Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)

I do not hold with what the Minister has said for a number of reasons. I regret that we will not have the opportunity to debate the matter fully. The Minister talked at great length about the effects of alcohol and the adverse consequences of a drink culture. He knows that the Government of which he has been a member for many years has no alcohol strategy at all. When the Department of Health and Children recommends one thing it is completely ignored by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is merely dealing with the manner in which alcohol is available through licensed premises. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment has its own view regarding the alcohol industry.

When the Minister lectures the House about the adverse consequences of alcohol he knows that a lack of joined-up thinking between the Departments of Health and Children, Enterprise, Trade and Employment, and Justice, Equality and Law Reform have given rise to the situation. The matter of opening hours is a very small player in adverse consequences of drink and the drinking society we have. It is not fair for a Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to ignore the role of his colleagues in the Department of Health and Children. It is important to remember there is no strategy. The 25 or 26 recommendations of the 2004 task force on alcohol were all ignored. Even though the Minister was in another Department at the time he was a member of the Government. It is a bit rich of him to lecture Members of this House on the issue.

The second point the Minister made was in respect of public disorder. There is no greater recipe for public disorder than having all licensed premises close at the same time. The Minister referred to a comparative analysis with other jurisdictions. The jurisdiction used was Northern Ireland, where until recently on a Sunday a child could not play in a park and a newspaper could not be bought. The Minister should not use a comparison with the jurisdiction north of the Border, a different society with a different attitude to the retail sector and alcoholic beverages.

The Minister spoke about defending the industry and the need to look after the workers. It is unfair and disingenuous for the Minister to say any amendment from this side of the House is to protect jobs or that industry. Not one Member other than the Minister has used this argument. It is spurious and without foundation.

See this speech in context