Damien English (Meath, Fine Gael)

This is a topic we could debate for hours. Our friend from Tallaght, Deputy O'Connor, asked why we could not reach a consensus on this motion. I agree with him. I would like to know which part of our motion the Government could not agree with. The first part of the motion called on the Minister to abandon his plans for the licensing of café bars. That is no longer an issue. The next point refers to putting in place a co-ordinated approach at Government level for the preparation and implementation of a national alcohol strategy. I am not sure what is wrong with that. I thought we would all agree with it. Why did the Government not agree with it? It must be the third point, to provide the necessary resources and direction to the Garda to assure that existing legislation is enforced and public disorder related to so-called superpubs is tackled, with which the Government disagreed. It is down to resources. That must be the main reason. Deputy O'Connor is probably gone back to Tallaght but if he is listening, that is the sticking point.

I wish to clarify one point. Last night, the Minister consistently referred to young people and alcohol. I am delighted the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Seán Power, clarified that it is not just young people who abuse alcohol. We might be the most visible because we are out in towns late at night but other people drink at home. Many people who leave pubs are full of alcohol and cause a great deal of trouble at home. It must be clarified in any debate on alcohol abuse and binge drinking that it does not just concern young people. I hope the Minister, Deputy McDowell, will clarify his comments in this regard at a later stage.

I am delighted the Minister has backed down on his proposal for café bars. I am sure it was embarrassing for him but I admire a man who admits he is wrong. I was full of admiration for the Minister's admission that he was wrong until I discovered he had claimed it was not his idea but that it came from the Commission on Liquor Licensing. He only put it forward because the commission wanted it. That is a load of baloney. He has been talking about it for the past two years as a solution to binge drinking.

I do not believe that café bars and a change of culture would change our binge drinking problem. If the Minister wants to have deregulation and more licences we will debate that, but it should not be disguised as a solution to binge drinking because that is not the case. That is one of the reasons this side of the House has opposed it. Although the Minister has hailed his proposal as a solution to a problem, that is not the case. It is merely delaying tactics on behalf of a Minister who cannot get results. He introduces debates which continue for hours and garner publicity for himself rather than tackling the real problems.

If the Minister wants to introduce deregulation in future we can debate that but we should solve the problems we have first. We should deal with existing facilities first and with alcohol abuse. If we are to have more outlets we will need more people to manage them, police them and so on. That is a debate for another day.

I regret that the Minister did not use the opportunity yesterday to debate alcohol. He stated that we must have a debate on alcohol. We have given him the chance with this motion to debate alcohol and alcohol abuse but he decided to spend ten or 15 minutes last night telling us about his new Bill which he will introduce in a few weeks. He will spend another half hour talking about it then. Nothing new is proposed in the Bill. Its purpose is to regularise matters and correct things that are already happening. His radical proposal to change alcohol licences in restaurants is happening anyway. Most restaurants have any amount of alcohol one wants which can be served with food. He is not doing anything great or achieving results. I wish he would debate alcohol with us some day, as he has proposed. I have asked for such a debate for two years, as have colleagues of mine. We cannot get a proper debate on alcohol abuse. There is no point in the Minister saying he will do it if it does not happen.

Deputy Jim O'Keeffe referred to areas in which the Government is failing so I will not dwell on that apart from pointing out that a number of years ago, the current Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Hanafin, announced the Government was determined to tackle the problem of alcohol abuse through a combination of education and deterrents. There has been no change in recent years on either of those fronts. The Government is failing but I will not spend time on this area as I wish to put forward some ideas which could solve the alcohol problem.

Deputy Ardagh complimented Deputy Hayes's speech, which was an excellent contribution on the problems of binge drinking. We must ask why binge drinking happens. There are a few different reasons for it. First, there are not enough alternatives. If people had more things to do they may not choose to go drinking. Second, people appear to do all their drinking in one or two days now whereas in the past they used to do it over four or five days. People now drink more on the days they go out for different reasons, including the price of alcohol, the cost of taxis etc. We must deal with that. There is a shot culture in which people drink several shots at the end of the night to get a buzz. We must find a way to tackle this. It is important to provide people with alternatives.

We must decide what constitutes binge drinking. I read that most people assume binge drinking is four drinks. Another view is that seven half glasses of beer amounts to binge drinking, which is three and a half pints. My grandfather used to drink two bottles of Guinness and a whiskey every day. I do not think he was a binge drinker but according to this calculation he was 75% of the way there. He would be delighted to be called a binge drinker at 91 years of age. Let us have a real debate.

See this speech in context