I propose, as was pointed out yesterday, to take a decision on this amendment by putting the question that the words "between the hours of 3 and 5 in the afternoon" stand part of the sub-section.
INTOXICATING LIQUOR BILL, 1927. - COMMITTEE (RESUMED).
SECTION 2, AMENDMENT 3.
On a point of order, if that motion were passed would it preclude me from moving amendment 4 for the insertion of a proviso limiting the acceptance of those hours?
It would not.
Arising out of the new form motion, I am not sure that it is made clear. When a motion is put in this form, that the words named shall remain part of the Bill, it was stated, in the course of the discussion yesterday, that the merits of any of the alternatives suggested by other amendments are not discussable. I ask your ruling whether that is really implicit in the form of the motion, or whether it is not correct to say that while the motion put is, that the words suggested to be deleted are to remain part of the Bill, persons in whose names the various alternatives appear may argue the merits of their various alternatives against others in the Bill.
On the amendment paper there is no alternative suggestion as regards the hours in this section.
Is not the Deputy's amendment, No. 1. an alternative?
My amendment is to delete, that is, that the words do not stand part of the Bill.
I do not know if it is correct to state that yesterday afternoon any Deputies were precluded from urging hours of opening other than ten o'clock.
I do not want to create a wrong impression—not that they were precluded, but in the course of discussion statements were made that they were prohibited, and I think it is a mistake. I ask that the matter be clarified so that the new procedure may be understood.
Yesterday evening when the opening hours in county boroughs from Monday to Friday were under discussion, the question was that the hour of opening, 10 o'clock, stand part of the section, and the matters that could have been under discussion were the alternative proposals. I think there were two on the paper, one by Deputy Lyons to have publichouses open at 8.30, and the other was an amendment by Deputy Redmond to go back to the present hour, namely, 9 o'clock. The value of putting this question is that it enables all the alternatives to be discussed, but if the words in the Bill are allowed to stand all the alternatives fail. Deputy Thrift's amendment cannot arise if the words are taken out, but it does arise provided the words remain in.
Before I proceed with my amendment, I would like to have a statement as to the effect of the ruling on amendment 5 by Deputy Redmond, for that also deals with the hours 3 to 5. Would not the passing of this motion you suggest, that the hours stand part of the Bill, have the effect of ruling out portion of Deputy Redmond's amendment?
No. What we are discussing is Section 2, sub-section (1), paragraph (a).
We are only dealing with paragraph (a)?
Yes, and Deputy Redmond's amendment 5 is to paragraph (b).
I understand that this matter is going to be left to a free vote of the House?
Like opponents of the Bill, I have not been idle since the Second Reading. I have been exploring possibilities and impossibilities. I would like to tell the Dáil the conclusions that I have arrived at in regard to this matter of split hours. If the proposal in the Bill that there be a break in the day from 3 to 5 is put to the Dáil on a non-party vote, it will, according to my estimate at any rate, be defeated. On the other hand, I have been able to arrive at an accommodation which I personally am prepared to accept. It is to provide for one hour's complete closing in the four county boroughs, that is, whereas under this proposed two hours' break in the Bill mixed houses would be open for the non-licensed portion of their business, I can put to the Dáil, and I believe I can carry, a proposal for a complete closing of one hour—that the mixed houses be closed equally with the licensed houses pure and simple.
Does that apply all over?
It applies only to the four county boroughs. If this proposal to leave the words of the sub-section stand goes to the Dáil, I would ask the Deputies to vote for it on the understanding that on the Report Stage I will bring forward an amendment providing that the break in the day be a one hour's break, and that it be a completely closed one even for the mixed business—a shut door arrangement.
Has the Minister got any hour on his mind?
I would take either of the hours, but my preference is from 3 to 4. I am fully alive to the fact that reducing the two hours to one hour means still an eleven hours drinking day in the four county boroughs. On the other hand, it is perhaps something of a gain not to have to deal with the administrative difficulties that arise when you have a house opened for the non-licensed portion of its business and closed, or theoretically closed, for the licensed portion. We will have that difficulty even as it is in the morning hour from 9 to 10, but it is not as serious matter then as it might be at a later hour of the day, and I am prepared to put to the Dáil the proposal for a complete closing for one hour in the day for the four county boroughs. If this motion now before the Dáil, that these words stand, be put, I ask for a vote on it on the basis of my promise that I will introduce the amendment I have outlined on the Report Stage.
Do I understand from the Minister that he is prepared to reduce the two hours closing to one hour provided all houses, mixed trading and others, shall be closed for that one hour? Is that the proposal?
Yes.
Would it be possible to give the House an opportunity of considering this before it reaches the next stage?
Of consulting its constituents?
Because the position we are in now is that there is a proposal in the Bill, as originally printed, which suggests closing for two hours, but that is limited, because there is another section which provides that mixed traders shall be allowed to open during those hours for business other than the sale of intoxicating liquor. The Minister now comes along with a further proposal. On the Second Reading he suggested that this original proposal should be left to a free vote, and he now says that he is convinced if there was a free vote the original proposal would go.
I am equally convinced that the new one will carry.
Being convinced of that he is now suggesting that in exchange for the defeat of his original proposal he shall get a complete hour's closing in the middle of the day. I think that that is somewhat of a surprise to spring upon the House at this stage, and I would like to ask the Minister whether, in view of the whole circumstances in regard to this Bill, it is his intention to dispose of it in one Committee Stage, or whether he intends to have a second Committee Stage?
The Bill will almost certainly be recommitted on Report.
I understand now that the Bill will probably——
Almost certainly. I am quite prepared to promise that the Bill will be recommitted, because I will myself have amendments on the Report Stage, which will need greater latitude in discussion than the strict adherence to the procedure of the Report Stage would allow.
On that understanding I take it that we have reached this stage—that if these words are allowed to stand concerning the split hours the Minister will then propose an amendment, or an alteration, or a substitution for these words, that there should be a complete hour's closing, and that the House will have an opportunity of discussing the new proposal in Committee. Is that the situation?
That is what I tried to say.
The suggestion that there will be a second Committee Stage means this: The Bill will be reprinted with the amendments passed during this Committee Stage. Amendments will then be tabled for the Report Stage, and the Dáil will go into Committee for the consideration of these amendments.
I take it that there will be an opportunity then of moving amendments to the recommitted Bill?
The Bill will be amended in this Committee; it will be reprinted as amended, and it will come up for consideration on Report. Amendments will come in for that Stage, and, as has happened in cases of other important Bills, the House will go into Committee for the consideration of these amendments. Further amendments of which no notice has been given will be subject to the ordinary rules, that is, they may or they may not be accepted by the Chair. In the case of these words, if they are allowed to stand now and the Minister proposes an amendment subsequently, the words will be first taken out and an attempt will then be made to put other words in. If that proposal is defeated the existing law will stand.
On a point of order. I want to know whether the effect of this announcement nullifies either the proposal or the amendment. It makes no difference whatever whether the proposal or the amendment is passed.
I thought it would be too harsh to point that out. It seemed to me to be clear.
I quite agree.
The Minister contemplates——
Is this on the point of procedure or on the merits?
On the merits. The Minister contemplates defeat if the amendment is pressed. By operation of a free vote of the House the strong man will have met with a check. To avert defeat he proposes a bargain. The bargain is that we should let him carry this point of his Bill to-day and at a later stage he will radically alter his proposals. In Section 3, mixed trading is dealt with, and the words used there are: "the portion of such premises in which such non-licensed business is carried on is not structurally separated from the remainder of such premises," and the remainder of the provision in that section has reference to houses in which mixed trading—licensed and non-licensed—is carried on without structural separation between the two parts. But Section 2, with which we are dealing, is concerned with every type of shop which sells, or exposes for sale, any intoxicating liquor. The broadest and the widest reference possible—"in any county borough to sell or expose for sale any intoxicating liquor or to open or keep open any premises for the sale of intoxicating liquor." The Minister's proposal, which arises in connection with Section 2, will affect such licensed premises as carry on a non-licensed trade as well and which have provided, what is so highly desirable, structural separation between the two. So that when we reach this further stage of dealing with the proposal of the Minister consideration will have to be paid to the difference between these two types of premises. The Minister speaks of making a complete closing for one hour. Such a house as I have referred to, with structural division between the two parts of the premises, will be compulsorily closed for one hour at mid-day as regards its non-licensed trade. It will, therefore, be subjected to that handicap in competition with other houses that are not carrying on a licensed trade as well.
On a point of order. Is the Deputy making a point of order or is he discussing the section?
Deputy Heffernan was asleep when you, sir, put the question to me whether I was on the point of order or on the merits of the case.
Deputy Magennis must give way to Deputy Heffernan on a point of order. What is the point of order?
I want to know if Deputy Magennis is talking on a point of order or if he is discussing Section 2?
Deputy Magennis is discussing amendment 3 to Section 2 in the light of a statement made by the Minister, but I think Deputy Heffernan is entitled to say whether he is insisting upon putting his amendment or not. I will hear Deputy Magennis to the end of his speech and then take Deputy Heffernan.
I submit there is no proposal before the House for the one hour closing.
That is perfectly sound.
I know that I could take no more unpopular course than to stand between the House and Deputy Heffernan, so that I shall, therefore, merely dwell on the one point which I understood the Minister to make, that his bargain was that he would substitute for the two hours mid-day closing a compulsory one hour total closing. I wish to point out the effect of that in the light of his own illustration of from three to four being the one hour. The shopping public will be at lunch, presumably, or at the mid-day meal, call it what you please, between 1 and 2, or between 2 and 3, and then when they proceed to do their shopping they will find the shops closed compulsorily from 3 to 4. There is a lacuna in the working day for these people, not of two hours, as originally proposed, but of several hours. I suggest that the Minister has not thought out his proposal with sufficient care. It is rather a peculiar situation in which to find himself, that after the long time it took to incubate this measure, in consequence of the report of the Liquor Commission, it was suddenly altered in several respects and that then it has again been altered in this hurried fashion so as to leave these two defects, first its effect on the house carrying on mixed trading with structural alteration between the two parts, and also the inconvenience to the shopping public.
In regard to procedure, suppose I insist on my amendment and it is passed, will it not still be open to the Minister to propose an amendment on the Report Stage to the effect that the houses must be closed for one hour? Is that procedure not open?
Yes; whether the words in sub-section (1), paragraph (a), stand or are deleted, the amendment of which the Minister has spoken will be in order on the next stage.
In view of your ruling, and in view of the method which the Minister has adopted to bring this matter before the House, I feel that I have no alternative but to put the amendment before the House in the manner suggested by you. I take exception to the methods adopted by the Minister in regard to this particular section and the amendment. They are somewhat of the same nature as those adopted by the Minister in regard to the Second Reading of the Bill. We have here before us a Bill on the Committee Stage and we have the extraordinary procedure adopted by the Minister of coming to the House and making a statement with regard to an amendment he proposes to introduce at a later stage and which he had an opportunity of introducing at this stage if he had taken advantage of that opportunity. I say the correct procedure, and the procedure which the Minister should have adopted, if only in courtesy to the mover of the particular amendment, would have been to put down the amendment at this stage or to have a Ministerial amendment put down proposing the method he intends to adopt.
We had the Bill coming before us on Second Reading, and the Minister telling us that we were to pass that Bill, but that that was not the Bill we were to have eventually. He is asking us to pass a Bill which is not before the House at all, a Bill which he is going to amend. We have the same procedure to-day adopted by the Ministers. I take exception to that procedure. I say it is not fair to the members of the House, that when they have prepared particular amendments and prepared any arguments that they may intend to put forward, the Minister comes along with another suggestion which is quite new, which means a reconsideration of the whole section, a reconsideration of the whole position not only in regard to this section but to other sections dealing with another class of trading. In view of that I do not feel that I have the right to withdraw the amendment as there are other Deputies who may still persist in the point of view that the houses should not be closed between 3 and 5.
I want to say, in regard to this amendment and to any other amendment which I put down, that I am not in any sense of the word speaking as official spokesman of the licensed trade. I have not been in close contact with, nor have I been in any way approached by the licensed trade. In putting forward this amendment, I am expressing views and principles which I have held for a considerable time with regard to the whole matter. The underlying principle in my mind in regard to this and my other amendment is that bothersome and vexatious regulations in regard to the hours of opening and the control of licensed premises, are not likely to have the effect of producing less drinking. I fully approve of any method which may be taken to diminish the number of publichouses. I believe that is the only effective clause in the Bill, and were it not for that clause the Bill would have been so much eye-wash and so much a waste of the time of the House in discussing it.
With regard to the suggestion that the licensed houses in the county boroughs should be closed from 3 to 5, the objection that I have is that it will not have any real effect in causing a diminution in the amount of liquor consumed. The Minister dealt with a type of men whom he called "sitters," the men who sit in the public house for hours and who by means of this section would be forced to leave the house between 3 and 5. I do not know what the Minister's knowledge or experience is, but I believe there are very few drinkers of that type in existence in the Saorstát. My view in regard to this particular form of drinking, as in regard to any other form of drinking, is that the greatest influence for temperance we have had in modern times has been the increase in the price of liquor, and that while it remains at its present price there is practically no need for any restrictive legislation of any kind. People certainly are not drinking because they cannot afford it.
Another matter with regard to this question of liquor reform is that it will cause, in my opinion, considerable inconvenience to the ordinary public. I think cognisance should be taken of the fact that in this country we are really an agricultural people, that our cities are distributing centres for the agricultural community and are not industrial centres, and that there is a continual percolation of country people into the cities. They come into Dublin almost every day. They come in in the morning, do their business, as a rule, in the morning hours, get their lunch, and then, between 3 and 4 and 5, just at the hour when a man decides that he might want a drink to keep his spirits up, he finds the publichouses are closed against him.
He can go outside the city boundary.
My experience of the existing regulations in England is that when I felt like having a drink —which is not very often—the idea always seemed to strike me between 3 and 5 o'clock. The Minister has rather complicated the matter by introducing this question of closing for an hour, because that deals with the question of mixed trading and takes away an argument that I intended to use. In view of the possibility that the Minister's amendment on the Report Stage may not be adopted, I want to point out that under the section as it stands there would be very considerable difficulty in regard to supervision of mixed trading. You will have a house where liquor and groceries are sold over the same counter, and between 3 and 5 o'clock, according to this, the liquor cannot be sold. In my opinion, that would make supervision almost impossible, and would add very considerably to the existing difficulties of the Gárda Síochána. In view of the arguments which I have put forward, and in view of the fact that I believe there is no definite demand from any large section of the community that publichouses should be closed between 3 and 5 in the county boroughs, I ask that the question to be put, as suggested by the Ceann Comhairle, that the words "between 3 and 5" stand part of the Bill, be not accepted by the House.
Owing to a little incident that happened yesterday evening ——
A series of incidents.
I can assure the Dáil, particularly the Ceann Comhairle and the Government, that I certainly very much regret if I said anything offensive to any Deputy. Owing to being too much interested in the welfare of the people whom I represent, I may have used words that probably I would not use on another occasion. I hope this will be accepted by the Dáil in all sincerity, because I can assure Deputies that I am very sorry.
I have an amendment on the Paper similar to that moved by Deputy Heffernan. I did not put forward that amendment in the interests of the licensed trade, but as an independent Labour Deputy. I have made inquiries from persons employed in the licensed trade and have been assured that if licensed houses are closed from 3 to 5 in the afternoon it will mean the dismissal of a large number of employees. I am sure the Minister for Justice recognises the necessity for keeping people in employment. On Second Reading he said he was prepared to allow this matter to be decided by a free vote of the Dáil. I hope he has not bound his Party in the meantime, and that a free vote will be allowed. We must appreciate the stand that the Minister for Justice has made against such a powerful organisation as the licensed trade. I, at least, do appreciate it, but I hope that he will adhere to the promise he made to allow this matter to be decided by a free vote of the House.
If this amendment is not accepted the licensed houses in the county boroughs will be compelled to close from 3 to 5 in the afternoon, and that will add considerably to the number of the unemployed. By doing that you will show that you want to cripple the licensed trade, from which the greater portion of the revenue is derived. I think every honest-minded Deputy must recognise that if this proposal is accepted you are going to do a great injustice to a very large number of people.
The Deputy must address the Chair, not the House.
Through you, Sir, I address the House. I sincerely hope that the Dáil will recognise the fact that these split hours will impose too much work on the Gárda Síochána, whose hands are already pretty full. There are about 7,700 Guards in the force at present, and 7,000 more would be wanted to see that these split hours are adhered to. I hope the Dáil will accept the amendment and that the Minister has not changed his mind about allowing a free vote on this. I hope every Deputy will vote in accordance with his conscience, and not in accordance with any pressure brought to bear upon him.
took the Chair.
As the mover of the first amendment on the Paper, which covers the amendments moved by Deputy Heffernan and Deputy Lyons, I desire, at once, to associate myself with Deputy Heffernan in his protest against the manner in which the Vice-President has chosen to treat the House. I do not see the good of having this Bill here at all. Why have the Bill? Why not have a blank sheet of paper? Why not let us meet, say from day to day, and hear the latest report from the mind of the Minister for Justice? On the occasion of the Second Reading he informed us that he was prepared to leave this matter of split hours to a free vote. He certainly did not suggest that he was about to abandon the project that was in his Bill, because I suppose at that moment he had not arrived at that conclusion.
But his proposal now is that he is abandoning the closing of premises for two hours and the permitting of the opening of other premises, namely, mixed premises during these same hours. In fact, he has admitted now that the arguments used on the Second Reading debate against the practicability of allowing houses known as mixed trading houses to keep open for the sale of goods other than intoxicating liquor and expecting them to be closed for the sale of intoxicating liquor were fully justified. Well, then, what is the use discussing, now, the proposals in the Bill regarding the split hours? The Minister has thrown them over. It is like flogging a dead horse. He has said that if these words are allowed to stand in the Bill he will, at the next stage, provide that they will not stand in the Bill and that something else will stand in their stead. Therefore, to discuss the present proposal is mere and sheer waste of time. Similarly, to discuss the question of the position of the mixed traders under these hours, as proposed in the original Bill, is also waste of time, because the Minister has announced that all houses are to be closed—that is the new proposal—the very latest from the Ministerial front—mixed and otherwise, for one hour.
I submit that Deputy Heffernan's attitude is a commendable one and should be adopted by the Minister, when, at the last moment, he has come to see the error of his way in regard to his original proposal.
No, no; the error of your ways.
Deputy Heffernan has asked whether if these hours are now deleted, if this motion is defeated, it will be within the right of the Minister to move, at another stage, a new section providing for his new proposal, and you, sir, have answered in the affirmative. I suggest this is the attitude that ought to have been adopted by the Minister, and for that reason I will support Deputy Heffernan in clearing the path and, at any rate, in doing away with those words in the Bill now and at once, because the Minister himself says that at the next stage he himself is going to do away with them. So I say the proper course for him to adopt now is to accept the essence of this amendment, namely, that the words do not stand part of the Bill at the moment, and it will be open to him, at a subsequent stage, to introduce his new proposal. I do not think there is anything unfair either to him or to the Committee in that. But his idea is so extraordinarily roundabout and complicated that I fail to see how he can press it upon the House. He wants the words kept in the Bill, and then he wants to be given leave to say that they shall not be in the Bill but that something else shall be in the Bill. Why should he not agree to have the words struck out here and now in the Bill and then come along with his fresh proposals? He said, very candidly I admit, that the reason why he is not proceeding with the Bill as originally drafted in respect of this clause is because, having announced that he would leave it to a free vote of the House, he is convinced that it would be defeated. If he is convinced that it would be defeated, if he knows that he himself is not going to insist upon these words at a later stage, but is going to substitute others for them, then I ask, in the name of reason, why he will not now agree to have these words deleted and then let him come forth with his new proposal at a subsequent stage? There is no use, as I said before, now debating this question as originally proposed in the Bill.
That is gone. It is as dead as Queen Anne. The suggestion that houses should open for the sale of one class of commodities and not for the sale of another class at one and the same time and that these houses could be properly supervised by the Gárda Síochána or any other force, was preposterous. It has been seen by the Minister that that suggestion was utterly futile. It has now gone and there is no use in labouring the utter impracticability of it. Similarly, the suggestion in regard to mixed trading has gone. But you have a further point to consider—a point which is covered, it is true, by a subsequent proviso standing in the name of Deputy Thrift. I do not know what the Minister's attitude will be upon that question. The proposal is in regard to houses which are licensed for the consumption of liquor off the premises. The question does not arise immediately under this amendment, and I am not going to deal with it now. But there would be no necessity for that proviso at all if the Minister were to adopt the course I suggest, in company with Deputy Heffernan. There would then be no possibility of these words ever standing part of the Bill. He would agree to have them deleted at once. We could then proceed with the rest of the Bill, and at any future date, when a suitable opportunity offered, the Minister could come forward with his new proposals. There is only one drawback to that suggestion, and it is that when the time came for the Minister to make his new proposals, as outlined to-day, we would probably find a newly-amended new proposal.
The Minister, in presenting this punctured document, has, at every stage of the proceedings, announced another surrender and another compromise. But the surrender and the compromise he has announced on each occasion appear to have been brought about as a result of a mutiny in the ranks of his own supporters.
DEPUTIES
No.
At any rate, the Minister has announced to-day that he has formed a coalition—by private negotiation, I presume—which will enable him to get over the difficulty created by the amendment now before the House. There has, I think, been more discussion of a proposal that is not before the House than there has been of the amendment that Deputy Heffernan has moved. I understand that if this two-hour closing from 3 to 5 is insisted upon by the Minister and carried by the House, it will result in the disemployment of 100 to 150 grocers' assistants in the city of Dublin. The actual figure given to me, and given to the Minister at an interview with representatives of the grocers' assistants, was 133.
133.5.
The Minister has said nothing and his supporters have said nothing as to what provision will be made for the people who will lose their employment as a result of passing subsection (a) of Section 2 of this Bill. When I spoke of the unemployment of 130 assistants, I referred only to the position in the city of Dublin. I know nothing of the effect of the passage of this section in Cork, Waterford, or Limerick. The Minister may, perhaps, have received information on that question. Sometime ago I had a conversation with a grocer's assistant in this city who was anxious to secure employment. He failed in his efforts. As a result of investigation, I found that there were 300 grocers' assistants on the idle list in the City of Dublin. Those who vote for the proposal in subsection (a) should realise that they are going to add 130 to the number of unemployed in the city. We have heard a good deal of talk outside the House about the impression created upon Deputies by interested parties. I believe that there is very little consideration given to Press reports of that kind by the Deputies themselves. I do not believe that Deputies of any Party are so much subject to the pressure of interested parties—whether it be the temperance party or the publican's party—as the Press would lead the public to believe. The general impression of Deputies of this House is that it is injudicious on the part of this Government, and would be injudicious on the part of a Farmers' Government or a Labour Government, to bring in restrictive legislation of this kind three months before an appeal to the people. If the present Government was as certain as the President appears to be of coming back with a bigger majority, they would have allowed the electors to pronounce judgement on this question, and if they were returned they could pass a measure of this kind, or even a more restrictive measure.
The Deputy should confine himself to the amendment.
This part of the Bill will not affect my constituency, but I hold that if the House agrees to payment of compensation for abolition of licences a good case can be made for some form of compensation to, or some form of recognition of, the people who will be thrown out of employment, as a result of the passage of this measure in the name of social reform. We are discussing now a proposal to close for two hours. Deputies will have, I presume, an opportunity of expressing their views and voting upon a proposal for one-hour closing later. I believe that if the two-hour closing is made operative it will necessitate far more supervision on the part of the Gárda Síochána than at present, and supervision of a kind which cannot be effective. I believe that you would require to have a policeman at the door of every publichouse from 9 to 10 in in the morning and from 3 to 5 in the evening if this clause is carried, in order to ensure that the publican is not taking undue advantage of the law. That will be especially so in the case of mixed traders. I want to know from the Minister if he has investigated the question regarding the number of people likely to be disemployed and if he is prepared to give compensation to those who will be so disemployed.
On the merits of his reply my vote will depend. But unless the Minister is prepared to give some consideration to those who are thrown out of employment, I will vote against the proposal for the two-hour closing, because it will undoubtedly add to the number of unemployed in the cities, without in any way making for the more effective control of the licensing business of the country.
I should like to get from Deputy Davin some explanation as to how this immense unemployment is to arise as a result of the operation of this clause. The sub-section in question proposes to close publichouses in the cities between the hours of 3 and 5—not the busiest hours of the day, by any means, in the four cities. The publichouse will be staffed not in accordance with the requirements of the whole day's trading but in accordance with the requirements of the busiest hours of the day. How the publican is to reduce his staff because his house is to be closed during two of the quietest hours of the day, is a question I cannot understand without further explanation from the Deputy.
I stated that I was informed that a deputation representing the Grocers Assistants' Association had met the Minister and discussed this matter with him for a considerable time. I gave figures which would show that 130 assistants would be disemployed. The Minister says that the figure is 133.5. That only shows the ridiculous way in which he is treating this serious subject. There are 40 publichouses in the city of Dublin employing three assistants and over. Any businessman can see that the services of one man at least can be dispensed with in each of these 40 houses if this clause is put into operation in its present form.
Deputy Davin suggested that it was a mistake to introduce this Bill in a year in which a General Election is about to take place. I realise that it is going to take twice as long to pass this Bill in the year in which a General Election is about to take place as it would take in any other year. But, even realising that, I think it was wise and sound to introduce a Bill based on the Report of the Intoxicating Liquor Commission——
What Bill?
I will talk about that presently—and not do, as I believe a government composed of any or all of the other parties in this House would do; that is, run away from the report of the Intoxicating Liquor Commission because a general election was due. Deputy Heffernan objects to procedure and Deputy Redmond sonorously endorses his remarks in that connection. It seems to be the point of view that this is the one kind of Bill regarding which there must be no modification. If there is a modification then it is a grievance and the grievance of those who voted against the Second Reading of the Bill——
No.
Deputies are trying to have it every way. Deputies like Deputy Heffernan, who have tried to bestraddle every issue of any importance that arose since their election to the Dáil, having voted against the Second Reading of the Bill, go down the country and parade it as an additional grievance that the Minister is on the run.
Not as a grievance; as a statement of fact.
He does not deny it.
The Deputy has bestraddled or tried to bestraddle every issue of any significance or importance that arose since he came to the Dáil.
I deny that.
His complaint against me is that (a) it was wrong to introduce the Bill, (b) having introduced the Bill it was wrong to agree to modification in any detail whatsoever. There has been overmuch talk about concessions, actual or indicated.
Surrenders.
Deputies voting for the Second Reading knew what they were voting for. Let us take stock since it is necessary. I think it will probably save the time of the Dáil. I indicated on the Second Reading with regard to the endorsement section that I was prepared to bring in an amendment on Committee, enabling a trader with an endorsement to sell a clear licence provided he satisfied the court that that was a bona fide transaction. That is a matter that has no temperance aspect whatsoever. It is a matter of justice, of the soundness of which I was entirely convinced. Without it the endorsement system, and the possibility of endorsement, was injuring the credit of traders, even those who were running their shops on perfectly correct lines. It is not a temperance aspect one way or another. The offer was that if Deputies wished I was prepared to vest in the District Justice that degree of discretion which the original proposal vested in the Circuit Judge, conditional on appeal to the Circuit Judge. With regard to these things Deputies who voted solidly against the Second Reading of the Bill tried to have it every way by suggesting it was a grievance that I should indicate on the Second Reading my willingness to agree to this modification in detail.
This Bill is based on the report of a public Commission, and on that public Commission there sat a member of the Farmers' Party in this House, and a Senator member of the Labour Party. Not a Deputy of the Farmers' Party voted for the Bill. I give the Deputy who signed the report his due in saying that his absence was fully understood by me, and that I believe, were he never a signatory to the report, he would have voted for the Second Reading of the Bill. I also do Deputy Gorey, who is ill, the justice of saying that if a member of his party were never a signatory to the report, I believe he would have voted for the Second Reading of the Bill.
Question.
The actual fact is that not a member of the Farmers' Party walked the Lobby in favour of this Bill. Voting against all its principal provisions, then they go down the country and talk about the Minister being on the run from the licensed trade. Who is on the run from the licensed trade?
The Minister.
Is the Minister in order in raising these issues now?
I want to know if the Minister is in order in making an election speech when discussing an amendment?
I am afraid the Minister has wandered from the amendment.
I have been attacked at great length by succeeding Deputies on this question of the modification of the Bill.
The Minister is answering what I said in the country.
The Deputy does not like that to be answered.
The Minister will have further opportunities of dealing with the Bill as a whole.
He had the opportunity the other night when he made a speech in Dublin, if he wanted to deal with it.
Deputy Magennis' Party voted solidly against this Bill.
On a point of order, the Minister is not discussing the question before the House. He is presuming on the patience of members to make a Second Reading speech again and a Report Stage speech. I protest against the liberties Ministers take in this House, and I submit that the rules of order are as imperative on a Minister as on a private member.
More so.
Deputy Magennis on Committee Stage——
On a point of order, will the Minister allow you, sir, to reply to Deputy Magennis' point of order?
We are dealing with the question of split hours, 3 to 5 o'clock, and I am afraid a lot of this discussion is foreign to that question.
Deputies have raised an objection to procedure—to the fact that on this stage and on other stages I have indicated that I was not standing rigidly over the text of the Bill. Deputies who voted against the Second Reading—whole Parties have voted against Second Reading—are joining in that protest. Surely I am entitled to point out that Deputies of the Farmers' Party, of the Labour Party, and of Deputy Magennis' Party who voted solidly against the Second Reading of the Bill, ought not to come along on Committee Stage and take up an attitude of being aggrieved. If in any particular I indicate that I am prepared to make concessions to what appears to be a considerable body of opinion in the Dáil——
Behind you.
If this were another kind of Bill the grievance would be that the Minister was standing too rigidly, that he was not prepared to give due consideration to amendments, points of view, and so on. But on this Bill, Deputies want it the other way—"we who stand for temperance," said Deputy Magennis yesterday, having voted against the Second Reading of the Bill. With regard to the proposal for split hours, the Bill in this particular represents a provision which I believe ought, without hesitation, to be passed by the Dáil. I am strongly in favour of the 3-5 break in the day in county boroughs, and I do not consider that there is anything harsh or unreasonable in that. Deputies think otherwise. I am prepared to leave this 3-5 break to a free vote of the Dáil. I have no expectation whatever that Deputies have yet the moral courage and sense of public interest that would bring them into the Lobby in favour of that proposal.
Nonsense!
We will see that, Deputy Baxter says "nonsense," but this provision can be put to the Dáil and we can watch the result. It is a provision which, in my view, ought to pass if Deputies were sufficiently emancipated from the influence of a particular section in the community.
The Minister should withdraw that remark.
The Minister is entitled to his opinion on this question.
It must be to his own supporters he is referring.
I have reason to know that Deputies are not yet sufficiently emancipated, and having compassion on their weakness I hold myself ready to accept accommodation on this matter at a later stage, but if Deputies want this proposal put to a free vote of the Dáil so that the responsibility for its acceptance or rejection may lie on individual Deputies, irrespective of Party, then surely I, who favour the proposal, ought to have no objection. If the proposal in the Bill, as it stands, were carried, then I would not bring in an amendment on Report Stage to delete it, and substitute a one-hour break instead of a two-hour break.
Deputy Redmond referred to the difficulty of administering the two hours' break with the mixed houses open. That is a difficulty we are prepared to undertake, and I am not as pessimistic as the Deputy, nor have I as low an opinion of the licensed trade, in the matter of the observance of the law, as the Deputy seems to have. I think if that provision was passed by the Oireachtas that it would be observed by the great majority of the licensed trade in these county boroughs, and observed strictly and honourably. The few weaker vessels who lapsed would, in due course of time, be detected and dealt with. That represents my position on this matter. I am perfectly willing to allow the proposal as it stands to go to a free vote of the Dáil as I promised on Second Reading. If it were carried I should be very pleased and my opinion of Deputies generally would have improved considerably, but if it is not carried, and I am afraid it will not, then on the Report Stage I will bring forward, as a matter of confidence, a proposal that there be a one hour break in the day, that one hour being a complete closing for mixed houses as for the others.
Will the Minister make it clear whether the effect of his statement is that the one hour break is a kind of second preference with him, but that the first preference which he is prepared now to stand by, but not to make a matter of confidence, is the 3-5 break. The Minister, in his responsible position, recommends the first preference. Is that so?
Yes, distinctly, I recommend the proposal in the Bill. I fear it will not pass, and in that event only will I bring forward, on the Report Stage, the proposal for the one hour complete closing.
I am anxious to know if the complete closing for one hour will apply to wholesalers—to a firm, say, like Findlater's.
Does the Deputy mean an ordinary spirit grocer's licence for consumption off the premises?
I mean a firm doing a wholesale trade.
The wholesaler had no prohibited hours at all in the past.
And he will be open?
Yes.
I realise that, on Second Reading Stage of this Bill, among the principles which we approved was one limiting facilities for the retail sale of intoxicating liquor. The particular section that we are dealing with proposes to limit the sale of intoxicating liquor during certain hours of the day. I feel bound to justify my vote on this question because of certain statements I made on the Second Reading of the Bill and of certain statements I made elsewhere. I propose to vote for the Bill as it stands, although I have expressed doubts and gave perhaps a reserved promise that I would vote against this provision. I have realised that there are certain defects from the point of view of the trade in the section. It seemed to me to impose certain conditions on the licensed holder without, as it appeared to me, adequate advantage to the social well-being. I have now come to a different conclusion, and I propose to say a few words to justify my attitude on this matter. The Minister has pointed out time and time again, in the course of the discussion, that the Bill is based on the Report of the Liquor Commission. This provision in the Bill was one of the recommendations of that Commission. From my point of view, the Liquor Commission and the Bill proceed along a line which is vitiated by a wrong outlook. The Minister, throughout the Bill, has dealt with it from the point of view of police administration rather than from the point of view of a reduction in the consumption of intoxicating liquor as a beverage.
The Liquor Commission reported and stated certain principles which governed its report, and, no doubt, they are all very good in their own way, when they point out it is not the function of the law to make people good, that the essential function of the law is to maintain justice, preserve order, protect the community, and so on. I think that is only part of the truth and, unfortunately, to my view, it is the acceptance of that as the whole truth, that destroys this measure and even makes the suggested change the Minister has been talking about less valuable as a temperance measure. I think it is quite wrong to assume that the limit or function of the legislature and the law is to prevent people doing wrong. I propose to vote for this provision, which limits the hours during which publichouses should be open, because it is reducing the facilities for drinking.
I think that the justification for that goes beyond the proposition in this Liquor Commission Report and lies beyond the police administration aspect. After all we have to consider the question not merely from the point of view of the trader or even of the consumer. I believe that the attitude in regard to which this has been discussed has been mainly from the economic view-point or the restriction upon the satisfaction of appetites, quite legitimate, within limits, but nevertheless merely animal appetites. We cannot disassociate ourselves from our general knowledge of the effects of intoxicating liquor upon, let us say, five per cent. of the community. We may well talk about the great majority of drinkers being moderate drinkers, that drunkenness is diminished and that the function of the law, in this matter, is merely to prevent disorder, but I am making the plea, and it is on this ground that I am supporting the Bill, that the function of the law in the matter is to limit the facilities for going wrong.
We do, as a matter of fact, in practice limit the facilities for drug-taking. We do not hesitate to impose prohibitions upon gambling, as a practice, when it is pure gambling. I suppose the police would be immediately on the track if, in the central part of O'Connell Street, a shop were to open as a purely gambling saloon, so that we do prohibit what might, in normal circumstances, be called a natural and legitimate appetite. I think our plea should be that, if we find a social evil developing out of the undue facilities for taking intoxicating liquor, just as we would out of undue facilities for the consumption of noxious drugs, we have a right to do more than the Liquor Commission recommends; we have a right to limit these facilities, even when the evil is not as disastrous as drug-taking. After all, we know that to many people these unlimited facilities have the effect of creating a still further appetite in the same way as noxious drugs, what are called habit-forming drugs, create. I think the limitation is justifiable, and I think, further, that the right approach to this matter is that the 95 per cent. of moderate drinkers, who are always masters of their appetites and of their will in this matter, might well be asked to give away something on behalf of the five per cent., or the one per cent. if you like, who we know as a matter of fact are not masters of their appetites, and who give way to undue drinking of intoxicating liquor. One need not go into the evils resulting from it. These are apparent and within the knowledge of everyone, but I am supporting this restriction, with such consequences as may ensue, on the ground that it is desirable to limit the facilities for the consumption of intoxicating liquor. I think it is not too much to ask the great majority of liquor takers to sacrifice something for the common good in this matter, and for the protection of the weak minority who may have been hereditarily inclined to alcoholism but who may be prevented from disaster if, perchance, these restrictions are limited.
Although it is not a matter which, I think, affects the average workman, this three to five opening, I know as a matter of experience that it does affect a considerable number of other classes, the intellectuals, artists, poets and commercial men. I therefore, this evening, am in support of this proposal on the ground that it is limiting the facilities for the taking of intoxicating liquor.
I do not know that I would have felt inclined to engage in this discussion, because I am not situated in a part of the country that is going to be affected, to any extent, whether the amendment is rejected or passed, if the Minister in charge of the measure did not see fit, in his accustomed style, to make an attack on our party and on the motives which inspire this party to action so far. If the Minister had addressed himself to his own party, and lectured them on their want of moral courage, he would have no fear then of the results of the vote which he has put before the House. The Minister is always very self-righteous, a strong man. The combined moral courage of all the Deputies of the House never equals the moral courage of the Minister for Justice. He is going to go into the lobby, if he goes in alone, on this amendment, and his motives are always so worthy that those who oppose him must be always wrong. If every Deputy were as narrow of vision as he, and were inclined to attribute as unworthy motives to others as he is, this would be a very unworthy assembly indeed. There are Deputies in this House just as keen for the promotion of temperance as the Minister. I have not heard one word from the Minister in support of this section that would make me believe he is going to make one man in this country more temperate than he is if it goes through.
I would like to consider this question apart altogether from personalities, by which, I do suggest, I am not influenced in the least. But I am asking myself what effect is this amendment going to have on the cause of temperance? Has any plea been made to satisfy me that less drink is going to be consumed owing to this closing down for two hours in the day in Cork, Waterford, Limerick and Dublin? I am not satisfied on that point. On the other hand, the case has been made, and it is suggested to me by members of my own party who know the conditions in a couple of the four centres which will be affected, that the disadvantage that many people, the rural dwellers, will be at is going to be very great and very considerable. I am referring to the rural dwellers who go into these cities to do their business and buy shop goods of various kinds. It would be a great disadvantage to them to have these places closed for two hours in the evening. We have to consider the disadvantages on the one side against the possible, but very remote, chance of influencing a very limited number of people in the amount of alcohol they are going to take. We have to balance one against the other and to see whether the case made by the Minister is sufficiently strong to justify us in accepting it. I do not think the case is sufficiently strong for the two hours closing. We may be taken to task for that here. The Minister is entitled to take us to task. He is entitled to make charges against Deputies——
Counter-charges.
Counter-charges. I interrupted the Minister. I said if he wanted to reply to anything that Deputy Heffernan had said, he could have done so the other night outside the House when he was speaking in another place.
I forgot it.
He did not forget it; he is too careful. He suggests that our Party is influenced by political motives, and that we are prepared to discount altogether the good that may come by an effort to promote temperance. That is not fair to our Party. While the Minister is entitled to select a couple of members of any Party for his applause, mar eadh, while he is prepared to do that, I want to tell him that every member of our Party is as anxious as he is to make social conditions better if we can be satisfied that the efforts of the Minister are tending towards that end. Now, it has come to this—I believe that the Minister is not acting fairly, inasmuch as if he had acted fairly his intention of amending this section would have been down in the Order Paper to-day. That is what he should have done. Be fair to the House.
I wanted to see whether the Dáil would pass this first.
That is not disclosing the intention, or what is going on behind the scenes. If the Minister had his mind made up to go away from the section before he came in here, he should have been honest enough to put it down on the Paper and let the House see what his intentions were. If he did that the House would be satisfied that he was playing straight. The Minister knew before we came to this section at all what the opinion of the House was. But with all his iron will and moral courage and great leadership he does not feel convinced that he is able to command the support of the majority of his own Party to carry this section. And because he is not able to do that he wants to charge all other Parties with cowardice and unworthy motives and want of moral courage. I think the Minister should change his tune.
On a famous occasion Bismarck described his adversary, Lord Salisbury, as a lath painted to look like iron. The admirers of the Minister for Justice—for he has admirers it seems—regard him as the real metal. Yesterday I was foolish enough to think that he was making an honest attempt to play the part of the iron. To-day he goes back to the despicable position he took up on the Second Reading. He is now temporising and compromising in obedience to the pressure from within his own majority ranks. He professed all through, even with regard to the proposal that we are now discussing, to base recommendations on the findings of the Liquor Commission. But the alternative proposal that he puts forward to save himself from defeat upon this is in direct variance with the ideas of the Liquor Commission. Yet he wants to have it both ways. As Deputy Baxter pointed out, he wants to make it appear that he and he alone is the champion of temperance. "Alone I did it" is to be the declaration when the historian of Ireland writes that it has become a sober country. Now, the Minister does himself a great injustice in professing here, as he did in his last speech, to misunderstand why Deputies voted against him on the Second Reading.
If we were to believe his account of the workings of his own mind we should think that he could contemplate no possibilities except these two— (a) temperance advocates who voted for, and (b) drunkenness or intemperance advocates who voted against the Bill. Speaking for myself, I am a temperance advocate, and the Minister knows well I have pursued that course vigorously and consistently from the first hour I had the honour to be a member here. He will remember that when he introduced the Liquor Bill in the Provisional Parliament I was the only member who stood by his Bill, even when he was wobbling and wavering under pressure to surrender the third portion of it. Now I voted against the Second Reading because I did not know what he was asking us to vote for. I shall never, so long as I am a member of this House, give any Minister a blank cheque, and that is what the House was asked to do on the occasion of the Second Reading. The printed Bill was before us, containing the proposal such as this, and others like it for restrictions of facilities for drinking.
We knew from the Press that the meetings of the real Parliament had been held on two successive evenings, that there were ruptures threatened within the ranks of the majority, and that it was under pressure of that and to avoid disruption the Bill was to be re-handled, re-cast, and radically altered. Here we have again a proposal at a later date, a proposal to re-cast it and to introduce further modifications. Are we not entitled to protest against this frivolous conduct of Ministers——
On a point of order——
Deputy Magennis must confine himself to the subject-matter of the amendment.
I sumbit I am dealing with the conduct of the Minister in regard to this particular proposal. He himself, no less than twice already, has suggested that we are to consider either this or a second best. Surely if he is in order in presenting this alternative of preferential proposals, I am in order, I submit, with all due respect to you, sir, to discuss it. He cannot have it both ways.
Although the Minister has abandoned his design of figuring as the strong man, he still clings to the reputation of being hard-hearted and firm in dealing with humanity, for, notwithstanding the pathetic appeal of Deputy Heffernan, he will not yield altogether.
We had an interesting chapter of the autobiography of Deputy Heffernan. It seems his yearnings, cravings and irresistible longings for refreshment are usually between three and five o'clock. I should have thought that would have weighed with the Minister. There is a famous phrase of President Wilson, that his aim was to make the world safe for democracy. Surely the Minister will make the world safe and convenient for Deputy Heffernan, no matter what the cost to the rest of the public and the welfare of the State.
I submit it is not dealing properly with this House that at every stage of the discussion of a measure the Minister in charge of it should inform the House that if certain contingencies occur, or are likely to occur, in his estimate of them, that he will bring in something else instead. From the first hour of the introduction of this Bill to the present moment, that has been its history. I think the Ministers are not discharging their duty; they are certainly not considering the dignity of the House.
I agree with Deputy Baxter inasmuch as I believe the closing of the publichouses for those two hours will not lessen the amount of drink consumed in those four cities. I am glad to see that the Minister for Justice is about to allow a free vote of the House on this amendment. I am certain that the members of his Party will not be influenced or aggrieved by any of the speeches delivered during the last half hour, but will go out, fairly and squarely, and act on their own opinions. I appeal to the members of the Government Party to do their part freely when they are getting an opportunity of a free vote.
I compliment the Minister for Justice for sticking to his word. I only hope in regard to a few more amendments that are there, that we will get a free vote of the House. I am certain there are a great many Deputies on the right of me who are delighted to get a chance of voting freely this evening. After all, they are bound by a pledge and when they are loosed from that pledge no doubt they feel much easier in their minds. Every one of us, from time to time, has had a pledge, every one of us as well as these men. We are all Irishmen.
I assure you that, unlike Deputy Heffernan, I will not be looking for a drink between three and five. I make no boast of it. I often looked for a drink between those hours. I will draw the Minister's attention to the fact that there will be amendments later on just as important as this. They are brought in by members of the Dáil to assist the Government in trying to regulate the licensed trade. I think the Minister should meet us half way, and if there is any reasonable amendment I hope he will allow a free vote upon it just as he is doing in this case. When we are getting a free vote it should not necessitate all the talk that we have had about it.
I would like to have a ruling on the point whether, if this section is carried, it will be in order to move an amendment on the Report Stage, to substitute an amendment suggesting one hour of closing.
It will be in order.
If it will be, then I think the position of this Party is very simple, because I shall have pleasure in proposing an amendment to agree to what I consider was a very fair and reasonable offer on the part of the Minister.
Does Deputy Shaw speak for the entire Government Party?
Will the Minister explain the point raised by Deputy Wilson with regard to wholesale licence holders? Will they be entitled to remain open?
Since 1872 there were never any prohibited hours for wholesale dealers.
Is not the proper designation of these people off-licence holders?
There are two classes.
Does the Deputy mean wholesalers or off-licence holders?
Wholesalers.
There were never any prohibited hours since 1872 for wholesalers in the real sense of the word, as distinct from off-licence holders.
The meaning of it is that the privileged class can get their beer or liquor during these hours, and the poorer classes cannot.
If the Deputy, between three and five, wants four and a half gallons of beer, he can get it.
Why not allow the same thing to the retailer?
If a Deputy were a member of a licensed club he could get the drink. Is not that so?
Has the Minister anything to say to the case put up to him by the Grocers Assistants' Organisation as to the unemployment as a result of this? It is not a trivial matter.
I have not anything to say to that.
I think I have the right to ask the Minister, even at the eleventh hour of the debate, to reconsider his decision. I do not think that Deputy Shaw, who represents Westmeath along with me, is voicing the opinions of the Government Party—of the Cumann na nGaedheal members in this House—when he considers that he would be in order in moving an amendment on the Report Stage to close the licensed houses for one hour in the day.
We are not discussing the point raised by Deputy Shaw. We are discussing the question whether we will close for two hours each day or not. There is no other amendment before the House.
I understand that perfectly well, but I want to make it clear to the House that if this amendment is defeated, it will be defeated on a specific point, simply because the Minister has made a promise that he will accept amendments on the Report Stage of the Bill. That is why this amendment is going to be defeated now by the Government supporters. But for the Minister making this promise, this amendment would have gone through. That is what I want to make clear. I do not think any Deputy has the right to stand up here and indicate what he believes is going to happen on the next stage of the Bill. This amendment is to delete the words from three to five, and I hope Deputies will recognise that if this amendment is not carried, and if this section is inserted in the Bill as it stands, it will mean a very large number of people will be unemployed in the four cities mentioned. I want to make that point quite clear, and, as the drafter of similar amendments, I appeal to the Dáil not to be led astray by any Government supporter in regard to this question.
The position is not altogether clear at the moment. When the Minister spoke earlier in the day I understood from his statement that if the 3 to 5 portion of the section were carried he would bring in on the Report Stage an amendment changing it to a complete one-hour closing. Fortunately I was in the House when he made the second statement. I understand the position now is that if this amendment is carried he would not put forward an amendment confining the closing to one hour. Originally I considered that this closing down was not necessary, and it was a portion of the Bill with which I disagreed, but after hearing the able statement of the Minister on Second Reading and the plea which he made in regard to the long sitter and the possibility of people remaining too long in publichouses, I was converted to the idea that there ought to be split hours. Having been converted to that idea, I thought that the break of two hours would be too long, particularly in the centre of the city, and that one-hour closing would meet the case. As a matter of fact, the Minister pointed out to-day that it would be much easier to carry out the provisions of the law if the arrangement was for a one-hour complete closing. That being the case, I find myself in the position that whether I vote for or against this particular amendment an opportunity will be offered to change it later, if it is carried, to a one-hour complete closing.
The procedure on Bills is that an amendment defeated in Committee cannot be brought forward again on the Report Stage. There is no definite amendment, as suggested by the Deputy, before the Chair. It will require to be put in writing and submitted to the Ceann Comhairle, who will express an opinion on it. It is, of course, always open to accept on Report an amendment different to one defeated in Committee.
Are we to understand from that ruling, though the motion is that the Bill remain as printed, that that is, in fact, a defeat of the amendment and that this amendment cannot be brought forward on the next stage?
An amendment defeated on the Committee Stage cannot be brought forward on Report.
My point is that the motion is that the words sought to be deleted remain part of the Bill. That is the motion which will be put to the House, which will appear on the records and which will be accepted or rejected. There is nothing about amendments.
There is nothing about amendments.
I take it that the printed amendments, inasmuch as they have not been defeated, can be brought forward on Report?
On a point of order, should we not follow this course: that the proposer of the amendment, with the consent of the House, would withdraw it? Otherwise, I submit, that what Deputy Johnson has pointed out is absolutely incontestable; that if the present printed amendment is not withdrawn the House gives a vote in favour of the Bill as drafted; and the amendment is, in fact, negatived and cannot be proposed again at a later stage. It is all very well to get the impression that by agreement we can do it, but the only way to reach such agreement would be by a suspension of Standing Orders.
If Deputy Heffernan's amendment is defeated now it cannot be brought forward on Report.
My point of order is, that the Ceann Comhairle arranged that instead of debating the amendment we should consider that the motion before the House is that the words of the Bill stand. Therefore, the vote will be on that issue. If on that issue a majority vote carries the wording of the Bill then, in effect, Deputy Heffernan's amendment is negatived and, under the rule of order, cannot be brought forward at a subsequent date.
I understand the motion to be that the 3 to 5 clause stand part of the Bill.
If that be carried it means that the other amendments cannot be moved, but if it is lost they can come forward. I want to make my position clear. I agree with the broken time, but I will vote against this motion so that the Minister will have an opportunity of bringing an amendment forward on the Report Stage making the closing one of one hour.
There will be no amendemnt before the House, but a different type of amendment may be brought up on Report.
If this particular part of the Bill stands, will the Minister be in order to bring an amendment up on Report?
I do not want to. If the Dáil, voting freely, registers the opinion that the 3 to 5 break should remain part of the provisions of the Bill, I am entirely satisfied. It is a thing which I think ought to stand part of the Bill. If, on the other hand, it is defeated on a free vote, I will bring forward on the Report Stage a proposal that there be a one-hour break and that the provisions with regard to mixed-trading houses be different from the provisions that stood when it was a question of a two-hour break.
"Heads I win, tails you lose."
Is that the proposal which the Minister put before us at the beginning? The proposal he put before us was, as I characterised it, one to avert defeat, that if this were carried he would bring in an amendment on the Report Stage. Now, he has changed his position and says that if the House carries this he is satisfied to let it stand.
Yes.
That shows exactly the fluctuating mind of the Minister over this proposal.
I think we must endeavour to have a clear understanding about this. As I understand it, the position is that the motion before the House is that the 3 to 5 clause stand part of the Bill. The Minister's undertaking, I understand, is that, if this motion is defeated, he will introduce an amendment providing that the publichouses shall be closed for one hour. I think, in view of the adroit manoeuvres of the Minister, the House should understand that he has violated his promise that the question of split hours be left to a free vote of the Dáil. This is not an open vote. It is an open vote with a stipulation, and I maintain that it is not an honourable or honest parliamentary manoeuvre on the part of the Minister.
That is a very serious charge. Perhaps I may be allowed to say as a matter of personal explanation that my undertaking on the Second Reading was that I would leave the proposal for a break from 3 to 5 to an open vote of the Dáil. That, I believe, is about to take place. If this is eliminated from the Bill then I will bring forward on the Report Stage a proposal for a one-hour break.
Which will not be left to a free vote.
It will not be free, in the sense that if I am defeated on it the Government will resign.
I think we clearly understand where we are now. As far as I am concerned, I am going to put my amendment, or at least I am going to have this sub-section put in the form in which it was intended to be put, and I am going to ask Deputies on the Government Benches to clearly understand the position in which they stand. We were promised an open vote of the House and we are having an open vote with a tail tagged on to it. It is a different class of vote from what we were promised on the Second Reading Stage. That may be regarded by the Minister as clever Party manoeuvring, but I do not regard it as a reasonable or even an honest way of meeting the particular crisis that has arisen in regard to that.
I want to make one or two remarks regarding certain statements by the Minister. He embarked on a platform speech in defence of his attitude, and he took advantage of the opportunity to answer certain statements I made down the country. I would suggest to the Minister that the proper place to answer me is also in the country, and I am sure the Minister is perfectly capable of answering me in the country if he wants to. Instead of that he takes advantage of the House, and in my opinion he went outside the rules of Committee debate in making certain statements. He stated, and I emphatically deny it, that I bestraddled every important principle and issue that came before this House.
May I draw the Deputy's attention to the rules of debate? We are now in Committee.
Draw the Minister's attention to it.
The Minister was allowed to go on.
It would be better for the Deputy to let the matter rest there now.
The Minister made a certain definite statement in the Dáil, and I maintain that as a matter of personal explanation I am entitled to answer it. He said on every important issue that came before the Dáil I bestraddled the issue. I have no hesitation in saying that statement is a lie.
The Deputy must withdraw the word "lie." It is not a proper word to use here.
Then I say that it is not true. I would point out, on the question of bestraddling, though the word may be used in a different sense to that in which it was used by the Minister, that as regards bestraddling, or taking both sides of an issue, we have had a clear example of what could be done by the Minister himself regarding the methods used by him in controlling his Party in respect to this Bill. Apart altogether from the question of the Minister's manoeuvring, I maintain we have put forward a reasonable argument in favour of the acceptance of my amendment, and the non-acceptance of the suggestion that the publichouses be closed from 3 to 5. I ask the House to support me; I ask every member of the House not to be misled by the manoeuvring of the Minister; to act on the statement made by the Minister on the Second Reading, and regard this as an open vote and vote accordingly.
resumed the Chair.
I did not intend to speak on this matter were it not for the explanation of the situation given by the Minister. It is a question as to whether this House can, for the future, accept a statement made by a Minister. On the Second Reading of this Bill the Minister stated that he was prepared to leave this particular section to an absolutely free vote of the House. I suggest, and it is not too strong a word to use after the Minister's explanation of his attitude, and what he proposes to do on the result of this vote, that it is little better than a trick. The Minister tells us that we are to have a free vote on this, but it is a free vote with a big stick over his own Party.
No, the Deputy is wrong.
A free vote, well and good. "If the amendment is defeated I am perfectly satisfied, but if, as a result of the free vote, the amendment is carried, then I am going to bring forward my big stick on the Report Stage, and say to my Party: you vote for that one hour or else there will be a general election." That is the thing in a nutshell.
Does the Deputy not want a general election?
I said on a former occasion in reply to a similar question from the President: "I hope you are as easy in your mind about the general election as I am." If it is any information to the Minister I would welcome a general election to-morrow morning, but the fate of the present Bill would not count so far as I personally, or any member of this Party is concerned, one way or the other. As far as I know I would not at any time get more than ten votes from the publicans in the country, and whether I vote for or against the Bill the position would remain the same, so that I am not worried about that. I want to be clear as to whether we can accept a Minister's word in this House. There should be no dissembling about this matter. I say the Minister's attitude on this matter is unworthy of him and unlike him. We are not to have an absolutely free vote of the House. If the Minister were to say it is a free vote, then if the House decides the hours 3 to 5 are to go out of the Bill, let them go out. But he is not going to say that. He promised his own Party, and he told the House, that if the hours 3 to 5 were not left in the Bill he will, on the next stage, make it a matter of confidence that at least one hour will remain. He did not say that on the Second Stage. I suggest that the Minister should think of the House as a whole as well as of his own Party.
I try to.
Matters are first considered and decided at a Party meeting, and then are presented to the House as accomplished facts—"take them or leave them." It is not what is acceptable to the country but what is acceptable to the Minister's Party—it is a question of expediency. I suggest to the Minister that if he and his Party were in a position to face the country to-morrow there would be an altogether different attitude and frame of mind with regard to this Bill.
A DEPUTY
Undoubtedly.
I am glad to see that there is one member of the Cumann-na-nGaedheal Party who thinks he has a good chance. But I do say that we ought to be clear upon this matter. The Minister has changed his ground considerably. He has shifted his position altogether, in respect of this clause, from the position he took up on Second Reading, and it is little better than a trick to say that it is to be a free vote. It is not to be a free vote, because his Party is told: "If you carry this amendment we will make you vote for at least one hour, or out you go."
I wonder if we could get general agreement to delete the words "general election" from this debate?
The attitude adopted by the Minister, as stated by the last two speakers, to say the least, is not playing fair by the House. The Minister stated on Second Reading that he would leave the question as to whether there should be closing between the hours of 3 and 5 to a free vote of the House. I understood, I think in common with most Deputies, that what was meant by that was that a vote, if it was to be taken, was to be final and decisive on this question. Certainly that is the way any ordinary person would interpret his pledge. But that is not the position we are in now. The Minister says: "No, if it goes one way, in the direction that I am in favour of, it shall be final, but if it goes the other way it shall not be final, and I shall bring in a further amendment on which I shall ask the members of my Party to obey the crack of the Party Whip." I say that that is not treating the subject or the Dáil fairly. The understanding was—the Minister cannot get away from it—that this question of opening between these hours was to be left to a free vote. Undoubtedly it is not now to be left to a free vote. "Heads I win, tails you lose." That is not my conception of a free expression of opinion. The Minister has now very adroitly manoeuvred himself into the position that if the section as it now stands is passed he will be bound by it and by the decision of the House, but that if it is not passed he will not be bound by the decision of the House. Therefore, it comes to this, that he will not be bound by the free vote of the House in regard to this question. I cannot see how he can get out of that.
I would be bound by every decision of the House, but I do not regard a decision of the House not to have a two-hours break in the day as a decision not to have a one-hour break.
The Minister says that he does not regard a decision on this question of split hours as preventing him from coming along and making a further proposal. That is all very well when the decision goes against him, but if the decision goes in his favour he does regard it as binding. He cannot have it both ways. Will he say, if the decision goes against him, that he will allow the Dáil a free vote upon his suggestion for the one hour closing? I presume he will not do so. He has already stated so. Perhaps he will change his mind again in that respect, but he has already stated that he will not give the Dáil a free vote on the question of one complete hour closing if the decision on this question goes against him.
The Minister could not prevent that. I submit that it is quite within the competence of Deputy Redmond to bring forward an amendment on Report securing a one hour closing in the middle of the day. No question of a charge upon the State would be involved.
Deputy Johnson suggests that if this section is carried in its present form it would be open to myself, or to any other Deputy, on the Report Stage to propose to alter that decision. I am not so sure of that.
It is quite certain.
So therefore the position we are now in is that if this section is now passed in its present form it is open to anybody, the Minister or otherwise, on a further stage to seek, by way of amendment, to alter that decision. I am very glad to hear that that is the case.
It would be open to anybody to endeavour to get something less into the Bill, that is, to give something less than two hours— an hour and three-quarters, an hour-and-a-half, or one hour.
I am very glad, indeed, to have that made clear, and I am indebted to Deputy Johnson—because I was not so sure of my ground in that respect—for pointing out that it would be possible for any Deputy, as well as the Minister, to move at a subsequent stage that the decision of the Dáil be altered by way of reducing the closing hours. Be that as it may, the Minister cannot ride away on the quibble that he has endeavoured to put before the House to-night as the means of carrying out the solemn pledge that he gave in his Second Reading speech, that he was prepared to leave to a free vote of the Dáil this question as to whether there should be this two hours' closing or not. I say that he is loading and has loaded the dice in the matter, and that instead of it being a free decision of the House it will be a decision which, no matter what way it goes, he will endeavour to make suit his own particular purpose. I think that that is grossly unfair to the spirit and to the whole system of Ministerial responsibility in this House, and unfair to the House itself. It is inconsistent with anything in the nature of government by responsible men, men who should be responsible for the natural inferences to be drawn from their public statements, and I think it is a pity, from the point of view of the Minister himself, that he has endeavoured to trick the House in this regard. When the time comes to vote on this amendment I hope that every Deputy will realise that what he is voting on is not to decide whether there shall be these opening hours or not, but, in the first place, if the amendment is carried, to give the Minister a further opportunity of making a fresh proposal, and if the amendment is lost, to make the Bill an Act in its original form.
Lest there might be any misconception on the matter, so far as this stage or any further stage of this Bill is concerned, I should like to point out that the Minister is in no better position than any other Deputy from the point of view of moving amendments.
It appears to me that a new point has arisen as a result of the point made by Deputy Johnson and Deputy Redmond; that is, that a private member can move an amendment to alter the decision of the House from two hours to one hour. I am in favour of the one hour closing, and I would ask the Minister, if the two hours closing is carried now, whether there will be a free vote on any amendment by a private Deputy to change that to one hour? I think there would be a good deal less discussion if that point was made clear now.
The Minister has made it clear several times.
I want to have it made clear that if this section is carried it will be on a free vote of the House. It has been stated that later on a private Deputy can put down an amendment for a one hour closing. If any Deputy does so will the Government allow a free vote to be taken on that amendment?
Certainly, as far as I am concerned. I would be rather surprised if the Dáil, having solemnly voted for a two-hour break, were to turn round on the Report Stage and vote to have that reduced to one hour. On the other hand, I would not be surprised—it is a thing I would hope— if the Dáil, having decided that there should not be a two-hours break, were to decide at a later stage of the Bill that there should be a one-hour break.
It is on that point I wanted to get information, because there is a number of Deputies who will vote for a one-hour closing in preference to this two-hours' closing. What we are asked to do now is to close the houses from 3 to 5. A case has been put to me that arises on that point, and we will have no opportunity of putting this point forward if this section is carried. There is a number of licensed houses in Dublin at present doing a luncheon trade. They make provisions and alter their premises in order to do that trade, and they ask that they should be considered in whatever closing hour is agreed upon. It is pointed out that 3 o'clock is rather early to close down houses which have made arrangements to carry on a luncheon trade and that are competing with some of the hotels and restaurants. I think if the Minister would test the feeling of the House on the amendment as regards the two-hour closing, let the one-hour be decided on later on and not fix the closing hour now.
There is no question of a one-hour closing before you now.
Mr. BYRNE
That is the bait that is held out.
I was absent during much of the discussion, and what I have heard is more or less befogging. I am against Deputy Heffernan's amendment, because it provides for no break, and I believe there should be a break. I am, however, against a two-hours break, and I would like to be afforded an opportunity at some stage of this Bill, to vote for a one-hour closing. I intend to vote against Deputy Heffernan's amendment, because I am in total disagreement with it. I am ready to vote for an amendment at a later stage for an hour's break. I might suggest to Deputy Heffernan that he strike a bargain with the Minister and offer to withdraw his amendment, if the Minister said he would himself bring in an amendment providing for an hour's break.
Deputy Hennessy, apparently, has a very quick and easy way of satisfying his own mind and his desires. He says he will vote against Deputy Heffernan's amendment, which objects to the two-hours closing, but that he will support an hour's closing. But the Minister, who has, no doubt, got a certain responsibility in this matter, states that if Deputy Heffernan's amendment is defeated, Deputy Hennessy is not going to have any opportunity of having a one-hour's closing; the Minister is going to regard this as a final and decisive vote. How Deputy Hennessy, in face of that fact, can console himself, passes my comprehension. I suggest he should put down an amendment himself, and I hope he will have more enthusiasm for it than he has now.
I voted for the Second Reading of the Bill largely because of the fact that I am convinced—and nothing has happened in the meantime to change my conviction—that there are too many publichouses in the country and that a much lesser number of publichouses would satisfy legitimate public demands, but I indicated then that I was not satisfied with the Bill as it stood. I took objection to certain phases of the Bill, and this is one of them. I intend to vote for the amendment, but in doing so I want to say that I am not in the slightest way influenced by the propaganda carried on by an interested party. I am considering the matter from the point of view of the man in the street.
I listened to the case the Minister had to make for the 3 to 5 closing in the county boroughs. He talked on the Second Reading of the "long sitter," but we got no evidence as to what numbers of "long sitters" exist. We got no police statistics to show that a 3 to 5 closing was absolutely desirable or that it was essential from any point of view. The Minister proposes that this 3 to 5 closing should only take place in certain cities, but that elsewhere, where the need may be greater, there is to be no 3 to 5 closing. In making an exception in certain cases one would expect him to prove the need for the 3 to 5 closing in those other places.
The Minister has made no case as to why there should be a 3 to 5 closing in the exempted cities. It seems to me —and I think it is the view of those engaged in the business—that a 3 to 5 closing will not only be an inconvenience to the ordinary man in the street—and I am more concerned about him than anybody else—but that in addition it will mean a certain amount of unemployment in the trade. Such a closing does not necessarily mean that the employees will get off from 3 to 5. It may mean that, although they are not engaged attending at the bar, they will be utilised for some other kind of work, and in that way a publican, who now employs a staff of five or six, may find that he can do with one less. That, together with the fact that I cannot personally observe any particular abuse of publichouses between 3 and 5, induces me to declare that I intend to vote for the amendment.
Question put—"That the words ‘between the hours of 3 o'clock and 5 o'clock in the afternoon' stand part of sub-section (1) (a)."
The Committee divided: Tá, 43; Níl, 42.
Tá
- Earnán Altún.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Thomas Bolger.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Próinsias Bulfin.
- Séamus de Burca.
- John J. Cole.
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- Máighréad Ní Choileain Bean
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- James Dwyer.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- John Good.
- Thomas Hennessy.
- John Hennigan.
- William Hewat.
- Patrick Leonard.
- Seosamh Mac a' Bhrighde.
- Donnchadh Mac Con Uladh.
- Liam Mac Cosgair.
- Seán MacCurtain.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Eoin Mac Néill.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
- Michael K. Noonan.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Risteárd O Conaill.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Peadar O Dubhghaill.
- Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Aindriú O Láimhín.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Mícheál O Tighearnaigh.
- Caoimhghín O hUigín.
- Patrick W. Shaw.
- Liam Thrift.
Níl
- Pádraig Baxter.
- Seán Buitléir.
- John Conlan.
- Louis J. D'Alton.
- John Daly.
- Michael Egan.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- Connor Hogan.
- Séamus Mac Cosgair.
- Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
- Patrick McKenna.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Patrick J. Mulvany.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- John T. Nolan.
- William Norton.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
- Criostóir O Broin.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Parthalán O Conchubhair.
- Máirtín O Conalláin.
- Séamus O Cruadhlaoich.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Tadhg O Donnabháin.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
- Seán O Duinnín.
- Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
- Seán O Laidhin.
- Domhnall O Mocháin.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
- Pádraig O hOgáin (Luimneach).
- Seán O Raghallaigh.
- Seán Príomhdhall.
- William A. Redmond.
- Nicholas Wall.
Tellers: Tá: Deputies Sears and McCurtain. Níl: Deputies Baxter and Redmond.
Question declared carried.
I move:—
In sub-section (1) (a) to insert after the word "evening," line 32, the words "provided that, in the case of premises licensed only for the sale of intoxicating liquor to be consumed off the premises, nothing in this sub-section shall restrict the sale of intoxicating liquor between the hours of three o'clock and five o'clock in the afternoon on any day on which the premises are closed at or before six o'clock in the evening."
I find myself in strong support of the Minister in his wish to restrict the hours of opening of licensed premises, yet I am in the position of having to propose an amendment which has the apparent purpose of going against that. But I think a little explanation will make the discrepancy clear. I do not think that in the wording of the Bill the position of the person who has what is called an off-licence has been fully considered. My attention has been drawn to the fact that if the wording of the Bill were adhered to certain houses, that deal in intoxicating liquor, but have no licence for consumption on the premises, and that are only entitled to sell for consumption off the premises, and do not keep open except between the hours of 10 and 5 o'clock—seldom as late as 6 o'clock—would be very seriously affected. In their case the restriction on an eleven-hour day is already in operation. They are only as a rule selling for eight hours per day. If the further restriction were to be applicable to them—namely, that they could not open between 3 and 5—it would mean that they could only carry on their business between the hours of 10 and 3—that is to say, that business would be restricted to a five-hour day. I do not think that is intended. I have no feeling that the words I have suggested will actually be the words which will be adopted, but in all probability the Minister will be prepared to consider the case I have cited and see whether he really wished to deal with these premises in this way, so as to reside strict their hours to that extent. In actual operation it would mean that these places of business would have every day in the week a half-holiday. Even if they keep open at present from 10 to 6, if they had to close down between 3 and 5, it would probably mean that they would not open for the extra hour after 5 o'clock. Whether they could carry on with this constant half-day in the regular course of things is doubtful. All I want to secure is to get an undertaking from the Minister that he will look into the matter very closely between this and the Report Stage.
If the Deputy will look at line 10, page 4, of the Bill, in the definitions, he will see that "licensed premises" there is defined to mean, except in part 4 of the Act, "premises in respect of which a licence for the sale, by retail, of intoxicating liquor has been granted and is in force." As I said a while ago, for a long time, since 1872, there have been no particular prohibited hours prescribed for wholesalers. The retailer, the person with the off-licence, as it is called, has been in a different position, and in the Bill it is proposed that the closing that applies to the ordinary licensed houses shall apply also to the off-licences—that drink be not sold there during these hours. It is not unlikely that without that provision one result might be, that you would have people buying drink from the off-licence holders and drinking it round the streets or in the lanes during the hours in which other premises are closed. If there are special cases, if there are cases in which a distinction can reasonably be drawn, that is a matter that I would be prepared to look into. At the moment you take the three divisions—the wholesaler, the off-licence retailer, and the on-licence retailer; I would not be prepared to say that during the hours which the on-licence retailer is compelled to close, or at any rate, close the licensed portion of his premises, as in the case of a mixed trading house, under the Bill, as it stands, the off-licence holder should be free to sell drink. Consequently the licensed premises mentioned there in line 10 are premises in respect of which a licence for the sale by retail of intoxicating liquor has been granted and all these premises, "on and off," are covered by the provisions of Section 2. If the Deputy can make a case against that, it is something I am prepared to consider, but that is our position under the Bill as it stands.
I am not sure that the Minister has fully apprehended the purposes of this amendment. It is intended to apply only to cases of large wine merchants who sell by retail in bulk. I think in most cases their licences are so limited that they cannot sell less than a dozen bottles of spirits or wine.
These people carry on business within strictly limited hours. There are very few of them open after 5 p.m. It would almost mean paralysis to their business if this provision were inserted in the Bill.
Is the Deputy quite sure that these are not wholesalers?
Yes.
They are retailers. I am speaking of firms like Mitchell's and Thompson, D'Olier & Co. I know, because I buy from them by retail myself. I have bought from them one or two dozen bottles of wine at a time. The arrangement proposed in this section will be intensely inconvenient, because they will have to keep their premises closed altogether during this time. A great deal of their trade is done, I am sure, in the country. They have to despatch the wine to the country. I am not a lawyer and the Minister is. Perhaps he would tell us the position as regards delivery. These firms deliver by motor van in the suburbs. Is delivery part of the sale? This question would be a very important one in connection with delivery by motor van. Would these vans have to come back during those hours?
Delivery has been held not to be part of the sale.
There is a case for those firms who retail in considerable quantities and who are not in any sense competitors with ordinary licensees. Perhaps the Minister could arrange the matter with representatives of these firms before the Report Stage.
Delivery is not sale, nor is it any essential part of sale. That has been held.
It seems to me to be an important part of sale.
It may be, but technically, the sale has taken place prior to that and delivery would not be covered by the prohibition. The taking of orders over the 'phone, as between these hours, would be a different matter.
Would the receipt of an order by post be regarded as sale?
The point of sale is the point at which the goods are appropriated to the buyer. If there are difficulties arising under that section, they are difficulties which eminently require investigation between this and the Report Stage. Possibly, the most satisfactory course would be if these people or their representatives came in and discussed their position with me in the Department. The Deputy mentioned that these people are not allowed to sell less than a particular quantity——
I understand that is the case. I once ordered a small quantity and they told me that they could not sell so small a quantity.
I wonder whether that is a matter of practice or whether it is connected with their legal position? I am clear that wholesalers are not covered by the section. The section does cover, and was intended to cover, the off-licence holder. If these people are simply off-licence holders on a larger scale, that certainly is a difficulty. But it is a difficulty I am prepared to discuss in a reasonable spirit with them or their representatives.
I am quite satisfied with that. I will withdraw the amendment, with the leave of the Committee.
Unfortunately, Deputy Thrift's amendment covers the cases of off-licence sales on a small scale. If, in the cause of temperance, it be arranged that from 2 to 5 in the afternoon drink is not procurable for consumption on the premises, it will be open always for those who seek to have drink during those hours to have recourse to the house with the off-licence and to buy sufficient stock to drink at home or elsewhere, so that the acceptance of the amendment, precisely as it stands, will not make for the cause of temperance. On the contrary, it will conduce to a particular form of intemperance which is very difficult to eradicate. There is a case, undoubtedly, for the type of trader that Deputy Cooper has in mind, but, then, it requires very careful drafting, so that a door shall not be opened for a form of traffic which would be very deleterious.
The amendment is not being accepted. It has been withdrawn.
If Deputy Magennis had heard what I said, he would have understood that I laid no stress on the form of the amendment. It was drawn for the purpose of directing the Minister's attention to this point, so that he might consider it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment 5.—"To delete sub-section (1) (b)" (Deputy Redmond).
Amendment 6.—"In sub-section (1) (b), line 33, to delete the word ‘ten' and substitute therefor the word ‘eight'" (Deputy Lyons).
The question that arises on these amendments is the question of opening hour in the morning—whether it should be 10 o'clock as proposed in the Bill, or 8 o'clock as suggested by Deputy Lyons, or 9 o'clock as Deputy Redmond suggests. I think we ought to take that question, as to the morning hour on Saturdays only, first, unless the decision as to 10 o'clock for the other days is taken to cover this.
As far as I am concerned, the House having come to the decision that on an ordinary week-day the hour shall be 10 o'clock in the morning in the future instead of 9 o'clock, as at present, I do not intend to press the point upon the House in regard to Saturday. If it is justifiable to have a 10 o'clock opening in regard to any other week-day, it is justifiable in regard to Saturday. I do not admit it is justifiable in either case.
I am concerned about Saturday more than any other day of the week. A number of speeches dealt with this matter of opening hours. Notwithstanding the fact that Deputy Redmond's amendment was defeated, I think there is still hope that the licensed trade in the country should be allowed to open an hour earlier on Saturdays than on the other week days.
This amendment refers to county boroughs, not country districts, and concerns Saturdays only.
This trade gives a good deal of employment. If work is not started until 10 o'clock these shops will not be able to supply their customers before 11 o'clock. It would take an hour to get these places ready for business. If houses cannot be opened until 10 o'clock on Saturdays it will be 11 o'clock before any business is done. I want the Minister to give some concession to people who are contributing so largely to the revenue of the country, to enable them to continue to do so. I think it is only right that licensed premises should be allowed to open for the sale of intoxicating drink, and for the necessaries of life from 8 o'clock in the morning. Take the case of a grocer's shop where bacon or sugar is sold, or the case of a green grocer. These premises can be opened at 7 o'clock in the morning, and there is no legislation to stop them, although they do not contribute to the revenue in anything like the same proportion as the licensed trade. I hope the Minister will have some consideration for those in the licensed trade, so that they may be allowed to open at eight o'clock on Saturdays. If a man is a mixed trader he will be unable to sell tea, sugar, wine, tobacco or bacon, until nine o'clock. While there is provision in Section 3 for mixed trading, I am asking that the opening hour should be made 8 o'clock on Saturday.
I do not propose to accept the amendment, that licensed premises should be enabled to open at 8 o'clock on Saturday. I do not see any reason why they should open any earlier on Saturdays than on other days. The Dáil has taken the view that 10 o'clock is sufficiently early for licensed premises to open for the sale and consumption on the premises of intoxicating liquor. In Section 3 there is a proposal to mitigate that to the extent of allowing houses that do a mixed business to open at 9 o'clock, so that between 9 and 10 a.m. the non-licensed portion only of the business may be carried on. In Section 3, sub-section (1) (a) and (b), that provision is made for county boroughs and for urban county districts. I will have a word to say later on Section 3, sub-section 1, and these divisions, where the 9 to 10 facility is given for mixed houses. Dealing now only with county boroughs as covered by Section 2, sub-section 1, I see no case whatever for the Deputy's amendment that licensed premises should open at 8 o'clock on Saturdays, giving incidentally on Saturday, according to the terms of the Bill, over 12 hours of a drinking day. I oppose the amendment.
I would like to say that I am not putting this amendment forward on the instructions of any traders. I put it forward because I consider, as a working man, that it is necessary to have such places open on Saturday a couple of hours earlier than on other week-days. The Bill specifies that Saturday is not to be taken as an ordinary week-day. Saturday is a day on which a large number of people come to the city. Some of them arrive by the 7.30 train in the morning after having, perhaps, travelled most of the night. They cannot get refreshments on arrival unless they can afford to go to hotels. It is not every person can afford to do that and to pay the prices charged in hotels. The Minister should, at least, have some consideration for the ordinary people who come to the cities on Saturday mornings and enable them to get refreshments.
Question—"That the word ‘ten' stand part of the sub-section"—put and declared carried.
The next amendment, No. 5, dealing with the question of a break on Saturday, now arises. What is the intention about that?
We have now taken a decision by a great majority in favour of split hours on week-days. But the matter is not ended there. As we have learned it is open to any Deputy to move a subsequent amendment reducing these closing hours on week-days, and I presume the same will obtain with regard to Saturdays. We have also the assurance of the Minister for Justice that it will be left to the free vote of the House. In view of these considerations I do not intend to advance any argument on the question of split hours on Saturdays.
We will take it that this amendment is not moved, and leave the question of Saturdays open for next stage.
Amendment 5 not moved.
Amendment 7 not moved.
I move amendment 8:—
In sub-section (1) (b), line 36, to delete the words "half-past nine" and substitute therefor the word "ten."
I am sure that the Minister for Justice will realise that 9.30 on Saturday nights is rather an unreasonable hour to close the houses.
I am not an advocate of drunkenness, and it is not from that point of view that I am moving this amendment. If I had my way I would like to see everyone in the country temperate. In my opinion, closing publichouses on a Saturday night at 9.30 will not mean promoting temperance. I think it will have the contrary effect, because a labouring man obliged to remain at home while his wife is out shopping will not be able to get a drink if he goes out on her return. If the publichouses are closed, or on the point of closing, what he will do is to take a half gallon or a half-dozen of stout to his home and consume it there. I think it would be far better if the publichouses were open until 10 o'clock, and let him consume his drink there rather than in his own home in the presence of his children The Minister is not preventing the capitalist from getting drunk on a Saturday night at 9.30. He can get drink in his club. What I complain of is that workers are prevented from getting a drink on a Saturday night by this 9.30 closing. If the Minister ever had to live in a small house he would be aware of all the jobs that the woman of the house has to do on a Saturday night. The husband, as a rule, goes out when she is doing her work, and where is he to go to if he has not the publichouse? In most cases the publichouse is the drawing-room of the ordinary worker. In these circumstances I think it would be better if the publichouses were allowed to remain open until 10 o'clock, because it would mean that men would not be taking home drink with them. I hope the Minister will accept my amendment.
Deputy Lyons has made an admirable case for early closing. If we are to accept his picture of life among the working classes, then we must regard him as a sort of Irish Maxim Gorki. He has given us a lurid picture of their debased and degraded form of living. I refuse to accept his account as a true picture, that unless we allow a working man to remain for prolonged hours in publichouses on Saturday nights the only alternative is that he should go home and be a nuisance.
Has the Deputy any experience in the matter?
I am merely considering from an outsider's point of view the situation as depicted by our novelist, Deputy Lyons. If the working man is not allowed to remain soaking in liquor in the publichouse, then he will buy quarts or gallons—I do not know which he said—of drink to bring home with him, and he will teach the young idea how to shoot, or, rather, how to drink. Could any evidence be stronger in favour of the temperance crusade than what Deputy Lyons brings forward? Does he not conceive it possible to have temperance halls or some form of decent recreation for working class people in the county boroughs? He has an idea also of class equality.
As an upholder of democracy he believes the workman must be conceded the privilege of getting drunk because those who are wealthy have facilities for it in their clubs. That is a most extraordinary form of reasoning. I am afraid the Deputy is over-impressed with the old saying "drunk as a lord," so that he conceives drunkenness is a privilege, and that there is class inequality unless facilities are provided for the poor as well as the rich. He does not understand that the whole purport of this legislation is to renew the conditions of life in the country and provide for standards of decent living, to try and force those who are not willing to live a proper life to conform to the requirements of society.
A county like Donegal is rather an extraordinary county. The Minister for Finance knows it very well. In connection with this question of extending the hours it would suit us if you allow us from 1 to 8 or 9 instead of from 1 to 7.
I cannot hear the Deputy very well, but this does not either concern Donegal or 8 o'clock closing in the evening.
Deputy Magennis tries to make out that I believe the home of the worker should be saturated in alcohol or that the worker is a perpetual drunkard.
Or a domestic nuisance.
There are more domestic nuisances among professors than among the ordinary working men. I did not put forward this amendment with the intention of degrading the ordinary worker, whom I represent. 9.30 on Saturday night is not at all suitable to the average working man. If Deputy Magennis is lucky enough to be a member of the Kildare Street Club and can get a drink up to 11 o'clock on a Saturday night, the men I represent have not the privilege of being members of such a club. I sin cerely hope that if they could they would not become members. I do not agree with Deputy Magennis that this amendment degrades the worker and makes him a drunkard. It is well known to every Deputy that if liquor is taken home by anyone children in the house are going to get some of it. I am speaking of Dublin, not of Mullingar. I want to prevent that. I want such an individual to be able to get drink until 10 o'clock on Saturday night, and I want to prevent him taking home intoxicating liquor. If he partakes of the beverage before his children those children will long for the taste of the particular form of alcohol that the parent is interested in. If you do not allow the publichouse to be open till 10 o'clock then prevent the aristocrat from having a shebeen in his own house. Furthermore, close down clubs such as the Kildare Street Club, and others, not catering for the interests of the working classes.
I am putting the question that the words "nine-thirty" stand in the Bill.
Question put and declared carried.
I should like to ask you and Deputy Lyons to allow amendment No. 10 to be taken before 9.
I am not clear as to what amendment No. 9 means. It proposes to delete paragraph (c) and substitute a new paragraph, and the new paragraph, substituted, appears to make no provision for any closing hour on Sunday and St. Patrick's Day. Therefore the proposal is that the publichouses should be open from 1 o'clock until midnight.
I have to attend an important meeting at Mullingar to-morrow and I wish to finish the amendment now.
I am agreeable.
Deputy Lyons will not move amendment 9, I take it, but will postpone it until the next stage?
No, I do not mean that.
I could get through amendment 10 in ten minutes and could then get away.
Is the Deputy seriously going to put before the Committee that there should be no closing hour on Sundays and St. Patrick's Day? Considering the Bill itself contains a provision for closing publichouses on ordinary week days and Saturdays, is he going to propose an amendment containing no closing hour on St. Patrick's Day and Sundays? The Deputy is strictly within his rights, but moving the amendment sounds very like waste of the Committee's time.
I do not want to waste time. I withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy can reconsider the amendment for a later stage.
I put this amendment down entirely with reference to the bona fide traveller.
If so, it is in the wrong place. We can discuss it later, on the bona fide section.
Amendment 9.—In sub-section (1) to delete paragraph (c) and substitute a new paragraph as follows:—
"(c) on any Sunday or St. Patrick's Day before the hour of one in the afternoon, or."
Not moved.
The effect of amendment 10 is obvious. It reads:—
In sub-section (2), page 4, line 42, after the word "district" to insert the words "or town," and in line 43, after the word "which" to insert the words "district or town."
The effect of the amendment would be that towns like Mullingar, which has a population of 5,345, would be put on the same footing as urban districts. Obviously the population there is going up, but, under the form of local government under which the town is managed, it would not get the benefit that would be given to an urban council. I daresay the Minister will accept that amendment.
I am prepared to accept this amendment, because, as the Deputy says, the thing that matters is the basis of population. The basis of discrimination is the population, not the exact technical local government administration of the town. I do not want particularly to know why Mullingar, with a population of over 5,000 is not urbanised. It seems to me the difference as between having an urban council or town commission need not be the basis of discrimination against it in the matter of the division the town falls into. In this Bill it is really a division aiming at being based on population. I am prepared to accept the Deputy's amendment without any curiosity as to why they have not an urban council in Mullingar.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment 11.—In sub-section (2) (a), line 48, to delete the word "ten" and to substitute therefor the words "half-past eight"—Deputy Lyons.
Amendment 12.—In sub-section (2) (a), line 48, to delete the word "ten" and substitute therefor the word "nine"—Deputies Redmond and C. Byrne.
I take it these two amendments are governed by the previous decision.
I suppose so.
That disposes of amendments 11 and 12.
Amendment 13.—In sub-section (2) (b), line 51, to delete the word "ten" and substitute therefor the word "nine"—Deputy Redmond.
Is not amendment 13 again the same thing— the question of opening hours?
In regard to amendments 12 and 13 over my name, I do not intend to occupy the House or to press them, beyond stating that the urban districts or towns are in even a stronger position than the county boroughs in regard to the proposed curtailment of hours, because there are people coming into these towns in early hours in the morning who might possibly not be bona fide travellers. They might not have travelled the requisite distance, and to make the hour ten in the morning instead of nine for these districts is, I submit, even a greater curtailment than in regard to county boroughs. I presume, however, that the Minister will adopt the same attitude in regard to these. I do not think it will be necessary for me to press the matter, except to point out with regard to towns which are not county boroughs that ten o'clock in the morning will certainly be inconvenient to some people who may have to enter the towns from distances which would not render them bona fide travellers.
Amendment 13 deals with Saturday mornings in these particular places.
That is what I was going to say.
Amendment not moved.
Amendment 14.—In sub-section (2) (b), line 52, to delete the words "half-past nine," and substitute therefor the word "ten"—Deputies Lyons and C. Byrne.
Amendment 14 deals with the hour of closing on Saturday in urban districts and towns with a population of over 5,000.
I think this amendment refers only to urban areas.
Yes, this amendment only refers to closing hours on Saturdays in urban areas. Is the Deputy accepting the previous decision?
I suggest the Minister should add the words "during the summer period."
Is the Deputy standing strictly on his amendment?
Yes.
If the Deputy will withdraw his amendment I will consider it between this and the Report Stage. I would not consider the amendment, but I would consider the proposed half-hour extension confined to the summer period.
I am quite satisfied. Will I have the right to bring that forward again?
Yes.
Amendment 14 withdrawn.
I beg to move amendment 15:—
In sub-section (2) to delete paragraph (c) and substitute two new paragraphs as follows:—
(c) on any Sunday before the hour of 1 o'clock in the afternoon, or after the hour of 5 o'clock in the afternoon, or
(d) at any time on Christmas Day, Good Friday, or St. Patrick's Day.
I am asking that publichouses be opened on Sundays from one until five. That would be four hours. If I am allowed to correct it, I would ask to have the opening hours from 1 to 3 o'clock and from 5 to 7, for the following reasons:—From 1 to 3 would suit the agricultural community coming out from last Mass. They could go and have any refreshment they needed in the village, or do any other business they liked in the publichouse. From 5 to 7 would suit hurling or football matches. I am moving this amendment conditional on the 3 mile limit being defeated.
If I could anticipate that the three mile limit will not be allowed to stand, then I think we are entitled to some consideration in the country. A man who is working all the week, and who has to travel three miles to get reasonable refreshment, should be given some consideration. I ask the Minister, if he has made up his mind not to allow us the three mile limit, to consider granting the four hours opening that I am seeking. I understand the Minister would be disposed to give three hours, say from 2 to 5. The difference would not be much. The Minister, I know, is against a long sitting.
In the Dáil?
No, in the publichouse. If the publichouses are open from 1 to 3 and from 5 to 7 it will accommodate the people who may want to do business in the villages, and who may be anxious to meet one another and have an interchange of opinion. By opening from 5 to 7 there will be no such thing as looking for special licences for football matches and other things. All these things cost money. I ask the Minister to consider whether this would not be a good substitute for the three-mile limit, the bona fide traveller difficulty, or the six-mile limit.
A number of questions arise for decision. The first is, shall there be an opening for any period on Sundays, and, if so, for what period? Then again, shall there be an opening on St. Patrick's Day, and, if so, for what period? I suggest that to get a decision on the first matter, namely, shall there be an opening at any period on Sundays, the first question put should be: "In Section 2 (2) (c) that the words "at any time on any Sunday" should stand. If these words stand, that disposes of any opening on any Sunday. If these words are deleted, the question of what kind of opening on Sundays will be allowed, can be decided. The same will apply with regard to St. Patrick's Day. In order to get a decision as to whether there shall be any opening at any time on Sunday, I will simply put the question: Section 2 (2) (c) that the words "at any time on any Sunday stand." If that is decided in the affirmative, the question of whether they will open on Sundays does not arise at all. The same will apply to St. Patrick's Day. That will dispose of not only Deputy Daly's amendment, but also of amendment 16, which raises the same point, namely, shall there be any opening on Sundays or St. Patrick's Day.
The difficulty is to discuss this proposal apart from the question of the bona fide traffic, which is dealt with in another portion of the Bill. As I said on Second Reading, Sunday is the most difficult day of all to legislate for in this matter of the sale and consumption of intoxicating drink. When we come to the bona fide traffic provisions, I am prepared to listen very attentively and give every consideration to the views that may be expressed from any portion of the House. I am not entirely satisfied with the provisions of the Bill on that question. I am not conscious of any great conviction as to the merits of the proposals, while recognising that it is very hard to find any ideal regulations for that day, and that there is great diversity of view amongst the general public on the matter.
The proposal of Deputy Daly is to have a limited opening in the larger towns. I am not prepared to consider any extension at all of the facilities that exist in the four county boroughs except on a basis of complete abolition of the bona fide traffic. I think it is impossible to discuss the two things apart. I do not want to be understood as saying that, conditional on a complete abolition of the bona fide traffic, I would agree to this extension throughout the State of the 2 to 5 facilities that exist in Dublin, Cork and the other two cities. If there is a substantial volume of opinion in the Dáil in favour of that course, it is something that should be very carefully considered.
The bona fide business is, and has been for a long time, the subject of well-merited condemnation, and the proposal to shift the distance is not really a solution in any degree at all. It has the effect, no doubt, of wiping out one set of vested interests and creating another set of vested interests further on. In so far as it leans against anyone, it leans against the pedestrian, who is, perhaps, the most genuine traveller of the lot, and it makes no substantial difference whatever to the man who travels by train, motor car, motor bicycle, or by the popular bus, which is an increasing feature of the landscape. Therefore, while I put down these provisions in the Bill bearing on the question of Sunday, I am receptive to any reasonable suggestion with regard to that day. I will not consider an extension of such facilities as exist in four of the cities at present, except on the basis of the disappearance, root and branch, of the bona fide traffic. I would not accept, in any ease, the hours which Deputy Daly inserts in his amendment, and my attitude on it now is simply to ask the Dáil to reject it. The entire matter of Sunday trading can be considered when we come to the portion of the Bill dealing with bona fide traffic.
I agree with what the Minister has stated, but I appeal to him to let my amendment stand, or to put me in the position that I can bring the matter forward again on the Report Stage. I would be in a better position to do so then, as I will know the fate of the bona fide traveller. Bearing in mind that I will be at liberty to bring the matter forward on the Report Stage, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
If the Deputy withdraws his amendment he will be in the same position on the Report Stage as he is now. By withdrawing his amendment now, he is preserving his rights to bring the matter up on Report.
May I be at liberty to remind so old a Deputy as Deputy Daly that for years and years and for generations there was a long-sustained fight in Great Britain and Ireland against Sunday opening? The Sunday closing movement was one of the most enthusiastic movements for social reform and it triumphed. I protest, if there is no other voice but mine to protest, against undoing all that social reform and bringing in an amendment sanctioning the opening of publichouses on Sundays.
I am at a loss to know the position of Deputy Magennis this evening. At one time he is attacking the Ministry, and at another time he is attacking the licensed trade. I am between them.
I regret I was not in the Dáil during the discussion on the earlier paragraph. Had I been here, I would have raised a word of protest against the proposal that for the county boroughs St. Patrick's Day should be an open day. I enter the same protest against the proposal in any other sub-section of this section, or in any amendment where it is suggested that there should be retrogression in regard to St. Patrick's Day. Probably, at a later stage, I shall be able to move an amendment to that effect.
I take it that amendment 15 is withdrawn.
Yes.
And so much of amendment 16 as concerns Sunday is also withdrawn?
I am quite satisfied.
What about amendment 17?
That, I take it, is consequential to the other?
Yes.
Amendment 17 is agreed.
Ordered—"That progress be reported."
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Progress reported. Committee to sit again on Thursday, 3rd March.
The Dáil adjourned at 8.30.