Private members' bill to legalise taprooms

BeerNut

Liamo08 wrote: »

there was a sniff of pressure from vested interests about the whole only during tours aspect.

It just occurred to me that the planning side of things will make it harder for new breweries to open. Local publicans could very easily see them as rivals and object to planning applications, which they wouldn't do under the current system which sees breweries solely as factories.

Zaph

Would the planning part of it not just apply to the taproom? Then a brewery could open without one and there wouldn't be a reason for an objection from a publican. Obviously there could still be an objection later on if planning permission was sought for a taproom. I would have thought that any new brewery opening up wouldn't bother with one as they'd be more focused on building up the brand, and that it would be something that only the more established breweries would think of adding. A lot would also depend on where the brewery is. I can't imagine that a trip to Ballycoolin industrial estate to see the Porterhouse brewery and taproom would be as appealing to casual visitors as somewhere like the Wicklow Brewery.

BeerNut

Zaph wrote: »

Would the planning part of it not just apply to the taproom?

Yeah, I think you're right. I had it in my head that this was to amend the existing manufacturer's licence to allow retail sales, but looking at the text of the bill it seems to be about the creation of a brand new type of licence, so breweries could still run as factories without applying to be a taproom.

AlanG

Liamo08 wrote: »

There was a huge focus from all the speakers yesterday about how this would be great for rural Ireland with the promotion of these small businesses in the local areas and to tourists. If you want to follow through on the spirit of that surely if you live in the area you should be able to go to the premises and have a pint or buy some bottles/cans to take away? The idea of having to do a tour to buy beer seems crazy.

In fairness without the tour this is just a way to get a cheap license, generally in areas that have no shortage of pubs. Breweries that want to sell to locals can already buy one of the many licenses available in rural Ireland. it is only in the cities that a license is worth anything significant.
There is really little difference between a brewery that sells openly to locals without a tour and a pub so both should require the same license.

BeerNut

AlanG wrote: »

In fairness without the tour this is just a way to get a cheap license

In fairness, it's not much of a pub that closes at 6pm.

Avada

AlanG wrote: »

In fairness without the tour this is just a way to get a cheap license, generally in areas that have no shortage of pubs. Breweries that want to sell to locals can already buy one of the many licenses available in rural Ireland. it is only in the cities that a license is worth anything significant.
There is really little difference between a brewery that sells openly to locals without a tour and a pub so both should require the same license.

The licence aren't country and city specific, they can be transferred anywhere. (Well traded). I'm not sure if the rule that you have to swap 2 licences for 1 Dublin licence exists.

noby

BeerNut wrote: »

It just occurred to me that the planning side of things will make it harder for new breweries to open. Local publicans could very easily see them as rivals and object to planning applications, which they wouldn't do under the current system which sees breweries solely as factories.

It obviously still needs to be fleshed out, but it was mentioned that you couldn't object to the licence application under the same circumstances that you can for a pub licence (proximity etc.).

Liamo08

AlanG wrote: »

In fairness without the tour this is just a way to get a cheap license, generally in areas that have no shortage of pubs. Breweries that want to sell to locals can already buy one of the many licenses available in rural Ireland. it is only in the cities that a license is worth anything significant.
There is really little difference between a brewery that sells openly to locals without a tour and a pub so both should require the same license.

The fact that this works so well in other countries without having to do a tour should be what we're aiming for here. In those countries the local pubs aren't struggling in fact if the local brewery is very good people will go to the pub to drink the beer after 6pm. This is just going to cause breweries to have free 'tours' or some other nonsense to get around it. What's to stop someone doing 5 minutes of the tour then going to the taproom? The idea doesn't make a lot of sense in practical terms and you'd hope that a sensible compromise can be reached.

Avada

I was in the Brooklyn Brewery not so long ago. On Fridays and Saturdays they open their tap room up, stay open until about 11 and serve good beers. They have a pizza van outside too.

Lovely Bloke

Zaph wrote: »

the Wicklow Brewery.

Not sure if you know this, but The Wicklow Brewery is already attached to a pub, Mickey Finn's in Redcross.

We went to a wedding there last Autumn, lovely setting, and getting to drink the beer right beside the tanks it was brewed in was something else, lovely, lovely beer too.

Plenty of accommodation too, and really worth an overnight in the town.

On the other hand, O Brother, for example, are in an industrial estate in Rathcoole.

L1011

AlanG wrote: »

In fairness without the tour this is just a way to get a cheap license, generally in areas that have no shortage of pubs. Breweries that want to sell to locals can already buy one of the many licenses available in rural Ireland. it is only in the cities that a license is worth anything significant.
There is really little difference between a brewery that sells openly to locals without a tour and a pub so both should require the same license.

For 70k+ and hefty costs. Sometimes requiring repair work to the dead pub you're delicencing so it can get a fire cert to be reactivated to transfer.

Not practical for most.

L1011

Avada wrote: »

The licence aren't country and city specific, they can be transferred anywhere. (Well traded). I'm not sure if the rule that you have to swap 2 licences for 1 Dublin licence exists.

Pretty sure that multiple surrender rules were all removed in the early 2000s along with a general reform of various obscure concepts - there was a period allowing short week and early closing licences to be swapped for full and for obsolete hotel licenses to be changed also.

If Dublin licences were still ridiculously valuable I doubt we'd have seen the petrol station at the end of my road (in Kildare) extinguish a dublin full pub licence for its off licence.

andekwarhola

Lovely Bloke wrote: »

On the other hand, O Brother, for example, are in an industrial estate in Rathcoole.

Do you mean Rascals?

+1 for the Wicklow Brewery. Did the tour a while back - unfortunately didn't stay overnight - and it's a great space but relatively remote. Would love to see more of these around the country.

n97 mini

L1011 wrote: »

For 70k+ and hefty costs. Sometimes requiring repair work to the dead pub you're delicencing so it can get a fire cert to be reactivated to transfer.

Not practical for most.

Closer to 45k. Things have picked up generally but loads of rural pubs still in a heap, despite the best efforts of the Healy Raes.

Peregrinus

Liamo08 wrote: »

The fact that this works so well in other countries without having to do a tour should be what we're aiming for here. In those countries the local pubs aren't struggling in fact if the local brewery is very good people will go to the pub to drink the beer after 6pm. This is just going to cause breweries to have free 'tours' or some other nonsense to get around it. What's to stop someone doing 5 minutes of the tour then going to the taproom? The idea doesn't make a lot of sense in practical terms and you'd hope that a sensible compromise can be reached.

I haven't seen the draft legislation, but presumably the deal is that the licence will only allow you to serve the product that's brewed on the premises.

So I don't see this as being a serious rival to a pub. You won't be able to get wine or spirits in a taproom, or indeed any beer offered by any other brewer. (Or you can get spirits, but not wine or beer.) So it's already not looking a lot like a pub.

I get that you don't want the taproom to turn into a beer hall; the sale of the stuff really should be ancillary to the brewing of it. But it seems to me that there might be better ways to achieve this than by imposing a tour requirement. One idea might be to limit the size of the taproom. You sample the stuff and you either buy a case or two, or you don't, but either way the licensee would now like you to move on so that there's room for more people (who might buy a case or two) to sample the stuff. Another would be to forbid the sale of soft drinks (though you could allow the supply water for free). That way, unless everyone in the party is happy to drink the same beer, it's not an attractive place for people to settle in for the evening.

irish_goat

Peregrinus wrote: »

Another would be to forbid the sale of soft drinks (though you could allow the supply water for free). That way, unless everyone in the party is happy to drink the same beer, it's not an attractive place for people to settle in for the evening.

Can't see them doing that as it would look like they're discouraging designated drivers.

BeerNut

Peregrinus wrote: »

That way, unless everyone in the party is happy to drink the same beer, it's not an attractive place for people to settle in for the evening.

Can't imagine anyone settling in for the evening at a venue which closes at 6pm.

loyatemu

if they can only sell their own booze (no wine, no spirits, no Guinness, no Heino), they're going to be a fairly niche bar anyway, all this dancing around to placate publicans is ridiculous.

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.

Oh, that turned out to be rather wrong.

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

RasTa

*points and walks around mash tun. Guided tour complete. Beer me.

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.