Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

Yes. There are several things it could cover. Tommy Cooper used to tell a joke about walking down the street and running into a bar and saying "ugh" because it was an iron bar. There are many definitions of the term "bar" but we will stick to the more colloquial ones. In this context we will deal with the two meanings which most people would accept, namely, the object against which one leans with a pint in one's hand and the room in which that activity might take place.

I recognise that the lack of a clear provision in statute law which would permit the holding of alcohol-free events and activities in parts of licensed premises in stated circumstances has created uncertainty. This uncertainty has resulted in understandable caution on the part of organisers of such events and the licensees on whose premises they are held. Given the DPP's view, if one owns a pub in which there is a nightclub or disco or one is the committee chairman of a GAA or rugby club or whatever, and is asked to make a room in the premises available for young people to carry out an innocent activity, not involving the consumption of alcohol, and if one knows the consequence of being prosecuted, one will be told to steer clear of this activity while there is legal uncertainty around the issue. In theory, running such activities could result in forfeiture of one's licence. The purpose of this Bill is to remove such uncertainty. The importance of alcohol-free alternative activities for young people is appreciated here and beyond this House. It was recently highlighted again by the National Crime Council, the National Children's Advisory Council and the strategic task force on alcohol, in its second report launched on 22 September.

Section 1(1) provides that for the purposes of section 34 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 1988, it shall not be unlawful for a licensee to allow a person under the age of 18 years to be on a licensed premises, or part of a licensed premises, at a time when intoxicating liquor is not being sold, supplied or consumed there and physical access to intoxicating liquor on those premises or part thereof is securely prevented. I accepted an amendment in the Dáil which replaced a reference in section 1(1) to the bar counter being closed with the reference to access to intoxicating liquor being securely prohibited. This revised formulation is based on an argument made by Deputies Costello and English that while the shutters are down in a hotel function room where an alcohol-free disco is being held for kids, one might want to be able to use the sinks, glasses and all the material needed for the service of minerals.

I was also conscious that, on one view, even if one closed that bar and brought a table into the function room, it would constitute a bar counter because the definition of "bar counter" is a counter across which drink of all kinds is sold. I was persuaded by the argument that it would greatly enhance the attractiveness of such premises at those kind of events if one could use the sinks, microwaves and paraphernalia behind the bar for the service of minerals, provided that alcohol was securely locked away on the occasion and the rolling up of the shutters was entirely innocent, with no question of alcohol being available. That will be the case in future if this Bill is passed. The revised formulation will permit the bar counter to remain open, provided that physical access to intoxicating liquor is prevented, for example, by removing all intoxicating liquor from that portion of the premises or making sure that it is completely locked up.

Section 1(2) provides that for the purposes of section 34A of the 1988 Act, which requires persons aged at least 18 years but under the age of 21 to have an age document with them in order to be in the bar of licensed premises after 9 p.m, it shall not be unlawful for the licensee to allow such a person who has not produced an age document to be on licensed premises in similar circumstances. It would be manifestly absurd to say that the trainer of the judo class should have in his possession a card showing his age just because there was a bar at the end of the function room of the local sports club.

Section 1(3) provides that for the purposes of sections 33 and 34 of the 1988 Act, it shall not be unlawful for a person under the age of 18 years to be on licensed premises in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (1). Section 1(4) provides that for the purposes of section 34A of the 1988 Act, it shall not be unlawful for a person aged at least 18 years but under the age of 21 who does not have an age document with him or her to be on the licensed premises in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (1).

Section 1(5) provides a defence for a person charged with an offence under the relevant sections of the 1988 Act. Section 1(6) makes it clear that nothing in this Bill shall prevent a person raising any point of law or other plea or objection which would be open to a person to raise in proceedings under the relevant provisions of the 1988 Act. Section 1(5) is designed to afford to people in a bar in the circumstances I mentioned in the past where the shutters were down, a defence in line with the advice I received from counsel, and the view of the Attorney General and the District Court at the time.

Section 1(7) was inserted by way of a Committee Stage amendment in the Dáil. It takes account of concerns expressed about the impact of the 9 p.m. watershed on family holidays. Last year as a result of our debate in this House we moved the watershed for young people in pubs from 8 p.m. to 9 p.m. It is open to a publican to exclude young people at any time from his or her premises. This is not mandatory in terms of establishing a minimum; it is merely where the criminal law prevents people from having children in pubs. It was suggested to me that the time limit be extended to 10 p.m, the daylight hours in the summer from May through September. This should deal with the arguments about the tourist season and people coming in from the beach that we heard in public discourse.

By the same token I must deal with the fact that not every tourist in Ireland is in a tourist area. This applies in Temple Bar, Finglas, Donnybrook and areas which are not considered tourism haunts generally and is an across-the-board rule. I cannot operate on the basis that everywhere is equivalent to a beach-side bar on the Atlantic coast on a glorious summer evening. I must also deal with the fact that it could be a rainy day in Temple Bar. Whether there should be children in the bar at nine or ten o'clock is an issue on which most people have some proper concerns.

This threshold is intended to operate as a time after which 16 and 17 year olds are effectively barred from pubs because they will not be able to produce their evidence of age cards and, therefore, cannot spend all night in pubs which was the situation and would remain so if we did not set a time by which they must leave the premises and go home. We must have certainty from the point of view of the licensees in this matter too. It is not a case of my advocating a nanny state. Some members of the Opposition suggested that the mandatory age cards should be given to 18 to 25 year olds or 18 to 23 olds, but I considered 18 to 21 to be the smallest band for which those cards could be reasonably requested. If we are to have a mandatory card regime for that age group we must have a threshold as it is not possible to rely on young people being in a bar and having a sandwich as an extension of the normal lunchtime bar trade. This is why in any system, which has a mandatory age requirement, some form of threshold must exist. Otherwise children would be unable to go to a bar at 4 p.m. and have soup and sandwiches. We must have some time when that is lawful and some time when it ceases to be lawful for 16 and 17 year olds to be in a bar having soup and sandwiches. This explains the background to the threshold.

Senators will be aware of the intention to move before the House an earlier signature motion for the Bill. This is urgent legislation in view of the pressing need to remove the current uncertainty regarding the holding of alcohol-free events and activities for under-18 year olds on licensed premises and in view of the situation in which I find myself whereby if the Director of Public Prosecutions directs the Garda to enforce the law as he sees it, people will be summoned and brought before the courts. The Government considered it appropriate to seek the prior concurrence of this House in a request for earlier signature of the Bill by the President.

I want to say a few words on the subject of codification of the intoxicating liquor code. Codification of the licensing laws was first recommended by the Royal Commission on Liquor Licensing Laws in 1899 and this recommendation has been repeated during the intervening period by Government-appointed commissions of inquiry in 1925, 1957 and again in 2003. I am happy to tell the House that I have done what has been sought for 100 years.

We have prepared the scheme of a Bill to codify into a single statute all licensing laws, from off-licences to on-licences, from theatres to nightclubs and across the board covering the sale of alcohol in every circumstance. The scheme of the Bill is before the Government and a number of interested Ministers are considering the scheme with a view to making a final decision in November. When this is approved by Government it will be published for consultation and moved in the Houses of the Oireachtas as soon as may be thereafter. It will replace with one Bill the licensing Acts and all statutes relating to the sale of drink, which number approximately 100, and simplify and modernise the law in this area.

The Bill will, in particular, include updated provisions relating to public houses, off-licences, hotels, nightclubs and theatres. It will also contain provisions on the supply of intoxicating liquor in registered clubs which will replace the Registration of Clubs Acts 1904 to 2003. It is radical and far-reaching legislation. At the time we debated the 2003 Bill I said we would introduce the codifying Bill. It is now with Cabinet and will be published in the near future. I ask this House to bridge the gap between now and the passage of that Bill, when we can deal with the definition of bars to our hearts' content and agree to the nth degree issues such as what constitutes a bar or a function room. While we can do all those things in the very near future, we have one moment of urgency in that century-long process of codification, which requires that people in these circumstances should not be prosecuted on the basis of a differing opinion of law among expert lawyers as to the meaning of the 2003 Act. In that context, I commend the Bill to the House and thank Senators for agreeing to take it as a matter of urgency.