister may then decide to check at the Border and ensure that everything coming in has the source on it. I am sure that would be against EU law. Either it will be unconstitutional in Irish terms or it will be against EU regulations.
The aim is to have good law. Amendment No. 14 will not be enforceable unless what is proposed is capable of being done and unless there is sufficient time. I appreciate what the Minister has said in regard to that. I am pleased the Minister is listening to the concerns and, to use his words, "that they will come in at an appropriate time". That relieves my mind. This is a much better Bill because the Minister is listening and because of the work he has put into it. On the understanding that he will not implement this aspect of the Bill until we have had appropriate time to tweak it to see whether this is the best way to do it, the law will not only be enforceable but will be good law and will stand up in the long term.
I congratulate the Minister and urge him to delay implementation, as he has agreed, until it can be implemented in an enforceable way.
I welcome the Minister to the House to discuss the Bill. Having discussed it earlier there are very few areas where I have a concern. I am concerned about three aspects of the Bill and I will refer to them shortly. First, however, I warmly congratulate the Minister on introducing this Bill. It will shortly be law and will result in a licensing and opening hours regime which is in tune with the needs of our people. It is to the Minister's great credit that he has succeeded in bringing this legislation forward. He has struck the right balance and, in doing so, has displayed superb political skill and judgment in bringing all interests with him in this complex and difficult area.
This Bill is one of the most important brought before the House. It is important in many respects but no more so than in setting down the broad parameters for the future development of an industry which has made a significant contribution to the success of the Irish economy. I applaud the Minister for his excellent work in this respect.
As I said, however, I have concerns. The first is the Sunday night closing time. I understand the Minister's motives in this regard but as he will be aware, being from a rural constituency, Sunday night remains the principal social night for many people. This is a tradition that predates this House and has its roots in social behaviour of a different era. It is a great pity this is not recognised in the new opening hours regime by the extension of Sunday night closing time by an additional half hour. I ask the Minister to look at this again.
My second concern relates to the mandatory closing of premises arising from under age drink offences. I agree with the Minister's attempt to stamp out under age drinking. The vast majority of publicans have no truck with this practice and those who deliberately sell alcohol to minors deserve a swift and severe response. There can be no argument about that. However, circumstances can and probably will arise where, through no fault of the publican or licence holder, a second offence is committed. It is not too difficult to envisage such circumstances, for example, a dissatisfied staff member or a falling out with the local garda or sergeant. A publican, through no fault of his own, could find his premises closed for a period. That will be the effect of the draconian provision in the Bill. I regret the Minister left it untouched.
My third concern relates to the amendment requiring the labelling of alcoholic products to identify the seller. I can understand the Minister's objective in this regard. However, I believe this is the wrong approach. It will put a major administrative burden on everybody involved in the display and sale of alcoholic products. It is already difficult to comply with the multiplicity of regulations in the trade. This provision will add significantly to those difficulties and I urge the Minister to look at it again.
It does not appear that these measures can contribute to the suppression of under age drinking. They might even have the opposite effect while at the same time incriminating the publican or off-licensee. An adult buyer might buy a product in an off-licence or pub and give or sell it to minors but the product will be traced back to the innocent retailer. The measures will impose considerable costs on the industry to no advantage. There might be a considerable time lapse between the time the product is sold and the prosecution taking place. The retailer might have no recollection of making the sale and will then be unable to make a connection to any individual.
Who will put on the label? Will it be the brewer, the publican, the off-licensee or the supermarket owner? How is the label to be put on aluminium cans? The Bill will be subject to a commencement order and this will give publicans and other operators in the trade time to deal with this requirement.
I ask the Minister to take my views on board. My concerns are genuine and while I do not wish them to detract from what is otherwise a good Bill, I appeal to his good nature. I thank the Minister's advisers who have been extremely helpful to me and the people I represent in attempting to meet our concerns and problems in drafting the Bill.
I compliment the Minister on this legislation. There has been no reform of the licensing laws since 1960. We have regularly heard how archaic our licensing laws are and I compliment the Minister and his officials on their hard work on the Bill. As has been said previously, the issue is balance in the licensing laws. The Minister consulted widely and well with the various interests but I am not sure he got the balance 100% right. However, it is hard to blame him, given all he has been through in that regard.
I welcome the abolition of the distinction between summer and winter time opening hours, something we have been accustomed to all our lives. However, I do not know how the different opening times will work. One regime applies on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, another applies on Thursday, Friday and Saturday and there is a separate rule for Sunday when closing time is 11 p.m. Like Senator Bohan, I appeal to the Minister to re-examine this with a view to further regularisation. Half an hour is not a huge amount of time and for the sake of the expansion of the tourism industry, closing time on Sunday should be the same as Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, at 11.30 p.m.
There should be only two closing times. Otherwise, it will be difficult to enforce the law. What will people do about the half hour? To be honest, I imagine that the Garda Síochána in most parts of the country will take a practical view. That is not good law, however. Human nature being what it is and everybody having suffered the effects of original sin, there will be police officers who will take their own counsel on the matter and I doubt that anybody will be inclined to say boo to them. That is not good law and I repeat Senator Bohan's appeal to the Minister.
Everybody will have relatives home at different times of the year from America and other countries. If they are on holiday, Sundays will not mean to them what it might to others in regard to obtaining a drink in the local pub with their relatives or friends. It will not be good for tourism. I understand the Minister's concerns about absenteeism and so forth. I am strongly of the view, however, that Sunday closing time should be the same as Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.
I welcome the changes permitting off-licences to sell alcohol from 8 a.m. rather than 10.30 a.m. I also welcome the elimination of the distinction between city and country with regard to licences for extinguishment and transfer. A single licence is the right option. I welcome the extension of closing times for clubs and public houses. I also welcome the provisions in relation to clubs registered under the Registration of Clubs Acts, 1904 to 2000. These intervening measures relate to pub regulations being extended to clubs as provided for in sections 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36A under section 16 as amended in the other House. The updating of the Registration of Clubs Acts, 1904, is long overdue because this is the only Act which pertains to clubs' regulations. All the other measures relate only to drinking. I would like to hear the Minister say more about the remit of the new commission which will report in three months. What exactly does he expect from it?
On the labelling of containers, I understand the Minister's good intentions in this regard. However, I agree with Senators Quinn and Bohan that this is not a solution to the problem. People can still purchase and pass on drink and the retailer will not be able to check every sale he or she makes. Very often the retailer may be innocent in this regard. On the face of it, this is not very good law and I do not know how it will be operated properly, as I am sure the Minister intends. Therefore, I appeal to him to look at this again. I believe there was mention of a commencement order being introduced by way or regulation. Perhaps time will be made available for further consultation on the issue. I am sure the Minister will find a way of improving the provision. This will be very difficult to police.
I welcome the abolition of the six day licences and the provision in section 18 for short leases and conversion to full licences. Given that this is a small country, I do not see the need for all these different licences. I would like a total abolition of in-pocket licences because there should be just one regular seven day licence. I welcome the provision relating to this aspect.
Small shopkeepers in towns and villages throughout rural Ireland made a great case to be able to sell beer. I am aware the Minister mentioned this issue yesterday and that he did not accept the amendment tabled in this regard. I again plead with him in this regard because I believe he has a sense of fair play. Given that increasing numbers of visitors are now travelling to remoter areas of the country, they should be able to obtain six-packs in shops without interfering with business in the local pub.
As other speakers have pointed out, as we approach the final Stages of this Bill, the Minister has listened to the issues which have arisen and has not been slow to act. As a result, a substantial number of amendments are before us today. We are in a difficult position in that a number of these substantial amendments should be teased out carefully in a much more comprehensive fashion than is possible by way of one contribution by each Member. As I am not sure we are giving the Bill the examination we would like, I will confine my remarks to a number of the amendments.
I am particularly concerned about under age drinking. I recognise that by tabling a specific amendment to the legislation in an attempt to curb under age drinking the Minister is responding to the great concern in the wider community about this issue. We are all aware of the increase in under age drinking. Young people of 12, 13, 14 and 15 years of age are drinking and being allowed into functions. As a mother of a 16 year old, I am aware of how difficult it is when young people talk about heading off on a Saturday night to functions where drink is being served. If teenagers look any bit older than they actually are, one can assume that little or no effort will be made to either prevent them from entering the premises or limiting their drinking on the premises. From time to time, there is a complaint to the gardaí who will raid the premises and place restrictions on it. A certain number of young people, particularly the smaller ones, who are then prevented from entering the function go home and simply come back the next night.
Clearly, we need more than is in the legislation. However, I welcome the shifting of the onus of proof onto the person who sells the drink, whether in an off-licence, pub or at a function. This is absolutely essential because there must be a greater onus on the person selling the drink not to sell to under age customers. There should be a clear deterrent to anyone selling alcohol to under age drinkers. This is important not just from the point of view of the person selling the drink but from the point of the view of the perception of young people. One of the biggest problems is the perception of teenagers – this is not something the Minister can necessarily address in legislation of this kind – that everyone is drinking, therefore, why should they not do so. This is partly driven by the ease with which teenagers are served drink. Anyone can go into pubs in their local towns and see under age drinking taking place. The legislation which is passed must send out a strong signal in this regard, which has not been the case to date. It is only when the legislation is passed and we see it in operation and the sanctions working and being reported in the media that we will be able to judge for ourselves whether it is successful.
I hope the legislation will be successful. I do not doubt the Minister's commitment to this issue nor do I doubt the commitment of any Member of this House or the other House. Nevertheless, are we going far enough? Only time will tell. We should come back in a year's time and consider the legislation again. This has been a long time in gestation. Over two years ago Senator Bohan and I sat on a sub-committee which dealt with this area and this legislation is the end of the road. The drinks industry is one of the most regulated sectors here and, unfortunately, it needs to be heavily regulated.
There is an imbalance in the number of pubs to be found in urban and rural areas. We need to address this matter. This Bill probably does address it but only time will tell.
I have made clear my remarks about under age drinking. Whether we like it or not the pub is where most people gather for social functions and meetings. It should not be as difficult as it has been in the past for pubs, especially small pubs, to enhance community life in a controlled fashion. I look forward to seeing this provision work in practice. Only time will tell whether it will be a success. My former colleague, Dr. Pat Upton, had very strong views about this issue and he was correct to hold them. I hope these provisions will meet the concerns he and others addressed.
We have extended opening hours. Off-licences now open at 8 a.m. rather than 10 a.m. and pubs remain open for much longer. Clearly these measures are in response to demands enunciated, very often and loudly, by vintners. Pubs will stay open for longer and this sends a signal to people, young and old, to drink more. When we switch on the news every Monday morning we are told that five people, mostly young people, have died on our roads through a combination of speed and alcohol. Let us ask ourselves whether it is right to extend opening hours.
Our attitude to alcohol cannot be addressed in this Bill, it probably cannot be addressed in legislation. We need to address this problem through campaigns, advertising, public relation exercises, going into schools and by adopting a proactive approach. We should emphasise how much damage alcohol can do. As a parent and a legislator I have major concerns about under age drinking. Not so long ago I was a teenager but there seems to have been a sea change in attitudes to alcohol since that time. There were not so many young people drinking when I was growing up. Every young person seems to drink nowadays. It is difficult for a young person to decide not to drink because of peer pressure. I am a parent of a 16 year old and I always worry about the combination of drinking and driving. This Bill does not go far enough to deal with this problem.
I can see so many ways around the marking of cans. It is a good idea in theory but I want to see how it works in practice.
This is substantial legislation. It is a pity that so many new amendments have been tabled because we do not have a chance to tease them out on Report Stage. We normally debate them on Report Stage. Let us see how the Bill works in practice. I hope we will have an opportunity, at a relatively early stage, to review it. I also hope that our review will not take as long as the review that led to this Bill.
I compliment the Minister on this Bill. Over the past months he has spent a lot of time putting it together. I welcome the Bill and I compliment his input. I welcome the upgrading of the six day licence to a seven day one. All licences should be the same for easy operation.
Most of the provisions in the Bill are quite good but I cannot agree with a number of areas. The Minister has made the situation worse in some cases. I do not fully agree with the opening hours he included in the Bill. There are three opening times. During the week gardaí and publicans will find it difficult to operate three opening times. Pubs should close at 12.30 a.m. at the weekend and 11 p.m. or 11.30 p.m. during the week. The Garda and the people who own the premises would find these times much easier to handle.
Quite a number of Senators have referred to section 14. Over the past number of years there has been a huge increase in the consumption of drink in the home. The sale of alcohol is a large part of the business done by off-licences, supermarkets and filling stations. More drink is being consumed in the home. This section stipulates that cans must bear the name of the premises or off-licences where they were bought. It will be impossible to enforce this provision. This is bad legislation.
This provision tries to deal with the sale of drink to minors and its consumption by minors. I agree that minors should not drink alcohol and that laws should be introduced to control this problem. I have seen how young people behave in my town. They get a bottle of booze, go to a fast food outlet or whatever, buy a can of coke and lace it with spirits. Then they walk around town drinking it as if it was just coke. The Minister wants to introduce a provision that will insist that the name of off-licences is placed on cans of beer or bottles of vodka or whatever. In many cases young people take drink from the home. Parents can go to off-licences or Senator Quinn's premises and buy booze for use in their homes. As I have said, there has been a huge increase in the sale of spirits and drink in off-licences for consumption in the home.
We have strict regulations governing drink and driving and this has led to more drink being consumed at home. As a result youngsters will raid a fridge or wherever the booze is stored. They will take out the occasional bottle of beer or spirits and bring it with them. They may be unfortunate enough to be caught with a bottle in their hands which can be traced back to an off-licence. That bottle would have been bought by their parents but they would have stolen it or taken it from their home. The Minister should delete or amend this section because it is unenforceable. This provision is very poor. It deals with minors of 12 to 14 years of age. They will be caught in possession of a bottle of booze which bears the name of a premises where it was bought legally. Many of these bottles are being taken from the home. How will the Minister enforce this provision? The Garda Síochána will write down the name of the person they find in possession of a bottle of booze, interview them and take a statement from them. No minor is going to say that they stole drink from their home. They might say that someone else bought it for them at a premises. The owner of the premises may then be indicted. I, like the Senators who spoke out strongly against this section, ask the Minister to look at this section again and delete it because this is bad law in a good Bill.
I compliment the Minister again on the work he has done on this Bill. There is much praise for it but this section is poor legislation. It requires further thought and he should delete it from the Bill.
I welcome the Minister's initiative in the Bill dealing with the updating of pub licences and licences as a whole. There have been several meetings with different organisations representing the vintners, hoteliers and the restaurateurs. I welcome the Minister's incorporative provisions put together in this Bill after much exhausting consideration which is at the same time a balanced examination of the tradition of the old licensed trade.
As someone who was, from my debut in the Seanad, vociferous about rectifying the old six day licences, of which County Mayo has a substantial number, I thank the Minister for including it in the context of this Bill. I thank him for providing a genuine opportunity for those people who have old, traditional businesses to gain some benefit from the fact they had six day licences and that in the long term, it will rectify the licensing arrangements. This is to be commended and welcomed. The structures and conditions that the Minister included in this Bill are fair and equitable and a response to a matter that needed to be dealt with.
Listening to the Minister's contribution as someone with a knowledge of the business, I maintain the view that this is a balanced measure. Under age drinking is one of our major problems. A recent educational examination of some of the problems caused by drugs carried out by a different Department produced some very strong reports on under age drinking. There is a need for consideration of this problem in this Bill. While the provisions in it may not be foolproof, they are a start. Very few people have the resolution to deal with this problem. It can be improved on and may need adjustment in the future. However, it is a start to know the sources and the places where young people are being given the opportunity to obtain drink.
I welcome the initiative on this problem and I commend the Minister for this Bill, the balance shown, the fair treatment for the tourism sector and the people involved throughout the licensed trade. I welcome the conditions and the sections of the Bill.
I thank the Senators for a very constructive debate. I, too, wish that we could have more time to tease out the new amendments which were brought forward in the Dáil. Some of them were Opposition amendments which were accepted and were put into parliamentary draftsman's language subsequently in the Department and the parliamentary draftsman's office and brought forward. Some were not. As Senator O'Meara said, some of them were quite substantive but, unfortunately, the procedures of the Houses do not allow us to go into the detail which she and I would like.
The Senators have raised some very important points, with which I will try to deal as briefly and as succinctly as I can. Senators Quinn, Bohan and Burke were particularly concerned about the provision dealing with labelling. The Bill states that the name of the owner and the address of the premises to which an on-licence or an off-licence is attached shall be clearly indicated on a label affixed to any container in which intoxicating liquor is sold for consumption off the premises. It goes on to state in subsection (2) that a licensee who sells intoxicating liquor or who permits it to be sold in contravention of subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding in the case of a first offence £250 or in the case of a second or any subsequent offence £500.
Effectively, this means that fines are provided for in the legislation for a person who does not display his or her name and address on the container if it is being sold for consumption off the premises. That is all. The offence is for selling it without the label on it. Senators have raised points regarding the practicalities of this. What if, for example, somebody tears off the label? That is not the licensee's fault. The licensee can only be summonsed for not having the label on the container.
Senator Quinn raised the question of how it would work in practice, if for example, one could access a bottle easily inside a four-pack and whether the label will be on the bottle or on the container which contains the bottles. The answer is that, under normal circumstances, if one has to access all the bottles by removing the container which contains the bottles or cans, then it would only be on the container. If one has to access them individually, then it would have to be on each of the bottles.
Having listened to what Senator Quinn, Senator Bohan and others said on this matter, I accept that there may be practical difficulties and in those circumstances I do not wish to introduce legislation which would cause undue difficulty or expense for anybody. Consequently, I have stated that this part of the legislation will not be introduced immediately. Clearly, it will require discussion with those involved in the trade in order to examine how it might best be implemented. I have no wish to bring forward this measure as a points scoring exercise, to cause undue difficulty, hardship or expense. There is no point in bringing that part of the legislation into effect until it can be operated properly and without any major expense, which will be the objective. The practical implications of the measure will be examined and any practical difficulties which need to be overcome will be overcome. Pending that, the section will not be put into operation. It is a mat ter which will have to be discussed in some detail and a practical discussion will have to take place to see how this can best be implemented.
The purpose behind the provision remains the tackling of under age drinking, with which I dealt at some length in this legislation during the debate in this and the other House. Unfortunately, there has been a major upsurge in under age drinking which must be tackled. As I have said on numerous occasions, only a minority of people are involved in it. We must introduce measures which will tackle it in a meaningful way. This legislation does precisely that.
I agree with Senator O'Meara that parents are horrified at the prospects of their teenage boys and girls coming home helplessly drunk. This is happening on a rising scale and, as Senator O'Meara said, it is happening because some young people feel that as everybody does it they should do it as well. In those circumstances, it is clear that the legislation should contain measures which are meaningful, by which I mean practical and which can be implemented.
With regard to off-licences and small supermarkets, the commission on licensing will be charged with examining the off-licence sector and they are expected to report back in a very short time – three months from the date of the establishment of the commission. It is important to do that. It is true that Sunday night was the major social night in Ireland. I recall growing up in a public house and Sunday night was a major night. In my mind's eye I can still see men coming into the bar from the surrounding countryside to listen to the commentary on a Munster Final or All-Ireland Final on the radio. I still marvel at the patriotism when the national anthem was played. We used to be in many finals, as Senators will be aware.
There is no need to boast.
I can still see those men standing to attention in front of the radio. It was an extraordinary act of patriotism and I recall them staying on into the night whether we won or lost. However, as the years passed and the ballrooms of romance outlived their age, not their usefulness, Sunday night became less of a social occasion and Saturday nights took over. That is true in rural areas as well as in cities. As I have said to my colleague, Deputy Healy-Rae, on more than one occasion during the passage of this legislation, it is also true in Kilgarvan.
The removal of the Sunday afternoon provision means a substantial change. Premises will be permitted to open between 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. in future. This again is to reflect the situation on the ground. Families go to public houses for Sunday lunch and there has been an increase in the availability of pub grub.
They can also watch the Munster Final.
That is correct but one will not see many fellows standing to attention when the national anthem is played.
I recall the late Deputy Pat Upton during a debate on a Bill he introduced on Private Members' Business in the Dáil saying that the reason there was a holy hour in Dublin during the week long ago was to get civil servants back to work after lunch. I recall a senior civil servant in my Department passing me a note on which he wrote that Deputy Upton was wrong. The reason there was a holy hour in Dublin was that the Government Chief Whip wanted to get Members of the Dáil back into the House after Question Time because the Dáil bar was still open.
I accept this legislation is not perfect but nothing is in life. We have done our best and I pay tribute to Senators who contributed to this legislation because it belongs to all who contributed inside and outside the Houses, not just to the Minister. I am particularly grateful to Senators who contributed in a cogent way to what will be successful legislation. It will not last forever and certainly will not last as long as the 1833 Act, which is still the primary Act governing licensing in Ireland. I understand that Daniel O'Connell, a fellow townsman of mine, made a major contribution to that Bill. I do not make any comparisons but I point that out for the historical record.
Is there a need for a consolidation Act?
Yes, because 55 Acts govern intoxicating liquor but consolidation is a mammoth task and the Department would not be able to do anything else for the next five years.
The Minister will leave it to the next Administration.
No, it will be same Administration but the personnel might be different. I do not know. Members will be aware that the purpose of the Bill is to provide for significant changes in the law, particularly to permitted opening times for licensed premises, access to new licences and the fight against under age drinking. The Government is anxious that the main measures should be enacted as quickly as possible so that the licence holders, the courts and consumers will know that the new law is in place and the main elements of the Bill, particularly the provisions for access to new licences and the extended range of opening hours should be introduced into law as quickly as possible in time for the summer season.
I thank the staff of the House, all Senators who contributed enormously to the legislation and, particularly, the staff in my Department who worked hard over a protracted period to ensure this legislation would be passed. I also thank the groups we consulted throughout the country which also contributed enormously. It is the intention to introduce the main provisions on this legislation on next Thursday, 6 July. If Senators are having a drink on me that night, they can pay for it themselves.
Question put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I congratulate the Minister on the manner in which he has handled this legislation. As Senator O'Meara said, while we did not have time to debate some of the later amendments, the Minister listened to the Second Stage debate and 6 July is a day we will look back on with a much more liberal attitude to drinking policies. We hope the legislation is another step to combat under age drinking. The Minister may be called the Liberator following his reference to Daniel O'Connell because he has liberated the drinking laws for the betterment of society and has introduced sufficient controls to make sure our concerns are met. I congratulate him and his team for their work.
I also congratulate the Minister and his team and thank them for their work on this legislation. I appreciate the positive thrust of the Minister's response to the various points raised. I look forward to the work of the commission and its close examination of the labelling of containers and so on. The Minister referred to the Liberator as a townsman of his, but to be perfectly correct he was born outside Cahirciveen at Cahran and lived at Derrynane.
I thank the Minister, his advisers and staff. There are a few areas with which the people I represent are not happy but I doubt if any legislation could be enacted that would satisfy all publicans. The legislation is as good as could be expected. The Minister has bent over backwards to try to help publicans in as many ways as possible. I hope that the legislation will go some way towards controlling under age drinking. As I have stated previously, 95% of publicans do not serve people who are under age but 5% serve children aged as young as 13 or 14 and I am disgusted by that, as are most people. This legislation will bring such publicans into line and if they are closed down, they deserve it. The Minister has done a marvellous job and on my own behalf and on behalf of those I represent I thank him very much.
I commend the Minister and his officials for their work on this legislation. It has been a long time coming. A number of Ministers and Administrations have taken a run at it but the present Minister has brought it to fruition. Time will tell and experience will demonstrate its success. Only a small number of those in the trade sell drink to children but they are there. When we see the sanctions being used in our communities, we will see the success of the legislation. The word will then go out that it is unacceptable. The legislation reflects the view of the Oireachtas and the people whom we represent. We want to see those elements of the legislation used in full.
Question put and agreed to.