I beg to move that Section 1 stand part of the Bill.
INTOXICATING LIQUOR BILL. - [THE DAIL IN COMMITTEE.]
(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.
(2) 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.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
I beg to move the following amendment to Section 1: "That Sub-section (2) of Section 1 shall not apply to any area outside the Dublin Metropolitan Police Area." I think the Deputies who represent country constituencies and who have already spoken on this Bill made it quite plain that they had not an opportunity of consulting the trade in their respective constituencies with regard to this measure. Hence I do not think it would be fair to rush this particular Section through the Dáil before Deputies who represent country constituencies are afforded an opportunity of consulting their constituents. Traders in the country form a considerable section of the community, and in licensing duties and in other respects, they contribute large sums to the revenue of the State. For that reason. I think their representatives in this Dáil should be afforded an opportunity of consulting them before this Section is passed. The requirements of the licensed traders of Dublin and their attitude towards this measure were stated here to-day by the Deputies from Dublin City and County. The traders in the country should be afforded a similar opportunity. The amendment I submit is a reasonable one, and I ask the Minister to accept it.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
Deputy Hennessy has made his protest. His licensed constituents will never be able to shake their gory locks at him and say that it was he did it. But the amendment is not acceptable. It is highly advisable to have uniformity with regard to the closing hours, and to end the anomaly of people stepping out of a licensed establishment here and crossing the road to one where they can remain longer. The case for any discrimination in favour of the country is not a strong one. They really gain on one night of the week; they gain on Saturday. Where they close now at 9 p.m., they will gain half an hour on that night.
In view of the fact that the rural areas in Ireland keep old time, does not that mean that they shut at 8.30 p.m.
An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair at this stage.
Deputy Hennessy in moving his amendment stated that he had no opportunity of consulting his licensed constituents. If Bills are going to be dished up to us in the way they are being dished up, none of us will have an opportunity of consulting our constituents, if such a thing is necessary. I would like to ask the Minister for Home Affairs if he has consulted any representative of the licensed trade. It would be interesting to know if he has met them and what the opinion of the spokesmen of the trade has been on this particular matter. I do not think that it is necessary or wise for Deputies to send wires to sections of their constituents on every subject that is brought before this Dáil. We are elected here to form the best judgments we can, and whenever the occasion arises to decide for or against a certain matter. I certainly do not consider it desirable, so far as I am concerned, in voting on a Bill to say that I had no opportunity of discussing the matter, especially in a Bill of this kind that affects every section of the community. If, for instance, there was a strike on, over the question of wages, I do not know whether Deputy Hennessy would put up the arguments that he has put up on this occasion. I think it is unfair to put up that argument. The reason I rose was to ascertain from the Minister whether he has seen people who could speak on behalf of the whole licensed trade of this country, and if so what were their opinions with regard to the matter.
I would like to point out that when one speaks of one's constituents, it must be borne in mind that one is not sent into an Assembly such as this to represent merely a section of the community. One has got to consider, in relation to matters that are placed before the Oireachtas, all the aspects of the case, and how far it may be possible to conform to the interests of the people in the consideration of legislation. The first question that arises in connection with the matter under discussion is what are the advantages to be derived, and what are the forces behind the case that is made for a very slight reduction of the hours in this case. Those of the public who have some knowledge of the present law with regard to licensed hours, know that from seven o'clock in the morning until 11 o'clock at night are hours that mean in the case of employees, employment for very long hours. It may be alleged that there are regulations with regard to hours and so on, but we know that no organisation of in-police forces, or no organisation of inspection that could possibly be inaugurated could deal with all the abuses that might take place with regard to such regulations as may be made. One of the first cases that is made for a cutting-down of the hours is to relieve a certain section of the community that may possibly be overworked, and which in the past, as everybody knows, was very much overworked—persons engaged in this particular trade. Deputies ought to bear that in mind. I think there was scarcely any employment that called so much upon physique of the person engaged in it as this particular one. Regulation of hours will, at least, limit the possibility of further strain on the employees engaged in this trade. The second question is whether or not there is a general consensus of opinion in favour of this. As far as I know, here in the city of Dublin, there is no real objection to the hours that have been in operation for some years. Recently they have been departed from and extended. There is no great case for the extension. There was no volume of opinion in Dublin, as far as I know, in favour of it—in favour of differentiating between the people of the Metropolis and the rest of the country, no demand that the people of the Metropolis should be restricted so far as any time they might spend in these institutions as compared with the rest of the country. In any case, I believe that the principal business that is transacted in the country is transacted on Saturday, and we are giving an extension of half an hour in that case. I do not think the Deputy has put up a case to extend the hours or to give advantages to his constitutents that are denied to the Metropolis.
The present hours are I understand from 7 to 11, outside Borough areas. It is proposed under this Bill to reduce the hours by 4 hours per day, or 24 hours in the week, as these people close down on Sundays. As I pointed out previously, they are paying very heavy licence duty. They do very little business during the day. It is only in the evening, for an hour or two, that they do any business, and the reason I put forward my amendment is that this reduction of hours will hit them very severely, and that in many cases they must close their doors. I do not stand for abuses or for any illegitimate trading. I am with the Minister there, and I am not speaking for electioneering purposes. I hope I shall convince the Minister on that point. Perhaps, I might retort that the Minister himself standing for a Dublin constituency might be thinking of electioneering. The Minister has not stated that he has consulted the South of Ireland traders on this point. If he has, and if they are agreeable, I will withdraw my amendment. As was stated here a moment ago, people going to fairs and markets require refreshments in the morning before 9 o'clock. Anybody who has had any experience of the country knows that light refreshments are necessary in the morning, and that 10 o'clock at night is not an unreasonable hour to keep a house open. The licensed traders generally are not men who abuse their licences. If there is a very small section of them who commit abuses that is no reason why the whole body of the vintners should be come down upon. I must press my amendment.
I would like to ask the Minister if he would inform me what are the present regulations in the country regarding hours?
Mr. O'HIGGINS
The present hours are:—Saturdays, Dublin, Belfast, Cork, Limerick, Waterford—7 a.m. to 10 p.m.; other towns with a population over 5,000, 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.; all other places 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. We need not bother about Sunday, Christmas Day or Good Friday, on which there are special hours. The ordinary week day hours are: Dublin, Belfast, Cork, Limerick, Waterford—7 a.m. to 11 p.m.; other towns with a population over 5,000 7 a.m. to 11 p.m.; all other places 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.
I asked the Minister a question which he has not answered. If he is in a position to answer it I would like him to do so. I would like him to say whether or not he has seen representatives of the licensed trade and what is their considered opinion on this matter. I am quite prepared to accept the considered opinion and judgment of those who speak on behalf of the licensed traders and who may enter into an agreement with their employees with regard to the hours. I am particularly anxious that in every area throughout the country, including the Dublin area, public houses in the same town or district, or even throughout the entire country, should open and close at the same time. No matter what one might like to think to the contrary, we know perfectly well that the people who keep their houses open after the regular hours —the hours agreed upon between those who employ assistants and their employees—are the people who sell poteen and bad drink and who in every way defraud the people who pay high prices for the liquor they consume. I want all publicans to be put on an equal footing, so that no man will be able to take advantage of the person next door or to sell bad liquor or open during irregular hours. That is why I would like to know from the Minister what is the considered opinion of those who speak on behalf of the trade, not alone in Dublin but throughout the country.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
There were interviews between representatives of the trade and officials of my department and the impression I got was that they were satisfied with those hours and substantially satisfied with the provisions of the Bill. They had no serious objection to urge to any of the provisions of the Bill. I take it these men were representatives of the trade interests not merely in the city of Dublin but the trade interests throughout the country, and I accepted their view as such. The necessity for uniform closing hours is obvious. If you have a certain hour here in Dublin and a different hour for the country you will have the anomaly of people changing out of one house into another which happens to be across the border. I think twelve and a half hours in the day is long enough for the sale of liquor.
I was of the opinion that the first Bill to be introduced here for restricting the hours of licensed traders would include a clause to reduce the cost of liquor or the duty which is going to the Exchequer of the Saorstát, so that customers could obtain the liquor at a cheaper rate. According to Section 1 the hour at which public houses will open in the morning is 9 o'clock. We must remember that in country towns people have to travel from 3 and 4 o'clock in the morning to markets and fairs in the towns and sometimes they reach these towns in the winter time at 3 o'clock in the morning. Surely those people are entitled to a little refreshment in order to warm up their systems and fit them for the business transactions of the day. I do not disagree with the fixing of the hour for closing at 9.30 p.m. I think a public house which closes at 9.30 p.m. has had a long enough day. The extra half-hour which is being given will cater for such people as I represent here, and I can assure the Dáil that the workers of Westmeath and Longford are not people upon whom the public house acts as a magnet. As I have said, I am quite satisfied with the closing hour, but I would urge the Minister to fix the opening hour at, say, 8 o'clock and thus give an opportunity to the traders in the towns where fairs and markets are held to provide necessary refreshment for the people who come to these fairs and markets. In the country the same person who sells intoxicating drink also sells provisions, and in some cases you will find the publican engaged in the drapery and boot trades as well, while in addition he is in a position to book your passage to the United States. I would certainly agree that the Minister should bring in a Bill to the effect that the licensed trader should not——
That is another matter altogether.
I would like to impress upon the Minister the desirability of having the houses in the towns open before 9 o'clock. In many cases working people may have their accounts in licensed houses and if something is forgotten overnight the worker may have to go to work next morning without his breakfast if the shops are closed until 9 o'clock. Then we have a certain number of people in Ireland who cannot go to work in the morning until they get a drink. If you close the public houses until 9 o'clock in the morning there will be officials and clerks and traders in other businesses and artisans and workers of different descriptions who will be late for their work because they will have to wait for the public houses to open in order that they may get a drink. I was pleased to hear the Minister adopting the labour attitude and saying that these people working behind bars are working very long hours. I presume this Bill is introduced in order that the President may prove that he as one man is going to give them shorter hours. That may have something to do with it, but I do not think it has. I think the Minister, with his usual good humour, mentioned that simply to try to draw the opposition to vote with him. I ask the Minister to extend the opening hour by an hour, which would be appreciated. Since we have got the Civic Guard I am happy to say that on Sundays in towns where previously the public house doors were open they are now closed. He has his men and I think they are doing their work.
I should like to remind Deputies generally that when we reach 4 o'clock we automatically adjourn until 3 o'clock on Tuesday.
Without reporting progress?
Without reporting anything.
I would be agreeable to sit on for an hour longer.
Give us time to get something to eat.
I propose that we sit until 5 o'clock. Some of us have not made the acquaintance of the table since early this morning, and perhaps it would shorten speeches if it were known that we would not leave this until 5 o'clock. I think there is a good deal of agreement about the principle of the Bill, and I hope to be able to get it through.
Is it proposed to get through the Committee Stage this evening before 5 o'clock? What about the other stages? We should be clear as to what we are to do.
I suggest that it is impossible to get through the Bill this evening unless we confine it to Sections 1 and 2. As far as I am concerned, the only agreement I can make is that the question of hours can be altered as laid down here.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
With no reference to closing hours for clubs at all?
If you have that in Section 1 I do not mind. So far as I am concerned I do not mind making that 9.30, but I think there is more than that, a good deal more than that, in the question of the clubs, and my objection is that it cannot be considered this evening.
What if we take the first five Sections?
That is a very fair suggestion.
Yes, I am prepared to agree to that.
And put through the remaining stages when they have been dealt with in Committee?
We will see how we get on.
If that is agreed I think that we had better sit for another hour.
Agreed.
On a point of order in that regard; if it will happen that the first five Sections are not completed, are we to go on until 5 o'clock, or such time as the five Sections require to be dealt with, and if it should happen that these five Sections should be got through in a half an hour, is it the intention to go on with the Judiciary Bill?
My interpretation of the suggestion is that we should proceed no further than the first five sections of the Bill, and if we got these finished in time we might be able to finish the Bill. If not, we cannot possibly finish either the Committee or any other Stage, but if we do finish the Bill, by any extraordinary chance, in half an hour, I take it the President does not intend proceeding with any further business.
No, Sir, but there is an uncontentious motion which I wish to move.
I would suggest that, in any case, Section 13 should have to be put in as well as the first five. It is non-contentious, it is to remedy an injustice, and it would probably go through without any opposition. I suggest that it be included.
The understanding is the first five Sections so far. Section 13 is essential. The motion is: "That Section 1 stand part of the Bill."
SECTION 1. SUB-SECTION (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 liquor 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.
I drew attention to what I think was a lapse in line 20, and I am in a difficulty owing to inability to make inquiries as to how best to amend it. My proposal is to delete the words "who is the owner or lessee" and to insert "in respect of," so that the sub-section would read, "This sub-section shall not apply to any licensed person in respect of a theatre, music hall or other place of public amusement," but I seem to remember that there is a difference between the British licensing laws and the Irish, and the Minister said that this was taken from the British licensing laws. I am not sure whether or not it is a fact that in Britain it is the person who is licensed and in Ireland it is the place. A person is licensed in respect of a place and that makes a difference in the phraseology here. Therefore I will move, subject to whatever correction the Minister will make, to delete the words "who is the owner or lessee" and to substitute, after "person,""in respect of" the theatre, music hall or other place of amusement.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
If the Deputy would take me as admitting the need for rectification there, I could bring up a form of words later.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion made, and question put: "That Section 1 stand part of the Bill."
Agreed.
SECTION 2.
Whenever a District Justice is satisfied on the application of a Superintendent or an Inspector of the Gárda Síochána that grave abuses prejudicial to peace and order have arisen and are actually taking place in any town or village and that in order to facilitate the suppression of such abuses it is expedient that the sale of intoxicating liquor in such town or village should immediately cease, the District Justice may order the immediate closing for the remainder of that day of all premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor in that town or village.
This Section provides a drastic remedy for closing all the public houses in places where there is liable to be an abuse by the sale of intoxicating liquor. I do not object to that, provided that the power is exercised with proper control. I suggest that the least that can be done is to put in an amendment after the words "Ghárda Síochána," the words "supported by his sworn statement." The effect of that would be that the local police superintendent or inspector could only get this closing order from the District Justice on swearing an affidavit, or swearing verbally, that the circumstances are as stated in this Section.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
I wonder would the Deputy accept as a reasonable compromise the insertion of the word "written" before "application"?
I do not think that quite meets my point. I agree, of course, that a written application is better than an oral one. I believe that a police inspector if he cannot swear an affidavit, if there be great urgency, should at least have to make a statement on oath. It is not asking very much to go before a District Justice and make on oath his reasons for that application. It need not necessarily be written. I think that is a better check, even though it is a verbal statement on oath, rather than a written application.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
I am not, in a general way, enamoured of oaths. For membership of the force itself the oath has been dispensed with and members are simply asked to make a declaration. I think it is a reasonable offer to insert before application "written," so that the person making the application to the District Justice will have to write out in a formal way his reasons for making the application, and that will be something on record at any rate, but it seems an absurd thing that a police superintendent, a responsible official of that kind, should have to go in and take an oath before a District Justice in order to tell him that there was such a state of affairs in the town and that it was necessary for the preservation of peace that the public houses should be closed for a couple of hours.
I do not want to press the matter unduly, but it may be more than for a couple of hours, and a man may act in a panic, and on the spur of the moment unreasonably.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
It would perhaps be more than a couple of hours. The suggestions I had intended to make was to insert for a day, or for the remainder of the day or such shorter period as he might deem adequate.
Will Deputy Gavan Duffy accept the amendment?
Yes.
The amendment is: "In Section 2, line 30, before the word `application' to insert the word `written.' "
Agreed.
I speak subject to correction when I assume that in every Division there is a Superintendent of the Civic Guard. This new force is admirable in many ways, still I think its youth would warrant that in a matter of this kind the responsibility should be placed on the highest available officer, who, I take it, would be the Superintendent. The Superintendent, I assume, is in close touch with all the Civic Guard stations in his area. That being so, I think the responsibility should be undertaken by him and not transferred to anybody else. I ask the Minister if he would accept an amendment to omit the words "or inspector"?
Mr. O'HIGGINS
I do not think it is reasonable. The rank of Superintendent in the Civic Guard at present would correspond in a general way to that of a County Inspector in the past, and the inspector to the lower rank of a District Inspector, but it is a question that such a situation as that that the Sub-section is intended to deal with, might occur in any town other than the county town, where the Superintendent would be resident, and generally stationed, and he ought to be able to entrust and delegate a power of that kind to the lower officer, an Inspector. Otherwise it would mean that at any event of any importance occurring at all within the county it would be absolutely necessary that the Superintendent himself should be present. The rank of Inspector in the Civic Guard presupposes a certain common sense and responsibility that is adequate for dealing with a matter of this kind, particularly when you consider that after he has come to a certain conclusion, he has got to satisfy the District Justice of the state of affairs that prevails, and showing the necessity that exists for that. I think the Deputy ought not to press that.
I withdraw.
The amendment by the Minister for Home Affairs is: "To insert after the word `day' on the second last line of the Section, line 32, `the remainder of that day, or such shorter period as he may deem adequate.' "
Agreed.
I want to suggest an amendment to line 33. The wording of Sub-section 2 seems to me to be open to considerable doubt. "Whenever a District Justice is satisfied on the written application that grave abuses prejudicial to peace and order have arisen and are actually taking place." I do not myself understand what "grave abuses prejudicial to peace and order" that may be actually taking place may mean. The expression is one that I am not familiar with in any Act dealing with a breach of the licensing laws, and it is very ambiguous. I suggest that that should be altered to "whenever the District Justice is satisfied on the written application," and so on, "that in the interests of the preservation of public peace and order it is inexpedient that the sale of intoxicating liquor should take place" you have got to satisfy a District Justice that it is essential that public houses should be closed in certain places for a particular period. That can only be where there are grave dangers to public peace and order. I think it would be better to use some expression of that kind, rather than to put it upon the Superintendent or Inspector to say there are grave abuses, and not saying what they are, or to describe something or other which may or may not be the grave abuses that are actually taking place.
Surely what is contemplated in this Section is that where some mass meeting of people of a tumultuous character is advertised to take place that the police authorities can come to the District Justice and get an order to close the public houses before the people should actually be in the public streets. It does seem that some expression such as I suggest should be put into the clause, for instance, some words like this: "That in the interest of the preservation of public peace and order it is expedient that the sale of intoxicating liquor should be prohibited." I will move as an amendment to substitute these words instead of the words in lines 32, 33 and 34.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
I will be prepared to accept that.
That is much wider than was originally proposed. Written application made by the police to the effect that there was a riot going on is not nearly so wide as what is now proposed, because what is now proposed enables you to give the policeman power, without any sworn statement, to get the public houses closed down generally because of something he thinks may happen. That is a totally different proposition and I for one would be against it.
I agree with Deputy Gavan Duffy that Deputy FitzGibbon's amendment, while perhaps more in accord with practice in legal departments, does very greatly increase the power of the District Justice and does very greatly widen the intention of this Section. He has not to wait until there is reason for closing down the public houses because of certain abuses that are in being, but he can, as a kind of precautionary measure, say that these houses must be closed down. I am not sure that they have not got such power to-day. They have certainly exercised that authority. Whether they have legal power or not I am not sure, but it is done. I think the Section as it stands, or at least the intention of the Section as it stands, is better in this Bill at any rate. Whatever may be done under future licensing laws it is better to confine the power of closing the public houses to the time when the trouble has actually begun and not as a preparation for trouble which may come. It really gives power that has not been sought for in the negotiations leading up to this Bill, and I suggest that the powers of the Bill should not be widened at this stage.
The amendment is to delete all the words from the end of line 31 to the word "abuse," inclusive, in line 34, and to substitute the words "in the interest of public peace and order" so that the Section would read: "whenever a District Justice is satisfied on the application of a Superintendent or an Inspector of the Gárda Síochána that in the interest of public peace and order it is expedient that the sale of intoxicating liquor in such town or village should immediately cease the District Justice may order the immediate closing for the remainder of that day of all premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor in that town or village."
There are existing provisions dealing with that matter and I do not think we should be asked to pass a totally different proposal without knowing what the other provisions are. Presumably there is no need for a change in the matter and the Minister's proposal is quite a different one from that of Deputy FitzGibbon.
If there are existing provisions which enable Justices to close publichouses in anticipation of a riot, it would necessarily follow that the same powers would exist when the riot actually took place. I cannot conceive that there is any legislation that enables public houses to be closed before a riot that does not exist to enable them to be closed when the riot takes place. I am under the impression that the draftsman in framing this Bill was himself under the impression that he was giving the District Justices power that the other Magistrates had of closing public houses when there was trouble on, and assuming, as I do, from the way the Section is drafted, it is only for the remainder of the day that the closing can take place, that it barely confines the possibility of shutting public houses down to a state of affairs in which it would be absolutely essential that they should be shut down.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
The existing power, I am advised, is that in the case of a fully fledged riot the District Justice has the power given him by the District Justices' Act, which formally vested in the Resident Magistrate, that he might close up public houses in a town or village. We drafted this Section with a view to dealing with a state of affairs not so intense as a fully fledged riot. There might be, in a particular town, excessive drinking on a very large scale constituting a problem overtaxing the resources of the police situation in that town, and with every possibility—I will not say of riot—but of possible assaults throughout the town in a great many places, and so on. In a situation of that kind it would be a useful power, used with discretion and judgment, if the police could make application to a District Justice and satisfy him of the need for closing down the public houses, I do not anticipate the necessity for closing down for the remainder of the day or that that would be necessary, but I can quite easily imagine that a situation would arise in which the power of closing for two or three hours would be extremely useful. I think it is simply a matter that the power ought not to be given in such a way as to be restricted to actual riot.
Deputy FitzGibbon; I feel, is right in suggesting that if you have all the elements of very serious trouble you ought to be able to intervene before the explosion takes place, and to take steps to prevent its taking place However, while I said that I personally would be prepared to accept Deputy FitzGibbon's amendment, I would be content with the Section as it stands, and it is one of the Sections in the Bill that if there was not any keen general objection to or suspicion about I would be keenest about. I believe it would be a useful power, but I believe a situation that would require its operation would not occur more than half a dozen times in the year, though the power would be a useful power to have.
Amendment put, and agreed to.
The next amendment is after the word "day" ["for the remainder of that day"] to insert the words "or for such shorter period as may be deemed adequate."
Amendment agreed to.
Question: "That Section 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
Section 3. ["Penalties for opening during prohibited hours"] was agreed to, and added to the Bill.
SECTION 4.
Nothing in any 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 tobona-fide travellers within the meaning of the Licensing (Ireland) Acts, 1833 to 1905.
On this Section I would like to know whether this would be the proper time to move a new clause dealing with the point made by Deputy McGarry earlier in the day. As Deputies are aware, in the year 1900 there was an Act passed extending the boundaries of the City of Dublin, and taking in some of the outlying districts. Through the faulty drafting of the Bill at Westminster licensed traders in Fairview area who were brought in under the extension of the boundaries of the City, and who had seven-day licences were debarred from carrying on their trade on Sundays. There are some three or four houses in the Fairview district that have seven day licenses, and owing to this faulty drafting of the Act of 1900 they are closed on Sunday, although they hold seven day licenses and pay for seven-day licences. In 1906 the matter was brought before the Courts and a decision was given that owing to a fault in the Act disqualification applied to these publicans. In view of the fact that these people are paying very high rents and very high taxation. I ask the Minister if he would say that in a future Dáil this matter would be considered and the claim of these traders allowed, and they would be given the same facilities for carrying on their trade as other people who are paying seven-day licences.
If a promise is now given that the matter will be considered, and if the Minister will say that he will go into the question later on, and if he finds that an injustice has been done we will see that it is remedied, I am prepared to leave the matter at that, but otherwise I would have to move a new clause embodying the right of those traders, and, I presume, this will be the time to do it.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
I am not prepared to accept the amendment indicated by the Deputy and by Deputy McGarry now because an amendment like that moved without notice would be undesirable and unacceptable, but I will undertake to have the matter looked into, and if my Department is satisfied that an injustice exists they will take steps to have it remedied. Whether a Bill would be necessary or not is a matter that needs investigation.
Mr. BYRNE
I am satisfied with that undertaking.
Section 4 was agreed to and added to the Bill.
PART II.
SECTION 5.
(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.
I move in this Section to delete the hours "9.30 p.m." as the time at which clubs should close for the sale of intoxicating liquor and to substitute therefor "11 p.m." There is a general feeling that 9 o'clock is too early an hour at which to debar members of registered clubs from receiving intoxicating liquor. All shades of opinion are in favour of the extension of that hour. We have strong temperance advocates who are of the opinion that we might advance the hour, and I think it might be done. Certainly 9.30 would be regarded as rather a harsh regulation by a great many reputable citizens who are members of clubs, and I do not think that any abuse could occur if the hour of 11 p.m. was put into this Section especially as Section 6 make provision for the most stringent kind of inspection. I move this amendment.
The Deputy has said that all sections of the Dáil have supported the idea embodied in his amendment. I asked for some reasons why any difference should be made between a public house and a Club. Deputy Gavan Duffy kindly responded to that invitation and gave what he considered to be satisfactory reasons. They were not satisfactory to me. I cannot understand why any special consideration should be given to those men and women who become members of Clubs as against those who do not. I suppose the public house is verily what it has often been called "the poor man's Club." He does not pay a guinea a year, or five shillings a year, or three-pence a night for the privilege of having a seat in a Club, but he goes to the public house and takes his drink. He talks politics, perhaps the virtues of the Government, perhaps the merits of Mr. Alfred Byrne, who perhaps is seeking the voters' support at an election. All these things are discussed around a table—I think I am out of date; they are generally standing at a counter nowadays, or sitting in a cubicle, in the country at any rate. However, the public house is used as a poor man's Club, but he has to cease at 9.30 p.m. There is very great inducement for him to join a Club so that he can go from the public house to the Club, where he may have more pleasure or——
Mr. BYRNE
And continue to discuss the good qualities of Alfred Byrne.
Or otherwise? However, I am not able to understand why special facilities should be given for the consumption of intoxicating liquor to the man who joins a Club as distinct from a man who pays over the counter day by day, or night by night, and I require to have the difference made clear to me. I am open to conviction. I have been in a few places which are called Clubs— they have a billiard table, a card table, and sometimes dominoes, and they help to pass the time while the appetite is being satisfied or created. The amendment rather suggests that that should be allowed for an hour and a half longer than in the case of the other person who goes to the public house either for a "night-cap" or for a conversation. I am not able to see the difference and I have yet to be convinced that there is any reason for any difference in the treatment of the two classes of the community. It may be said that Clubs, speaking generally, are more satisfactorily conducted than public houses. I do not know. I think the public houses are generally under greater supervision; there is more publicity at any rate and consequently less likelihood of abuses. It is said that the public houses exist for the one purpose—to sell liquor—whereas in the Club the sale of intoxicating liquor is incidental. No doubt that is true in many cases, but the incidents happen very frequently.
Question.
The incidents happen very frequently—in some Clubs less frequently than others—and I am anxious to hear whether there are any better reasons than those adduced by Deputy Gavan Duffy for the difference between the habitué of the public house and the habitué of the Club.
I could quite understand Deputy Johnson's argument if his premises were right. They are not. Deputy Johnson is attacking this amendment on the assumption that the club is the rich man's monopoly, and that he is to be allowed to enjoy himself when the other man is turned out of the public house. I think the Deputy overlooks the fact that there are in this city of Dublin a number of clubs for working men and other men connected or linked by trade interests or other interests—men who can in no sense be described as rich men, who use these clubs constantly, to whom the clubs are a very great convenience and a legitimate source of recreation. He described the public house as the Poor Man's Club. He has overlooked the fact that in this city at all events whatever may be the case elsewhere there are a number of clubs which will come within this Bill— I have no doubt the Deputy on my right could get particulars if he thought proper—many of them consisting of working members, which would be affected by this decision. When I was speaking of the hardships of closing down the supply of intoxicating liquors at 9.30 in places where people come to rest and talk in the evenings and which are not primarily places for drinking at all, I had one or two of these very clubs in my mind. This is by no means a question of making a distinction between rich and poor.
I do not desire to confine my inference to rich and poor, but to those who join clubs and those who do not. I am quite well aware that a large number of workmen join clubs. But so far from the provisions of the Section as it stands hurting those people, if they join clubs legitimately for the purpose of recreation and pleasure and enlightenment, the provision would not be a hardship at all. It is only in so far as they use those clubs for drinking purposes that there is any hardship entailed. I do not see why a man who is not a member of a club if he wants a drink of beer, porter or whiskey must go to a publichouse at 9.15 p.m., whereas if he is a member of a club he may delay his nightcap until 10.45 p.m. My mind is not fixed on this matter, but I require to be convinced that there is any legitimate distinction to be drawn between the two sections of the community and to be shown why one section should have a preference over the other.
I looked for some arguments from Deputy Johnson and I have not heard any. His whole argument is based upon the abuse of a figure of speech. He starts off by telling us that the public house is the Poor Man's Club thus making a distinction between clubs and clubs. Now that is nonsense. The public house is not the Poor Man's Club. I would be sorry for the poor man if it were. I hope we shall have better clubs for the poor man some day. Talk to any publican in Dublin and tell him he is running a Poor Man's Club and he will smile. His business is to sell drink and sell as much drink as he can and make as big profit as he can. That is what his house is for. It is not there in the interests of the poor man. It is an unfortunate thing that the poor man has no other club to go to. I am not speaking on behalf of any class. It is not a case of setting up one class against another. There are poor men in Dublin who do belong to clubs and they have no opportunity of going to these clubs until the evening, when their work is over. It is easy to see that this legislation would be a hardship on them and it is well known that frequently you never want a drink until you feel you cannot get it.
Does that only apply to club men?
I think it is an unfortunate and unnecessary restriction on the only enjoyment of a very reputable portion of the citizens of the Saorstát.
Did the Deputy vote for the Second Reading? I think he did and thus supported a restriction on the rest of the people who are not members of clubs.
I support Deputy Johnson's view in regard to this proposal. I think if you extend the hours for clubs it will provide a very powerful incentive to those people who frequent these other licensed premises to join clubs. They will go there instead of going to the places they have been in the habit of going. I think both should be left on the same level. A preference should not be given, and in this case I do not think the preference is being given to the people who are the most deserving. They have at home the company and the comforts that other people have. In my opinion no preference should be given to the members of clubs over and above what other people enjoy. If you give such a preference, you are using yourself as an advance agent for the recruitment of members of clubs. That is the only thing this amendment will do.
I am not much of a club man, but I do think that, in fixing this early hour, what Deputy Johnson refers to as the "night-cap," will be partaken of much earlier than it would be, and will be continued to a later hour. If you say that a man shall not purchase a drink after 9.30 he will probably start at 9.15, when otherwise he would delay it much longer. Instead of diminishing the consumption of drink, I think this will increase it, and much more harm will be done by fixing the early hour than by fixing the later hour. There is a fundamental difference between the place that lives by the sale of liquor and the place where the sale of liquor merely comes in incidentally.
I rise to support the amendment. I am encouraged by the statement of the Minister for Home Affairs that if a case could be made he would make an extension of an hour in the case of clubs. I am also encouraged by Deputy Johnson's statement that his mind was not clear on the point and that he had not come to a definite decision on the matter yet. I have in mind at least one club. It has 1,000 members. They are all workmen. I know that some of them come in by train after long journeys when other houses are closed. Their club is a Railway Workers' Club. It provides meals, and it has billiard rooms and other facilities for amusement. I do not think that we should prevent that man coming off a long railway journey from going into his club and getting his drink the same as any well-to-do person can get his drink in a high-class hotel after the ordinary hours.
Will the Deputy say what is the position of the other person who came off that long railway journey and is not a member of a club?
Mr. BYRNE
If there is not sufficient organising ability on the part of the other person's friends to form a Workmen's Club and get him into it that is their fault. If the Dáil curtails the rights of the clubs to the ordinary public house hours, some of those clubs that have been organised and kept together by workmen will not be able to pay their rent. These clubs are mainly supported by their own members. A few are made up of a rather good-class worker. I do not think Deputy Johnson's desire is to injure the Workmen's Clubs. I hope the Minister will agree to this amendment. If he wishes to have the names of, at least, three or four good class Workmen's Clubs in the City of Dublin, I will give them to him.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
The case is certainly neither strong or entirely convincing. Yet you do get the germ of an idea for discrimination. I can visualise a certain kind of club, where members go and play games and read, which does not exist primarily or largely with a view to the consumption of liquor. But there are other clubs throughout the country that are very different. and I have been really thinking more of rural conditions than the conditions here in the City. I know that a great deal of night crime has resulted from these rural clubs that have sprung up. The city is not entirely one way either, because when I was a student I remember a workmen's club which I think had more medical students amongst its members than workmen. They only went there after hours. I think it is a case for a reasonable compromise. I suggested an hour before as a possibility. I did not suggest one and a half hours. I will vote against and strongly oppose an extension to 11 o'clock. It may be said that there is not much difference between 11 o'clock and 10.30 o'clock. A man turning out at 10.30 will go home. At least, he will find everyone else gone home and a fairly deserted condition of things in which he can follow his own sweet will unobserved. Men turning out at 11 o'clock will hang around talking until 12 o'clock, and by that time there is a very satisfactory condition of things for the would-be criminal. I am speaking now, essentially, of rural conditions in the rather lonely areas. I would myself be prepared to accept an amendment giving an hour's latitude, on the understanding that that would be very much on trial, and that we would have this matter looked into very carefully and reported on by the police, and with the full intention of removing that additional hour if, in practice, it proves to be an abuse. I will oppose, and ask anyone I can influence, to oppose the 11 o'clock amendment.
In view of what the Minister has stated, I would ask the Dáil to alter my amendment, and substitute 10.30 o'clock for 11 o'clock.
Leave for alteration of amendment granted.
I would like to draw attention to the effect. Patrick Murphy is a member of one of Deputy Alfred Byrne's Workmen's Clubs. He does not like the drink they sell there, but he is prepared to put up with it when he has done as well as he can in other places. He goes to the ordinary public house, he gets two or three drinks and is turned out at 9.30. A few of his cronies meet him in the street and they say: "We will go to a theatre and have a drink." They go to the theatre and are turned out at 10 o'clock. They then say: "We will go to the club," and they go to the club and drink until 10.30. That is the effect of the amendment.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Motion made and question put: "That Section 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Agreed.
Section 13 will be essential, being the short title.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
I wonder if there is any other Section in the Bill on which there would be general agreement.
Sections 10 and 11.
Would there be any grievance if this matter were left over until the new Dáil has a chance to consider the position? If it is a matter of urgency I do not suppose there will be any opposition, although these are two long sections and we have not read them. I am told that they deal with legitimate grievances that are not likely to be controverted in any way, but what is the position of these licensees if the matter is left over, say, for two months?
Mr. O'HIGGINS
There are a few outstanding cases of hardship. During the year, when things were at their hottest, people simply carried on without certificates. There are a few cases where premises were burned down in one way or another, and when the owners applied for a renewal of licences in respect of new premises they were informed that no licence was attached to the old premises at the time it was destroyed, and that therefore no licence existed to be renewed. There are a few cases of that kind, sufficient to convince us of the necessity for putting in a provision to deal with them. All over the country people carried on during these years with no licence at all, simply with acquiescence on the part of police, and some licences lapsed. I would like very much to get Section 11 through.
Motion made and question put: "That Section 10 stand part of the Bill."
Agreed.
Section 11 is a different question. Is it agreed to take Section 11?
No. It is quite a different thing, and I do not agree with it.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
Very good.
Motion made and question put: "That Section 13 stand part of the Bill."
Agreed.
Will the title have to be altered?
THE TITLE.
An Act to amend the law relating to the sale of intoxicating liquor and the law relating to the distillation and sale of spirits, and for other purposes connected therewith.
I think, in consideration of the fact that we have only passed seven Sections, one of which is the Short Title, we would have to amend the Title by stopping at the word "liquor.""The law in relation to distillation" it not dealt with.
I propose to delete all words after "liquor" to the word "spirits," inclusive.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion made and question put: "That the Title, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Agreed.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
It is necessary that the Bill be divided into two parts, Part I to consist of Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4, and Part II to consist of the remainder. Part I describes the hours and Part II is miscellaneous.
That can be done in the office.