Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)

It is a farcical situation that any piece of music equipment connected to a loudspeaker, even a gramophone, is sufficient for a premises to be considered a theatre. Over the same period we have seen an 11% increase in special exemption orders, from 81,933 in 2002 to 91,157 in 2007. This figure is probably heading for record proportions in 2008, if I can use the word "record" in the presence of Deputy Rabbitte. The number of off-licences has trebled in the past seven years, and there is now one off-licence for every 750 adults with a total of 4,300.

We have seen a dramatic rise in alcohol consumption which, as the Minister stated, increased by 17% between 1995 and 2006. We have all witnessed the explosion in alcohol-fuelled public order offences which shot up by 60% in the past five years. The CSO figures for the past four years show a 57% rise in public order offences, with 40,380 last year; a 26% rise in assaults, from 8,248 to 10,423; and a 30% rise in four categories of assault, from 49,700 to 65,000.

In the meantime, it is remarkable the traditional public house as we know it, which for generations has provided a controlled and safe environment for people to have a social drink, has gone into serious decline and we have seen approximately 1,000 public houses close in the past three years.

We need only visit and accident and emergency unit any night of the weekend and we will see the strain being put on our already over-stretched hospital services as a consequence of abuse of alcohol. Walk through Temple Bar on a Sunday morning and witness the trail of destruction. Stand outside a nightclub before the streets have been cleaned and see the blood stains on the footpath and broken glass everywhere. Pick a secluded scenic area in any town or city and one will see piles of empty alcohol cans. Recently, in my home town of Portlaoise, the county council had to embark on the removal of park benches from all the green areas in the town because they were being used as areas of resort where alcohol was abused not only on a nightly basis but on a daily basis. The evidence of a languid and lazy Government approach towards this matter is visible everywhere.

On St. Patrick's Day, parts of west Dublin provided a rather spectacular example of where we are thanks to the ineptitude of the Executive. A total of 17 people were arrested following a day of disturbances during which seven cars were burnt, a van was petrol-bombed and a car was hijacked and its driver pulled out of the vehicle and subjected to a vicious assault.

Speaking at the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors annual conference the following week, the Minister of State, Deputy Seán Power, stated that drink had played a "considerable role" in the west Dublin violence. He stated, "I'd be very concerned about what happened in Finglas. Very young kids, 11 and ten year olds, seemed to have indulged in alcohol." The Minister admitted, "We have a problem with binge drinking in this country. This is leading to public disorder and antisocial behaviour."

Tackling underage drinking is not something high on the Government's list of priorities as the figures will testify. Only 96 prosecutions were taken in five years against off-licences, shops, pubs and restaurants for illegally supplying alcohol to under-18s while last year only 14 prosecutions were brought compared with 26 in 2003. We know young people purchase alcohol from off-licences and pubs as surveys by bodies such as the Mature Enjoyment of Alcohol in Society have shown.

The response in this Bill includes tightening up and the concept of test purchasing. This will only work if the matter of an identity card is reviewed. I see the Minister again reinforced his confidence and that of the Government in the Garda scheme. I wonder whether this is sufficient. Should we examine the concept of a national identification card scheme for every citizen of the State irrespective of age? We can revisit this matter on Committee Stage.

I am pleased to hear the Minister engaged in a U-turn on his proposal to abolish so-called "early houses". What evidence existed to support the view that early houses contribute to civic disorder in the State? I have never seen any research, and I sought some in recent weeks, to stand up what the Minister stated and what the heads of the Bill seem to substantiate. I have not even heard much anecdotal evidence to suggest that consigning early houses to the history books will address the issues that are supposed to be informing this Bill.

Legislation allowing for early houses may sound antiquated, referring to "fairs and markets", and it is true fairs and markets are no longer the feature of Irish cultural life they were, even in the Ceann Comhairle's constituency. However, as the Minister will have been told and as his officials will have researched in recent times there remain many who work on night shifts and I contend this is most likely a demographic pattern which is growing rather than shrinking.

I met with many people and groups of varying views to hear their thoughts on this proposed legislation and those who wished to retain early houses made a reasonable case. I am glad the Minister has taken on board the submissions made to him and that he has revisited the issue. Hard evidence did not exist and targeting early houses in the Bill was a soft touch.

The Minister mentioned late-night revelling turning into early morning revelling but this belied the fact that to my knowledge those who operate early morning licences, and few enough of them exist throughout the State, have a strict policy in dealing with debs balls and the Trinity Ball in particular. I could not find much Garda evidence to suggest that late night revellers cause difficulties in areas formerly used by people indulging in fair or market activity, be it in the inner city of Dublin or elsewhere. It was a concern and I am pleased the Minister indicated his intention not to go there.

Another concern addressed by the Minister was that of smaller retailers who feel they are being blamed for all of the ills befalling the country where alcohol is concerned. A certain bewilderment exists with regard to some of the proposals contained in the Bill. Justified concerns were raised about the logistics of partitioning the premises, particularly when it may be a small corner shop in the first instance. I am pleased the Minister will revisit the proposal as outlined in section 8 of the Bill. The cost of such partitioning is a factor, particularly for those whose profit margins are tight. A significant and justified concern was raised that retailers would not be able to pay staff as a consequence.

The issue of planning was also raised as was the important consideration of the fire officer as well as the fact the legislation is somewhat unclear as to whether all premises would be subjected to the type of partition envisaged in the Bill. We will have an opportunity to deal with this on a line by line basis on Committee Stage. I would be most concerned if the legislation were subjected to a guillotine or jackhammer as we approach the summer recess. These are important issues upon which all Members of the House have a view. I contend these views should be heard.

An issue which the Minister did not clarify, and perhaps he will do so on closing Second Stage, is the question of penalties. I note there will be further development in terms of closure orders and temporary closure orders. What is not clear is whether, in the event of a closure order being made, it applies to the entire premises or to the portion of the premises in which alcoholic drink is sold. For example, practically every petrol station sells alcohol. If a temporary closure order is granted against a premises, does that mean the Texaco station will close in its entirety, thus preventing the sale of fuel, or will the order apply to the partitioned area? Given the Bill is being watered down and the partitioned area may not become a reality, where then will lie the application of the order? It probably should apply to the partitioned area but it appears the entire building is licensed and not just a portion of the premises. That is why I had the opportunity, when the advisory addressed the joint committee, to suggest consideration could be given to providing for a maximum floor area in all retail outlets in which alcohol might be sold. It should be promoted on the basis of a percentage of the floor area of the unit rather than the entire area. However, we will seek clarification on this issue of whether the partitioned area or the entire petrol station or supermarket would have to close.

There was concern about the absence of clear criteria for making an objection to an off-licence application and worry that legislating that alcohol could not be sold after 10 p.m. in stores that remain open beyond that time will lead to pressure on staff by irate customers, particularly given the proposal to partition the premises is not as it first seemed. I accept the Minister's reference to an exemption for the sale of wine and that perhaps wine might not be subject to the same controls as other alcohol products. Evidence should be adduced to show wine is fuelling civic disorder. I would not have thought so but if there is evidence to suggest this, perhaps we might hear it. Alcopops, spirits and cans are the issue rather than bottles of wine.

We must examine another issue mentioned by the Minister, which is the definition of a "specialist off-licence". The Minister made reference to the different licences and it is acknowledged that specialist off-licences are not affected by the legislation because it is reckoned they are specialist outlets that engage in an exclusive form of retailing, which is the alcohol. However, these lines are heavily blurred when one considers that the law might accept such off-licences can sell cheeses, biscuits and canned foods. One can only expect that it would be a short time before they were selling bread, butter and other consumer goods in the same way as supermarkets, corner shops or average retail outlets. I am not sure if it is fair in law to describe a specialist off-licence as such. It means one has a general off-licence but it is difficult to differentiate such an off-licence from a corner shop in the context of the products for sale.

Small retailers are concerned about their livelihood and they are concerned they will be hardest hit by the new provisions, particularly those who have expended between €150,000 and €200,000 on a licence, which is the cost at current rates. The common theme in representations I received is a concern about the lack of detail in the Bill regarding the logistics and the ramifications of what it proposes. That is why I ask that debate on the legislation should not be curtailed as we approach the summer recess. It is essential the Minister takes these concerns on board and provides comprehensive and clear detail in respect of its provisions and what it will mean when enacted. It is not unreasonable that these questions be asked. We can deal with the detail of the regulation and lead in time. At first reading, it is fine but detailed consideration will highlight difficulties.

Training of those who work in this sector and who are permitted to sell alcohol might have been a more straightforward matter to address. The advisory group recommended that adequate staff training standards be introduced and that the grant and renewal of licences be made conditional on compliance with such standards. The group said the minimum age for selling alcohol in off-licences and mixed trading premises should be increased to 21 years because it was felt if there is a considerable age gap between young persons seeking to illegally obtain alcohol and those selling it, the pressure applied to a person aged over 21 selling alcohol might not be same as that applied to someone who has just turned 18 years. The group also recommended provisions permitting the employment of 16 and 17 year olds in bars of licensed premises be reviewed. These three recommendations were totally ignored in the legislation and I would like the Minister to explain why they were not followed.

I am aware, on the basis of my former work in the courts, of the onerous workload on the District Court, in particular. Is there concern about the significant additional demands this proposed legislation places on the courts system? Taking certain licensing responsibilities away from the Revenue Commissioners and giving them to the courts makes sense in theory and I support this, but I wonder whether an examination of the ramifications of such a move has been conducted in the context of the additional resources that the District Court will require. It is vital the new responsibilities are matched by improved resources and I expect this will be acted on.

The Minister referred to public order and the Garda. With regard to the jurisdiction of the District Court to deal with licensing matters, a licensing sergeant should be appointed in each court division. Gardaí from different divisions could sit in court waiting for applications to be heard. Licensing matters could be addressed to a designated officer in each division and he or she could deal with objections and have responsibility in court for such cases.

The Minister did not address the issue of night clubs in the Bill or in his contribution. Why was the introduction of sequential closing for nightclubs not included in the Bill? It will have to be addressed in detail. There is broad support within the industry and it is logical and sensible not to have all night clubs closing their doors at the same time, giving rise to a scenario where thousands of people spill on to the streets at the same time. Sequential closing is common practice in several European countries. Current practice, particularly at weekends, is to allow tens of thousands of people to spill out onto our streets simultaneously, resulting in large queues for taxis, pressure being placed on take aways and fast food outlets, trouble and difficulty.

See this speech in context