Mae Sexton (Longford-Roscommon, Progressive Democrats)

I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for his extensive contribution last evening. In outlining the main objectives of the proposed intoxicating liquor Bill and the reforms it contains, he dealt comprehensively with the substance of the original Opposition motion.

I would, however, like to expand on one point in the original motion and the implications on public health. There is a reference to the link between the increase in availability of alcohol and greater consumption. This point is integral to the licensing issue and to what the Government is setting out to achieve.

According to the strategic task force on alcohol, there was a 41% increase in alcohol consumption per capita between 1989 and 1999. During that period there was no increase in licence numbers. There was also a huge population growth during that time. What this reveals is that even though the number of outlets might remain steady, it is the nature of the outlet, combined with the drinking behaviour, that contributes to increased consumption. In light of this, the only sensible approach is to tackle the two issues specifically, the nature of the outlet and drinking behaviour.

On the first issue the extinguishing of a licence in one location to be rekindled in another has played a major role. A small rural public house may close and in its place we get a 2,000 capacity, late night, urban city, drinking venue. The number of licences remains constant, but the amount of alcohol consumed rockets. It is the nature of many new establishments to provide the simple service of allowing as many people as possible, mostly younger people, to drink as much as possible as quickly as possible.

Sweetened alcoholic drinks based on strong spirits are sold in ever-increasing numbers to younger people in venues where music is deliberately played at a high level to discourage chatting and encourage drinking.

Clearly it is not the preferred route that this type of establishment becomes more prevalent in an unfettered way. Alternative venues and surroundings for the consumption of alcohol are desirable. I doubt any Member would challenge that point. The proposed Bill suggests that local authorities should assess the suitability of premises for the sale of alcohol. It seems reasonable that the size in square footage of the premises should be linked to the granting of a licence. Perhaps the amount of square footage should be capped in some cases. If joined-up policy between the Departments of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is required, that is what we should pursue. However, the nature of drinking premises is just one important aspect of this matter.

This brings me to the second issue, that of drinking behaviour. Setting aside the obvious difficulty of enforcement, the restrictions which currently apply to restaurants under the 1988 legislation can only be described as unreasonable. Restaurants can and should provide the type of surroundings I referred to earlier, more conducive to sensible consumption of drink in conjunction with the serving of food. Currently one cannot have a drink while browsing a menu, can only drink when the order is taken and must finish that drink within 30 minutes of finishing the meal. The food and drink must be paid for at the same time. This makes no sense.

If we are to encourage more sensible drinking behaviour, unreasonable and outdated practices such as these must be removed. I commend the Minister for addressing these and related, issues. Making it more amenable for people to spend an evening, and I mean the full evening, in a restaurant which serves their preferred alcoholic drink in conjunction with a meal is preferable to the superpub and café bar models. It is not surprising that this was the preferred option of the Minister from the outset.

I refer again to the strategic task force on alcohol. We as legislators have a duty to ensure that the law is suitable and adequate. This is our responsibility. It can be a difficult task when it comes to changing people's behaviours. Speeding and drink driving are classic examples of how legislation on its own has failed to encourage people to drive more carefully. The same problem exists with drinking habits and the law can only do so much. Responsibilities must be shared among individuals, parents and the wider society.

The drinks industry also has a responsibility and the task force has highlighted such issues as improved training of bar staff, availability of food, lower priced non-alcoholic and low alcohol drinks and the removal of drinks promotions as some of the ways in which the drinks industry can help reduce alcohol related problems. I welcome the proposals for addressing these matters by those in the industry.

Low alcohol drink attracts a lower tax rate and the industry should promote drinks with lower rather than higher alcohol content as a means of reducing intoxication. Given the scale of the short and long-term implications of binge drinking, a partnership approach is the most desirable way forward. Alcohol consumption, particularly but not exclusively among younger people, has detrimental health and social outcomes for the individual and in many cases their partners and wider family. I am satisfied that where legislative reform can play a part in tackling this issue, the Government is taking the necessary action.

See this speech in context