Ivana Bacik (Independent)

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 10, lines 4 and 5, to delete paragraph (c) and substitute the following:

"(c) by substituting the following subsection for subsection (5):

"A special exemption order shall expire not earlier than 2.30 a.m. on any day of the week unless the Court, for stated reasons including reasons related to maintaining public order, considers it expedient to grant the order for a shorter period.".".

This is an amendment to section 10. The latter amends section 11 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003, which inserted a new section 5 into the Act of 1927. There is already, therefore, a compendium of different provisions in place. The effect of existing legislation is that those who hold theatre licences are exempted from the closing times other licensed premises may apply for by way of special exemption orders.

The entire premise of this system is flawed. The fact that late bars must apply for special exemption orders in order to open is problematic. I hope that matter will be addressed in the autumn. I also hope that a specific nightclub licence will be introduced. The latter would remove the need to employ archaic measures such as theatre licences or provisions which do not suit the reality of the situation.

Everyone wants comprehensive reform. The Minister of State has repeated a mantra in respect of various matters to the effect that he will "be looking at this in the autumn". He also stated that changes will be introduced by means of the sale of alcohol Bill. That is really a way of rejecting many of the amendments tabled. Unfortunately, this means that an interim system will be in place during the summer months whereby different closing hours will obtain. It appears that some of the restrictions that will be in place during the summer will, perhaps, be removed in the autumn.

Due to the fact that this is an interim Bill, I seek to make an interim amendment that will resolve the situation whereby there will be an unnecessary restriction in place during the summer to the effect that all those establishments, be they bars or clubs, with special exemption orders will be obliged to close at 1 a.m. on Mondays. The impact of the provisions in section 10, particularly those in paragraph (c), will be that all licensed premises with special exemption orders, be they bars or clubs, will be obliged to close at 2.30 a.m. every day other than on Mondays, when they must close at 1 a.m.

I take exception to the idea that Sunday nights are different for everybody. They are certainly different for those of us who work nine to five, Monday to Friday. Obviously, Members do not work nine to five and they often work very different hours. However, there are those who work shifts and people in the services sector and the entertainment industry for whom Sunday night is their night off because it is a quiet time for everyone else. If people wish to remain out beyond 1 a.m., I do not see where the problem arises.

As stated previously, I have been lobbied by nightclub industry representatives. However, I do not hold a brief for them. This issue does not merely relate to the industry, it is much broader than that. We have all been lobbied and contacted by ordinary punters who, as consumers, wish to be able to go out at night. I do not understand why people feel there is a need to curtail their enjoyment at 1 a.m. each Monday.

The term "nanny state" is overused. However, this is an overly paternalistic measure. It is like the measures we had in the past, such as the holy hour. It will not do any good in terms of preventing alcohol abuse or public disorder. It is an unnecessary measure to make this distinction between Sunday night and other nights. Will the Minister of State consider accepting either my amendment or Senator Regan's amendment No. 8a which would have the same effect in terms of restoring 2.30 a.m. as the potential closing time for special exemption orders on a Sunday night?

Amendment No. 9 has a different effect. Essentially, I seek to build on the special exemption orders by permitting the District Court where a application is made to it by a licensed premises to permit it, having considered all the reasons offered, including reasons relating to maintaining public order, to grant a special extension of time within which alcohol may be served beyond the time for which the special exemption order applies.

It is very similar to the amendment Senator Hannigan tabled, amendment No. 4, in which he sought to ensure that the court could exercise discretion to avoid all premises in an area closing at a particular time. What I hope to do here, in somewhat more elegant drafting, is to achieve the same objective, that is, to achieve a sequential closing time and to allow flexibility for the court but within the parameters of the existing special exemption orders.

I seek to amend section 10 to insert a new subsection (e) which would allow a court to grant a special extension of time up to two hours beyond the expiry of a special exemption order. This would permit places to close up to 4.30 a.m. However, it gives flexibility to the court to make the time shorter and it builds in, as I have done with amendment No. 8, a provision that the court may look at reasons relating to maintaining public order. It is a reasonable approach and I ask the Minister of State to take it on board if not now, then in the autumn. However, I would very much like him to take it on board now because I do not see why we should have an interim arrangement over the summer which will restrict closing hours, particularly on a Sunday night, with the promise of something else in the autumn.

I will press these important amendments. I do not see any rationale not to accept them even in terms of the Minister's stated intentions in regard to the Bill.