Seanad debates
Wednesday, 18 June 2003
Intoxicating Liquor Bill 2003: Second Stage (Resumed).
10:30 am
Mary Henry (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank Senator Maurice Hayes for sharing his time with me.
I wish first of all to gain a few SuperClub points. Senator Quinn says he has spoken to the Minister about the issue, but I raise it to place it in on the record of the House. Senator Quinn is concerned about section 21(1)(b) of the Bill which provides that a seller must affix to any container containing intoxicating liquor to be sold off the premises a label which indicates where it was purchased. Senator Quinn feels this would be extremely time consuming and costly to implement while not having a very great beneficial effect. He suggests that only an off-licence which has already been in trouble should be made to put particulars on the alcohol it sells.
If there is one group of people the Minister will have acquired as supporters, it is the accident and emergency consultants who came before the Joint Committee on Health and Children to tell the most appalling tales. I have mentioned some of those in the House previously, but there were other points raised in that forum which are worth following up
I am not sure how effective section 6, which relates to drunken persons, will be. It is very prohibitive in terms of asking licensees to take actions which will be detrimental to their living. I would have thought it was possible to get these drunken people involved with health professionals. If they have had two fines, is it not reasonable for us to send them to see alcohol specialist nurses? It seems useless simply to fine them and dump them out of the system.
Senator Ryan has said he does not think young people are doing themselves much harm in the short term but they are. They are killing their neurons at a tremendous rate. Gastroenterologists have told me of encountering cirrhosis of the liver in women in their late 20s and early 30s. This problem was unknown until recently. This issue should be addressed. Imposing fines is not enough. More is needed.
The Minister is right to concentrate on clubs and late night venues. The most common mode of transport to hospital from a nightclub is by ambulance. Guess what that is costing the State. A considerable number of people go to hospital because assault is extraordinarily common outside these emporia. It would be a good idea to consider less aesthetic options such as the provision of unbreakable glass or plastic containers, the elimination of glass outside clubs, the provision of high quality and immediate medical care at larger venues, curbing overcrowding and happy hours, which cause dreadful problems, and better registration of doormen. Nightclub owners, brewers, distillers and so forth should have to pay for these.
A large number of people working in accident and emergency departments are injured as a result of alcohol. Senator O'Toole correctly pointed out that the drunkenness can endanger more people than those in the drunk's vicinity. This point should be taken on board because if the drunk gets so bad that he or she is carted off to hospital, he or she can end up beating up the casualty staff. A survey carried out by the accident and emergency departments in the Royal Victoria Hospitals in the United Kingdom and Ireland received 273 replies to a questionnaire, an 80% response rate. Alcohol, waiting times, recreational drug use and patients' expectations were perceived as the chief causes of assaults in casualty departments. Staff are regularly abused both verbally and physically and the survey found that alcohol was the most serious cause. Ten staff members sustained fractures in one year. There were 44 lacerations and 505 soft tissue injuries. This is utterly ridiculous. I would support any measures that would improve matters in this regard.
I do not know if the Minister is willing to accept amendments to the Bill but I am considering tabling an amendment with regard to alcohol prevention nurses. Simply imposing fines on people for being drunk is pointless because the same people will continuously come before the courts and paying €300 or €500 will not affect them. We want them to stop the bad behaviour.
Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the Minister for initiating this Bill in the Seanad. When he said he was drafting it, Senator Terry and I invited him to initiate it here and are pleased he has done so. I listened to the debate throughout the afternoon and was struck by how every Member spoke so freely, openly and knowledgeably. That is not to imply a knowledge of being intoxicated but a knowledge of society and how it operates. It was a well attended debate which is hugely heartening and preferable to Members dashing in and out of the House without listening to others.
The Bill is part of an ongoing search for solutions, both in the legislation and through a change in society and culture. It is as if we are on the first mile of a journey which could bring us in many directions but, I hope, will lead to a greater appreciation of the proper role of alcohol use in a fair and balanced society. It is incorrect to expect the Bill to solve the problem and the Minister never asked that it be viewed in that way. However, it is part of what will, I hope, be a rounded response to many issues. Society has suffered ills throughout the centuries and can never be completely tranquil. However, we owe it to the people to ensure everything possible is done to tackle the abuse of alcohol.
There is a growing and worrying tendency to opt for prohibition. The attitude is that drink is bad. Therefore, let us do the same about it as the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, is doing about tobacco. They are two different commodities. Cigarettes injure one's health but drink does not, unless an excessive amount is taken. It can be taken in proper moderation. I agree that the happy hour is a most unhappy experience. The happy hour is followed by another happy hour in which one pays full price for drink which is followed by a third, most unhappy, hour until it all disintegrates into mayhem. Happy hours are a stupid marketing exercise to get young people tanked up and quickly into a state of oblivion. I also agree with Senator Ryan. Why should one wish to boast the next day that one cannot remember what happened the previous night, who one met, what one said or did or where one was? If that is enjoyment, what a pitiful experience it is.
Irish people are gregarious by nature. I have never met an Irish person who actually sits silently at home and gets drunk. Irish people like to go out for company and meet people in a gregarious atmosphere. That is fine if it can be controlled. The Bill is not an exercise in bashing the youth. However, the sensibilities of youth and their health are not really ready for the onslaught caused by an excess of liquor. As one gets older, one quickly realises that it is not really the great experience it is reputed to be. The enjoyment is knocked out of it. A glass of wine with a meal or a drink with friends can be enjoyable. There is a need for cultural change.
Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
In the words of a publican, the Senator's time is up.
Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I agree that opening times should be curtailed on Fridays and Saturdays. It is quite ridiculous to be prancing around the sidewalks at 2.30 a.m. and 3 a.m. thinking one is having a great time. One obviously is not. I agree with the Minister's ideas about tapas bars and so forth, even if others have derided them. However, we have to reach the point where it will be possible to go out to small eateries and enjoy a glass of alcohol with one's food. There is a long way to go before we reach that point.
I thank the Minister. He has been a friend of this House and we look forward to receiving more Bills from the Department.
Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Time is limited but this has been a good debate which I have enjoyed. There was great honesty and candour in the contributions. There was even occasional drama, especially when Senator Norris reminded us of the off the shoulder number in diamanté worn by one of his assailants and telling us in lurid detail about what she was doing with one of her hands while her partner assaulted him.
Brendan RyanMichael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Wait until the media get their hands on that colourful story.
This Bill is a balanced approach but I agree with Senator Ryan that the proof of the pudding, as it were, will be in the enforcement. One can have all the laws one likes but if they are not enforced, they are window dressing. If a law is to be enforceable, it must be one that works. Gardaí were confronted with a situation where they had to be in uniform to detect an offence. Sixteen and 17 year olds were able to spend all night in a pub drinking minerals and/or alcopops and unless a garda could work out whose drink was whose when he or she went into the premises, he or she could not prove any offence. Age cards were voluntary and publicans who sought them risked their business going to other pubs in the town.
There is a combination here of having an enforceable law and then asking the Garda Síochána to enforce it. I strongly maintain that we must have a tough enough approach to the enforcement of our laws. I do not agree with everything the Americans do, and sometimes in relation to matters legal and penal they are a bit retributive and unforgiving. However, their age limits on alcohol are tough and under age people do not get drink in America. People do not break the law and serve people under age because their premises will be closed. We, however, are inclined to give people a few chances and take a soft view on the law.
If we are serious about under age drinking – which we should be – we should have a law that is workable. This does not just apply to 16 and 17 year olds. We are talking about protecting young girls in the 18 to 25 age group from being found helpless on the street outside a super pub, not knowing when they get to the casualty unit whether they were sexually assaulted or not – and not because of rohypnol but massive indulgence in alcohol. We are talking about protecting lives from being ruined. We are talking about young men who get into fights and give each other a thump in the jaw, suddenly leading to brain damage because of one of them hits his head off a pavement.
We are talking about many lives which can be blighted from a completely ravenous approach to alcohol, which some of our counter-culture seems to be selling at the moment as cool. I do not want to get into moralistic mode because, frankly, I like drink and have no problem with people drinking. I do not want to get overly-moralistic, but when a group of publicans came to me about this legislation, one of them described how, in some premises, a regular form of drink ordered is a pint glass with two Bacardi Breezers and one or two shots added to strengthen it. That is sold with ice to teenagers. It is an almost lethal combination. If those things are being served to youngsters in pubs, it is no wonder that they get into serious difficulties with alcohol very quickly.
Joe O'TooleMary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
He still has his Holy Communion money.
Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We really did not have €50 or €60, or its equivalent, to spend on occasions like this.
Senator Maurice Hayes made some points in relation to the different parts of premises. I ask Members to bear in mind that prohibition applies to kids in the bar of a premises. Anybody who wants to serve meals in their premises or to readjust a room so that parents can have pints, spirits or whatever while the kids have Club Oranges can do so. This is not draconian law. Likewise, in a hotel, a function room which is not primarily used for sale of alcohol is not a bar, so the family wedding is not covered by this. With a bit of creativity, the licensed trade should be able to adapt to these new requirements and we should not damage our way of life.
I agree completely that we do not want to go into prohibition mode. Nearly everybody here is old enough to remember a time when one could leave the key in the door and life was easy and so on. Alcohol was still a scourge, though, and as Senator Kate Walsh said, there is no point in pretending that alcohol and alcoholic problems are phenomena which suddenly landed upon us in the era of mobile phones. Alcohol always was a scourge in its own way.
However, we now have to bear in mind that we are in a much more liberal society, which I welcome. Our kids are much less inhibited, which I also welcome. The authority structures in our society are changing. Social morality has not gone but it is changing. Compared with the past, respect for authority figures has disappeared. In those circumstances we have to adapt.
I have no doubt that this legislation is demanded by the people and is, roughly speaking, what the people want. I apologise to the House if the Bill appears to be rushed but I did engage in debate. I was accused of flying kites; I made speeches and attended generalised debates in this House on the subject; and I brought the Bill to the Oireachtas joint committee, where both Senators and Deputies could discuss the principle before I committed myself to the detail of it. I am sensitive, like everybody else, to a little bit of abuse, and those who questioned whether I would walk the walk as well as talk the talk have their answer today.
I thank the House for assisting me in bringing forward very useful legislation. It is not a question of rivalry between Government and Opposition. It is what the people, collectively, are looking to this House to do and I thank the House for its most generous, considered, erudite and, on occasion, light-hearted consideration of this very serious issue.