Vincent P Martin (Green Party) | Oireachtas source

Would it be an accurate summary to categorise the contributions into two subsets, the first being surmountable challenges whereby in a modern economy it should be possible to rise to the challenge of providing transport in a staggered way? That is surely achievable. Although there is the pervading societal challenge, in a democratic society we should be able to protect our staff. Where there is a will, there is a way. The second category is a much more challenging one and it would appear to be insurmountable in that both sides are incompatible and never the twain shall meet. We had an array of expert speakers, some of them household names who have been so steadfast, expert and so highly respected such as Professor Murray and others who have fought the good fight in their advocacy. Whatever about not being heeded, do the witnesses feel their voices are always heard? I would like to know that. There would appear to be a degree of conflicting rights. Is it true that relaxation of regulation is always going to be harmful from the witnesses' prism and from where they see things? Is it black and white? Is it the case that the regulation can never be relaxed and it is a price we have to pay as a society that the majority of us cannot be allowed to have a quiet, pleasant drink in a theatre late at night because of the horrific damage it visits on some other members of our society; tourists and others who go out for the casual drink?

Should they be told they should never do so and should it not be allowed in our society because of the damage it inflicts? Is that the point? Is the point that we will never be in alignment with continental Europe, that there will never be a seismic shift in our culture and that we cannot co-exist and relax regulation in Ireland in Dr. Gilheany's lifetime? If she were to be candid about it, is what she would like to see stricter regulation? Is that where she is coming from? I have sympathy for some of her arguments. On an issue that has been broached by other speakers, have there been any sociological or social psychological studies saying that certain relaxation in certain circumstances can normalise or demystify matters so that one does not have to stock up with five pints at 11 p.m. or whenever, as I often see people doing? Does that not cause a kind of abuse? Can Dr. Gilheany ever envisage a maturing of society such that this would work?

Like many, as a student, I went to Germany to get my college fees. On day one, I was amazed to see that beers were readily available in Germany during the 11 a.m. tea break. If I went to Germany tomorrow, would I see that this has been stopped? It probably has been in light of legal work practices. As Irish student workers, we found that very novel.

I am really interested to know whether there is any room for compromise or adaptation and whether there are any circumstances in which Dr. Gilheany can envisage a relaxation in light of her genuinely and sincerely held convictions? What are those circumstances? If there are any grounds for manoeuvre she would stand over, will she share them with us? Is the reality that she would actually prefer more restriction? If that is the case in respect of late-night opening, has the horse not bolted, as Senator Warfield has said? Is it not mere tinkering with the system when we know so much drink can already be consumed at home or in less regulated environments, which would be even more dangerous? I would like Dr. Gilheany's views on that. She has two minutes left. I thank the Chairperson for his indulgence.