Feargal Quinn (Independent)

There should be a 100% levy on the advertising spend, all of which would go to an anti-alcohol lobby group. This is the real solution and it is achievable. If we are to attempt to solve the problem of public disorder, this is the kind of step we must take.

I am sure there is a great deal in the legislation that is very valid and sensible and I will not cover matters that have already been touched upon. My main concern is that the legislation is rushed and does not provide for a regulatory impact analysis. We agreed years ago that no legislation should come through the Houses without such provision. I am told the likely cost to supermarkets and other shops of what is proposed in the legislation, which may not be commenced at this stage, is €200 million. The structures the shops would have to put in place would not even be manufactured in Ireland because we no longer have the sort of industry required. The materials would have to be imported from abroad. The legislation is very bad in that it suggests approaches and does not go ahead with them. The failure to include provision for a regulatory impact analysis is the principal reason the legislation should be delayed.

I do not condemn every aspect of the Bill. I gather the Minister listened to several points that were made thereon. That he had to make adjustments is significant. Consider, for example, the provision regarding early morning pubs. Quite sensibly, this has been dropped, as Senator O'Donovan and others stated. The provision regarding structural divisions has not been dropped but as a test it will not be commenced. The case of the nightclubs has been heard and listened to. These are some of the matters that lead me to believe the Bill should not have been proceeded with. I hope the Minister will consider seriously its postponement tomorrow on Committee Stage, provided we get a chance to proceed that far.

I am pleased with the provision on advertising in that the failure to address it presented a clear danger. This danger is the reason I am so opposed to the promotion of alcohol, particularly given that the aim of the Bill is to tackle public disorder, as the Minister stated. We must address this problem.

It seems it is mandatory in every other European country to carry an age card but this is not provided for in the Bill. It is very simple to provide for this and I cannot understand why we have not done so. This could have been one simple measure to address public disorder, particularly among the young. The necessary technology exists and this would have reduced the cost. I understand all those in the business are genuinely concerned about the issue of identification.

I am concerned about the applications for wine licences in the District Court, which is a technical matter. The owner of a couple of supermarkets with wine licences must now go to the District Court to renew them, thus incurring extra costs. The Bill refers to the "good character" of applicants. However, if they already have a couple of wine licences, why must they apply to the District Court if they require another? This should be re-examined seriously.

I have a query in respect of the provision on minimum times for closure. I can understand the reason for a judge to state that one must close down for a certain length of time and a minimum time of two days now is being specified. In the game of rugby, it was very hard to send off a player in a match because once one of the 15 players had been sent off, the game ended as there was no chance for that team. The rugby authorities introduced the sin bin, which was a marvellous solution. Although it punished those who had been bold by putting them off the field of play for ten minutes, the game continued. A minimum time of two days is not necessary. Judges will decide not to close down a big supermarket for that length of time simply because it made a mistake. They will close them down for an afternoon, a morning or something similar. Consequently, I do not believe such a specified minimum time is required.

I support the Bill's objectives but disagree with the manner in which it has been introduced.