Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 2000: Order for Second Stage 18th April, 2000 Bill entitled an Act to amend the times at which it is lawful to sell or expose for sale any intoxicating liquor; to provide for the temporary closure of licensed premises where the licence-holder is convicted of certain offences related to the presence of persons under 18 on those premises; to make further provision in relation to the issue, upgrading and transfer of intoxicating liquor licences; to provide for the issue of licences in respect of certain authorised events at greyhound race tracks and racecourses; to increase the maximum fines for certain offences; and to amend in other respects the Licensing Acts, 1833 to 1999, and the Registration of Clubs Acts, 1904 to 1999.   Mr. Cassidy: I move: "That Second Stage be taken now."   Question put and agreed to.

Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 2000: Second Stage. Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. O'Donoghue): The Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 2000, marks an important milestone in the Government's approach to the modernisation of our licensing laws. It can, with a good deal of justification, be described as the most comprehensive single package of reform measures ever introduced to the Oireachtas on this issue. It is reasonable to suggest to the House that the Bill introduces a system of permitted hours in line with public expectation and demand and on terms that are socially and economically acceptable. It does away with decades old restrictive legislation governing access to the market, without undermining the economic basis which obtains for the holders of licences. It introduces innovative, workable and strict penalties against those who engage in the criminally irresponsible practice of selling or supplying intoxicating liquor to under-age persons and it introduces complementary and in certain areas much needed reform of our law in relation to registered clubs. The gestation period for this Bill has been long but I prefer to think it reflects a solid process of consultation, reflection and determination to deal with the issues. Anyone who knows the licensing laws knows that they are labyrinthine in their complexity. They were once described as something like an enigma inside a puzzle or vice versa. It is also the case that everyone has a view on the licensing laws. I am sure this will be borne out by the debate here today. I expect there will be many contributions, all of them worthy and reflective of Senators' personal and political views on a subject dear to our hearts. It was because of the keen interest in the laws on intoxicating liquor that I took the time to canvass widely for views before I put forward my policy proposals to the Government. I can safely say that in developing the proposals in the Bill I have, through seeking written submissions, through formal and informal meetings and through visits the length and breadth of the country, got a firm indication of what is demanded by way of change, but more importantly what changes will work and gain acceptance across many different strata and interests. I do not claim that what I propose will fully satisfy, on an individual basis, every member of the drinking and non-drinking public, or every individual publican, restaurateur or other licence holder. There will be some who consider that I have not gone far enough, as there will be some who hold the view that I have gone too far. The proposals in the Bill, I am convinced, represent the best possible deal for all in that they strike a fair balance among the many different interest groups, be they groups representing the licensed trade, such as publicans, hoteliers, restaurateurs, night club operators and off-licence holders, or groups in society generally, not least the consumer and parents who are deeply worried about the negative consequences of under-age drinking. The process of examination and change to our licensing laws does not end with this Bill, comprehensive as it is. I recognise that more remains to be done. For this reason, I will shortly establish a commission on licensing. Following the publication of this Bill there is a clearer picture of what is to be the new law and, consequently, it is possible to establish a clear remit for the commission. The commission will continue the process of fundamental change to the licensing laws by, inter alia, reviewing the scope for a system of additional licences. This will be achieved in a programmed and coherent way, consistent with public expectations and the common good. The commission will be a representative one, whose membership will include Departments, representatives of the trade, representatives of consumers and other interests. The details are being progressed following on the Government's approval in principle for the establishment of the commission. I wish to pay tribute to the joint Oireachtas sub-committee which undertook a study of the licensing laws and whose report represented an informed basis for my own detailed policy examination of this area. I have taken many of the recommendations of that sub-committee on board in this Bill and I was grateful for the informed view it offered me of cross-party thought on reform of the law. I also wish to acknowledge the interim report of the Competition Authority and the many submissions I received from interest groups and members of the public. I will now deal in as much detail as possible with the main provisions of the Bill. Senators will be aware that an explanatory memorandum has been circulated with the Bill and every detail is mentioned there. It is no exaggeration to say that almost every provision in the Bill is of importance and of very real effect on persons in varying degrees depending on whether they are licensees of one class or another, or customers. For that reason there is much to inform the House on the Bill, but I shall be as brief as possible. Part 1 of the Bill contains standard provisions, dealing with the Short Title, collective citation, construction and commencement, and defining some of the terms used in the Bill. Part 2 of the Bill deals with the general question of hours of opening of licensed premises and registered clubs. Section 3 provides for the abolition of the distinction between summer and winter time so that licensed premises will be permitted to remain open from 10.30 a.m. to 11.30 p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays, and from 10.30 a.m. to 12.30 a.m. of the following day on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays. Sunday opening will be from 12.30 p.m. to 11.00 p.m. - this means that Sunday closing between 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. is abolished, while no change is being made to Sunday night closing time. The exceptions to this general rule are that it will not be lawful to open at any time on Christmas Day or Good Friday. On St. Patrick's Day, no matter on what day this falls, opening times will be between 12.30 p.m. and 12.30 a.m. on the following day. On 23 December, if it falls on a Sunday, opening will be permitted between 10.30 a.m. and 11.30 p.m. On Christmas Eve and the eve of Good Friday opening hours will be between 10.30 a.m. and 11.30 p.m. and on the eve of any public holiday premises may remain open until 12.30 a.m. on the following day. Drinking up time of 30 minutes will also be permitted on all days. These changes are progressive. They introduce trading hours which reflect the changed pattern in drinking habits without applying a free-for-all, as would be the case if the Government had opted to provide for 24 hour opening of licensed premises. I am sure most Senators will agree that there is simply no demand for 24 hour opening. There is probably no closing time which will suit the needs and expectations of every individual. My view was that if I had to place a time limit on closing, it should be one which would satisfy the greatest number, and that is what I have done. Section 4 introduces important changes to the law relating to premises engaged in a mixture of retail activity, licensed and non-licensed. I have brought together the position of permitted opening times for premises engaged in mixed trading with either an on-licence or an off-licence attached. All such premises will be permitted to open for non-licensed business between 7.30 a.m. and 10.30 a.m. on weekdays and on Sundays that fall on 23 or 24 December, and between 7.30 a.m. and 12.30 p.m. on other Sundays. This means that premises, such as supermarkets with an off-licence attached, which up to now could not open before 9 a.m. on any day of the week and not before 12.30 p.m. on Sundays, will be in a position to commence trading much earlier. Such premises will also be permitted to open for the sale of intoxicating liquor at 8 a.m. on weekdays. This is a consumer friendly change. It means that the customers of retail grocery outlets will be permitted to carry out their full range of shopping from 8 a.m. The Bill enhances the opportunities of supermarkets and other retail outlets. They may open for non-licensed business from 7.30 a.m. all year round except on Christmas Day and Good Friday. Section 5 is an important one for night club and disco operators. It changes the law as it applies to special exemptions. These are granted by the District Court and permit the sale of intoxicating liquor on special occasions in licensed premises after normal closing time. The section abolishes the need to provide a meal as a condition of an exemption in the case of a special occasion, which is a dance held in a ballroom licensed under the Public Dance Halls Act, 1935, as well as the requirement that a premises be a hotel or restaurant. It also removes the restriction on the granting of a special exemption for any time on Sunday, that is, after midnight on Saturday night and after normal closing time on Sunday evening. It retains, however, the restriction on special exemptions for Monday morning beyond 1 a.m. except on a Monday morning that is a public holiday. The special exemption orders will be granted in normal circumstances to 2.30 a.m. unless the court considers it expedient, for stated reasons, to grant an exemption for a shorter period. The special exemption order, coupled with the dance hall licence, is the means by which a nightclub operates. The reality is that many customers in a nightclub do not frequent these venues in order to partake in a meal, rather the main activity is dancing to music and socialising. It is widely accepted that the meal requirement under the law as it stands makes little sense in those circumstances and should be abolished. The need to provide a meal in respect of a special event organised for the entertainment of the members of a particular association, organisation or other such group, or on the occasion of a private function remains on the basis that a meal forms a particular part of such events in the first place. The number of special exemption orders which may be sought in respect of a day of general or local festivity is being increased from six to 12. This change in the law will serve to benefit local areas where dances are held in conjunction with a local festival. Section 5 also introduces a requirement that the grant of a special exemption order will not cause undue inconvenience to persons residing in the vicinity of a premises. This is a new requirement and one which is useful and necessary. It means that the court will act as the guardian of the rights of local residents and will be in a position to protect local residents where the late opening of a licensed premises might not be appropriate. Section 6 provides for an exemption to the permitted hours where alcohol is served in a hotel or restaurant. It extends permitted hours in these circumstances by one hour over and above the time to which these premises may lawfully sell intoxicating liquor provided it is supplied with a meal. Section 7 applies the revised permitted hours to clubs registered under the registration of Clubs Acts, 1804 to 1999, and for the exemption allowed in respect of hotels and restaurants in section 6. These are necessary modifications to the permitted hours in respect of these premises arising from the changes in permitted hours generally which are provided for in section 3. Drinking up time of 30 minutes will now be allowed after a period of a special exemption in respect of licensed premises or a registered club following a club authorisation. This means that in cases where a special exemption has been granted to 2.30 a.m., for example, customers will no longer be forced to stop drinking at that time but will be given adequate time to finish their drinks in an orderly manner. I am providing in section 9 for a small but desirable change in relation to area exemption orders. These are granted for special events such as local festivals outside the Dublin county borough. At present, the orders cannot be granted for more than nine days in any one year in respect of a locality. The section provides for an increase, from nine to 12, in the number of days for which licensed premises may seek area exemption orders. Likewise, in section 10 I am removing the prohibition on the granting of an occasional licence on Sunday. Occasional licences are granted to a licensee by the District Court in respect of an unlicensed premises for a particular event. Many festivals, shows or exhibitions are held over a weekend and it has been represented to me that the relaxation of this prohibition will greatly benefit such activities. Persons who attend such an event over a weekend will now be able to enjoy a drink there on Sunday as well as on Saturday. Section 11 amends the period for which a general exemption order may be granted. It is a technical amendment which follows as a consequence of the amendment of permitted hours in section 3. Section 12 extends to restaurants having a special restaurant licence, that is, a full drinks facility, the revised permitted hours available to all other licensed premises under section 3. It also extends permitted hours by one hour over and above the time to which these premises may lawfully sell intoxicating liquor provided it is supplied with a meal. Part 3 contains important provisions in relation to under-age persons. These will be by way of amendments or additions to particular provisions contained in the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1988. There will be a new penalty, by way of section 13, to strengthen the provisions against the supply or sale of intoxicating liquor to under-age persons. This section inserts a new section 36A in the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1988, and provides that where a conviction for the sale of alcohol to an under-age person is upheld a licensed premises will be the subject of a temporary closure order. Premises which are the subject of such an order will have to display a sign indicating the reason they have been closed temporarily. Endorsement of licence provisions in existing law will remain, but endorsement will now be discretionary, not mandatory. The purpose of the new temporary closure of a premises provision is to provide a strong deterrent to abuses of the law in this area as it is designed to hit at the pockets of offenders and publicly identify them without necessarily having the looming prospect of forfeit of a licence. Because it is draconian, that sanction has rarely been applied by the courts. Section 14 provides for further strengthening of the law relating to under-age drinking. The 1988 Act permitted a licensee to rely on the "reasonable grounds" defence in any proceedings against the licensee. The section removes that defence. This will place a strong onus on the licensee and his or her staff to demand proof of age, and the national voluntary age card is proposed as the appropriate means open to a licensee to establish such proof. Provision is also made in the Bill to remove the mandatory endorsement of a licence which follows conviction for an offence relating to under-age persons, though forfeiture of a licence remains available at the discretion of the judge under section 12. I am introducing clarification in the law in relation to the employment of young persons in certain licensed premises. Section 38 of the Act of 1988 prohibits persons under the age of 18 years from being engaged in the sale of intoxicating liquor, with certain exceptions for apprentices and relatives of the licensee. The Bill makes clear that lounge staff may be employed to serve on tables but not from behind the bar of a licensed premises. Part 4 deals with the issue, upgrading and transfer of licences. The effect of section 15 is that there will be a requirement simply to extinguish one licence from anywhere in the State when applying for a certificate from the Circuit Court entitling a person to receive a licence from the Revenue Commissioners. Restrictions such as population increases, opening within a mile of an existing premises and the prohibition on the use of a rural licence in a town or city are abolished under this section. The need to prove rateable valuation is dispensed with in relation to the granting of a new licence. The court will take into account the fitness of the applicant and the unfitness or inconvenience of the new premises, their unsuitability for the needs of persons residing in the neighbourhood and the adequacy of the existing number of licensed outlets. The latter requirement of adequacy is not a condition as to the effect new premises will have on the business of existing premises. Rather it is designed to permit the court to assess whether a particular locality is sufficiently served by a particular form of licensed outlet, be it on-licence or off-licence. It will require the court to also assess whether a premises would be suitable in a particular location allowing for the needs of persons residing in the neighbourhood proposed to be served by the new premises. The effect of this provision relating to the grant of new licences will be greater mobility in the movement of licenses from over-provided for and mainly rural areas to locations where there is a demonstrable need for such licences, particularly on the fringes of our major conurbations. It could have the effect, for example, of inducing existing licensees, persons experienced in the trade, to move from areas where they may or may not be operating in a commercially viable way to areas where there will be greater opportunities for them to provide a service to the public. It will also permit new entrants to the trade by making access to licences easier. I was not convinced, and neither was the Government, by the arguments put forward for full deregulation of access to the licensed trade, as if a licence for the sale of intoxicating liquor could be equated with a licence to sell postage stamps or sweets. Whether we like it or not, alcohol is not the same as other retail products and, as Minister, I am mindful of the very negative consequences of alcohol abuse and the effect of a totally deregulated regime, introduced all at once. Section 16 provides a mechanism whereby the holders of restricted licences, for example six day licences, can convert them to ordinary seven day licences. Currently, the holder of a restricted licence can acquire a full seven day licence. This involves extinguishing an existing licence or licences. Arguments have been put forward that many of the holders - they number about 110 - cannot afford to extinguish an existing seven day licence and are finding it difficult to compete in the licensed trade. The cost of the conversion under the Bill is a once-off fee of £2,500, payable to the Revenue Commissioners, and is an attempt to pitch the amount to match the ability of genuine traders. Arguments have been advanced that many holders of six day licences are operating on the margins of economic activity and would not be in a position to afford a substantial conversion fee. Holders of restricted licences are being given one year to avail of the provisions of the conversion scheme. I am concerned to avoid speculation in restricted licences which would appreciate considerably in value if converted as a result of any conversion scheme. This will be avoided as subsection (4) of section 16 ensures that the scheme of conversion will be subject to certain conditions. These are, in addition to the payment of a fee of £2,500 to the Revenue Commissioners, that the premises and restricted licence attached to it have been held by the applicant for a period of five years, that the licence holder inherited the premises, was given the premises by a relative or purchased the premises as a going concern. Additionally, on conversion the licence holder must, under subsection (4) paragraph (c), undertake not to dispose of the premises, transfer the licence or consent to its extinguishment for reward for a period of five years after the date of the first issue of the new full licence. Should circumstances arise whereby the holder of a newly converted licence experiences a difficulty, for example a financial difficulty, and would be subject to hardship if he or she had to comply with the conditions provided for in paragraph (c), the District Court may, by virtue of subsection (7), waive or modify compliance with those conditions. Section 17 ensures that an examination of the character of the person applying for an ad interim transfer of a licence under section 1 of the Licensing (Ireland) Act, 1855, is undertaken, and the court will refuse such an application unless it is established that the applicant is a fit person. Currently, the ad interim transfer arrangement is subject to three criteria: notice given of the application; the reason for the transfer; and that the applicant is not disqualified by law. These criteria will continue to apply. The addition of the requirement that the character of a person applying for an ad interim transfer of a licence will be examined will ensure that the Garda Síochána will be in a position to challenge applicants who are not of good character and who might otherwise get a foot in the business without proper scrutiny. Section 18 simply ensures that in any proceedings under this Part of the Bill relating to licences, the premises may be described by reference to a map, for ease of reference. Section 19 extends the scope of the licences already available to race tracks, licensed under section 18 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1962, and racecourses licensed under section 65 of the Irish Horseracing Industry Act, 1994. Under the section, greyhound race tracks and racecourses will be permitted to supply intoxicating liquor at certain authorised events such as trade fairs, exhibitions or concerts. The purpose of the section is to provide an opportunity for these race tracks and racecourses to generate additional income on days when race meetings are not being held, and thereby contribute to their viability. The types of functions envisaged are ones which could not be held in ordinary licensed premises, and the number of such events is being restricted to 15 per year. Significant increases in fines are provided for a range of offences. These are set out in the Schedule to the Bill. I draw Senators' attention in particular to those for under-age offences, which are the subject of the greatest increases. I am concerned to ensure that the increased opportunities available under the Bill for the sale and consumption of intoxicating liquor do not lead to an increase in the incidence of under-age drinking. I am placing the highest onus on licence holders to act in a responsible manner in this regard, hence the increased penalties for breaches of the law. Coupled with the tough new provisions in Part 3 of the Bill regarding temporary closure of premises, I am confident that the law in relation to under-age persons is being suitably strengthened under the Bill. Section 22 introduces a relaxation to the law as it relates to the sale of alcohol in restaurants. It permits the holder of a restaurant certificate and wine on-licence to serve beer in conjunction with a meal. It will not be open to such a person to offer off-sales of beer or to have a bar on the premises. The restrictions are not designed to make it difficult for the licence holder to operate. They are by way of recognising the essential nature of the commercial activity under way, that is, a place where the main activity is the provision of food. It is somewhat anomalous that one can drink wine in such restaurants and not beer, both of which products can be regarded as accompaniments to a meal. This section should assist restaurateurs to realise the economic potential of their establishments, provide a better service to customers and assist the attraction of such restaurants from a tourism perspective. Section 23 amends the 1988 Act in relation to special restaurant licences, that is, a restaurant which is already permitted to serve a full range of alcoholic drinks. The 1988 Act requires a premises with a special restaurant licence to have a waiting area not exceeding 20% of the floor area of the dining area. I am removing this requirement, the purpose of which was, I understand, to counter the possibility that such restaurants might become drinking emporiums in their own right. In reality, however, other restrictions, for example the ban on a bar and the definition of the premises as a restaurant, where other business is ancillary, achieves this purpose. The limitation on the size of the waiting area has given rise to design and architectural difficulties for many restaurants, particularly country houses, and these difficulties are being addressed in the Bill. The Bill also removes the requirement for Bord Fáilte certification before the Circuit Court issues a certificate entitling a person to a special restaurant licence. The reality is that after some 12 years of operation, and notwithstanding the unprecedented economic success enjoyed by the country, the number of premises having a special restaurant licence remains around the 200 mark. The representative body for restaurants, the Restaurants Association of Ireland, has pointed to unnecessary regulation and the slow take-up of special restaurant licences as indicative of the fact that these regulations are overly restrictive. The joint Oireachtas sub-committee, in its review of the licensing laws, called for the relaxation of the standards and I am happy to oblige. It would remain open to my colleague, the Minster for Tourism, Sport and Recreation, to introduce a grading structure for restaurants, independent of the special restaurant licence, which would operate as a standards and/or marketing vehicle. I am also introducing some changes to the code governing registered clubs. Section 24 serves to clarify the position in relation to the holding of functions. It sets out what is and is not an acceptable use of a private club premises, while not disadvantaging the use of the club premises in relation to functions that are of benefit to the community, from a charitable or benevolent perspective. The section also removes any doubt as to the use of a private club premises by a member of the club for a private function, such as a member's retirement or wedding anniversary celebration. Section 25 deals with the circumstances in which intoxicating liquor can be supplied to non-club members. Under existing law, visitors may only be supplied with liquor on the invitation and in the company of a club member, and the name and address of the visitor must be kept in a book showing the date of each visit. I am making no change to that provision because it is central to the principle that liquor is supplied in a club premises for the enjoyment of club members. The purpose of the section is to make special arrangements for visiting teams as opposed to individual visitor guests. In the case of a visiting team or other body of people who are members of another club or organisation, it will be sufficient for a club official to enter the name of the visiting team and their number in the visitors' book. While these visitors are on the club premises they can be supplied with liquor at the request and in the presence of an official of the club. This will allow a club to cater for visiting teams in a more flexible way. It would mean that the essential private nature of the club is protected while easing the arrangements for the provision of refreshments to bona fide visiting club members. Section 26 provides for registered clubs to advertise community events held on their premises where intoxicating liquor will not be provided in conjunction with the event. Existing law restricts the advertising of social functions by clubs. This provision was put forward as being specifically designed to curb abuses which had arisen in relation to the holding of discos on club premises. The argument is that by virtue of the private nature of clubs, their functions should be for the entertainment of members and their guests and not members of the general public. Although they may supply alcohol to members and their guests, clubs are not licensed premises and ought not to be in competition with such premises. However, the effect of current law has been that it is unlawful for a group to advertise the holding of a meeting, for example, to form a residents' association if the meeting is to be held on the premises of a registered club. Such an advertisement cannot even appear in a parish newsletter or community magazine. Many clubs are now seen as a community resource and have received substantial public support in the form of capital grants precisely because they are seen as contributing to the social fabric of a locality. They are sometimes de facto social centres and even call themselves such. Section 26 permits such advertisements, but only in respect of functions at which intoxicating liquor will not be served. Section 27 repeals section 8 of the Intoxicating Liquor (General) Act, 1924, which requires that all sales of alcohol in an on-licence must be for "ready cash". In the context of present circumstances, including widespread use of credit cards, this prohibition is regarded as unenforceable. Section 29 relaxes the conditions under which a wine retailer's off-licence may be obtained. Under current law a person who requires a licence only to sell wine off the premises is obliged to seek a wine retailer's on-licence as this also permits the sale of wine off the premises and does not have a court application procedure. In effect, a person who wishes to engage in the off the premises sale of wine is obliged to apply for a licence, the underlying definition of which is to be a "refreshment house" as defined under section 50 of the Finance Act, 1989. Section 30 tightens the law where a company seeks a licence, renewal of a licence or transfer of a licence. It requires the company to be in good standing with the Companies Registration Office in that it has filed proper returns. The section also deals with the situation where an incorporated entity or an individual applicant trades under a business name which is a name that is different from the true name of the owner. The Bill is ground-breaking in many respects and will represent a modern code of law for the coming decade and perhaps beyond. It removes provisions which, though long-standing, no longer represent what the market expects or demands. The proper balance has been achieved in this Bill which is forward-looking, its thrust is genuinely positive and it is responsive to the expectations of the vast majority of our citizens. I commend the Bill to the House.   Mr. Connor: This legislation is welcome despite the fact that it does not go all the way towards simplifying and modifying the liquor licensing laws. Everyone agrees that the legislation governing the public consumption of alcohol is complex and convoluted to the point of being almost impossible to implement in a rational way. For a long period legislators never tackled or put in place a truly rational liquor licensing law and this is true of the Liquor Licensing (Ireland) Act, 1902, which was passed at Westminster and to the debate on which I am sure members of the Irish Parliamentary Party contributed. That Act established six grounds for granting new licences and they were the obvious response to conditions that existed in society at that time. Those grounds were to remain in place and untouched for a long period. It was not until 1943 that further consideration was given to the liquor licensing laws in Ireland. Many changes had taken place in society and in the demographic patterns on this island between 1902 and 1943, but the new Act only added two more instances for granting licences. The changes were hardly on the Statute Book when it was recognised by almost everyone that the needs which existed at that point had not been addressed. In 1956 a commission of inquiry was established to give general consideration to the liquor licensing code. From its deliberations emerged the 1960 Act which, by and large, remains in place today with the exception of the changes introduced in 1988. The legislation governing this area is of a 1960s or, perhaps more correctly, 1950s vintage. However, one thing is certain, it is divorced from needs of the first year of the 21st century. The need for new policy objectives in the liquor licensing system was well recognised and was a major item of public debate from the mid-1980s onwards. In response to that debate, the former Dáil Select Committee on Legislation and Security appointed a sub-committee in 1996 to consider the liquor licensing laws and to make a comprehensive report on how they could be modernised. That sub-committee, under the chairmanship of Deputy Flanagan, undertook the task of examining in great detail the convoluted and complex corpus of law that governs this area and it made much progress by the time the 1997 general election took place. However, it had not reported at that time and it ceased to exist on the dissolution of that Dáil.

In November 1997 a new Joint Committee on Justice, Equality and Women's Rights was established and in January 1998 it appointed a sub-committee on legislation and security, again chaired by Deputy Flanagan, to continue the review of the liquor licensing laws which had been commenced by the former sub-committee. It was my pleasure and privilege to join that sub-committee in January 1998. The task given to the sub-committee was to finish the work of its predecessor and introduce a report at the earliest possible date. The sub-committee completed its work late in June 1998 and the report was published and presented to the Minister at that time. I am glad that many of the recommendations in the sub-committee's report are reflected in the Bill before us. However, I must point out that many other worthwhile and germane recommendations are not included, and that is a great pity. The governing principles that inform public policy in relation to the consumption of intoxicating liquor had to be identified by the committee and its sub-committee. It was around these principles that the sub-committee constructed its work. I am sure the Chair will permit me to recite these principles, lengthy as they are, for the information of the House because it is important in setting the tone for today's debate that they should be referred to. The committee saw it as its governing principle that the retail sale of intoxicating liquor for all on-premises consumption serves an important leisure function and contributes to the enhancement of the national tourism product. The operation of a licensed premises possesses constitutionally protected rights in relation to the owners of these businesses and licence holders. Given that intoxicating liquor involves the use of a drug, the immoderate consumption of liquor can provide a range of undesirable individual, family, workplace and social consequences from which the individual, family, workplace and society should, as far as practicable, be protected. The public good requires the imposition of licensing controls over the operation and conduct of the retail trade in intoxicating liquor. Licensing controls should be rationally constructed and operated in accordance with these principles. That is not often the case in practice. Licensing controls should be expressed in legislation in such a way that they are unlikely to become dated and are sufficiently flexible for future application. That is a lesson we have learned from the past. These controls should be simply constructed and complexity should be avoided as far as possible. While this Bill goes some way towards getting rid of complexity, it does not go as far as it ought. Licensing controls should require obtaining initial and renewed permission from the State to operate. That is already the case. The criteria involved in granting initial and renewed permissions should reflect awareness of all matters relevant to the public consumption of liquor and should not be constrained in their scope. An applicant should demonstrate suitability of premises, fitness of character and professional competence before permission is granted to him or her to trade as a licensee. The committee felt that the permission process should be open and transparent and should be conducted in accordance with the requirements of constitutional justice. There should be an individual examination in each case of the effects of granting a new licence on all aspects of the public good involved and the onus should rest on the applicant to establish the entitlement to be a licensee. The permission process should require evidence of compliance with all the regulations but should not involve consideration of matters already covered by legal controls, such as workplace safety, building controls, fire safety, planning permission and food hygiene, to avoid duplication. Licensing controls over the retail trade in intoxicating liquor should treat similarly positioned operators equally. Protection of existing operators against loss of business or profit should not be an aspect of public policy in licensing. The granting of a liquor licence implies its reasonable use and the failure of reasonable use should entitle the State to reclaim the licence after proper procedures are followed and without payment of compensation to the person at loss. The committee also believed the public interest should be served and included in any redefinition or reform of the liquor licensing laws. The major public interest issues are curtailment and avoidance of public disorder and criminality associated with the consumption of alcohol; avoidance of public drunkenness and the misuse of alcohol; protection of the young, particularly from the evil of underage drinking; education of the public in alcohol consumption and avoidance of drunken and dangerous driving. The committee also looked at the economic, social and health issues involved. It was felt that the duty to ensure there is a reduction in the adverse impact of liquor consumption on the individual, the individual's health, family well-being, work attendance and performance in the workplace and its effects on the health service and in the economy were major considerations that could not be lost sight of in any change or reform of the law. The effects on communities and neighbourhoods were also considered. It was felt that the avoidance of nuisance and disturbance and the disruption arising from the operation of a licensed business were of great importance. The issue of the consumer, value for money and quality of product was also examined in the context of prices charged for intoxicating liquor. It was felt that prices should at all times be reasonable. There is plenty of evidence that there is a lack of price competition in the trade. It was also felt that the market should be consumer driven rather than controlled by the trade. The provision of internal and external consumer facilities should include the provision and availability of transport to bring consumers or customers safely away from premises, given the huge percentage of traffic accidents involving driving by people who had recently left a licensed premises. We looked at issues that concerned the licensee. Trading conditions should be created which seek to ensure a reasonable return for the licensee and obviate tendencies for illegal and undesirable trading such as trading long after the hours legally set down. There should be, as far as possible, avoidance of excessive competition between licensed premises. In relation to the broader issues of consumption, it was felt that taxation in prices can be legitimately used to discourage excessive consumption of liquor and anything that might artificially or unduly stimulate consumption, thereby encouraging additional consumption, should be avoided as far as possible. The other issue of the artificial monetary value of some licences and their distribution was considered. It was felt that a rational distribution of licensed premises around the country should be based on need, however defined, and should avoid both excesses and scarcities of licensed premises. Scarcity of licensed premises in one area should be a reason for granting new licences while an over-sufficiency of licences in another area should be a reason for refusing a licence. It was felt too that the avoidance of artificial value on liquor licences was paramount. The removal of the requirement to extinguish one licence in order to obtain another was also most important and I am delighted this is dealt with in the Bill. The committee felt that any future legislation which seeks to introduce reforms in the licensing law should attempt to remain true to clearly stated policy objectives which represent all elements of public concern involved in liquor consumption and that there is a strong case for incorporating these principles into law. In that regard the Bill is weak. The complex scope of current liquor licensing law is illustrated by the fact that there are approximately 25 different types of liquor licences. Ten of these are granted by the Revenue Commissioners on certification of court certificates. Another 12 are granted by the Revenue Commissioners without court certification and three are granted by the Minister through a ministerial order. Most of the law in relation to retail licences dates to the Finance Act, 1910. Indeed, finance legislation that impinges on liquor licensing is usually as out of date and inflexible as the licensing laws. Innovations after 1910 such as airports, the sale of drink on aircraft and the National Concert Hall have required special legislation to permit the serving of drink in these places because of the lack of flexibility in the 1902 and 1910 Acts. The committee made a good recommendation in this area which I regret is not followed up in this Bill. It felt there was a need to identify in law and to have licensed through the Circuit Court certain centres of leisure and entertainment and other places such as interpretative centres, leisure and sports clubs, commercial conference centres, museums, galleries, theatres and so forth as locations which may serve drink in association with other activities which are different from those of the centres which are licensed to serve drink as their main activity. I welcome the provisions in the Bill which tackle the skewed demographic distribution of licences throughout the country. There is a huge under-supply of licences in larger towns and cities, such as Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Galway. These places have grown enormously in recent years. This problem exists because the underlying licensing code dates from a time when the demographic distribution was different from now. It was the opposite. In 1902 the vast proportion of the population lived in rural areas, and Dublin and its greater suburban area had barely 200,000 people. Today there are more than one million people in the greater Dublin area. The Dublin suburb of Tallaght is a typical example that is often cited. There is a handful of licensed premises in Tallaght, even though the population of the suburb exceeds that of cities such as Galway, Waterford and Limerick. The committee made a short but relevant recommendation in response to this problem. It said that the issue of licences on the basis of consumer need should be the objective of any new licensing system. That recommendation is not well reflected in this legislation. The committee looked at licensing administration which is split between the Circuit Court and the Revenue Commissioners, with a small role for the District Court. The Circuit Court is the most important player in that it has the power to issue a certificate of entitlement, following which the Revenue Commissioners issue the licences. The committee felt it was difficult to see a case for the involvement of two such bodies and it recommended that the licensing and administration should be carried out by one body. The nature of that body and how it should go about its work was examined exhaustively and it was recommended that a specialist licensing court should be established within the Circuit Court, with permanently allocated judges who would become conversant with the wider range of issues than their schedule currently permits. It is a pity that recommendation was largely ignored in the legislation. The rules governing the renewal of a liquor licence were also considered. It was noticed that most if not all liquor licences last for one year, expiring on 30 September each year. The Revenue Commissioners renew liquor licences nowadays without any pre-court intervention. In most cases, as long as the licensee can produce an audited certificate of his turnover and a certificate of tax clearance, the licence is renewed. Objections can be made to the renewal of a licence on the basis that the business was not properly conducted during the year and that the licensee is no longer a fit person to hold a liquor licence. The committee recommended that the renewal of a liquor licence should also be the function of a special licensing court. It would make sense that a single court would have the sole authority in all licensing matters. There is a major shortcoming in the current process of objection to the renewal of a licence. One need only look at the inflexibility with which a judge of the District Court is faced if there is an objection to the renewal of a licence. He or she can only refuse to renew a licence, on the one hand, or uphold the licence, on the other. Occasionally a judge will adjourn a case but at the end of the day he or she only has the power to grant or refuse a licence. Judges should have much greater discretion in this area and a wider range of sanctions or penalties, as appropriate, available to them. There is also the difficulty of objection by a member of the public to the renewal of a licence. That can only be made at the annual renewal of licences on or shortly after 30 September each year. The committee felt that following the application at any time of the year by any ordinary member of the public to a court, based on a reasonable objection to the manner in which a premises is run, that the court should be free, if satisfied with the substance of the complaint, to order a temporary closure of the premises or to impose temporary restricted closing times on its operations. It was also felt that the licensing court, on foot of a complaint by the Garda of improper running of a premises, should be empowered to order the temporary closure of the premises for a proportionate number of hours, days, weeks or months if the objections of the Garda are upheld by the court. These recommendations are only reflected in the Bill's response to the major problem of underage drinking and the serving of alcohol to people under 18 years of age. It is a pity these wider powers are not applied in the case of objections by the public or Garda and that there is an inflexible time limit of one year in which to do so. We looked at the reasons for controlling trading hours and who should be responsible for the establishment of trading hours, in addition to the trading hours themselves to which I will refer later. This matter was the subject of lengthy examination. We looked at the general justification for imposing prohibitive trading hours on licensed premises. Despite many people in Government and others arguing to the contrary, the decision was unanimous that the control of trading hours remains relevant. Keeping these hours in place is fully justified in law in the name of the public good, which can be defined as the need to minimise public disorder, the traffic hazards caused by excessive drinking, individual health and family difficulties associated with the excessive use of alcohol and the cost of the illness burden to the State which is directly related to the use and abuse of alcohol. A large proportion of the health burden which the State has to carry is related to the use and abuse of alcohol. There is a culture of public consumption of alcohol which is quite unique in its scale. It was felt that trading hours can and do control public drunkeness. Control of trading hours minimises nuisance and neighbourhood disruptions associated with the operation of a licensed premises. It is self-evident that the operation of late night bars in or near residential areas can and will continue to cause disruption. The committee was conscious not to be overly particularist in its recommendations in this area. The encouragement of a healthier lifestyle and the moderate consumption of intoxicating liquor should be another objective of controlled hours of trading. At the end of the day, it is up to the individual to decide the amount of time he or she wishes to spend in a licensed premises and the amount of liquor he or she wishes to consume. A number of people pointed out that the controlling of hours alone will not necessarily force people to act responsibly. It was noted that there was a clear association between traffic hazards and drinking and between drinking and criminal assaults and public order incidents on the streets of our towns and cities. We had to consider whether recommending longer hours of drinking or the complete deregulation of prohibitive hours of drinking would lead to more traffic hazards, public drunkeness or public order incidents. It was felt that longer hours of drinking may not necessarily mean more problems but rather the same problems occurring later at night. Therefore, it was recommended that the total deregulation of hours of trading was not appropriate at this time but the extension of hours of drinking on three nights of the week was recommended. The issue of who should have responsibility for the establishment of trading hours was considered in some depth. Currently it is the sole responsibility of the Oireachtas. We looked at the possibility of involving local authorities, that is, from the reserve function of county councillors or the executive function of county managers, the Garda, health boards or a local fora consisting of licensees, gardaí, health officials, councillors, local community workers and so on. We considered whether it should be the sole responsibility of the District Court or the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform by means of delegated legislation. Perhaps it might be the function of a new national liquor authority. The question of regional variations in the hours of trading was considered. However, it was concluded that there should be no change in the responsibility of the Oireachtas for setting licensing hours because it was felt local authorities, by way of the reserve function of councillors, would not work well since local authority representatives would too often be influenced by vested interest and the consequent danger that they might prove unduly generous or unduly strict in the hours they might set out. Approaching the matter by way of the executive function of the county manager was felt not to be appropriate because it would bestow on a single individual very substantial powers. It would be questionable whether the fortunes of the local licensed trade should have to depend on the views of one person, even if he or she was obliged by law to follow some established consultative procedure before setting the hours. With regard to the health boards making the decision, it was felt they might have too narrow a focus, although the views and focus of the Garda on public order, drink driving and the criminality associated with the excessive use of alcohol or the focus of the health boards on unintentional serious injury associated with alcohol and the high proportion of the disease burden directly related to excessive drinking could not be ignored by the Oireachtas. Following lengthy discussion on these aspects, no departure from the current position was agreed. On the provisions in the Bill which fixes new hours of trading, I was party to the committee's recommendation of an extension of time on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights. There has always been an element of controversy in relation to the retail sale of drink on Sunday. Some people still argue that pubs should not open on a Sunday because of its religious significance. I welcome the streamlining of Sunday trading hours. The requirement to close between 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. was an anachronism and the committee recommended it should no longer be the case. I expressed the view at the sub-committee that Sunday night trading should be extended to 12.30 a.m. In leisure terms, Sunday night is seen by most people as similar to Friday and Saturday nights. The point is made that Monday is the first working day of the new week and that late drinking on Sunday night could lead to unusual levels of absenteeism from work on Monday. There is no evidence to show this would happen. Nobody has suggested that Friday as a working day will be adversely affected by the proposed later closing on Thursday night. The major reason offered for extending closing time on Thursday night is the demand for it by trade in Dublin. Most rural pubs favour Sunday opening in line with all other weekday nights and their point of view should prevail. The Minister has wrongly addressed the issue of under-age drinking in the Bill. I repeat what I said on the intoxicating liquor legislation enacted last December. We must do everything possible to outlaw under age drinking. Publicans who knowingly and deliberately sell intoxicating liquor to under-age persons, as set out in the 1988 Act, should be severely sanctioned by law. This should include the loss of their licence to trade. Minors, at least between the ages of 15 and 18 years, should be made amenable to the sanctions of the law if they are found purchasing alcohol for their own use, to be untruthful about their age or to have tampered with or altered in any way an identity document to procure alcohol for their own consumption. The Minister has attacked under-age drinking by placing the responsibility on the publican or the licensee by abolishing the defence of reasonable belief. This defence allows a licensee to defend him or herself in court on a charge of sale of drink to an under-age person by showing that he or she had reasonable grounds for believing that the young person was 18 years of age or over. In fairness and justice to all, the defence cannot be abolished without introducing a mandatory identity card system to be carried by every young person seeking alcohol in a pub. This law must also extend a responsibility to teenagers under the age of 18 in a way I have outlined.   Mr. Bohan: I congratulate the Minister on the preparation of this Bill. He put much work and time into it and he met practically everybody with an interest in the licensing laws. On behalf of the Dublin licensed vintners and the federation I thank him for the many times he met with us and listened to our concerns. Apart from a couple of aspects this is a very good Bill. With regard to the provision for the mandatory closure of a licensed premises because somebody under-age is caught there, the vast number - some 99.5% - of publicans in Dublin and elsewhere in the country will not tolerate serving under-age people. However, it is very hard nowadays to tell the difference between somebody who is 17 and 18 years of age, especially young women. Only yesterday a publican spoke to me about a function on his premises. It is a big premises and he had people on the door to check the identification of patrons with the instruction that nobody under 19 years of age was to be admitted. During the function a lady became inebriated, there was a row, gardaí arrived and she was taken to the Garda station. She had her identification card which showed she was 19 years of age. While she looked that age it turns out that she was 16. The introduction of the new identity cards may address this problem, but at present cards are routinely forged in all the colleges, universities, etc. The problem with the provision on under-age drinking will be most apparent in busy houses on Saturday nights where 200 or 300 people may be present. If a 30 year old man orders five drinks at the bar what is the busy barman to do? Does he leave the bar to ask for the identification of the people the man is with? It will be very hard to implement this provision and the mandatory aspect makes it draconian. I would fully agree if the matter was left to the discretion of the courts. Several establishments are abusing the current provisions. In some cases the District Judge has warned that their licences will not be renewed if there are any more complaints from the Garda. They are the best placed to realise whether a house is being run properly or not. Many of the problems arise in discos and in premises where people pay an entrance fee. Greed is involved because once the money is taken at the door those involved do not care if the patrons are 17, 18 or 19 years of age, although such instances are rare. I ask the Minister to look again at this aspect. I do not object to the closure of a place that abuses the law, but it should be left to the Circuit or District Courts to listen to the Garda and take account of those who, like the publican to which I referred, let somebody slip through despite their best efforts. I am very happy with most of the other provisions in the Bill. I am glad to see that six day licences can be converted to seven day licences for the very reasonable one-off fee of £2,500. Sunday is now one of the biggest trading days. The five year limit offers a form of protection here. I am confident the Bill will stand the test of time. While relatively short in content, it is extensive in scope. When enacted it will change the liquor licensing code. The Minister is to be congratulated on a job well done. Over the past century four major licensing legislative measures were enacted, the latest of which was the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1999. Normally, it would be expected not to revisit the licensing laws for ten years or so, yet the rapidly changing nature of society demands a major overhaul of the licensing laws. This Bill achieves the required objective. I am aware that the delicate task of striking a balance between the many conflicting interests is not easy, yet the Minster has achieved it in the Bill. To a considerable degree it reflects the work of the sub-committee of the former Oireachtas Joint Committee on Legislation and Security, which published a comprehensive review of the liquor licensing laws two years ago. From the public's point of view the most obvious changes which the new legislation will implement cover the hours of trading. The abolition of the Sunday 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. closing is long overdue and is much welcomed, as is the decision to abolish the distinction between summer and winter time closing. There will always be a minority seeking 24 hour opening, but those of us in the trade know that such a proposal is neither socially nor economically desirable and it is not sought by the public. At first sight, the proposal to allow pubs to open until 12.30 a.m. on Thursday, Friday and Saturday followed by Sunday closing at 11 p.m. and 11.30 p.m. closing time for the rest of the week may seem confusing, but these new trading hours are rooted in sound common sense. They reflect the current pattern of public drinking practice with its emphasis on weekend drinking followed by an early finish on Sunday. These new hours will reflect the necessary balance between the demands of the public and the capacity of the trade to adequately service these demands. Likewise, on the issue of licences, there have been demands for many years, usually from the media, to deregulate the licensed trade. These demands were bolstered some time ago by a highly dubious report from the Competition Authority which, I am glad to say, the Government disregarded. Deregulation of pubs could never deliver the same benefits as would deregulation of public transport or telecommunications. Expert knowledge of the pub trade suggests it would do the opposite. In a deregulated environment, standards would fall and drink prices would rise. One only has to look at the UK pub trade, a sector in serious long-term decline, to prove my point. The Minister's proposals are based on the concept of adequacy in licensing and getting the balance right. While the trade will not be deregulated, there is a shortage of licences. This deficiency can be addressed if residents in areas where pubs are to be located do not decide to object. This is a sensible way to address the problem of licence shortage in the new growing suburbs around cities and towns. The Bill provides for restaurants to have a wine on-licence to serve beer with meals. This proposal should be carefully examined and it follows logically that it would be only a matter of time before spirits were also permitted. The Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1998, provides perfectly acceptable arrangements for the restaurant to acquire a special restaurant licence to allow for the sale of beer, wine and spirits. In this context, I fail to see the need to go further. This proposal has serious implications and I request the Minister to reconsider it. I wish to refer to what the Minister so aptly described as the scourge of teenage drinking. For as long as I can remember, both the Licensed Vintners' Association and the Vintners' Federation of Ireland have consistently refused to support any of their members found to be engaging in this unsocial and undesirable practice. Furthermore, we have actively supported measures taken by the Oireachtas and the Garda to suppress under-age drinking. I have serious reservations that the abolition of the concept of reasonable grounds, coupled with the mandatory provision of a temporary closure order would be unduly harsh in circumstances where a genuine error was made by a publican or a member of his staff. I urge the Minister to revisit this section, especially in the absence of a national identity card system, which I understand we will not see for some years. The problem might be addressed by the introduction of a commencement order and by the removal of the mandatory aspect of the temporary closure order. These reservations apart, I strongly endorse the Bill on behalf of the licensed trade. The Minister has provided us with a blueprint of legislation which is as wide-ranging as it is well thought out. It will stand the test of time. I compliment the Minister on a job well done.   Mr. Quinn: I wish to share my time with Deputy Henry.   Acting Chairman (Mr. Farrell): Is that agreed? Agreed.   Mr. Quinn: I welcome the Minister and the Bill. The introduction of the legislation in the Seanad is a welcome development. I do not agree with Senator Bohan on a number of items in this area. I welcome the general thrust of the Bill. I welcome what the Minister is attempting to achieve and I listened carefully to what he said. He said it had not been easy, that he had canvassed widely and that he did not fully satisfy everyone. That is a sign of a good Bill. If one side is satisfied, others are not. It is interesting to look at how legislation has changed over the years. The concerns about alcohol remain - the Acting Chairman has strong views and concerns and is a vocal exponent of them. However, the concerns about drugs are now greater. Perhaps it is incumbent on us in the Bill to recognise that the world has changed since previous legislation. I have a view on the Competition Authority, but I will not express it too strongly now because I know the Minister has had difficulty in satisfying as many as he could in this area. The Competition Authority has a strong point to make, which is that the interests of the consumer are catered for by less regulation in almost every area. I have expressed the view in the House that if there were no control of taxis and if anyone who wished to drive a taxi and was able to meet the safety legislation and other concerns was granted a taxi licence, we would have a much more competitive situation which would be much more in the consumer's interest. We do not have legislation for grocery shops and that creates much more competition, which is in the consumer's interest. I do not know why we need legislation for the sale of alcohol. More competition would benefit the sector, although there would certainly have to be constraints from a planning point of view. In an ideal world, in which we certainly do not live, we would not have licensing laws. I do not mean that we would not have to worry about excessive drinking, under-age drinking or problems of public order, I mean a world in which we would have the courage and perhaps the common sense to realise we could achieve all we wanted without restrictions of the type which have become a tradition in this country since the previous century. How long our way of licensing can remain a tradition is anyone's guess. It surely cannot be long before Europe takes a hand and forces us to face up to the uncompetitive situation which exists here. Much of the system exists not to protect the public but to protect various vested interests. That is why I would much prefer to see more competition. As we have heard in the past few days from various sources, our national commitment to a truly competitive marketplace is probably among the weakest in Europe. Therefore, any change is likely to be forced upon us from outside rather than rising naturally from inside Ireland. Given the situation which exists in the licensed trade, our obligation is to make the best of it and this is what the Minister is attempting to do. On that basis, I welcome the Bill. Over the past 40 years much of the thrust towards liberalisation in the licensing laws has stemmed from our wish to encourage the tourism industry, and that is as it should be. It makes no sense to attract tourists on the one hand while pushing them away with the other. Some of the quirks in our licensing laws might strike a tolerant tourist as quaint, but most of them have been a nuisance. Over the years, we have gradually pushed the boat out in terms of extending closing time. I have never been one to frequent pubs, but I remember a time when they closed at 10 p.m. and at 10.30 p.m. in the summer. It does not seem very long ago. Tourists then, who would not have been as numerous as now, must have found that inconsistent with our image as a friendly welcoming people. However, one must question to what extent that was the case. In truth, the licensing laws have been applied with varying degrees of vigour and consistency. While that may have met the needs of the time, I disagree with that approach in principle. If a law exists, it should be applied or it should be scrapped. Having a law for show which is diluted or ignored with a nod and a wink is bad because it brings the whole corpus of law into disrepute. This has especially been the case in recent years where, for a variety of reasons, people have started watching sport on Sunday afternoons at a time when, legally, pubs should be closed unless they serve meals. The law has been broken on a wide scale in this area and children have been involved in that. Young people have received the wrong kind of training in regard to the observance of the law. Ideally, this Bill should be realistic in terms of market needs and give customers what they want. In that way, there would no longer be any possible reason for wide-scale evasion. As far as opening hours are concerned, the Bill seems to be in line with the wishes of publicans and those in the tourism industry. With that will behind it, there is no reason the Bill should not be workable. However, the Bill's provisions will result in the pub day being very long and that will cause problems for staff and employers wishing to attract staff. People seem to think that if they are entitled to open for a certain length of time, they must open for that length of time, whereas shops open and close at different times. The market should decide when each pub opens and if we cannot allow pubs to close according to market needs, we should at least encourage them only to open when there is a market. There is no reason why all pubs should do the same thing. Some restaurants and shops open on a 24 hour basis whereas others do not. When I went into business, there was a law in Dublin which dictated that hairdressers and butchers had to close at six o'clock. We should have less legislation in regard to opening hours and greater flexibility.