Charles Flanagan (Laois, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am sure people are all mindful that we are dealing with a complex area of law, on which the legal texts date back to the 6th century. It is against that background that we are now expanding and developing further the sale and distribution of a product that has been a highly restricted substance in Irish law for centuries. I am not sure if it is ironic but we need to be mindful that, as we debate this matter in the bowels of our Parliament, there is a Public Health (Alcohol) Bill in the course of passage through the Houses and that changes which specifically govern the relationship between transport and intoxicating liquor have recently been introduced.

I am pleased that Deputy Wallace, when moving the amendments, declared a vested interest. That is the context in which he is proposing the amendments. If this committee were to regard the Bill as the great liberalisation of our licensing laws whereby, at the stroke of a pen, we would introduce in the region of a further 200 public houses - or perhaps many more - throughout the country, then I would be concerned. Having regard to the proliferation of microbreweries and the importance of breweries and distilleries to the industry, this figure is likely to increase. It was against this background that Deputy Kelly introduced the Bill, which would facilitate these breweries and distilleries in the supply of their products in small quantities to persons visiting their premises or, as Deputy Wallace stated, beer tourists. I am supportive of this legislation, as is Government. It is important that we recognise the points that Deputy Kelly put forward. I would be very concerned if, as Deputy Wallace said, we were legislating for the larger breweries and were not helping microbreweries. It is important that we acknowledge the importance of the industry. Some of the breweries I have visited are very much on the micro in scale, they are small and it was never intended that they become international breweries or distilleries of huge size. I want to assist them along the lines that Deputy Kelly has suggested. In doing so, however, I want to recognise that we are dealing with something which these Houses have always regarded as a restricted sales product. That is the balance we need to achieve.

Deputy Jack Chambers raised the issue of a fee. That is the standard Revenue fee for governing the sale and supply of intoxicating liquor. I do not intend to introduce a new scale of fees or have exemptions for people in some parts of the country. The Deputy highlighted an important issue when he spoke about the tours or guided tours and what they entail. That will be a challenge, as Deputy Wallace observed, in areas of restricted size and space. We will probably need to establish what exactly we are talking about. Perhaps between now and Report Stage we could work on defining the guided tour. I have visited many of these establishments and it would seem that an office operative, a worker or a guide would take people around the premises in order that they might have the opportunity to see the vats in operation, witness the brewing process and then return to the lobby where they might be entitled to sample the product if they wish. They could then be in a position whereby they could take away a memory of their visit in the form of a small supply. That is restricted under law to an amount that someone mentioned as being quite restrictive, but it is actually 18 l. Reasonably good parties have been held with 18 l of beer. I do not think this law is unduly restrictive nor do I accept that the Government's amendments are unduly restrictive. I want to support the legislation in a way that supports the industry but not in such as way that has no regard for health and safety or for the restricted nature what is being produced on these premises. We must do this in a way that has regard the existing law. That is why the status of the applicant for the licence and the premises are based along existing legal requirements. I believe that is both important and appropriate.

Deputy Wallace spoke of the manner in which an applicant might show that he or she is of fit character. That is enshrined in law in the manner in which a publican or retailer applies for his or her licence on an annual basis. A public notice is placed in the newspaper and it is open to any member of the public who may have an objection to have it aired in open court annually. Similarly, the granting of this certificate will be based on that level of local consultation which, in effect, is an entitlement on the part of any member of the public to raise an objection or otherwise on an annual basis and whereby the court will, on the hearing of evidence from An Garda Síochána or from any interested party, judge the character, misconduct, unfitness or otherwise of the individual and also the suitability or otherwise of the premises. It is very important that we give due and appropriate consideration to the suitability of a premises for persons coming onto that premises in the context of health and safety and environmental health regulations and legislation. This cannot be seen as stand-alone legislation. Rather, it should be seen by way of reference to a whole body of legislation across various Departments dealing with public entry onto premises or the manner in which these tours can be structured. Despite what Deputy Wallace said, space is essential.

I contend that amendment No. 2 in the name of Deputy Wallace is not required in light of the definition of relevant licence contained in the proposed new section 1(10). Makers of wine are already covered in paragraph (d) of the definition.

Amendment No. 3 proposes to permit the granting of licences to nominees of the holders of manufacturing licences.

I am not in favour of the amendment because it would change the responsibility and, in effect, sever the responsibility for compliance with conditions attaching to the retail licence from the holder of the manufacturing licence, which I am not sure is wise at this stage. It would also mean that although the applicant for the licence would have to be tax compliant, there would be no necessity for the nominee to be so, which is an important aspect of holding of an intoxicating liquor licence having regard to the fact that one of the requirements on an annual basis for a licence to be granted or renewed is that the holder be tax compliant. This is not the only legislation whereby such a certificate is required in order to obtain a licence to trade. I cannot, therefore, accept amendment No. 3.

Amendment No. 4 seeks to extend the trading hour by a further hour, until 7 p.m. I must remind members that during the Second Stage debate, to which there were many contributions, there was support for Deputy Kelly's proposal that the trading hours be from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. I have listened to what members have said on the issue and am disinclined to extend that any further. That was more or less what was agreed on Second Stage. I again make the point in the context of dealing with other amendments, in particular those of Deputy Wallace, that if we are to depart from the initial intent and import of the Bill as brought forward by Deputy Kelly, then we may be changing the law to a greater extent than was understood by many of our colleagues who spoke on Second Stage and agreed to allow the legislation progress to Committee Stage. I am not sure if they intended there to be a change to the substance of the legislation and I say that with particular reference to the trading hours, which are important. Deputy Wallace and those who might be exercised by a closing time of 6 p.m. have raised the issue of the 30 minutes drinking-up time traditional to other aspects of intoxicating liquor legislation. However, I am unsure if that is appropriate to a tasting endeavour rather than a more consumption-oriented experience after the guided tour. I am minded to retain the 6 p.m. closing time, having regard to the usual latitude.

Amendment No. 5 seeks a fundamental change to the purpose and entire scope of the Bill. Deputy Wallace seeks to dispense with the Bill's focus on visitors who have participated in a tour of the premises. I made reference to it earlier and am conscious of the point made by Deputy Jack Chambers in this regard but it is important that we retain the visitor experience. Deputy Wallace referred to bus tours of beer tourists and breweries must be concerned about the suitability of the premises. However, if such visitors are to have a rounded experience, in addition to sampling the produce they must be able to go behind the scenes and look at the nuts and bolts of the operation, which I understand is the basis of beer tourism in the United Kingdom as specifically referred to by Deputy Wallace. I cannot accept changes to the legislation that would create a completely new type of licensed premises or depart radically from the sensible and reasonable suggestion of Deputy Kelly at the outset of the legislation. I acknowledge Deputy Kelly's experience in this area and his expertise having regard to the close relationship he has with persons directly involved in the sector. That is not to in any way denigrate or take away from the experience of Deputy Wallace in that regard. I cannot accept any amendment to completely change the legislation and introduce a new type of licensed premises operating on the basis of restricted hours.