Charles Flanagan (Laois, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I agree with the Deputies' comments on the importance of this legislation. I acknowledge again the leadership of Deputy Alan Kelly in this. Like the other Members, I hope we can have an early passage of the Bill. The early afternoon was mentioned by Deputy Breathnach. Let us see what we can do.

At the outset I must make it clear that I will not accept the amendments tabled by Deputies Daly, Kelly and Wallace. I invite Deputy Breathnach, who spoke so eloquently about the Bill, to agree with me that amendments Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, seek to change fundamentally the scope and purpose of the Bill.

When the Bill was introduced last year the proposer made it clear that the purpose of the Bill was to permit craft breweries and distilleries to sell their own products to visitors and tourists. The tourism aspect was stressed and it has been a common theme throughout this debate that manufacturers wanted to offer a tourism experience to tourists and visitors. At the time the proposer drew an unfavourable comparison between the strict licensing laws applicable to premises in Ireland that manufacture alcohol products, which prohibit retail sales to visitors and tourists, and the relaxed rules applicable, for example, in the vineyards of Italy, France and Spain. The Government accepted Deputy Kelly's Bill and provided the necessary money message on that basis. We now see that the Deputies have tabled amendments that would, in effect, create a new form of off-licence that would permit the sale of intoxicating liquor produced on the premises to any member of the public. It would no longer be necessary for the purchaser of such liquor to have participated in a visit or tour of the premises. There are some 170 manufacturing licences in operation currently.

The amendment's fundamental change risks defeating the key objective of the new licence and would permit licence holders to concentrate on selling their products to the public rather than on providing facilities for tourists and visitors to participate in guided tours of the premises. This was something of an amusing matter last evening, but there is a serious aspect to it, in that the generation of unfair trading conditions for other licence holders could create new risks to public order arising from the public consumption of alcohol products in the vicinity of what is described in the Bill as manufacturing premises. Amendment No. 1 would dispense with the requirement that the applicant for a licence must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the court that an appropriate mechanism is in place to restrict the sale of intoxicating liquor produced on the premises to those who have completed a visit or tour of the premises. For the reason I have outlined, this is not acceptable.

Amendment No. 2 would retain the guided tour condition for on-sales, namely, sales for consumption on the premises, but it would not apply in the case of off-sales. That is a problem and not acceptable. It would allow an applicant for a licence to circumvent the guided tour condition altogether where the intention was to concentrate on off-sales. In effect, there would not be a contribution to tourism and the premises would be a new form of off-licence.

Similar to amendment No. 2, since it would confine the guided tour condition to on-sales, amendment No. 3 in the name of Deputy Clare Daly would permit off-sales to any member of the public. We had a considerable debate on these issues on Committee Stage. In the light of that debate and having examined the amendments, they are not acceptable for these reasons.

See this speech in context