Feargal Quinn (Independent)

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, subsection (5), line 29, after "provisions" to insert the following:

"but should not commence until a Regulatory Impact Analysis has been completed and published".

This simple amendment is worthy of consideration. A provision such as that contained in the amendment should be included in practically every item of legislation and it was agreed in the past that this would be done. We should not introduce new laws without having some idea as to the costs to which they will give rise. Unless there is an extremely urgent need to pass legislation, I am of the view that each Bill should be the subject of a regulatory impact analysis before it is commenced.

In this instance, it is clear there is a need to carry out such an analysis. The Bill is short but it contains a number of extremely pertinent provisions. For example, under section 9 a new subsection (1A) is to be inserted into section 3, as amended by section 4 of the Act of 2000, of the 1927 Act. This new subsection states:

[W]here non-licensed business is carried on in a premises to which an off-licence is attached, the holder of the licence shall ensure that ... the exposure for sale and the sale of intoxicating liquor is exclusively confined to a part of the licensed premises ... which is structurally separate from the remainder of the premises by means of a wall or similar barrier ...

A number of retailers are extremely concerned regarding the costs to which this provision may give rise. They approached the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Dermot Ahern, who agreed with the points they raised and indicated that it is not his intention to commence this part of the Bill if those making the case to him behaved and did what they were promising to do, namely, put in place not a wall but some form of separation arrangement. The Minister is to be congratulated on listening to their concerns and deciding not to commence this provision.

The amendment is worded in a particular way. That is because, in the future, if a Minister decides to commence this provision, the cost to the supermarkets, stores, etc., that will be affected will be something of the order of €200 million. That is a major sum of money and responsibility for this matter should not be placed in the hands of a Minister who might, at the stroke of a pen, commence the provision. If the provision is not commenced, there will be no need for the €200 million to which I refer to be spent. In general terms, the spending of this money would not have a positive impact on Irish industry because that which would be required would have to be imported from elsewhere.

There may be other provisions in the Bill which may give rise to costs of this nature and that is why a regulatory impact analysis should be carried out. Regardless of this, however, such an analysis is necessary in respect of the provision to which I refer. While the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform stated that he will not commence this provision if the legislation is passed, he would still have the right to commence it. The amendment in my name suggests that it "should not commence until a Regulatory Impact Analysis has been completed and published".

This is a worthy amendment and it is one which the Minister of State could accept because it would be easy to carry out a regulatory impact analysis. The latter would not delay the implementation of the Bill, it would only delay the commencement of the provision in question. I urge the Minister of State to consider accepting the amendment.