A good deal was said on this amendment last evening and, owing to the amount of time wasted by the Government to-day, I do not propose to delay the Dáil very long. The object of the amendment is to give an hour-and-a-half extra to clubs on a Saturday night. For that hour-and-a-half I am asking two hours less in the morning. I think the Minister would be wise, especially in view of the General Election, to facilitate clubs and their members by giving this extra period on Saturday night. Such facilities would not be abused, as clubs, particularly those catering for the working classes, are carried out in a most respectable way. I do not, of course, know whether there are abuses in connection with clubs where the capitalists resort. I have experience of workers' clubs and I know there is no abuse there. In the first place, the members have not sufficient money to spend on a Saturday night, and they pass their time generally in a game of billiards or cards, so that if these facilities are not given on a Saturday night I think there would be great injustice.
INTOXICATING LIQUOR BILL, 1927—COMMITTEE (RESUMED)—
I am not accepting the amendment.
Amendment put and negatived.
I move:—
"In sub-section (1), (c), page 21, line 59, and page 22, line 1, to delete the words ‘or between the hours of three o'clock and six o'clock in the afternoon,' and in line 2, page 22, to delete the word ‘nine' and substitute therefor the word ‘ten.'"
I am sure that the Minister will agree at least, to this amendment. A proposal to extend the hours from nine to ten should get general support. It is a well-known fact that the members of clubs, whether they pay £20 a year, £1 or year, or, as in the case of workers' clubs, threepence or fourpence a week, go out on a Sunday and enjoy themselves in the open, and generally in the evening, having had their tea at home, go to their club to meet their friends and enjoy themselves. When people get together and talk to each other it is generally good for their education, and it is much better for them to meet and discuss things, even politics, than to sit idly by themselves and not meet their friends and exchange views. It is well known that debating societies, which are generally attached to clubs, have produced much better men even than some of our distinguished colleagues. By giving this extra hour on Sundays you will be giving people who have been out all day a chance of meeting, and if they succeed in getting a drink between these hours, it will put them in fairly good form. I have experience of visiting various clubs and I have never seen any abuses.
It may be said that in Dublin, Athlone, Mullingar, or Longford there are clubs which are not run properly, but I have been in clubs in these towns and I always found them run in an orderly way. Not alone is the amendment in the interest of working men's clubs but it is in the interest of all clubs. I would like to ask the Minister whether clubs, such as the Kildare Street Club, will have to keep the same hours as ordinary clubs, or will they be allowed to carry on as they like. If some clubs, especially those to which the aristocrats and lords of the land resort, are given special privileges I do not see why other clubs which cater for the worker or for the middleman cannot enjoy the same facilities. Many of these clubs in large towns have a membership of from 400 to 500, and if the Minister does not give them these small facilities it will mean that these people, who would probably be able to control a thousand votes, will vote against the Government at the next election. This amendment is, therefore, really in the interests of the Minister and the Government, and I am asking them to accept it. In all fair play, I think that clubs are entitled to an extra hour on a Sunday as compared with publichouses.
I am not accepting the amendment.
Amendment put and negatived.
Amendment 86.—In sub-section (1) (c), page 22, to delete in line 1 the word "six" and substitute therefor the word "seven," and in line 2 to delete the word "nine" and substitute therefor the word "ten."—(Deputy C. Byrne.)
Not moved.
I move amendment 87:—
In sub-section (2), page 22, line 5, after the word "district" to insert the words "or a town having Commissioners under the Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1854," and in line 6, after the word "which," to insert the words "district or town."
I move amendment 88:—
In sub-section (2), line 13, to delete the word "to."
This amendment is the same as amendments 83 and 84. Will Deputy Lyons take the decision on amendmenst 83 and 84 as governing amendment 89?
Since the Minister for Justice is adopting a dog-in-the-manger policy, it is hardly worth while for a Deputy to go to the trouble of drafting amendments to any Bill. The Minister treats these amendments as farcical. I do not think it is good policy for the Minister to treat the members of those clubs as nonentities. We should at least have an explanation from the Minister as to what he thinks about these clubs. Does he think they should be licensed at all? If he is returned at the election, will he deprive all clubs of licences? What is the ground of his objection to giving an extra hour and a half on Saturday nights to clubs? He will be looking for votes from the members of those clubs, and now he has an opportunity of doing something for them. I do not think it is right that a member of this House should be treated with contempt, no matter what his position in life. I am only a worker, but I refuse to be treated in the manner that the Minister for Justice has treated me. I have as good right to get an explanation as to why my amendment is not accepted as any other Deputy. I was returned by Westmeath and Longford on two occasions. If I had been a supporter of the Minister for Justice since 1922 I might get better treatment. The Government is the servant of the people and should act in accordance with the wishes of the people. An employee acts in accordance with the wishes of the employer, but in this case the people are being made the servants. I wonder would a capitalist Deputy who moved the amendment I am moving be treated with contempt. I object to being treated with contempt by any person. I am as good as anybody in the State, and the people I represent are as good as any other citizens. On their behalf, I put forward the amendment, and I do not care twopence whether the Minister for Justice explains why he rejects this amendment or not. If he refuses to give an explanation, it only shows his own ignorance.
Does that dispose of amendments 89 and 90?
It is no use my moving them.
This question has been decided already and will arise again on next stage.
That is correct.
I move amendment 92:—
In sub-section (3), page 22, line 30, after the word "district" to insert the words "or town."
I move amendment 93:—
In sub-section (3), line 36, to delete the word "to."
I move amendment 94:—
In sub-section (3) (a) (i), line 43, to delete the words "ten o'clock in the morning" and substitute therefor the words "twelve noon," and in line 44 to delete the word "ten" and substitute the word "eleven."
This amendment deals with the period of summer time. In summer people who go for long walks may be detained by friends, and they may require some refreshment. If the Minister does not accept this amendment, I trust he will agree to the same hours for the clubs as he has agreed to in connection with the bona fide traffic. If you fix ten o'clock as the closing hour in summer time, it really means that the clubs will be closed at 8.35 Irish time. At present, we are twenty-five minutes before sun time and in summer time we will be one hour and twenty-five minutes before it. You will find in the afternoons during summer very few members in these clubs. But when the day's work is over men adjourn to the club. That is about 8.30 or 9 o'clock. At 10 o'clock the bar is to be closed down. Men who work according to Irish time, and who have to walk a mile or two miles in to the club, will not be able to get a drink. I hope the Minister will at least allow the clubs the same privileges as the licensed houses.
The general principle that has been followed throughout in connection with clubs is on weekdays to keep the club hours for the sale and consumption of intoxicating liquor identical with the hours for the ordinary publichouses. In so far as there has been any alteration in the hours for the publichouses in rural areas in summer time—a question of, I think, half an hour—I am prepared to make that alteration on Report Stage to cover the case of clubs, but I am not prepared throughout the week to provide any different hours for clubs from those which obtain in regard to publichouses. There is a difference in the Bill in regard to Sunday, but on the week days I adhere to the recommendations of the Intoxicating Liquor Commission that the hours for clubs be kept the same as the hours for publichouses.
I beg to move amendment 97:—
In sub-section (3) (b) (i), line 55, to delete the words "ten o'clock in the morning" and substitute the words "twelve noon," and in line 56 to delete the words "half-past nine" and substitute the word "eleven."
I wonder would the Minister during the period of summer time agree to give the clubs a little extra time on Saturday night? The amendment asks for one and a half hours extra. You will not find many members in clubs looking for intoxicating liquor on a Saturday morning. In fact, you will not find any members in clubs on a Saturday morning in summer time unless persons who come within the category of drones. The only time on Saturdays that you will find many members in clubs is at night. If this amendment is accepted it will not mean that people will adjourn from the publichouse half intoxicated and go to the clubs and get fully intoxicated. That is a thing that will not happen, and I am speaking from my experience of clubs that I have visited.
During summer time, on a Saturday night when men receive their pay, they go home and give their wives their allowance for housekeeping. The wife may have to go out and do some shopping, with the result that it is 8.30 or 9 o'clock before she returns. After his hard day's work such a man might want a drink, but by that time the publichouses are closed, and now he cannot get a drink in his club. I hold that every man who wishes to have a drink should have the privilege of getting it. It is not the best way to promote temperance to force our opinion down the throats of other people. I do not believe in any man or woman taking too much drink, and I would certainly support any legislation the Government brought forward from a real temperance point of view. But closing the clubs at 9.30 on Saturdays in summer time is not going the right way to promote temperance. It will mean that if a man cannot get a drink he will get a "half-pint" somewhere on the sly, and that will mean that he will eventually become a drunkard. I think the Minister should give some little extra time to clubs on Saturday night beyond the hour for the closing of publichouses. I would be prepared to accept a closing at 10 o'clock, which would mean an extra half hour. A large number of traders, artisans and professional men who work very hard on a Saturday visit their clubs in the evening, and after half-past nine they cannot get a drink if they require it. I do not think it is right for any Government to stand fast by that regulation. I maintain that it is not the best way to promote temperance.
I do not know that it is necessary to discuss the amendment. I am not prepared to depart from the principle, either on Saturday or any other day, of keeping the club hours identical with the hours for the licensed trade.
I beg to move amendment 99:—
In sub-section (3) (c), lines 64-65, to delete the words "or between the hours of three o'clock and six o'clock in the evening."
I presume that the Minister will give the same terms to the clubs as to the licensed houses. I shall put up an argument in favour of it if the Minister wishes.
As I understand the amendment, it is that clubs might supply drink from 1 to 9 p.m. on Sundays and St. Patrick's Day. Is that what the Deputy wants?
Yes.
I cannot accept the amendment, so the Deputy must decide for himself whether he will put up an argument or not.
The Minister has already accepted the principle. He has stated on other amendments that he would delete the split hours as they would mean too much duty for the Gárdaí to perform. The Minister stated that he was putting forward an amendment to the effect that bona fide travellers could be served on Sunday between 1 and 7 o'clock in winter and 1 and 8 o'clock in the summer time. If that is to be the case for the publichouses why should not the same hours be given to the clubs? The section as it stands specifies that there shall be a break in the hours, and I want to get the same terms for clubs as the Minister is prepared to give to publichouses. He has agreed to give the same terms as far as Saturday is concerned and as far as any extension of time during the period of summer time on Sunday is concerned, but I cannot understand why he holds fast to the split hours in one case while he does not hold to them for the licensed houses. I hold that whatever terms are given to the publichouses should also be given to the clubs.
The analogy that the Deputy seeks to draw for the purposes of Sunday between the clubs and the ordinary licensed houses does not, in fact, exist. In one case you are dealing with the bona fide traffic, but the bona fide traffic does not apply at all in the matter of clubs. While I do say that it would be a matter of extreme difficulty for the police to administer the two-hours close down in bona fide traffic on Sunday afternoon, there is not the same difficulty with regard to clubs.
Clubs are situated, for the most part, in towns, and it is a simple matter for the police to see that this two hours' break in the day, in the matter of the sale and consumption of intoxicating liquor, does in fact take place. The recommendation of the Bill with regard to the hours is from 1 to 3, and from 6 to 9. I consider those hours reasonable. If there is a necessity for reviewing them at all, it would be perhaps in connection with clubs connected with golf or outdoor games of that kind. There might be some need not so much for extension as adjustment of the hours. I am looking into that matter and possibly I will have an amendment bearing on it on the Report Stage. But taking the ordinary club, the club that exists here in the city or in the provincial towns through the country, the hours from 1 o'clock to 3 o'clock, and 6 o'clock to 9, seem to me adequate for Sunday, and there is not the same difficulty about enforcing the short break as there would be in the enforcing of a break in the bona fide traffic which applies to all the licensed houses in the country. I do not propose to accept the Deputy's amendment.
I was going to raise, on the section, the question to which the Minister has referred. Perhaps I can do it now, with advantage. I have not put down any amendment to the section because of various administrative difficulties which I can foresee. I hold no brief for any particular club, but I cannot help thinking that we are not legislating in this Bill, and have not legislated in the past, in a very wise and intelligent way in reference to the clubs. I draw definite lines of distinction between different kinds of clubs. As far as what I may call the social club is concerned, I do not see that there is any case for the social club having any difference in its legislation as compared with the legislation that exists for ordinary places. But I do not think that our legislation has been at all wise with regard to the clubs that the Minister has just referred to —athletic clubs that exist for outdoor sports; I think it has tended to lead to an increase in the output of the bar in these clubs rather than to sport. I certainly would not plead for any extension of the number of hours in which the club bars should be opened, but I do not think that legislation permits of the opening of those bars at the times most suited to the convenience and the good of the club members. I cannot help thinking that it should be possible to have a different kind of licence for an athletic club. It certainly does not require to be open after dark. It does not require to be open in the winter until 9 o'clock at night. That is only encouraging drinking. In the winter time I do not see any real use of the bar being open at a time when it is not possible for sport to be played. I think it should be possible to institute a kind of licence which would more or less follow the light, so that the club could be opened for a member who enjoys his sport and who perhaps wants to take his meal after his sport is finished and have, if he so desires it, some intoxicating liquor with his meal. In the summer, that time frequently runs until well after 10 o'clock. I admit that a difficulty arises. There seems to be no occasion for a club bar being open except round and about the regular times for members taking their meals. I daresay the Minister has given this very careful consideration. I hope he will give it more consideration. There are difficulties, but I cannot think that they are insuperable.
Deputy Thrift was clear that there was perhaps no strong case for any difference between the hours of a social club and the hours of the licensed houses in the area in which the club is situated. This is not entirely a question of straight lines. There is a certain amount of light and shade in connection with the question of golf clubs, just as in connection with many other questions. One does hear, from time to time, suggestions that certain golf clubs exist and survive by reason of having a substantial proportion of persons who play golf very seldom, but who join the club and pay their annual subscription, and are, in fact, mere social members of the club rather than enthusiastic golfers. That is one side of the matter. Another side of the matter is that one does hear from time to time of particular golf clubs where, undoubtedly, consumption of intoxicating liquor is allowed by a weak or incompetent committee to go to extremes, where there is excess, abuse and so on. If golf clubs want a statutory recognition, distinguishing them from any other club—social clubs in the towns, ex-servicemen's clubs, working men's clubs, university clubs, and so on—if they want statutory recognition as clubs existing for the purpose of outdoor games, then they had better keep the outdoor game aspect of their existence well in the forefront and see that it is not obscured and crowded out by the membership that is a social membership rather than a golf-playing membership.
I am aware that this question of the bar receipts is a very vital matter for some golf clubs, that golf clubs are able to show a credit balance at the end of the year which would be a substantial debit balance but for the receipts from the sale and consumption of intoxicating liquor. That may not be the whole story. The whole story may be, possibly, that there are too many of them and that because there are too many of them then you have a situation in which clubs are ekeing out an existence by reason of their substantial bar receipts from the sale of intoxicating liquor. I have had a deputation representative of golf clubs that put up a certain case, the kind of case that Deputy Thrift puts up, that their clubs are existing for the purpose of an outdoor game. If one could be quite sure that they were that, and only that, the matter would be simpler, and it would be easier to provide for them a separate statutory recognition. But, with regard to certain of the golf clubs, one does hear that the social side and the drinking side is at least as much in evidence as the golf side, and it is facts of that kind which render it difficult to legislate for the golf club as such. If it were simply to mean that a certain class of people to whom the annual subscription was a small matter could have the amenities of the golf club and the special hours of the golf club at that small cost, then the matter becomes difficult and you verge on a line of legislation that is open to criticism as being class legislation. Wealthy people who can afford to pay an annual subscription to a golf club can have special hours for the consumption of intoxicating liquor and the amenities of the club premises. I am, in fact, examining the matter in consultation and contact with a representative deputation from the golf clubs which came to see me. I am speaking now merely for the purpose of showing that it is not entirely a question of straight lines. There is another side to this athletic aspect which Deputy Thrift has stressed.
There are some golf clubs that it would be straining a point to claim for them that they tended in any serious way to promote athletics. It might be even suggested that in certain of their sideshows and by-products they were militating against the full development of a man's athletic prowess and vigour. I do not want to say the last word on this question of golf clubs on this stage of the Bill. It might be that I will be in a position to bring up an amendment for discussion on the Report Stage.
I just want to satisfy Deputy Lyons's mind that as far as the report of the Liquor Commission is concerned they were perfectly agreed that there was to be no class legislation, and he has no right now to suggest that there are certain clubs that will get preferential treatment. The Commission were quite clear that all clubs must be put under the same rule.
Perhaps I should say it was better for us that there was no evidence given before the Commission with regard to the golf clubs. I do say, as far as the three or four golf clubs with which I am or have been connected, that there never was anything in the nature of drinking connected with them. As regards those clubs that do conduct themselves in a respectable way and do not put forward that social aspect, or drinking aspect, that the Minister referred to, I think it is really hard on people who require some refreshment at, perhaps, a later hour than others, if some consideration should not be given to them. I quite admit the difficulty that the Minister is in. I can see that it must be a very serious thing if you make any distinction whatever in favour of any class of club. I hope he will be able to arrive at some decision that will please the members of the golf clubs, because I know at the present time they are not quite satisfied that they are being treated fairly in the matter. That is, the clubs that are being run on proper lines.
I do not think I used the term golf club. Although I was thinking of golf clubs, I was also thinking of other athletic clubs that have licensed bars. I do not think what I said is open to the imputation that what I was urging was anything like class legislation. I was rather urging a restriction of hours, that they should not be open as long as others.
I think the fact that they are open so long leads to the abuses which the Minister has mentioned, and that there are people who join certain clubs simply for the convenience of approaching the bar. I think it would not be privileged class legislation at all if the opening of the bars was restricted to definite hours, hours very much less in number but much more suited to the convenience of the members. I was glad to hear from the Minister that he was still continuing his reflections on that point, and I have no doubt they will lead to something useful.
A deputation from golf clubs came to me to discuss the hours in the Bill. The discussion really came down finally to the question of the hours on Sunday. I am prepared to consider as I said, not necessarily an extension so much as an adjustment of hours that might be more satisfactory to them. If I bring in an amendment on the Report Stage it will be an amendment that will apply to clubs that exist for the purpose of outdoor games. It would apply to, perhaps, football clubs and golf clubs, and clubs of that kind, but the hours would be not necessarily an extension so much as an adjustment of the existing hours.
The Minister stated that he was not prepared to delete the hours for workers' clubs or ex-servicemen's clubs?
Any town clubs.
The Minister specially mentioned ex-servicemen's clubs and workers' clubs. All that I am asking is that this provision for closing between 3 and 6 o'clock on Sundays and St. Patrick's Day in the case of clubs should be deleted. I think that clubs should have the opportunity of opening the bars to their members during those hours.
I know what you want, but I said that I would not do it.
The Minister stated that he was prepared to bring in an amendment dealing with golf clubs and other clubs that provide for outdoor sport, but I ask why not include all clubs in his amendment?
Would the Deputy try to understand me? I think he does understand me. The amendment that I outlined in connection with golf clubs would be not necessarily an extension of the hours under the Bill so much as an adjustment, an alteration, of those hours. It is not a question of doing away with any break in the day, but it is a question of fixing hours that might be considered more satisfactory for the purposes of a particular game. That has nothing whatever to do with the question of ordinary social town clubs. On the question of clubs in towns, I adhere to the hours in the Bill, 1 to 3 and 6 to 9.
What the Deputy is asking by his amendment is that I add three hours to that by doing away with the break between 3 and 6. I will not do that.
I hold that the clubs in provincial towns conduct their business properly. If they did not do that the superintendent of the Civic Guards would object to the renewal of their licences. By closing clubs between the hours of 3 and 6, I hold that you are going to impose extra duties on the Guards. If they go to a club premises a few minutes after 3 o'clock on a Sunday and find soiled glasses on the counter, the probability is that they will institute a prosecution, and as their word will be taken in preference to that of the secretary of the club, a conviction is likely to be recorded and the club licence endorsed. I appreciate the services of the Civic Guards, and I know they would not go into a witness box and swear what they did not believe to be correct, but the fact will be that their evidence will be taken in preference to that of the club secretary, who will also be stating what is correct. I think that the Minister should reconsider his decision and accept the amendment.
On the general question, I think it would be advisable for the Minister to take steps to have this section amended on the Report Stage. The section as it stands will go a long way to ruin and destroy the clubs throughout the country. I think it is unfair to deny, under this Bill, to members of clubs privileges which they have had up to this. We legislate in this Dáil for the masses of the people, but I think that during the past five years it was only class legislation that was passed here. One particular class in the community who have influence and finance can succeed in getting the Government to introduce legislation that they have their hearts on, notwithstanding the fact that that legislation may be detrimental to the interests of two-thirds of the citizens of the State. On the section I appeal to the Minister to extend the hours for opening on week days and Saturdays by at least one half hour, and on Sundays by one hour, and to reduce the split hours period from three hours to at least one and a half hours. I think it would be quite sufficient if the Minister had to insist that clubs should only be closed on Sundays during the dinner hour. No one would object to that. I think it is going too far, however, to have the bars in clubs closed for three hours or a Sunday afternoon. One of the effects of that will be that if friends, having travelled a distance of ten or fourteen miles, come on a visit to a man who is a member of a club in a provincial town, he will not be able to bring them there to give them some refreshment. The friends, of course, can go to a local publichouse to get some refreshment, being bona fide travellers, but as their guest is a local man he cannot go with them. I think that is a great hardship on people, and that the Minister should give the concessions I ask.
On behalf of Deputy Johnson, I beg to move amendment 100:—
Before Section 51 to insert a new section:—
"Any licence holder who employs any person under eighteen years of age other than an apprentice under indenture of apprenticeship made before the first day of February, 1927, in the bottling of intoxicating liquor or otherwise in such circumstances that the person has direct access to intoxicating liquor not contained in corked and sealed vessels shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof, in the case of a first offence, to a penalty not exceeding five pounds, and in the case of any subsequent offence, to a penalty not exceeding ten pounds, and in any case conviction shall be recorded on the licence of the licence holder so convicted."
The object of the amendment is to prevent young boys under 18 being employed in or near where they can have access to intoxicating liquor. As it is already an offence to sell drink to young people under the age of 18 years, unless it is in sealed bottles, I hope that the Minister will see the reasonableness of this amendment and accept it.
If Deputy Johnson were here to put this amendment I would ask him for further information about it. I regret the cause of his absence. I would like, for instance, to ask him whether it is, in fact, the practice of certain licence holders to adopt such methods of bottling as to prevent employees from getting access to the liquor and, if so, why those methods are not generally adopted. The amendment speaks of "Any licence holder who employs any person under eighteen years of age other than an apprentice under indenture of apprenticeship made before the first day of February, 1927, in the bottling of intoxicating liquor or otherwise in such circumstances that the person has direct access to intoxicating liquor not contained in corked and sealed vessels ..." Taking those two lines into consideration, are there, in fact, any licensed establishments in which the circumstances are otherwise?
I do not really know the arguments in favour of this amendment—Deputy Johnson did not give them to us—but I imagine there might be some publichouses where the full-grown adults would do the bottling, and in that case it might not be necessary to send apprentices who would be under the age of eighteen years to places where they would be directly in touch with the liquor.
I think the Deputy in whose name the amendment stands really aims at raising the age for apprenticeship, except in the case of apprentices who entered into their indentures prior to February, 1927, to eighteen years. But instead of putting down an amendment to that effect and stating that in its simplicity, he puts down an amendment and says that shall be the case save where there is a set of circumstances which, so far as I know, do not exist in any publichouse in the country. "... in such circumstances that the person has direct access to intoxicating liquor not contained in corked and sealed vessels ..." I do not know that there is in the country a publichouse that would fulfil the conditions set out in those two lines of the Deputy's amendment, and, therefore, what it comes to is this: he would like the age of apprenticeship henceforth raised to eighteen years. But he has wrapped that around with a certain amount of verbiage.
There may be a lot to be said for raising the age of apprenticeship to eighteen; but if there is, why not say the thing simply? If the view is that persons under the age of eighteen ought not to be employed as bar-tenders, as assistants in a publichouse, I think we ought not to shrink from stating our belief in that proposition, and we should not proceed to enwrap it in a form of words which lays down that if, by any chance, circumstances exist which we know do not exist in any licensed house in the country, that then a person under eighteen may be employed. I am prepared to consider, on Report Stage, an amendment simply to the effect that the age of apprenticeship in the licensed trade be raised, but I would much sooner approach the thing along that line than along the lines set out to this amendment, because I think that is what this amendment comes to, in fact.
It amounts to this, that you may say to a trader: "If your bottles are so corked and sealed that this youth of tender age could not possibly get access to the liquid that is contained in the bottles, then you will be within the law." But if he could not get access to the liquid without breaking the seal, that means that every bottle of whiskey in the premises must be hermetically sealed, and, apparently, sealed after each time any of the contents has been taken out for clients. I do not know that there is any publichouse in the country where, each time a bottle of whiskey has been used and a glass taken out of it, it is sealed again so that the attendant could not, by any chance, get access to the whiskey.
If Deputy Nagle will consider this amendment he will see whether I am not, in fact, right about it. Deputy Johnson suggests that no one shall be employed under eighteen unless certain conditions exist, knowing well those conditions do not exist and, in fact, for all practical purposes, cannot exist. In the circumstances is it not better simply to stand pat on his proposition that a person under eighteen ought not to be employed as a bar tender in a publichouse? In other words, take the pearl out of the shell and let us have it as a simple amendment. Let the Deputy and his Party express their belief in the view that a person under eighteen ought not to be employed behind the counter in a publichouse. In the meantime, I will look into the matter and consider with the Department of Industry and Commerce whether there is any objection to accepting it—any objection which we have not seen up to the present.
I know that at a meeting of organised grocers' porters held a few weeks ago they unanimously passed a resolution stating it was undesirable that grocers should employ porters under the age of eighteen, and they asked the Labour Party to put forward an amendment to this Bill to cover that point. This amendment, as the Minister has pointed out, includes apprentices. I have no particular views in the matter, but some people think eighteen years would be a rather late age at which anyone should be bound as an apprentice. I think if the words after "apprenticeship" on the third line—"made before the first day of February, 1927"—were deleted, that would cover the point and the amendment would apply only to grocers' porters. In that case there should be no objection on the part of the Minister.
In the licensed trade anyone who accepts an apprentice accepts a certain moral responsibility for that apprentice during the years of his apprenticeship, but in the case of a young boy who would be employed, as the Minister indicated yesterday, perhaps temporarily, there is no moral responsibility for that boy's welfare on the part of the employer, and it is in order to prevent boys of tender years—boys under eighteen—being employed, perhaps casually—of course they could not be employed permanently under that age —in or around the place where they bottle intoxicating liquors the amendment is suggested. I think that is one of the reasons for the amendment. The deletion of the words "made before the first day of February, 1927," would prevent the possibility, and perhaps the Minister will favourably consider the amendment in that light.
That is, to take out the words "made before the first day of February, 1927," and let the amendment run on "... other than an apprentice under indenture of apprenticeship in the bottling of intoxicating liquor..." and not interfere with the age of apprenticeship? I will certainly look into the amendment between this and the next stage.
As I suspect, this amendment is primarily a trade union rather than a temperance amendment. It has a temperance aspect, and because it has it is relevant to the Bill and might, perhaps, appropriately be embodied in the Bill. But, clearly, the real driving force behind it is the desire that young people should not be employed as messengers by licensed traders—young people under the age of eighteen. The idea is that no boy messengers should be employed in the bottling of intoxicating liquor, or otherwise; "or otherwise" would cover porters.
Yes, carrying it to customers.
In so far as it has a trade union aspect, in so far as it bears on the question of employment, I can discuss that with the Department of Industry and Commerce. I admit it has also, to some extent, a temperance bearing. Generally, I am prepared to look into it along the lines which the Deputy suggests; that is, taking out the half line referring to the date of the indenture.
There is an amendment, No. 101, standing in my name, to insert a new section before Section 52. I now see it would be impossible to ask the House to pass my new section along with Section 51. Therefore, what I now propose to do is, on Section 51, to give an outline of my proposals. Section 51, as it at present stands, provides for the continuance and the issuing of wine retailers' off-licences by the Revenue Commissioners, and the only difference it makes in regard to the future granting of these licences from what has been the practice in the past is that the Revenue Commissioners may have absolute discretion in the matter and a right to refuse to grant these licences. Of course, up to the present anyone who desired and who paid the necessary amount, which was a very small sum, was actually entitled to get one of these licences from the Revenue Commissioners. It is now proposed in this section that in future the Commissioners shall have a discretion. I ask the Minister to bear in mind the recommendations outlined in the Intoxicating Liquor Commission's Report on this subject.
It is with those recommendations in mind that I have proposed my new section. It proposes that in future no new licence may be granted by the Revenue Commissioners and, secondly, that where an application is made either for a new licence or the transfer or renewal of an old one, that application will have to come before the District Court, and the District Court will have to make an order to that effect. It is also proposed that notice of the application shall be given to the Superintendent of the Civic Guard. The reasons for my proposed change are these: The Revenue Commissioners, it is true, will be given a discretion in future, but the Revenue Commissioners, I submit, will not be in the position of a judicial authority, certainly not in practice, and I am not certain whether they would even be in theory, that is, they will not have the means of ascertaining whether, by witnesses or otherwise, it is desirable to grant these licences, and I submit they would have no means, therefore, of exercising any judgment in regard to this general discretion that is being granted to them. Therefore, I think that the proposal to grant a discretion to the Revenue Commissioners is almost a waste of legislation and a waste of purpose. In the view of the Commission the present wine retail off-licences, which number 714, should actually be abolished. They went on to say: "There is no effective official supervision of the granting of these licences nor limit to their number, and we believe that if our recommendations for the reduction of publichouse licences are carried into effect, these licences will probably increase in number"—that is, the wine licences —"and lead to considerable abuse. In our opinion there is no property in such licences, and the question of compensation does not, therefore, arise. They are granted to any shopkeeper on application to the Excise authorities."
Evidently to meet that recommendation it is suggested that the Commissioners should have a discretion. I submit that that discretion does not actually meet the recommendation of the Commission, and that to meet that recommendation it will be necessary to make some such provision as I have suggested by way of a new section, namely, that in the first place it should not be lawful for the Commissioners to the case of granting new licences or grant any more new licences, and in transferring old ones that application should be made first of all to the District Court, where there would be an opportunity of hearing evidence, of coming to a conclusion upon such evidence and of exercising a discretion in the matter. I think that the Commission must have been very much impressed by the evidence which they heard on this point from people like General Murphy, the Commissioner of the Civic Guard for the Dublin Metropolitan area, who actually stated that, in his opinion, these wine licences, which up to this had been given indiscriminately and to which there was no limit in point of numbers, lead to and actually increased secret drinking, and the very fact of reducing the number of publichouses may in itself lead to an increase of these licences and an abuse of the privilege. Therefore, I would ask the Minister, if he is not prepared to accept the actual proposal I make, to consider whether his proposal will actually meet the case, and whether it would not be better to give a discretion in the matter of granting these licences to some court other than the Revenue Commissioners, if you can describe them as a court at all, that it would be better, in other words, to give a discretion to some authority which would be in a position to examine the state of affairs, to hear evidence, to come to a considered judgment on the evidence before it and exercise its discretion in the matter.
A considerable volume of evidence was placed before the Commission with regard to these wine retailers' off-licences, and from practically every section that gave evidence strong objections were raised to the continuance of these licences. It was proved that there were 714 of these wine licences, of which 300 were given to people who also had a spirit grocer's licence, and this complicated matters very much. From the temperance section, the licensed trade, and even from the police, very strong evidence was given to show that there were far too many of these little hucksters' shops with the right to sell wine. I did not pay a great deal of attention to the stress that was laid upon the fact that this was leading to drunkenness, because, on the whole, I do not think that the use of wine has at all the same tendency to lead to drunkenness that spirits and even porter have. But at the same time there was a considerable amount of evidence given that, as far as women and girls in particular were concerned, a large amount of wine was consumed by women and girls, who could step into a small huckster's shop and get it. I quite appreciate the difficulties that the Minister has found in trying to get a clause to suit these cases, because chemists are involved in this matter as well. They require a wine retailer's off-licence in order to retail the so-called medicated wines. Evidence was given to us to the effect that there were very many chemists' shops throughout the city that were simply being used for the purpose of selling wine. I want to dissociate myself from that, because, as far as my knowledge of the reputable chemists is concerned, I know that they do not keep anything but these so-called medicated wines. There is a certain section of the public which is very keen on these wines. They think if they are able to buy wine with which a little medicine is mixed they are getting better value than if they bought wine of a better quality for which they would pay a lower price. I am not satisfied that the section goes far enough. My chief objection to it is that it leaves to the Revenue Commissioners absolute authority to decide whether they will grant a licence in future or not. From what I know of the Revenue Commissioners, they are not likely to refuse money, and I want to know whether any instructions will be given to them pointing out that it is not desirable that these licences should continue to be distributed broadcast.
As Deputy Redmond has stated, in the past it was simply a matter of the owner of any little huckster's shop applying for a licence and he would get it. They could then keep quantities of port, sherry and other wines. Will the Minister give an instruction to the Revenue Commissioners that it is undesirable that this traffic should be considered? The Commission did feel that if there was a reduction in the number of publichouses there would probably be an increase in the applications for these licences. It felt also that it would be scarcely fair to the licensed trade, who are paying a much larger sum for the right to sell wine, to have these people distributing wine at a very small cost.
The Commission certainly felt, too, that the jurisdiction should be changed, that in all these questions of granting licences for the sale either of wine or spirits the applicants should go before some judicial authority, and that it should not be enough simply to ask the Revenue Commissioners for a revenue ticket which would give them the right to sell these things. I feel that the Minister has perhaps not gone as far as he ought, and although I say I appreciate the difficulty in which he finds himself with regard to chemists and grocers—because grocers require to have these wine retailers' off licences as part of their licences, and we had in view the abolition of these and the granting of some specific licence that would cover their case altogether—I hope that the Minister will assure the section of the public that is very keen on this matter that instructions will be given to the Revenue Commissioners that it is undesirable that these licences should continue to be issued.
The position with regard to wine licences hitherto has been that there was power in the Revenue Commissioners to issue, without any certificate from a court, a licence to a person keeping a shop enabling that person to sell wine by retail for consumption off the premises. There are, as the Report of the Commission mentions, 714 such licences. The ordinary spirit grocer usually has three distinct off-licences—one for spirits, one for beer and one for wine. There are in the State 298 spirits off-licences, and we may assume that each of the holders of these has also a wine licence. If we do assume that, that leaves 416 miscellaneous wine licences. In the Bill the Revenue Commissioners are given a discretion not to renew any of these 416 licences and not to issue any licences to persons in shops not enjoying them heretofore. Deputy Sir James Craig asks whether there is an intention to supplement that provision by an instruction to the Revenue Commissioners. It is my intention when the Bill becomes law to ask the Minister for Finance to give instructions that no wine licences shall be issued by the Revenue Commissioners to any person who does not hold a spirit grocer's licence. The Revenue Commissioners are given by the Bill a discretion to refuse, and it was the intention to ask the Minister for Finance to give an instruction as to how that discretion would be exercised.
I wanted simply to leave over any further action in the matter to the later Bill, to which I have referred from time to time, the Bill dealing with certain recommendations of the Commission not covered by this Bill. Really, I think that for the present, and pending the introduction of such Bill, the provision here meets the case, but if there is any view to the contrary, I am willing to accept the principle of Deputy Redmond's amendment, and to look a little closer into the question of the exact form in which that would be embodied. There is nothing between the Deputy and myself as regards what is sought to be achieved. It was my intention to strengthen this provision in the Bill by instructions from the Minister to the Revenue Commissioners, but I am willing to accept the principle of the amendment, subject to examination in the draftsman's office of the exact form.
I am glad to hear the Minister state that he is willing to consider this matter.
I am willing to accept the principle.
Yes, there is nothing between us as regards principle, but, so far as the details for carrying out that principle are concerned, I would prefer that discretion should be given to a court to exercise according to its judgment than that discretion and instructions should be given to the Commissioners. My view is that the former would be more acceptable to the Dáil, and would be more in accordance with general licensing legislation. I might also mention that in the present wording of the section there is no ground suggested to the Commissioners on which they would be expected to exercise that discretion. If the Minister were to issue instructions, these would be a ground.
I do not want to reserve discretion to the Commissioners. I am prepared to accept the view in the Deputy's amendment.
I am quite satisfied.
I move:—
"In page 25, in the second column, after the words ‘The Dublin Corporation Act,' to delete the figures ‘1911' and substitute therefor the figures ‘1900.'"
This amendment is merely to correct a printer's error.
I presume that the Bill will be circulated as passed by the Committee, and that an opportunity will be given for putting in amendments on the next stage.
Yes.