Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 3 Aug 1923

Vol. 4 No. 24

INTOXICATING LIQUOR BILL. - SECOND STAGE.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

In moving the Second Stage of this Bill I want to make it clear that it does not purport to be anything like an exhaustive treatment of the problems which arise with regard to the liquor traffic in this country. In considering that I have always recognised what I think most of the Deputies will accept as axiomatic, that there are too many licences for this particular trade in this country, and that such abuses as exist, and such abuses as arose in the past, are due very largely to the fact that there was scarcely enough of legitimate trade to go round, and that you had the spectacle of people breaking the law to pick up the crumbs that fall from the table of those in a more substantial way. I think that the problem will never be adequately dealt with until some provision is made considerably to reduce the number of licences. I do not propose to go into comparative statistics, but I think that every thoughtful person is aware that there are too many public houses per head of the population.

To deal with that aspect of the thing would involve some scheme of purchase, and that must be another day's work for some future Parliament. This Bill in its 12 sections merely aims at checking certain existing abuses and anomalies. I have not attempted to deal with all the abuses that exist, on the assumption that they will continue to exist, and the only cure is complete abolition of the provisions which give rise to them. I have not, for instance, attempted to deal with or touch in any way the bona fide traveller. It remains to be seen whether such abuses as arise from that are abuses incapable of being dealt with by the new police force when it has grown to its normal strength.

But I do say this, in a quite fair and reasonable spirit, that the members of this trade themselves must realise that if these abuses continue, and if they prove to be impossible of treatment by normal vigilance and exercise on the part of the police, then some Minister or Ministry in the future will have to face that fact if it is doing its duty in a responsible spirit. We will have to deal with that question either by way of an extension of the distance or by the abolition of the privilege. No personage has so much abused his legal privileges as the bona fide traveller, and if he is abolished by law, he will be abolished for the reasons that he abused his legal privileges up to the point when they became a nuisance. I just say that. The members of the trade really have, in this matter, their future in their own hands, but I do believe that if the grave abuses arising out of the bona fide traffic are not found to be amenable to normal vigilance and treatment by the police force, that fact will have to be faced. This Bill in its first section deals with hours:

(1) It shall not be lawful for any person to sell or expose for sale any intoxicating liquor or to open any premises for the sale of intoxicating liquors on any day not being a Sunday, Good Friday, or Christmas Day before the hour of nine o'clock in the morning or after the hour of half-past nine o'clock in the evening. This sub-section shall not apply to any licensed person who is the owner or lessee of a theatre, music hall, or other place of public amusement.

The effect of that will be to leave untouched the hours on Sundays, Good Fridays, and Christmas Day, and to leave the hours of the ordinary week-day from 9 a.m. to 9.30 p.m. Some Deputies seem to think that because there was no special mention made of the hours on Sundays, Good Fridays, or Christmas Days, some point might arise in the future about that. I do not think that can be so. Indeed, I am quite satisfied that it is not so, and the existing law will stand except where altered by the provisions of this Bill. Therefore, the statutory hours and regulations with regard to Sunday, Good Friday, and Christmas Day will remain as they now are. Sub-section (2) of Section 1 deals with theatres, music halls, and places of amusement that have licences, and provides that:

It shall not be lawful for any person to sell or expose for sale any intoxicating liquor in any theatre, music hall, or other place of public amusement at any time being more than thirty minutes before the commencement of a performance or entertainment or at any time being more than thirty minutes after the end of a performance or entertainment or at any time after ten o'clock in the night.

The second section of the Bill is simply an enabling section to deal with a situation that might not arise half a dozen times in the year. But it might happen that on some occasion, in a town or in a village where you have a large concourse of people, that a situation might arise that would almost get out of hand, from the point of view of being dealt with by the small number of Guards that would be established in that place. That situation might either arise in the first instance from drink, or it might, having arisen from some other cause, be greatly intensified by the fact that the licensed establishments were open and doing business. We submit, for the consideration of Deputies, that at the request of the responsible police officer the District Justice should have power, if he is satisfied that a case of grave abuse prejudicial to peace and order has arisen and is in fact taking place in any town or village, to order the immediate closing of the houses if he is satisfied that it is expendient that the sale of intoxicating liquors should cease, and that he may order the immediate closing for the remainder of that day of all premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor in that village or town.

I put that up for the consideration of Deputies, believing that if it is embodied in the Bill and conceded, it might be a very useful provision at some time in the future to prevent grave trouble arising in the form of riot or artificial excitement of that kind.

Now, the third section deals with penalties for opening during prohibited hours. It is purely a consequential section, and is to transfer the existing penalties which referred to the existing hours to the altered hours provided for in the Bill; and Section 4 deals with exceptions from the application of the Act and the regulations about hours. It says:

Nothing in this part of this Act shall be construed to apply to sales of intoxicating liquor to lodgers, or to the sale of intoxicating liquor in packet boats, or in canteens in pursuance of any Act regulating the same, or in a registered club as defined by the Registration of Clubs (Ireland) Act, 1904, or shall preclude the sale at any time at a railway station of intoxicating liquors on arrival or departure of trains, or the sale of intoxicating liquor to bona fide travellers within the meaning of the Licensing (Ireland) Acts, 1833 to 1905.

These are the proposed exceptions to the general rule of hours.

Now, Part II of the Bill deals with clubs. Clause 5 says:

(1) In order that any club may be eligible to be registered under the Registration of Clubs (Ireland) Act 1904, the rules of the club shall (in addition to the matters mentioned in Section 4 of the said Act) provide that no excisable liquor shall be supplied to any person (other than members of the club lodging in the club premises) before the hour of nine o'clock in the morning or after the hour of half-past nine o'clock in the evening on any day.

(2) This section shall not apply to any club which at the passing of this Act is registered under the Registration of Clubs (Ireland) Act. 1904, until the expiration of the certificate of registration of such club which shall be in force at the expiration of two months from the passing of this Act.

Now, the force of that is to bring the club hours into uniformity with the hours of licensed establishments, except for people who are genuinely lodging upon the premises, and who would be in the same position as residents in a hotel. They will not apply to existing certificates, but would apply upon application for a renewal. I have heard that section commented upon, but I want to know a case against it. After all, is it right or proper or a healthy thing for the country that under the guise of clubs little all-night drinking shops should spring up all over the country? I am afraid that to an extent that is the tendency, and that that is what has been happening. Deputies may say that that should be provided against when applications are made for certificates and for registration and that we should be very strict and careful in considering the rules of the club. In reply to that, I have only to say that a club may make an excellent start and degenerate very rapidly, and I do not see a case for the extension of the hours for the sale of drink in clubs beyond the ordinary hours. After all, a twelve and a-half hours day is a long time for drinking, and a man who could sit out all that time should have a pretty good head. At any rate, I will be interested to hear from Deputies who oppose this section the case against it. I think it is substantially true to say that a big proportion of the night crimes that are committed and have been committed throughout the country are attributable to these clubs. Men coming out of them in the small hours of the morning, not in a very responsible frame of mind, are in just that mood that their grievances loom very big, and they come out and take vengeance upon their neighbours. I think it would be a sound thing, and a healthy and a good thing, for the country to make the hours in the clubs the same as in licensed premises, except for people bona fide lodging upon the premises. Passing to Section 6, it is largely consequential upon Section 5. It provides that clubs may be searched by the police, and that a search order may be issued authorising their inspection, and it provides a penalty for persons refusing their names and addresses. I think, if Section 5 is approved, it will be agreed that it will be futile and inoperative without Section 6.

Section 7, in Part III of the Bill, deals with offences and penalties. It provides for forfeiture of a licence on conviction of certain offences::

(a) Selling illicitly distilled spirits, or

(b) Having possession of illicitly distilled spirits, or

(c) Harbouring, keeping, or concealing illicitly distilled spirits.

I will not treat the House to another tirade upon poteen and its effects upon people, but I do not think it is seriously questioned that it is a grave evil, and up to quite recently it was a growing evil, and it is necessary for a healthy State that it should be stamped out. Sub-section (2) of Section 7 says:

Whenever a spirit grocer as defined by Section 81 of the Licensing Act, 1872, shall be convicted of an offence under Section 83 or Section 84 (which sections relate to the consumption of liquor on or near the premises of a spirit grocer) of that Act, the licence of such spirit grocer in the case of a first such offence may be forfeited, and in the case of a second such offence shall be forfeited.

That is to deal with a case of a man who goes outside the terms of his licence. Licences to spirit grocers are granted upon certain very definite conditions, and a breach of these conditions should involve the forfeiture of the licence.

Section 8 doubles the fines. It reads:

All and every fine or other money penalty imposed by any of the Licensing (Ireland) Acts, 1833 to 1905, or the Spirits (Ireland) Act, 1831, the Spirits (Ireland) Act, 1854, the Spirits (Ireland) Act, 1855, or the Spirits (Ireland) Act, 1857, or authorised by any of those Acts to be imposed, shall on and after the passing of this Act be and the same are hereby increased to double the amounts respectively mentioned in those Acts.

I do not know whether Deputies will accept the details advanced in that section, but these fines were fixed at a period when money had a very different value from what it has to-day. Amongst the representatives of the trade to whom I spoke in reference to that section there was no serious demur. It was recognised that the maxima of fines fixed a great many years ago—in 1833, 1854, and up to 1905—were fixed at a time when the purchasing power of money was very different from what it is now. There is a case for the doubling of the fines just the same as there was when we were dealing with the District Justices Bill for doubling the fees and expenses in connection with the Courts which had been fixed a great many years ago.

Passing on to Part IV., which is miscellaneous, it deals with a variety of matter—the powers of granting new licences. It says:

(1) The power of granting new licences conferred by Section 4 of the Licensing (Ireland) Act, 1902, shall only be exercisable where the increase of population referred to in that section amounts to an increase of not less than twenty-five per cent. in the census return last published before the date of the application for the new licence, over the population of that city or town as stated in the next preceding census return.

(2) A new licence shall only be granted under the said Section 4 of the Licensing (Ireland) Act, 1902, in substitution for two or more such existing licences as are mentioned in that section.

(3) Section 3 of the Licensing (Ireland) Act, 1902, is hereby repealed.

I have put in a new section in the original draft—that is, Section 10—which covers the case of hardships which I found existed on a very fairly large scale throughout the country. During the years that the magistrates were not functioning people had not the ordinary facilities for applying for a renewal of certificates, and this Section 10 is to cover them and to provide, because of that, that the licences ought not to be held to have lapsed during the period that the traders were carrying on without a formal certificate.

Section 11 deals with restrictions of the sale of methylated spirits. Dublin Deputies are aware of the extent of this evil, and are aware that the drinking of methylated spirit is a growing evil. It is a problem that has proved difficult in other countries, and I do not for a moment believe that the provisions of this Bill are final or adequate treatment on that, or do anything more than go some way to check the evil. This Section forbids the sale of methylated spirits between the hours of nine o'clock on Saturday evening and nine o'clock of the following Monday morning, and it provides that the name and address of the buyer of methylated spirits must be known to the seller or vouched for by some person known to the seller. He must state the purposes for which he requires the spirits. It also provides that a book, just as in the case of poisons, shall be kept, and the names and addresses of purchasers entered into it, together with the purpose, or alleged purpose, for which the spirits were bought, and the quantity sold, and the date. It also gives power of inspection to Excise officers and police.

Section 12 is the last section, and it simply closes a certain loophole which existed in the past with regard to poteen-making. I think there was a decision of the Courts that a bog was not a "place" within the meaning of the Act, and consequently bogs were largely used. Section 12 states:

In the construction and application of Section 19 of the Spirits (Ireland) Act, 1831, the expression "room or place" as used in that section shall include and be deemed always to have included any building whatsoever, and any yard, garden, field, bog, or other piece of ground, and any cave or other underground place whether natural or artificial, and any boat, vessel, or other structure on, in, or under water.

I hope that if that section passes it will be found in practice to be sufficiently comprehensive.

That is the Bill. We have gone through its provisions. I do not believe there is any provision in it that would not react for the benefit of the country, and that would not help appreciably to restore normal, decent conditions of life within the country. I hope that the Bill will receive substantial agreement amongst Deputies. If there is serious objection taken to any portion of it, I am prepared to reason that out and to attempt to meet such objection. I have brought in the Bill that I think ought to pass. The twelve provisions, I think, would be for the benefit of the country and for the benefit of the people of the country. While I say that, I realise that now, at the close of the Session, I could not persist if any serious opposition were to crystallise around any particular section. So it is simply in the hands of Deputies. I think that no provision ought to be objected to without a good and reasonable case being put up against it.

MINISTER for EXTERNAL AFFAIRS (Mr. D. Fitzgerald)

I second the motion.

Mr. JOHNSON

I am in a position somewhat different from the man in the picture—"twixt love and duty." I am in the position, twixt hate and duty. I agree pretty well with everything the Minister said about this Bill—at least about the necessity for some such Bill— and probably with all the clauses of the Bill in a general way. But I think it would be a dereliction of duty to pass the Bill without the people interested and affected having had some opportunity to examine and consider it. It seems to me that we are being driven to the choice whether this Dáil is to be a House of the Oireachtas—a Legislative Assembly —or whether, as I hinted last night, the Constitution under which we are going to work for the future is to be one, not Parliamentary in the sense that it is generally understood, but a Constitution which approximates to that of the Russian Soviet Republic, where there are gradations rising from College to College to the Central Executive; the full responsibility is placed upon the Executive, and the rest have simply to record agreement. I think that we are being driven to that choice. I would prefer, if we are going to choose the latter, that we should do it quite openly and with our eyes open. It is not desirable to recast the conception of the Constitution by these rather unthought-out methods. That is not the openly avowed intention, and probably is not the intention of the Minister for Home Affairs, but that is the effect of this kind of procedure. Take this Bill in its present form. The Minister has not suggested that the House should sit for, say, another fortnight, so that the Bill can be circulated and considered, and the effect of these various Acts which are referred to in the Bill can be examined. It strikes me that we are asked to do too much in this Bill in the short time at our disposal. As it is, it raises questions that have caused enormous trouble in other countries, and in this country we are going to solve it—at least we are going some distance towards solving it in the mind of the Minister— by this Bill, which is not to receive consideration. While I would personally like to see most of these provisions in operation, I think it is not right for us to pass a Bill of this kind and turn it into an Act of the Oireachtas without proper consideration and examination of the effects upon the citizens of the country. Take Section 1. It makes no distinction between city, town, and country. It allows a person who is the owner of a public-house and is licensed, and who is also the owner of a theatre or music hall, to get outside the provisions of the sub-section. I suppose that is not the intention, but it shows the necessity for examining closely not merely this section, but all the sections of the Bill.

Mr. GAVAN DUFFY

Read sub-section 2.

Mr. JOHNSON

Sub-section 2 allows the owner of a theatre or music hall an extra thirty minutes. Section 1 says that this sub-section shall not apply to any licensed person who is the owner or lessee of a theatre, so that if he is a licensed person and is the owner or lessee of a theatre he may keep open his public house beyond 9.30 in the evening. As I say, that is not the intention, but it is the effect. It merely shows the necessity for an examination of this Bill. I do not want to go into the details or to raise various points of that kind. As a matter of fact, I only received the Bill at 11.30 last night, and I have not been able to examine it. But that lapse is obvious, and it shows the necessity for closer examination than the Bill can get if we are to deal with it thoroughly. My objection really is to the wide sweep of this Bill. It brings into its operations all sections of the community who are interested in the traffic of intoxicating liquors—not only the consumers, but the retailers—and it seems to me that we would be doing an injustice—we would not be carrying out our duties and responsibilities fairly—if we allowed this Bill to pass in a hurry, simply on these grounds that those who are generally affected and likely to be affected have had no opportunity of considering the Bill or its implications. While that is true in a general way there is something to be said, perhaps, for the intention of Section 1 to limit the hours of sale, because, as a matter of fact, to a very great extent the hours have been voluntarily limited in the way they are to be legally limited by the Bill. The effect of Section 1, at any rate, would be rather to extend to those who have not come into the voluntary agreement the necessity for falling into the arrangement which has already been arrived at. It is rather to do for this trade what has been done in other trades, that where the most interested parties have come to a voluntary understanding, then that voluntary understanding shall be ratified by law so as to cover the remainder. I think, to that extent, an exception might be made in regard to the hours of opening, but I would draw attention to this point that the hour of half-past nine is general and covers the whole country. In many parts of the country half-past nine, legal time, is half-past eight in practice. In the towns they will be working on legal time—summer time— and a mile out they will be working on old time. I can see that there you would have complication. The effect of the half-past nine closing will be, of course, that men will not have as long an evening in which to enjoy what they consider to be the one pleasure in life. Perhaps, one unforseen effect which I hope commends itself to the Minister, and will commend itself to the Dáil, is that men who look to these few hours recreation—recreation in its literal sense —will say "We are quite willing to cut the hours of entertainment—the clock hours —but we must have the same number of hours of entertainment, and therefore, must have a shorter working day." That will, probably, be one effect of the Bill— an indirect effect—in the towns, that the hours of work will be cut by, say, one hour. We will be closing at half-past four instead of half-past five, so that the number of hours recreation in the public house will not be reduced. The position that I would take up as regards the Bill would be this, that because of the general agreement between the parties interested in this trade regarding the shortening of the hours of opening and the fact that such agreements are, already, to a very great extent, in effect, that portion of the Bill might be agreed to, but that the remainder which affects new interests which have not come to agreement, and do not understand the implications of which there can be no criticism, ought not to be pressed forward. I do not know what amendments would be required, but it seems to me that Section 1 itself would be quite enough, unless it may be that already the Minister may have power to reduce the hours of opening. In the many Bills that have been passed I would not be surprised to be told that there was a section or an unrepealed clause of some old Restoration of Order in Ireland Act or something of the kind in which the Minister has power to effect this shorter opening of public houses. If that were so, it would be better to bring about this prohibition in that way for a short period. However, assuming that that is not the case, I am prepared to support the section dealing with the hours of opening, but I would urge that the remainder of the Bill ought not to be pressed at this stage, unless the question of the extent of the Session has been reconsidered, and that we might go on for another week or two. In that case I have no doubt that the Bill can receive proper examination, and I would be quite glad to facilitate its passing in such circumstances.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

I desire briefly to support the view put forward by Deputy Johnson. There are matters of contention in the Bill, not so acute in regard to details as in regard to general principles, but there are such matters, as the Minister would himself frankly recognise. The real necessity for this Bill at this moment, is to get sufficient regulation with regard to the hours of opening and closing. That is the prime necessity. That is why some Bill of this kind has been urgently called for, and there has been a very clear need for it, because the hours have been very irregular in different places and the regulations now in force had a very inequitable effect. That has been admitted, and it is because of that that there has been a desire that there should be a clear regulation as to the hours of opening and closing. But once we leave that, as a matter of consent, we come to other questions where there is not exactly the same degree of consent and, so far as I am personally concerned, I think that outside that matter, having read the Bill once or twice, not with such care as would be required, it is a good Bill, and I have no objection to many parts of it where objections are, nevertheless, raised. I am not now dealing with the thing from a personal point of view. I am not looking at it from the public point of view, where there is consent in the public mind. There is consent among all the interests concerned that there should be some clear regulation laid down as to the hours of opening and closing, but there is not that measure of consent in other matters. The Minister himself, in proposing the Second Reading, very reasonably and very fairly indicated his apprehension in this regard, and suggested frankly that he would not press matters where there was likely to be, I will not say contention, but the lack of such agreement as would be required. I think Deputy Johnson has put the matter quite fairly, and I support him very heartily and strongly upon it, that the present Bill should be confined to the question of the hours of opening and closing, having regard to the matter that he raised as to the application of Summer Time and Sun Time and God's Time and every other time that there may be or may not be; that there should be a Bill now to meet that pressing need as to the question of regulation of hours, and that all other matters should be left over until they can be thrashed out in much fuller detail and with much greater care than is possible now at the heel of a Session. I urge the Minister, therefore, to confine the Bill to this matter, and to leave all other matters over, except that personally I would very much desire to see Section 11 put through, because I do think that evidence has been brought home of the very great evil that exists in Dublin at present in regard to the consumption of methylated spirits. That, I state, as my own personal view. Generally speaking, I would like to suggest that the course put forward by Deputy Johnson be accepted by the Minister.

Professor MAGENNIS

It is in accordance with the fitness of things that a Bill to promote temperance should be proposed and should be criticised with such a spirit of temperance as Deputy Johnson and Deputy Figgis have so admirably displayed. I am very glad—it is the first time I have really been glad —that Deputy Gorey is not present to-day, or he would have registered with his accustomed emphasis the damning admission made by Deputy Johnson that the hours of labour for the working man will automatically adjust themselves to the closing hour as fixed by the Bill. I know that he does not mean that either by way of incitement to the workmen or as his serious and considering belief of the attitude of the work man towards his work. It is merely an attempt to intimidate us from carrying through certain portions of this measure. Like Deputy Figgis, I consider this is a good Bill, but I do not propose, as he does, to eviscerate a good Bill and take from its organism some of its most useful provisions. I can well understand why Deputy Figgis, who considers this a good Bill, should want Part II omitted. You, Sir, and possibly many of your colleagues, had the pleasure yesterday evening of seeing a delightful sketch in the Evening Herald of Deputy Figgis on his way to the golf links. Now, one of the operations of Part II with regard to clubs would bring this unhappy state of things to pass, that when Deputy Figgis, golfer, not legislator or statesman, should arrive, on a sultry summer evening, at the 19th hole he would find himself like the poor dog in Old Mother Hubbard: “When she went there the cupboard—in this case the bar—was bare, and so the poor dog got none.” If Deputy Johnson had lived in the middle ages he would have disputed with Duns Scotus, the right to the title of Doctor Subtilis. The subtlety that he displays on all occasions excites my envy and admiration. With regard to Section 1 he has exercised it very effectively to-day. He had discovered that the Sub-section does not apply to any licensed person who is the owner of a theatre; that the theatre-owner or lessee may keep a publichouse in any other locality open to a later hour, and he considers that because that might be read by a rival subtle interpreter out of the measure, that we should postpone it in order to get time to consider it further, whereas half the Section would inform him, if he read it aright, that it does not apply to any licensed premises which are in or part of a theatre, music hall or other place of public amusement. I should have thought that he would have advocated, inasmuch as the bar of the Dáil is admittedly a place of public amusement and as he proposes to have all-night sittings in the future, that the wording in this should be made more precise in the interests thereof.

Mr. JOHNSON

There will be a schedule for that.

Professor MAGENNIS

I am surprised Deputy Figgis did not utilise his opportunities on behalf of hotel owners. It has always been a grievance to the playgoer in Dublin that when the performance is over there is no place open to him. Unless he is a clubman he has to go home hungry or thirsty, or both. Many will recollect that a short measure was introduced by one of the Irish Parliamentary Party into the British House of Commons, and it was passed, providing for that. If you read Section 1, Sub-section (1), and Section 4, I would suggest that it is possible to put into one or other of them a provision allowing intoxicating drinks, such as wines, for example, to be sold if taken in conjunction with some repast, however light, during an hour, say, or half-an-hour or forty-five minutes after the normal closing hour. Personally, like Deputy Johnson, I am speaking as between love and duty, being, if I may be egotistical enough to contribute a chapter to my own autobiography, a practical teetotaller.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Practical?

Professor MAGENNIS

Yes, practical, not theoretical. I do think that it is quite fair in a city like Dublin or Cork where there are a large number of pleasure-loving people whose enjoyment really begins in the evening, having been hard at work during the day, that the possibility that they might require refreshment should be provided for in this way. I think it would be easy to amend the Bill in that respect. There is one very excellent provision in Part 1 which I applaud most heartily, and that is Section 2, which the Minister read, enabling a District Justice in his discretion where he thinks it necessary for the welfare of a district or village to close licensed premises. That is a very desirable innovation. There is another thing also which I think is admirable, and I am quite sure that the respectable members of the licensed trade, and that means the vast majority of the members of the licensed trade, will also applaud it, and that is in Part 3, the increase of penalties for offending spirit grocers. The spirit grocer, as we are all aware, if he is not strictly scrupulous and conscientious, is really a danger to the community. It is notorious in the northern towns, with which I am familiar, that under the heading of "groceries" debts are run up by women without the knowledge of their husbands, who are, of course, answerable for the debt. What is really provided is drink. The spirit grocer has opportunities, and he is subject to a form of temptation from which the others are exempt, and even the most worthy will succumb, or may succumb, when the temptation is very great.

In one of the preparations of a cinema film the controller attempted to induce a negro to lie down with a lion, and when he protested vigorously he was told that the lion was quite harmless, that he had been brought up on milk. I need not point the moral of the negro's reply, "I was brought up on milk, too, but I eat meat now." The opportunity oftentimes makes the culprit. I think it is a very desirable thing to hold out a threat that on a first offence the licence could be endorsed, but on a second occasion it is imperative not to endorse it, but to make it forfeit. That is the effect of Sub-section (2) of Section 7. A public house licence, or a licence to sell intoxicants, is really a monopoly granted by the State. It is a privilege which society gives, and that privilege ought to be exercised carefully, and it ought to be very carefully watched on behalf of he citizen. I remember as a child at a Belfast pantomime, when the subject of Sunday closing and early closing was one of the burning questions of the hour, the popular song had the refrain, "Why they close the pubs, and keep open the clubs I haven't the slightest idea." I never dreamed that long years afterwards I should be called upon to listen to the elements of an idea in answer to the question. It is a matter of common knowledge that the better class clubs that are very well conducted and carefully controlled by the managers could not really keep the bar on paying terms if they were not allowed time a little longer than the ordinary public house hours. So it seems to me that Section 5 might allow that hour to be 10 o'clock in the evening instead of 9.30 with regard to those clubs that are satisfactory in their arrangements. Of course it is possible that that would not be long enough, but it is also possible that the whole question of Part II. might be reconsidered to some extent, because it is very necessary to distinguish in practice between what the Minister spoke of as an all-night drinking shop and what is really a regularly and properly worked place of recreation. As regard Section 11, which has won the approval of Deputy Figgis, as he does not want methylated spirits, I think it would be well to include ether also. In some of the Northern counties where they are of a very inquiring and scientific disposition it was discovered that a man could be drunk three times in the afternoon for an expenditure of 2/-, that is eight pence per "drunk." Ether, I need not say, is a very deadly drink, and it is much more desirable that intoxication by way of inhalation of ether should be stopped than intoxication by methylated spirits. There is a certain amount of alteration in the licensing laws which are really to be described as drastic, as regards the limitations and restraints on licences of the legitimate traders. It is all the more incumbent to leave no opening possible for the illegitimate trading in intoxicants, and if people have recourse to chemists and druggists to procure methylated spirits they should not be permitted to procure ether instead. That is really the one amendment I should be particularly anxious to have introduced here. Remember the number of people in villages and country towns in Ulster who are absolutely drunk on the afternoon of fair days is almost beyond calculation at times.

That sounds an exaggeration, but it is really true. The demoralisation which sets in as a natural sequence to drunkenness through ether is unfortunately greater than the drunkenness that is merely traceable to whiskey. That is not an advertisement for whiskey, but is intended to be an attack upon the use of ether. As regards the Bill in its entirety, I should like to make it plain that it is only legislation by way of partial amendment. It is not an attempt, as the Minister has said in his speech, to make the amendment which the situation really demands, and which I have no doubt we would attempt to make if the time at our disposal were more than it is but instalments are always welcome, and viewing this as an instalment of a greater measure and an instalment that makes for the public welfare and for the reduction of the opportunity for the creation of riot, disorder, and the demoralisation of the people which a too great indulgence in politics has brought about, I thoroughly welcome and approve of it.

Mr. GAVAN DUFFY

I desire very briefly to support the point of view put forward by Deputy Johnson, and I think the Minister is to be congratulated on showing an intention and desire to deal with licensing abuses; but having shown that, and having got a Second Reading, I think he ought to drop so much of the Bill as is not urgent, because an even more important principle is the principle that we should not rush legislation. I do not think that any case can be made for rushing, without due consideration, a great many of the Sections of this Bill. I think there is urgency for Part 1 of the Bill, and perhaps for Section 10, but I am going to ask the Minister if he can see his way to drop the rest of the Bill after he has got through his Second Reading. I think he will have done a good deal by getting the whole Bill as far as Second Reading Stage, because that is an indication, and as an indication it will be very useful. I am, if it be possible, even more innocent than Deputy Magennis on this question, and I am certainly quite impartial, but in the very short space of time in which this Bill has been before us and before the public, I have already had representations from a number of very reputable persons, all well known persons in the City and County of Dublin, pointing out certain obvious objections to the Bill, which make me feel very strongly that it is wrong that any undue haste should be shown. If an immediate decision is to be asked for, the Minister ought to give some very explicit reasons why that immediate decision is necessary.

I admit fully that there is an immediate necessity for dealing with the opening and closing hours as Part I does, because the confusion created by the pre-war system of ours, and what I may call the war hours introduced by emergency regulations, has caused very considerable annoyance and unfairness. That part of the Bill has been very cordially welcomed, and I do not suppose there will be any objection to it. Section 2 is also a courageous and useful proposal, which gives power for the closing of licensed premises in places where disorder should make that necessary. I would ask the Minister's consideration for one point on that Section. The Bill, as drafted, proposes that "a District Justice may be satisfied on the application of a Civic Guard Superintendent or Inspector." I think that application should be a sworn statement or an affidavit. I do not think the District Justice should be empowered to close the licensing places in a town or village except upon evidence taken on oath. The effect of his order may very seriously prejudice a great many people, and it is desirable that the person causing the orders to be made should pin himself on oath to the statements upon which the magistrate is asked to act, particularly as cases of this kind are liable to be brought up afterwards in the High Court, and it would be very undesirable to have to deal with cases where Justices had ordered a closure, having before them only a statement unsupported on oath of a gentleman who might be acting in a panic and acting without due consideration.

I hope that the Minister will agree that it is necessary to strengthen that particular Section by making the oath a condition precedent. It seems to me that we had one or two examples of the danger of rushing this measure. First of all, Deputy Johnson discovered that you could keep your licensed house open all day and all night provided that you had a theatre or a music hall.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

With regard to that, I desire to say that I think that strictly and technically Deputy Johnson is probably right, but the words of the Section are taken bodily from a British statute which has been in force for a long time, and no case has ever cropped up of a person attempting to keep his public house open all night simply because he owned a theatre up the road.

ACTING CHAIRMAN

That scarcely touches the principle of the Bill, because a couple of words would make it all right on the Committee Stage.

Mr. GAVAN DUFFY

It touches this principle, that it shows a trap in this Section, and as far as I know there may be many other traps in other Sections, all of which goes to show the danger of hasty legislation. I do not think any responsible person connected with the licensing trade, and certainly no responsible person connected with the registration of clubs, would take the view that the hours for ordinary licensed premises should be the same as the hours for clubs. I think the position has only to be mentioned for everyone to see at once that clubs should have at least one hour longer for remaining open than ordinary licensed houses.

Mr. JOHNSON

I would like to hear the reason for that.

Mr. GAVAN DUFFY

The Deputy pretends a strange innocence. Surely it is obvious that places that are under control in the way clubs are, and which licensed premises are not—places used by many people in large part as a means of recreation, and which are not intended for drinking purposes, but where drink is merely accidental—are in a different category to places where drink is the main raison d'etre. I take it that in bringing in this Bill the Minister, as he has told us, consulted the interests concerned, but I question whether persons interested in Section 2 were consulted. I think their rights should be consulted because a serious injustice might be done to them under the Section—if a place which is not a drinking place, ordinarily so-called, is treated as if it were a public house just because drink is sold there. There is a distinction there, and some distinction ought to be made, and I fancy the Minister will recognise some distinction ought to be made. I cordially agree with him when he spoke of putting a stop to the reprehensible practice of all-night drinking. I agree with him in endeavouring to stop a practice of that kind, but I believe that there ought to be a difference made between two very distinct categories, because I think we should not be committed to putting two distinct categories of case into one category without proper consideration.

I think everyone will agree that proper consideration is impossible if this Bill is rushed through before the Elections. I support the suggestion that Part 1 be proceeded with in order that fixed definite, and reasonable hours be made uniformly applicable to licensed premises and that Section 10, dealing with the invalidation of licences owing to non-renewal during the troubled times, be also proceeded with, as I think it is an excellent idea to remedy that injustice, but I think that the rest of the Bill can stop at the Second Reading, because the Minister will have asserted a useful principle by getting it that far.

Mr. A. BYRNE

I rise to support Part 1 of the Bill which fixes the opening hours from 9 a.m. to 9.30 p.m. I understand that an agreement on that portion of the Bill has been arrived at between the employers and the employees. There is a real desire on the part of the members of the licensed trade to help the Government in their efforts to keep the trade the cleanest possible in the country. I hope if there is to be any difference of opinion amongst members of the Dáil that they will all agree with Part 1, and let it go through. As regards Part 2, dealing with clubs, there are some very good clubs in the city of Dublin, which supply meals to their members, and the management of them is very careful, in fact it could not be better. I know that the Committees of some of these clubs have spent considerable sums of money on improving their premises, and I hope that, if we cannot agree to delete this clause relating to clubs, that, at all events, the members of the Committees which control them will be afforded an opportunity of interviewing the Minister. I hope if the hours are to be fixed for clubs that they will be given at least one hour more after the ordinary closing time for houses in the licensed trade in the country. If one hour is granted it will do away with the cause of complaint which the Minister makes of some clubs in the country being drinking shops until two and three o'clock in the morning. I hope that the Minister and the authorities will do all in their power to crush out drinking dens of that type, but as regards the good class clubs, many of which we have in the city of Dublin, I hope he will, at least, consider the advisability of granting them one hour after the ordinary closing for licensed houses in the city.

With Deputy Gavan Duffy I wholeheartedly support Section 10 and I think it ought to be carried. With regard to a Sub-section in Part 3, dealing with spirit grocers, complaint has been made to me by spirit grocers that whilst they are anxious to do everything that is right they think that at least they ought to have an opportunity of consulting with the Minister on that clause, and if that can be arranged I believe a satisfactory agreement can be arrived at between the spirit grocers and the Minister. I congratulate the Minister on the attempt he has made to deal with this question in a satisfactory way. Part 1 of the Bill is such that all Deputies in the House will agree with, and I hope that it will be got through all its stages before the Dáil dissolves. The other portions of the Bill, with the exception of Section 10 which I think might be passed, could be dealt with in the new Dáil, especially the sections dealing with spirit grocers and with the regulations for clubs.

If the Minister thinks that the Section dealing with club regulations ought to be dealt with immediately I would ask him to consider the advisability of granting clubs at least one hour more for remaining open than the hour fixed for closing in ordinary licensed premises. I believe a proposal of that kind would meet with general acceptance in the House, and I may say that the clubs are most anxious to help the Government to see that there shall be no abuses on their premises and that there shall be nothing in the nature of a two o'clock in the morning trade. There is a general desire amongst the licensed trade that the opening hours for ordinary licensed premises should be from 9 a.m. to 9.30 p.m.

Mr. McGARRY

Like most Deputies I am thoroughly in favour of Section 1. I desire to point out in this Section there is no mention made of Sunday closing. In connection with that I would like to point out that there are about 17 houses in what are known as the "added areas" which since the year 1900, although they pay rates and hold a seven-day licence, are prohibited from opening on Sundays. This Section I takes a certain number of hours off their ordinary week-day trading hours, and perpetuates the exclusions as regards Sunday opening under which they have been penalised at considerable loss since the year 1900. Though they hold a seven-day licence and pay the same duty as people who are allowed to open on Sundays they have been denied the right to open on Sundays from 1900 to 1906. In the latter year what was known as the Clancy Act was passed in the British House of Commons. It was thought at the time that publicans in the "added areas" could open on Sundays under that Act, but a case was brought into Court and it was decided that owing to a flaw in the drafting of the Act that the publicans had not the power to open on Sundays. As the decision in the case was against them they have been since obliged to keep closed on Sundays. I would ask the Minister to make some provisions in this Bill whereby these people would be allowed to open on Sundays, as it is a great hardship and wrong that while they are obliged to pay duty on a seven-day licence, they are still prohibited from opening on Sunday.

Mr. DOYLE

I agree with Deputies Johnson and Byrne in the views they have expressed on Section 1. As the Bill only came into the Deputies hands to-day, and as there are some contentious Clauses in it, I think with the exception of Part 1, which might be agreed to, that the remaining Clauses should be left over to the new Dáil. I do not see the necessity for rushing these contentious Clauses at the present time. The administration of the licensing laws ought to have improved considerably of late, in view of the fact that we have the Civic Guard in practically every town and village in the country. I quite agree that there should be fixed hours for opening and closing. There will not be any contention about that part of the Bill, at least it seems to be the opinion of Deputies that there will not.

As regards the other portions of the Bill that are contentious—and some of them are very contentious—I say that no expression of opinion has been got from the people concerned in the matter —at least from country representatives —and there is no necessity to rush the remaining portions of the Bill through. We can deal with Part 1 of the Bill today if the Minister agrees.

Mr. HENNESSY

This Bill, I understand, is to regulate closing hours in Dublin City and County. That has been made pretty clear by the Deputies who have spoken. If it is necessary to regulate closing hours in Dublin and to pass legislation, if the licensed traders cannot agree to closing hours, surely that legislation ought not to be applied to all the other traders down through the country who do agree on a reasonable closing hour. The licensed traders in the country are restricted by four hours in this Bill and that is a very serious restriction. I think it would go a long way towards closing down many of the traders down through the country. That is my conviction about it. I have not had an opportunity of discussing the matter with the licensed trade in the South of Ireland or of getting the opinion of their Organisation on the matter. I do not know really what they require, because we only got this Bill this morning. But I support the other Deputies in the opinion that we ought to have an opportunity of consulting with them before we pass such a drastic measure as this. If we do restrict the traders' business by four hours a day, I think we ought to reduce their licence duty by 25 per cent. What is good for Dublin may be very bad for Cork, Waterford, Limerick and other places Until we know exactly what those people require I do not think that we should pass this Bill. They are a large section of the community; they have vested interests in the country and they deserve the same consideration from the Dáil, as to the farmers, or any other section of the community.

Dr. WHITE

Like other Deputies, I think that the Minister deserves to be congratulated on this Bill, because I think it is a good, solid, Bill, and in the main it is for the benefit of the nation. Part I, which fixes the hours, is fair enough. Perhaps the question of the spirit grocery and club is contentious. I am against all-night drinking. At the same time I am not a Pussyfoot. I may have some original ideas as regards the licensed trade in Ireland. The inference to be drawn from Deputy Johnson's statement is that there was no other pleasure for our people except non-Pussyfootism. On the Continent they have cafes where people can go and get anything they like in the way of non-spiritous refreshments at practically any hour. That is a phase of the National life that might be considered later on. Perhaps it would be a complete revolution in the licensed trade. There was a point raised about methylated spirits, or "blowhard" as it is known in my part of the country. I have some experience of it; I do not mean personal experience, but some years ago in Waterford there was a regular epidemic of drinking of methylated spirits. We did not then have the stable conditions that we now have in the country. We had to take the law into our own hands and we did adjust it to a certain extent. As regards the point about ether raised by Deputy Professor Magennis, they may indulge in that in Belfast, but I do not think that in Dublin or in the South they have attained to that refinement of vice. At the same time I think these are matters that ought to be embodied in the Bill. I think on the whole the Bill is a good one, and that it aims at the advancement of the nation. On that ground I support it.

Professor THRIFT

I do not know whether I am a Pussyfoot or not, but I have been a teetotaller all my life. Nevertheless I would like to join with those who urge the Minister not to press parts of this Bill which are not urgent. I quite agree with him in that part of his opening remarks in which he said there was a great need for limitation in regard to the sale of intoxicating liquors, limitations in the number of licensed houses and in the conditions under which they sell. I would wholeheartedly support him in pressing as urgent certain parts of the Bill, but I think it would be regrettable if other parts did not get a fuller and more careful consideration than we can give in the limited time at our disposal. I refer in particular to the clause in reference to Clubs. Though I accept and agree with parts of the Minister's speech, I do not agree with him in that part in which I understood him to say that he considered that clubs were on the same level as licensed houses. They seem to me to be on quite a different footing.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I said that I would like to hear the case for any difference in hours.

Professor THRIFT

I was about to say that I think they are on a different footing, and that that would at any rate partly establish a case for their hours of closing being made different from the hours of closing of licensed houses. I think they do come in as a kind of halfway house, if one may say so, between the private home and the licensed house. I think it might do more harm than good if we were to rush through without giving the Bill full consideration and without regarding from a proper point of view the case for clubs receiving special treatment. I notice, for instance, that in this Bill the canteen is allowed more time than will be allowed to licensed houses. It would be rather a curious situation if a Civic Guard could go into a canteen after 9.30 and refresh himself in the way which has been referred to and a member of a club could not do the same. I think Deputy Professor Magennis was quite right in his reference to the Clubs, particularly the Golf Clubs. Probably if we had sufficient time to consider the matter we could name some later hour for the Club than is named for the licensed house. The question of all-night sittings might, perhaps, arise, but I do not know that I am prepared to make any suggestion in that connection. I really think that it would be advisable if the Minister would give the Dáil sufficient time to consider any of these provisions that are not of immediate urgency.

Mr. P. HUGHES

I wish to make a few remarks on this Bill. While I agree with the main provisions of the measure, there are some provisions which I believe could be amended and ought to be amended when the Committee Stage is reached. What is right for the City of Dublin does not in many cases suit the country districts. I would have no objection at all to any portion of this Bill if it were made applicable only to the Metropolitan area of Dublin. I am sure nobody else would have any objection to that either. But the closing and opening hours in the City of Dublin and the closing and opening hours in the country do not suit equally well. In the country you have fairs and markets and people living considerable distances out of the towns and they require different treatment from the city community. So far as the traders in Dublin are concerned I do not know exactly their views, but I am sure they have come to an agreement with their employees and perhaps, with the Ministry, as to the hours which should be adopted. As far as the concluding Section of the Bill is concerned I believe it does require a good deal of consideration. At the same time I do not think we should hang up the Bill. It may be possible to give a little more time to the clubs than to the ordinary licensed house. I do agree that Sections 10 and 11 should be put into operation immediately. The sale of methylated spirits is on the increase all over the country, and I think there is no man who would not be glad to see the greatest restrictions placed upon it. I am glad to see Clause 10, which deals with licences, which might be taken in some instances as having lapsed, included in the Bill. I am prepared to support the general principles of the Bill and I hope to get the amendments which I have indicated carried on the Committee Stage.

CATHAL O'SHANNON

I think Deputy White is to be congratulated on the originality, not of his ideas, but of his arguments. It certainly was original to find him supporting a Bill that makes the hours shorter, on the ground that on the Continent there is a much better system under which you can get drink at practically any time within reason.

Dr. WHITE

On a point of personal explanation, my idea is, perhaps, rather original. My idea is that if you have cafes where people can get non-spirituous or other kinds of liquor, or coffee or tea, or whatever they want—it might be a bold experiment—it would, perhaps, ultimately tend to a steadying of the nation, and to restriction on the unbridled consumption of spirituous liquors.

CATHAL O'SHANNON

I quite agree with the Deputy that that is probably so, and that elsewhere, outside the English speaking countries, these things are done much better. But that cannot be brought about by legislation. There is general agreement in the Dáil that the Bill should not be rushed, and that most of the provisions, outside Part 1, should get a longer time for consideration. But I doubt if there is even urgent or desperate necessity for proceeding with Part 1. If there is, as we understand there is, agreement between the main bodies concerned with regard to the question of hours, what is there to prevent that voluntary agreement from being carried out for a month or six weeks or two months? Is it necessary for agreements, voluntarily arrived at by the various parties, to get the seal of law before they be carried out? If that is the position, it shows very bad intentions on the part of some one or other of the bodies to the voluntary agreement. Apart from that, there is objection, I think, to the other part of the Bill being taken now—even to going into Committee—because there is a difference of opinion on the question of Clubs and other questions like that. I do not agree with Deputy Hughes that it is very necessary and very urgent that the sale of methylated spirits should be dealt with immediately. I think there are already provisions in existence which can deal with the sale of those spirits. Certainly, on every part of the Bill, except the first part, there is general agreement that it should not be taken before the dissolution. It would be well, I think, if the Minister could meet all those views and leave over the contentious part of the Bill. I do not think it is even necessary to rush the first part of it.

Mr. ALTON

I would like to join the number of Deputies who would like to see some change in the second part of the Bill. I am not very much of a club man myself, but I would like to see a distinction made between the club and the licensed house. I think there is a case for distinction. It has been pointed out already that there is a vast difference between an institution whose primary object is the sale and consumption of intoxicating liquor and an institution where the sale and consumption of intoxicating liquor is only incidental. In a decently-conducted club the sale of intoxicating liquor is a very small item. A club, to a certain number of our fellow-citizens, is a kind of home. Sometimes it may be a refuge. There are not many comforts or amenities left, and if you make harsh conditions about the hours of consumption of drink in clubs, you will remove one of the last of these comforts. I cannot conceive the Minister bringing in a Bill in which he will give permission to the Civic Guard to enter a private house on inspection after 9.30, and, as I said already, a club is in the nature of a private house to many men. It may be their misfortune, but it is so, and I think you should regard it in that light and do something to extend the hours during which drink can be consumed in decently-conducted clubs. I am not making an appeal for rich clubs in contradistinction to poor clubs. The club is the prerogative of every citizen, rich and poor, and, properly conducted, it should be permitted every comfort that is possible.

PADRAIG MAC UALGHAIRG

Níl agam le rádh ar an cheist seo acht cupla fochal. Bhi mé ag eisteacht le mo chairde annseo agus bhi an cainnt uilig ar an dtaobh amhain.

An Leas Cheann Comhairle took the Chair at this stage.

Mr. McGOLDRICK

I wish to say with regard to this Bill, that if any preference is to be given to a club over and beyond the ordinary licensed houses as they are supposed to be conducted in a regular way, I would be thoroughly opposed to it. I do not see that we have a right to make reservations in law in favour of any section of the community, and to drive into clubdom every person who might feel that it would be to his advantage to be able to get a drink at times when he could not get it in the ordinary way. I agree with another point, that I think it is not possible to have a uniform system with regard to legislation in this business as between the larger cities and the villages and towns in rural areas. I think that legislation in the past has taken notice of the different circumstances that prevail in relation to rural villages and towns and the larger cities, and the same rules did not apply in past legislation regarding the hours of closing and opening, and other matters as well. It may be that it would be a terrible hardship in some cases where markets are held, some of them as early as six o'clock in the morning, and to which people come from long distances, to say that houses should not open till 9 a.m., because some of these markets are over before 7 o'clock, particularly in towns in the West, and to a certain extent fairs and markets have to take place early. It would be a very great hardship in that case to say that public houses should not open before 9 o'clock. I am in favour of the general principles of this Bill if it can be accommodated to the requirements, but I am not so much concerned with the vested interests of the trade as I am with the service to the community. I think that that is the main object, how the trade is to be managed that the community may get the service they are supposed to get, and that, at the same time, abuses may be kept down. Whatever this Bill may be, it is only a superficial affair and it must only be temporary in its operations, because if we, as a nation, have any interest which it is really important should be put under proper conditions, it is this important interest of the licensed trade. Before any attempt is made to put it upon a basis on which it could safely rest in the interests of the nation, in the interests of the people, and in the interests of the revenue that it so largely produces, a very intricate and very extensive inquiry must be made into all the aspects of this business and legislation that would deal with it in this way must be based upon information so received. This should be an inquiry made in the interests of the various elements, whether those engaged in the trade or those who use the publichouses now and again, and the question of the revenue collected. I think it is a poor system of collecting revenue and that we should discover a better one. but at present there is no other way of getting revenue to the same extent. It is unfortunate that the present system exists, and perhaps will exist. Then there are so many intricacies with regard to the clause that deals with new licences—25 per cent. of increase in population in ten years will justify the granting of an application for a new licence. This must be surrounded by a great many safeguards if it is to be ratified and passed into law. In regard to the valuation of premises and structural arrangements, these matters need to be well safeguarded, and there is in addition, a stipulation that two other licences must be wiped out. There are certainly two anomalies, as the Minister himself has stated.

I think that these are the main things which I wish to refer to at the moment, as the representative of an area which has nothing in common with cities like Dublin and Cork. Nearly every town has a separate system of its own, and would claim a separate service, but at the same time I think some uniformity can be arranged. I accept the general principle as a temporary measure to meet and deal with evils that are rampant. I am thoroughly satisfied with the clause that deals with illicit distillation. It is a very important clause, and a very urgent one, but I am not so much concerned with the clause dealing with methylated spirits, an evil which in the area I come from we are not so conversant with. In the rural districts we know very little about it. These things are city abuses and will require city remedies. But the question of illicit distillation is a different one altogether, and is one which threatens very serious damage to the community as well as seriously interfering with the revenue of the country. There are drastic powers in the Public Safety Act to deal with that and the penalties are very severe. The penalties in the Bill with regard to the spirit grocer are very drastic, that on the first offence he may lose his licence, and on the second he must lose it. I do not know that these powers can be made so drastic. They seem to pertain too much to the desire to legislate off our own bat, without consulting the general interests of the community, and I think before we carry penalties as drastic as this we should take into account their effects upon the people who are represented in this case. I will support the Second Reading of the Bill as a temporary expedient, but only as a temporary expedient, to meet the necessity as it exists at present.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

There has been so much agreement on the general principle of the Bill that I am a little curious to know what it is. It is very necessary that I should discover what it is, because Deputy McGoldrick has qualified his approval—"I am in favour," he says, "of the general priciples of this Bill if they be accommodated to the requirements." Well, if I am to accommodate the general principles of this Bill to the requirements I must know what they are. Frankly, I do not know what they are. The Bill consists of a number of provisions which I considered necessary to deal with anomalies and abuses which exist in connection with the sale of intoxicating liquor, but there are a number of provisions. They scarcely hang together, and I do not know what the general principle of the Bill can be said to be unless it be that it is necessary to see that the sale of liquor is carried on decently and without abuse.

If that is the general principle, it is one that does not leave much room for disagreement, but in fact the tendency has been to discuss this Bill as if it were something vague and ethereal, and not to come down to bedrock. I know where the shoe is pinching; I know there is scarcely a Deputy in the Dáil who has any doubt about any Section except Part 2, which deals with clubs. If that is the difficulty and doubt, we should come out and say so. I had a high opinion of the intellect and integrity of this Assembly, but I do believe that we are not able to make up our minds as to the hours at which clubs should cease to sell drink to non-resident members. We have been urged to leave out all of this Bill except Section 1. "The other provisions are all fine, each in their way, but it would be much better that the next Parliament should consider them, and, therefore, throw overboard all the ballast and get Section 1 at all cost." I agree there is an anomaly which Section 1 is intended to redress, but I do not agree that Section 1 is of any greater importance than other Sections of the Bill and certainly from the angle of my Department, which is the angle of order and peace and decency of life in the country, Section 1, although it is important, is not even as important as certain other Sections of the Bill. I think on this matter of clubs we can find accommodation which would get over the qualms of Deputies, and their obvious nervousness to deal with the matter. I put down that provision, that they should cease to sell drink to non-resident members after the time that licensed premises close, largely with a view of hearing the case against it. It was scarcely put up, it was hinted at, but I think I can put up a better case against it than has been put by any Deputy; that whereas the licensed premises are open all day primarily for the sale of liquor, the club is a different matter where men who have been engaged all day at their particular business congregate in the evening. There is a case for that, but it is a question of degree. I do submit than any decent club, any club that does not exist simply and solely for the purpose of consuming alcoholic liquor, would be well satisfied with an hour's latitude after the licensed premises close. If the Deputy put up an amendment to that effect in the Committee Stage, I would be prepared to accept it. Now, there are clubs and clubs; there are clubs where it would be correct to say, as Professor Magennis said, that the sale of drink was an accident, and that it was not in any sense the object of the club, that the club was social, or cultural, with some link or association for the purpose of meeting together in a friendly way in the evening, and so on, and that they run a decent and respectable place. There are clubs that do not quite answer to that description, and it is not a hardship to any club to ask that it be closed definitely for the sale of drink at a reasonable hour in the evening, say, 10 o'clock or 10.30. But we should be able to agree as to what is thought a reasonable hour. There is no occasion for any of the timidity displayed with regard to it. Deputies circled round the Bill, and said that they agreed with the main principles, but one would have preferred to hear what they disagreed with. One would have preferred to hear whether they disagreed with the regulations in regard to the sale of methylated spirits, or with Section 7, which deals with certain offences for which licences are to be forfeited, if the holder of a licence sells illicitly distilled spirits, or has possession of illicitly distilled spirits, or harbours, keeps, or conceals illicitly distilled spirits. Sub-section (2) of Section 7, which deals with the spirit grocer, and the conditions under which he would lose his licence is as just and as reasonable a Sub-section as there is in the Bill. This man gets his licence on definite conditions. The State gives him a licence that he will sell drink for consumption off the premises, and if he goes outside the terms of that licence, and in fact turns his place into a kind of illicit publichouse, and proceeds to sell drink otherwise than within the terms of his licence, there is a complete case for the withdrawal of that licence. Then, going round the Bill, there has been no objection to Section 10. Section 9 Deputy McGoldrick misunderstood. Licences could be granted on condition that it could be shown that one's existing licence had lapsed or disappeared. This, so far from facilitating the granting of licences, is an additional restriction, that in addition to the new licence two lapsed licences must be shown, and the population increase as between one census and another is reasonably fixed at 25 per cent., but it seems to me that if we were quite frank, if we did not simply get away from the sore spot, if we faced up to this question of clubs and discussed it in a reasonable way, it would not be impossible to find substantial agreement as to the hours at which they should close. I am aware that there is a sensitiveness because of the time. Deputies throughout the Session are content to represent their constituencies broadly, and to carry out in a broad and general way the wishes of their constituents. That is adequate, but coming near the dies irae they are more inclined to consider the individual constituent than they are normally throughout the greater part of the Session. It is felt, in dealing with this question of clubs, that one may come up against the views and wishes of individual constituents who are club members. But I think no decent member of a club, and no decent club will, put up a case that these clubs ought to be all-night drinking shops for non-resident members. They will surely agree that there ought to be a limit. I would suggest that a reasonable limit would be 10.30, an hour after the time at which ordinary licensed premises close. If we could get agreement on that, I see no reason why the Bill should not be considered as it stands.

Mr. JOHNSON

Considered, yes.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I want to put up this. There has been talk about hasty legislation. I have not brought any Bill before the Dáil which got more Departmental scrutiny than this Bill, and concerning which more opinions were asked. There is not a State Solicitor or District Justice, or Civic Guard Superintendent in the country, but was asked to comment in detail on the Bill, and when a new recommendation or something out of the ordinary came up from any quarter that was sent round for their opinion, and a good deal of time was given departmentally to this Bill, so when one speaks of hasty legislation it is not in the sense that there was any rush in the preparation of the Bill departmentally, because the Bill has been practically under the consideration of my Department for the last five or six months.

This Bill has had more careful scrutiny given to it and there have been more opinions asked in connection with its provisions than has been the case in relation to any other Bill that I have been responsible for. I would like this Bill to go into Committee as it stands, so that as we take it Section by Section Deputies could say what are the definite things they disagree with in it. There is nothing very technical or very profound about it. There is, I am sure, general agreement, for instance, on Section 1, that it is proper to try and check the sale of methylated spirits, and to try and ensure that this spirit will not be sold for consumption as drink. Sections 9 and 10 are, I think, non-contentious, and Section 7 could at least be discussed. If any Deputy holds the view that a licensed person ought not to lose his licence for selling poteen or for keeping it or harbouring it on his premises then that view could be discussed. Then, as regards the Section dealing with doubling the fines, that was considered reasonable by representatives of the trade itself. The real part that needs discussion is Part II and I think we could discuss that in a reasonable way and let Deputies state their views about it. I would like very much that the Bill with all its 12 Clauses would go into Committee. I am prepared, if pressed, to throw out ballast and to leave out contentious Sections, but I think there is no Section in the Bill on which agreement could not be arrived at, and I think that all the Sections will be useful if carried. I think as regards the suggestion about clubs that if an hour extra were conceded there might be general agreement in putting that Section through.

Mr. JOHNSON

I may be out of order, but I want to put this to the Minister: He has asked that the Bill should be considered, and that we should go into Committee on the whole Bill. I for one am quite prepared to allow the Bill to go into Committee if he on his part will allow us to have time to consider it. Let me point out a practical difficulty that one is in. We saw this Bill for the first time at 11 o'clock last night, and some Deputies did not receive copies of it until this morning. I find in reading through this Bill references to the Spirits (Ireland) Act, 1831, and to the Revenue Act of 1889, and to several other Acts. It is very true, no doubt, that the Bill has had ample consideration from the Minister's Department, and that those connected with the Department know all about these Acts that I have referred to, but we do not know about them, and yet we are asked to take the Minister's word that it is a perfect Bill, and that it satisfies all requirements. We are asked, in fact, to take the responsibility off his shoulders, and that, I submit is not proper. If the Minister will say that there is a possibility of having the Bill considered, and of giving us time for the drawing up of amendments, and of seeing how far agreement can be reached on details then, I for one, am quite prepared to support the main clauses of the Bill, but I am confident that some of them will require to be amended. These amendments will have to be considered, and I suggest it is asking too much for a Bill of this kind, requiring consideration, not only by the Dáil, but by the Dáil after consultation with the people interested, to be rushed through in this hurried manner.

The submission I make is not unreasonable. Deputy McGoldrick, rather late in the day, I think, comes forward and says that Bills of this kind, and important Bills of any kind, ought to be given very careful consideration. I think I can say that the Dáil generally has shown an interest in this Bill which it has not in much more important Bills, Bills requiring much more important consideration than this one. Deputies are quite eager to discuss this Bill, which is of small moment, comparatively, but they have allowed three months' legislation to go through within the last three or four days without a word. I suggest that we are now asked to do too much. It is not a mere matter of difference of opinion about a clause or a section. What I object to is the principle of rushing a Bill of this kind through the legislature without ample consideration. There is no plea put forward that it is of vital urgency. That plea is not put forward, that the safety of the State is in danger if this Bill is not passed. There is no grave complaint about the regulations as to hours, or that there has been a tremendous increase within the last week in the sale of methylated spirits, or that the clubs have degenerated within the last fortnight to the stage at which they must be closed up at 10.30 p.m. These arguments are not put forward, and we are not told that this is a matter of extreme urgency. I think that even the hours question has not been proved to be a matter of urgency, but inasmuch as there is general agreement on that question not only here, but outside amongst the people interested, that matter, I think, without any prejudice to any principle in the Bill, could possibly be accepted and passed, but the general provisions of the Bill are being put to us to be passed at top speed without their having any possibility of consideration, either by the Dáil or the country.

Mr. HENNESSY

I desire to say——

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy is not in order in speaking just now on this question.

Professor MAGENNIS

No; it is only certain Deputies are in order.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Parts 1 and 2 really deal with hours. Part 1 deals with the hours during which drink may be sold on licensed premises, and Part 2 deals with the hours during which drink may be sold in Clubs. If needs be I am prepared to cut the Bill and to bring in Parts 1 and 2 as a Bill. There are no technical references in Part 2. No Acts would need to be looked up in Reference Libraries or elsewhere. It is a straight clear question, and if Deputies are agreeable we could limit the Bill to these two Sections, 1 and 2, and go into Committee.

Mr. FITZGIBBON

It appears to me that it would be more in order if we were to give the Bill a Second Reading, and when that is passed a Motion could be made to suspend the Standing Orders to go into Committee and pass Section 1 or any other Section that may be thought fit. It seems to me that this discussion appears to be rather out of order.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

A moment or two ago a Deputy made a remark that only certain Deputies are in order in this Dáil. I allowed Deputy Johnson to speak because I thought he was about to make a suggestion which would help to facilitate the business, and it was for that reason that I allowed him to speak, and if Deputy Magennis got up to make a suggestion of the same kind I would also have allowed him to speak. While I occupy the chair I always try to be impartial to Deputies in all parts of the House, and I think the observation that was made by the Deputy should not have been made.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Deputy Johnson made some comments on the proposal that I put forward to pass the Bill with Parts 1 and 2 and to cut out the remaining portions of it. The real straight question that the Dáil ought to have the sense and the courage to decide is if it is right and proper that we should deal with the hours for opening of licensed premises, it is right and proper that we should bring the hours for the consumption and for the sale of drink in clubs, into some kind of uniformity, and with that view I would like to go on with at least these two parts of the Bill.

Mr. DARREL FIGGIS

On the Second Reading I suggested that the Bill might be confined to Part I. I did so because I had no hesitancy with regard to the other points to which the Minister confined his attention when replying generally to the debate. I think so far as Part II., dealing with Clubs, is concerned that his attitude is a reasonable one, and that we should be prepared to state, and to give members an opportunity of stating, what exactly are their feelings on the matter. My contention was, with regard to the other Sections, that they should not be dealt with, but that if they are to be dealt with they would require to be dealt with far more fully than the Dáil has time to give them at the moment.

Question put: "That this Bill be now read a second time."

Agreed.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

If we could have agreement on taking parts I and II, I would be inclined to ask for the suspension of the Standing Orders to enable the Committee Stage to be taken.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

We are in order, I think, to discuss this question of procedure, and I submit it is a reasonable subject for discussion. So far as I am concerned I was one of those who advocated that all the other parts of the Bill with the exception of Part I should be jettisoned. If the Minister feels that Part II ought to be added to the Bill I am agreeable to that course. I think as regards the question of clubs that as between bona fide, social or cultural clubs as the case may be, and those that are not bona fide clubs but are merely clubs as a sort of justification for all-night drinking shops, as the Minister termed them. A distinction should be made, and that the Section of the Bill dealing with clubs would require rather more careful consideration than we are in a position to give to the Bill if we are to go straight into Committee now for that purpose.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I beg to move the suspension of the Standing Orders so that the Committee Stage of this Bill may be taken.

The PRESIDENT

I second the motion. I take it the Minister's intention is to take the Committee Stage of the Bill and that matters which are regarded as contentious or objectionable will not be pressed. As far as he is concerned his view is to get those clauses which are not contentious passed, if the Dáil should see fit to do so. I do not think the Minister intends to take advantage of the facilities that would be afforded with regard to the suspension of the Standing Orders, and in any case if it be desired to put the Bill through its remaining stages a further suspension of the Standing Orders will be necessary so that Deputies who might have scruples on that point would have that further safeguard.

Mr. JOHNSON

I am quite agreeable that the House should go into Committee on the consideration of this Bill.

Question put: "That the Standing Orders be suspended so that the Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1923, may be taken in Committee."

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. JOHNSON

My feeling is that we should go into Committee without formally suspending the Standing Orders. This matter of suspending the Standing Orders is getting too much of a habit.