DATE: 24^th June 2003
TOPIC: Intoxicating Liquor Bill  

anti-family, anti-tourism and anti-fun. 

Mr. Cuffe: This Bill has laudable aims but proposes questionable means to realise them.  By restricting the availability of alcohol while not tackling the cartel that controls the licensed trade, we are failing to tackle the core of the problem of alcohol abuse.

The limited number of licences perpetuates the monopoly in the licensing trade.  Small pubs are being bought by developers and destroyed.  There is enormous pressure on publicans to double or treble the size of premises.  Unless the Minister tackles the super-pubs, not only through liquor licensing legislation but through the planning regulations, he will fail to tackle the widespread abuse of licences that allows the perpetuation of these super-pubs.

The character of familiar areas has been shattered by the destruction of small-scale, family owned premises.  The Minister only has to walk through his own neighbourhood to see it has destroyed much of the village atmosphere of Ranelagh.  If he walks across the canal down Camden Street, where there were seven or eight pubs, he will see one super-pub shatter the character of that vibrant city neighbourhood every night by releasing hundreds of patrons on to the streets.

Further down, in Temple Bar, the small-scale, family owned pubs such as The Norseman, The Foggy Dew and The Temple Bar have been destroyed through expansion.  Ten years ago when I lived in the area, there was a hush when the darts team from Oliver Bond was playing local residents in The Temple Bar.  It was a family owned pub that was physically demolished, keeping only the facade, and an airport style drinking lounge was installed that is many times the size of the previous establishment.

Allowing the existence of enormous airport lounges encourages drunkenness to thrive in our society by getting rid of the subtle controls a bar man used to have over the premises.  John Kehoe on South Anne Street had barely handed over the keys of his premises before the new owner threw open the upstairs door and doubled the size of the pub overnight.  That is a major contributory factor to drunkenness.  I am surprised that the Minister, a man who tends to oppose monopolies and cartels, is not tackling this problem in the legislation.

In every other European country one sees the small neighbourhood bars the Minister has mentioned previously.  They exist because the owner does not need €1 million to open the establishment.  I know people who opened a bar in Paris because they could not afford to open a premises in Dublin as they needed €1 million before they even got off the starting blocks.  Unless the cartels and the super-pubs are tackled, the heart of the alcohol problem will not be tackled.  Of course, super-pubs are not the source of all our problems with alcohol but they are a major contributor and controls are necessary.

Alcohol advertising must also be tackled.  It was distasteful to witness the opening of the Special Olympics on television being interrupted by highly financed advertisements that link alcohol to sport.  I hope the Minister will implement a blanket ban on the advertising of alcohol, particularly where there is an association with sport.  The linking of the image of a man on a surfboard to the sale of alcohol is a highly dubious practice.

<debate adjourned and resumed later>

Mr. Cuffe: Earlier I outlined our concern about the rise of the "super pub" and that the Bill is doing little or nothing to arrest it.  As I speak there are several applications with the planning authorities with which I am familiar seeking permission for enormous pubs which would swamp their immediate neighbourhood, result in the release of hundreds if not thousands of people.  That is not an exaggeration.  Some of the newer pubs in the centre of Dublin can contain up to 2,000 people.  That is not good for peoples' well being on streets of Dublin as it leads to a rise in crime. 

Recently I had occasion to speak with a former constituent as a city councillor on Dublin City Council.  He explained the changes in life on Camden Street in the heart of Dublin since the "super pubs" came on the scene.  I come from member of a party that espouses passivism and non-violence.  He described in graphic detail how, early one morning, he caught an individual urinating through the letter-box into his front hall and how he took up the sweeping brush and dealt with the offender in a very violent manner. While I would rarely condone such behaviour, in this instance I can understand it because his quality of life was shattered by the rise of the "super pub", and  by the changes in his neighbourhood arising from the enormous size and scale of pubs.  It has not helped him or the Garda in carrying out its duties or any of us in trying to improve the quality the life for our constituents.

While there are commendable aspects to the Bill, the existing legislation should be enforced prior to introducing new draconian measures to limit the availability of alcohol.   The Bill is anti-family, anti-tourism and anti-fun.  The existing laws should be enforced prior to the introduction of new legislation. Transferring cases of discrimination from the equality tribunal to the District Courts will water down the powers of the Equal Status Act.  There is a danger that those who are discriminated against will find it difficult to access the courts. 

Banning children from licensed premises discriminates against families and against children and it will place undue restrictions on events such as weddings and family gatherings.  Banning dancing during drinking-up time is one of the more ludicrous proposals.  With this measure, the Minister, Deputy McDowell, is assuming the character of an old-fashioned parish priest with a blackthorn stick.  We challenge the Minister to defend what we believe to be a retrograde proposal. It is possible to make better use of existing legislation. We intend to table substantial amendments on the banning of advertising of alcohol particularly where there is a link between alcohol and sport, placing health warnings on alcohol products.  Going down the nanny state road is not the right answer to the huge problem the State faces in regard to alcohol.  Better planning regulation is the way forward rather than draconian measures. We want the cartel that controls the licensing industry broken up rather than more restrictions on alcohol.

DATE: 2^nd July 2003
TOPIC: Intoxicating Liquor Bill

Mr. Cuffe: I echo the points made by Deputy Rabbitte.  This Bill is being guillotined, but the Bill itself is anti-family, anti-tourism and anti-fun.  It does little or nothing to address the problem of alcohol abuse.  I object to the guillotine and object to the Bill.

<later>

Mr. Cuffe: This legislation is a step in the wrong direction.  Having put some fine principles into law, established the Equal Status Act and set up the Equality Tribunal, which is just beginning to find its feet and to deal with cases of discrimination, we are moving backwards.  Some of the cases being cited, such as Maughan v. The Glimmerman, highlight the legitimate concerns of our citizens.  I know John Maughan.  He had lost his eyesight and was in a licensed premises with his child.  That was legitimate.  If we want to uphold the family and keep it together, as we strive to do under our Constitution, why are we pulling it apart by including so many age barriers in relation to the use of licensed premises? 

We should improve how those licensed premises operate.  We have the ability to do that.  Given that we are not trying to break up the cartel in the licensed trade, we should lay down strict rules on how it operates.  We can regulate for licensed premises to be well operated and to do their business in an orderly fashion.  We should pursue that line rather than putting in place significant regulations which have been criticised by the National Youth Council, many tourism bodies and members of the public.  If the tourism bodies and the National Youth Council are against it, the Minister should be concerned.  We are still concerned about this legislation.  The Minister is trying to operate like the old fashioned parish priest with the blackthorn stick.  It is anti-family, anti-tourism and anti-fun.  The Bill is a step backwards and it should not be passed in its present form.  I support the amendments.