Conor Lenihan (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)

I acknowledge Senator Quinn's renowned expertise in the area of retailing. It is important to understand what the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform said in respect of this section. He clearly stated that he will not be commencing this aspect of the separation in respect of mixed trading environments where alcohol, food items and other products are sold together if the vested interests involved adopt a code of practice in respect of the sale of alcohol within their stores. Those involved have been charged with developing a code of practice that would have the same effect as the provision contained in the Bill. The Minister clearly indicated he is linking the two.

The Minister must retain the sanction outlined in the Bill. I do not anticipate it will be used. The vested interests — in this instance, small retailers — most at risk from the commencement of this provision are attempting, willingly and in good faith, to see if the import of the section can be reflected in the code of practice they have been charged with drawing up. Clearly, the Minister must have the reserved power to commence this provision should the sector show bad faith or seek to string out the discussion about a code of practice but I do not see that as a possibility. The Minister and the vested interests have shown good faith. I agree with the Senator, to the extent that an imposition of a cost of €200 million on small retailers whose profit margins are narrowing by the day would be unfair without seeking to proceed by way of a code.

Unfortunately, I cannot accept the amendment but the Government is fully committed to implementation of the regulation principles set out in the White Paper, Regulating Better, which makes it clear that regulatory impact assessment is an aid to decision-making, not a substitute for it. Neither should it become an obstacle to reform, especially where implementation of reforms is considered urgent by an advisory group responding to the terms of reference given to it by the Government. The report of the advisory group was generally concerned with the increased availability and visibility of alcohol in retail outlets. The advisory group indicated that it was guided by better regulation principles in addressing its terms of reference and called for submissions from interested bodies. Almost 200 were received. It consulted widely with trade and other relevant interests. In the interests of transparency, chapter 2 of the report sets out the data for alcohol consumption, public health and public order issues which guided the advisory group in formulating its recommendations for reform.

I have concerns about the constitutionality of the amendment which Senator Quinn tabled in good faith. I see his purpose but there are issues around its constitutionality. To make entry into force of legislation duly enacted by the Oireachtas subject to a subsequent economic analysis of its impact would undoubtedly raise constitutional issues about the separation of powers under the Constitution. To a certain extent, it would diminish the powers of the House because it would pass a Bill but leave it to another body, economic or otherwise, to analyse and make recommendations for change.

I reassure Senator Quinn, given his expertise in retailing and his contribution to the country during the years, that the intention is to ensure the section will not be commenced because we expect the sector, through the retail organisations which represent it, to come up with the answer by way of a voluntary code of practice which will apply across stores without imposing an extra cost on retailers who are struggling with issues of profitability and physical space. Most reasonable people would accept that it would be very hard to impose a commencement order on small retailers who may have distinct issues or problems with the square footage available in-store.