Private members' bill to legalise taprooms

L1011

Lovely Bloke wrote: »

A private members bill being brought to the Dail by a member of such a small Party, who are in opposition, and especially by that lunatic, has little to no chance of being anything but laughed out of the place, unfortunately.

And it's been signed in to law. And this poster has since been banned for whatever reason.

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

L1011 wrote: »

Oh, that turned out to be rather wrong.

Approved by cabinet with the addendum of requiring a guided tour. Not onerous in small facilities.

L1011 wrote: »

And it's been signed in to law. And this poster has since been banned for whatever reason.

you alright there pal, that's some grudge you're holding.

BeerNut

L1011 wrote: »

Oh, that turned out to be rather wrong.

It didn't really. The government re-wrote the entire bill. It was intended to allow licensed breweries and distilleries to sell product on-site. This was shot down by the government and its bill, now an act, creates two brand new types of licence which are available to manufacturers but is separate from their production licences. It's a very different proposition to the initial one. So far, Rascals have said the taproom licence is no good for what they want to do, and I'd say any Irish brewer wanting to create a real visitor experience or American-style brewery taproom will find likewise.

L1011

Maya Flabby Thunder wrote: »

you alright there pal, that's some grudge you're holding.

Just found the quoted post to be hyperbolic at the time and as this was the correct thread to bounce anyway at both stages of progress...

BeerNut wrote: »

It didn't really. The government re-wrote the entire bill. It was intended to allow licensed breweries and distilleries to sell product on-site. This was shot down by the government and its bill, now an act, creates two brand new types of licence which are available to manufacturers but is separate from their production licences. It's a very different proposition to the initial one. So far, Rascals have said the taproom licence is no good for what they want to do, and I'd say any Irish brewer wanting to create a real visitor experience or American-style brewery taproom will find likewise.

The end outcome is the same though - if the resulting licence isn't sufficient for what Rascals are going to do the initial proposal wouldn't have been either.

The bill as initiated (by Kelly) created an additional licence also, it didn't grant immediate permissions

As initiated and as passed are there for comparison.

BeerNut

L1011 wrote: »

The end outcome is the same though
...
The bill as initiated (by Kelly) created an additional licence also, it didn't grant immediate permissions

Yes it did create a licence but since there was no procedure for getting one other than holding a valid manufacturer's licence it was in effect an extension of the same.

the Revenue Commissioners shall, on application to them by the licence holder concerned, grant to the licence holder, or a person nominated by him or her, a licence

Oh will they indeed, Deputy Kelly?

Having to decide in advance whether you want on or off sales, and having to apply to the courts for permission annually, is a fundamental change to the original bill, I think, though obviously it's still better than nothing.

L1011

Where is there a requirement to differentiate between on- and off- sales? Section 6 subsections are not separate from each other.

Peregrinus

BeerNut wrote: »

Yes it did create a licence but since there was no procedure for getting one other than holding a valid manufacturer's licence it was in effect an extension of the same.

But that was the case under the original bill as well, wasn't it?

This was always a licence available to someone who brews or distils to sell for consumption, on the premises where he brews or distils, the product that he brews or distils. Only brewers/distillers could get it, it would only be valid in the premises where the brewing/distilling was done, and it only authorised the sale of their own product.

BeerNut wrote: »

Having to decide in advance whether you want on or off sales, and having to apply to the courts for permission annually, is a fundamental change to the original bill, I think, though obviously it's still better than nothing.

It's standard, though. All on-sale licences are annually renewable. That gives the authorities a regular opportunity to object if the trade is being conducted in breach of licence terms, or in an irresponsible fashion. There is no reason why tap-room licences would be treated any differently. Similarly it's already the case that a licence applicant needs to specify whether he wants a off-licence only, or a full license.

BeerNut

L1011 wrote: »

Where is there a requirement to differentiate between on- and off- sales? Section 6 subsections are not separate from each other.

They look separate to me. Two different certs from two different Courts. You have to decide if you want the one from (a) or the one from (b).

Peregrinus

BeerNut wrote: »

They look separate to me. Two different certs from two different Courts. You have to decide if you want the one from (a) or the one from (b).

Yes, but you have to decide which one you want - you can't make any application for a licence at all if you don't know what licence you want - and then the question of which court to apply in is determined by that.

The only way to avoid the burden of choice is to be denied choice - i.e. to offer only the full-licence, so that producers who wanted to conduct only off-sales would have apply for, and satisfy the conditions for, a full licence. Why would that be a good idea?

L1011

BeerNut wrote: »

They look separate to me. Two different certs from two different Courts. You have to decide if you want the one from (a) or the one from (b).

Missed that distinction

Is that not useful, though? Don't have the space for a taproom but do have a counter, use the cheaper/quicker District Court and have no requirement to show that the premises is suitable for on-sales. Have the space for a taproom and its still a single licence for both.

BeerNut

L1011 wrote: »

Is that not useful, though?

Not to me. I don't run a brewery My point is just that the bill as-passed was effectively re-written by the Department of Justice and has created something different to what was in the bill as-initiated.

Peregrinus

BeerNut wrote: »

Not to me. I don't run a brewery My point is just that the bill as-passed was effectively re-written by the Department of Justice and has created something different to what was in the bill as-initiated.

Yes, but that's pretty common when Private Member's Bills are taken up by the government, since they tend not to be very well-thought out or well-drafted. Private Members don't have the policy formation and drafting support of the public service. They generally need a going-over before they are fit to be enacted and brought into operation.

In this case the Bill was altered by adding in an option not originally available - an application for a producer's off-licence. That seems to be to be beneficial to producers who only want to conduct off-sales, and not detrimental to anybody.

bennyineire

But surly you are all missing the big picture, this is a good starting point.

The key here is to start pushing for amendments over the next few years so slowly but surly tweak.

Best thing to do is to let it be as is for 2 years and start pushing for changes.

It will need a champion though and one wonders if Alan Kelly will have the stomach for it

Peregrinus

bennyineire wrote: »

But surly you are all missing the big picture, this is a good starting point.

The key here is to start pushing for amendments over the next few years so slowly but surly tweak.

Best thing to do is to let it be as is for 2 years and start pushing for changes.

It will need a champion though and one wonders if Alan Kelly will have the stomach for it

What changes would you suggest?

RasTa

The exact same as the UK, Holland etc.

L1011

I'd prefer if we had more sensible general licencing scheme meaning that a brewery, distillery etc could get a pub licence without shelling out 80-90k all told to buy and transfer one. However the vintners and temperance lobbies would be in uproar like last time an even slight improvement (McDowell's cafe bars) was suggested.

L1011

Some years on and Revenue have finally listed more than a handful of these at one time - some of them have serial numbers that are years old so clearly were licenced for ages. Decent geographical spread, more of a tilt toward distilleries that I'd have thought but distillery tours are much more touristy. Its also more viable for a brewery to have a brewpub and cover the costs of a pub licence than a small distillery to have a whiskey bar with one I guess.

On licences:

Rebel City Distillery (Cork), Black Donkey Brewery (Roscommon), Kinnegar (Letterkenny), Tom Crean (Kenmare), Ballykeefee Distillery (Kilkenny), Shed Distillery (Drumshanbo), Treaty City Brewery (Limerick), Lough Gill Distillery (Sligo), Blackwater Distillery (Waterford), Waterford Distillery (Waterford), Wicklow Wolf Brewery (Wicklow), Stillgarden Distillery (Dublin)

Off licences:

Chapel Gate Whiskey (Clare), McGills Brewery (Kerry), Skellig Distillery (Kerry), Highbank Cider (Kilkenny), St Mels Brewing (Longford), Lough Mask Distillery (Mayo)

irish_goat

Crolly not on the list?

L1011

Revenue lists have all sorts of reasons to be incomplete!

Black Sheep

Tom Crean is still going? The lager? Thought they were long gone, guess not.

BeerNut

Different brewery. Dingle Brewing Company which made (or at least sold) Tom Crean Lager is gone. The Tom Crean Brewery in Kenmare opened a couple of years ago and is run by Tom Crean's granddaughter.