Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 5 covers some of the same areas covered in the Government amendments, namely, addressing the recent change to the legislation around the closure of bars on Good Friday. It also includes winemakers in the list of those who can avail of this licence. In effect, the Government amendment No. 1 runs counter to my amendments Nos. 3 and 4 in that it keeps the hours for operating this licence at between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. each day, and it doubles down on the necessity of the tour provision.

I will explain why these two elements of the Government amendments should not be accepted. The hours question follows on from the arguments around the tour requirement, so that can be discussed afterwards. Government amendment No. 1 invents two licences, one for on and off sales, for which one needs to apply to the Circuit Court, and one for off sales only, for which one applies to the District Court.

With the provisions in subsection (1) of the proposed new section 1, both licences could only be attained if the applicant could prove to the court that he or she is fit to hold the licences and of decent character, that the premises is convenient and fit - for tours and the consumption of alcohol on the premises, one guesses, although the legislation is not clear on this point - and that having tours and possible consumption inside the premises would not be inconvenient for neighbours. The legislation is not clear on how these conditions will be proven. Must the applicant get a certificate from some Government body to prove his or her suitability in all these areas? Is there a public consultation process and timeframe for complaints against the application for the licences? Either way, hurdles are being erected and, where the applicant is out of favour with the local authorities, the local publicans or the locals generally, there is plenty for them to go on to halt this process.

Furthermore, there is a contradiction in the proposed Government amendment. For an applicant to qualify for an off-sales licence, or off and on-sales licences, he or she must show that guided tours can be held on the premises and that the premises is suitable for guided tours in the first place. This automatically rules out a great number of the microbreweries in Ireland from qualifying for these licences. Many microbreweries are packed to the rafters with fermenters, pipework and brewing and packaging materials as many producers start out with small enough kits and, as they see increasing demand, purchase more fermentation and storage vessels until they have no more room to move in their workspaces. These breweries which are doing a lot in a small space, generally due to lack of investment and available funds to expand to bigger premises, are both precisely those who need the help this Bill could offer them financially and, because of the way in which the Government amendments are crafted, those who will not benefit from the Bill. These overcrowded breweries will not have the space to have guided tours or on-sales consumption either. They will not qualify past requirement (ii) in subsection (1) of the Government amendment, that is, "the unfitness or inconvenience of the premises".

The most pernicious part of the legislation is that if one cannot prove one's suitability to operate a tour, not only can one not have on-sales consumption of the products one makes, but one is also prohibited from off-sales. The Government amendment is very clear in subsection (1)(b) that the sale of alcohol is restricted to persons who have completed a tour of the premises. Nowhere else do the Government amendments make a special provision for off-sales, or those who do not have the space to have a tour. This makes a mockery of the invention of the second licence. If one does not have the space to satisfy the suitability criteria for a tour, one cannot have off-sales anyway, so why do we need a special off-sales-only licence? If one had the space for the tour, presumably one would have the space for on-site consumption too, the ability to clear an area for a group of people to sit down and have a tasting experience. There does not seem to be much reason to apply for the off-sales-only licence if one qualified for any licence in the first place.

What is proposed here is legislation designed to benefit the bigger breweries, that is, those that are on their second expansion and have some extra space on their new premises. The smaller breweries trying to get off the ground, if the Government amendments are passed, will not even be able to sell six-packs to their next-door neighbours because they do not have breweries with enough space for tours. Add to this the ridiculousness of the requirement to provide a tour to every person who wants to buy a can of beer or bottle of wine - and to be able to prove that one has given a tour to the person who buys the six-pack or whatever else. How will this be enforced? The amendment states in the proposed subsection (1)(b) "an appropriate mechanism is in place to restrict the sale pursuant to a licence granted under this section of intoxicating liquor on the premises to persons who have completed a guided tour of the premises". It is difficult not to read this as saying the Government is not mad about the Bill in the first place.

In the UK, at weekends, some breweries do their work in the morning, clean up and then open up an entrance at one end of the brewery, cordoning off access to the nuts and bolts of the brewery and setting up a tasting facility whereby they get to sell directly to their customers and get instant feedback on new brews that perhaps one can only taste on these days. In some states in the US there are breweries that only sell their beers directly from the breweries. People travel from far and wide for a chance to purchase some special edition brews that are only available on that day at that place. This is beer tourism. It is not about the setting up of a pub scenario; it is about people who are passionate about these products travelling to places to have experiences they cannot get anywhere else. It is great for the finances of the brewery as it means that on a small percentage of its production it can get margins that usually go to others along the chain and it can have a better chance of survival. Four microbreweries have closed down in Ireland in the past year. The people travelling to have these experiences inject money into the local economies surrounding the places of alcohol production that otherwise would not come to those areas. In the long run Ireland can become the proper drinks tourism destination that it is not quite at present.

Regarding the issue of opening hours, the reality is that breweries are usually staffed with just enough people to do what is necessary and these people all multitask. It is a hard graft, especially at the start, when it is difficult to afford to employ many people given the tight margins when production is small. This means that for smaller breweries the weekend would probably be the only suitable time to have tours, tastings and off sales - and tours for every person who buys a beer. The Government amendment sets up a very busy time for those working to make this licence work for them financially - that is, if they were able to qualify for the licence in the first place, taking into account how the amendment is stacked against smaller producers. The requirement of a tour for every off-sale and the requirement of a guided tour for every on-sale means in reality that smaller breweries will not be able to avail of the licence while producing their product. During the week, from 10 a.m. until 6 p.m., the vast majority of Irish people will be at work. This, coupled with the guided tour requirements in the amendment, is designed to stop local people from buying alcohol products from their local producers. The Bill will give with one hand and take away with the other. The Government amendment will make the Bill less fit for purpose except for the bigger breweries that have extra staff and extra space. If the operation of the licence were extended to 7 p.m., local people could drop by to buy some products after work and producers could get their everyday work out of the way on weekends and get some use out of the licence, with a couple of hours for the tastings. In short, there must be some differentiation between this licence and a normal pub licence. The fact that the hours are so short and will be over before most people even go to the pub and that one can only drink or buy the products made at these places is a pretty big difference already, but the amendment hangs all that difference on the requirement to provide a tour. In the process the Government amendment sets up a situation in which many of those that need the benefits of the legislation the most, namely, the smaller breweries, will not get licences in the first place.

Deputy Kelly and I are probably the only two members present who have been in the breweries in Ireland. They can be a little all over the shop. Of course, for health and safety reasons, tours cannot be allowed in places that cannot meet health and safety standards. Anyone visiting these breweries will see that having tours in some of them just would not be practical, and I assure the Minister that he can completely forget about tours taking place while they are brewing. This would not be possible. Italy started this 20 years before us and is well ahead of us, but even in the Italian breweries, which are fantastic to walk around, and where one can see tours work really well, one could not have a tour while brewing is taking place. It is out of the question. There is just too much stuff such as pipes all over the place and too much activity.

I look forward to the enactment of the legislation. I just ask that we think a little more about the smaller guy whom we need to help get off the ground. This is indigenous industry, and the Government does not need me to tell it that Ireland has been very weak in supporting indigenous industry for as long as we can remember. We are so dependent on foreign direct investment. Of course we are delighted that foreign direct investment provides so many jobs in Ireland, but it is becoming more and more obvious, especially in rural areas of the country, that any new foreign direct investment coming to Ireland, if it does not involve extensions to places in Cork, Limerick or Galway, is coming to the Dublin hub because that is where all the action is and everyone wants to be near Dublin now.

It is becoming even more difficult to get those involved in foreign direct investment to start something new away from the Dublin hub. That further emphasises the need for us to be more supportive of indigenous industry.

The craft brewing industry can be powerful and will help small distillers. Wine and other drinks are being made. It is a win-win for the country. Approximately 365 craft breweries open in Italy every year. They are small in nature and often expand when they find their feet and are then more sensible and economic to run. If 365 breweries open in Italy every year, one can imagine that they cannot possibly become large breweries. That would not make sense because the market would not be there.

In Ireland we have an opportunity to help the industry grow. People already recognise that Ireland has gained a powerful reputation for distilling whiskey. We are becoming renowned worldwide for it and can do the same with craft beer. I hope that we can improve the anomalies in the Bill and make it better on Report Stage.