Unrealistic plans need to be revised

THERE is considerable public confusion and apprehension about Justice Minister Michael McDowell’s proposal to crack down on alcohol abuse.

Generally speaking, the public would support rooting out excessive drinking which has caused carnage on the roads and triggered an explosion of casual violence on the streets of Ireland’s cities.

But some aspects of what Mr McDowell is proposing in his new intoxicating liquor bill are Draconian and unworkable.

The Minister needs to go beyond the realm of theory and take account of the practical implications of certain proposals now being framed.

The Bill, which will confer new powers and responsibilities on the gardaí, has been described as a swingeing attack on individual rights.

Its provisions have been queried by legal expert Dr Tom O’Malley who has raised doubts about the practical implementation of some of its more contentious aspects.

Characteristic of a politician who tends to shoot from the hip, Mr McDowell was so stung by a Star editorial strongly attacking his proposal that he reacted by describing it as “methane from the pond-life of journalism”.

Nevertheless, the questions posed remain valid.

For example, under a provision borrowed from Scotland’s code , Mr McDowell aims to fine people who are drunk 300 if they attempt to enter a pub (or refuse to leave when asked by the licence holder or the gardaí) and 500 in the case of a second or subsequent offence.

Stating they “shall not seek entry” to a bar, the Bill defines a drunken person as someone “whose mental or physical faculties are impaired or appear to be impaired due to consumption of intoxicating liquor so as to substantially diminish the person’s ability to think and act in a way in which an ordinary prudent person in full possession of his or her faculties and using reasonable care would act in like circumstances”.

The question that arises is whether a condition which many people may have experienced at some time or other in their lives is now to become a crime?

There is a whiff of fundamentalism about such an approach.

Because drunkenness is a transient state, it would be a difficult charge to prove in the court which relies on the evidence of the gardaí, according to Dr O’Malley. He also poses questions about the kind of evidence required to show that a person is drunk.

Who, for instance, will make the assessment on the spot? How will the court satisfy itself that the person was drunk at the time ?

The vagueness of the definition of drunkenness is also a matter of concern. Nor is there any provision in the Bill for the taking of a sample.

Also open to question is the proposed ban on 18-year-olds being in a public house after 8 o’clock at night.

What happens, for instance, if a family meal is being served? Should the teenager have to leave?

There is a glaring need for Mr McDowell to go back to the drawing board.

In particular, he should explain how an under-strength garda force, with no prospect of getting the extra 2,000 recruits promised by the Coalition, can be expected to police a law that could result in them being called out to virtually every pub in the land every night of the week.