Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 12 May 1927

Vol. 19 No. 23

IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - INTOXICATING LIQUOR BILL, 1927—FROM THE SEANAD.

MINISTER for JUSTICE (Mr. O'Higgins)

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 1:—

Section 2, sub-section (1). The words "or on St. Patrick's Day" deleted in line 43.

There is a rather formidable list of amendments, but this is explained by the fact that a great many of them are consequential on one important amendment that has been made in the Bill, the amendment bearing on the question of hours on St. Patrick's Day. The following amendments go with amendment 1:

1.—Section 2, sub-section (1). The words "or on Saint Patrick's Day" deleted in line 43.

2.—Section 2, sub-section (1). After the word "Friday" in line 46 the words "or St. Patrick's Day" inserted.

5.—Section 14. After the word "Friday" in line 58 the words "and Saint Patrick's Day" inserted.

6.—Section 15, sub-section (1). Lines 9 and 10 deleted.

7.—Section 16, sub-section (1). The words "or Saint Patrick's Day" deleted in line 63.

8.—Section 16, sub-section (1). The words "or Saint Patrick's Day" deleted in line 8.

9.—Section 16, sub-section (2). The words "or Saint Patrick's Day" deleted in line 15.

10.—Section 16, sub-section (3). The words "or Saint Patrick's Day" deleted in line 22.

17.—Section 56, sub-section (1). The words "or Saint Patrick's Day" deleted in line 56.

18.—Section 56, sub-section (1). After the word "Friday" in line 60 the words "or Saint Patrick's Day" inserted.

20.—Section 56, sub-section (2). The words "or Saint Patrick's Day" deleted in line 19.

21.—Section 56, sub-section (2). After the word "Friday" in line 23 the words "or Saint Patrick's Day" inserted.

23.—Section 56, sub-section (3). The words "or Saint Patrick's Day" deleted in line 59.

24.—Section 56, sub-section (3).

After the word "Friday" in line 63 the words "or Saint Patrick's Day" inserted.

The Bill, as passed by the Dáil, provided that St. Patrick's Day should be treated as Sunday, which was the recommendation of the Liquor Commission. The majority of Senators favoured a complete closing on St. Patrick's Day, that is, that licensed premises should be closed everywhere, and that the so-called bona fide traffic should not be permitted. In the Act of 1924 I had a provision to that effect, which the Dáil rejected. The Seanad, subsequently, re-inserted it. They made provision for a complete closing on St. Patrick's Day, that is, that no house would be technically and legally open, but they did not provide against the bona fide traffic, so that the position you have had since 1924 was that you had not the 2-5 opening in the four cities that is allowed on Sundays. You had a general closing with the bona fide writ running, so to speak. We have not had under statute, at any rate, therefore, the completely dry St. Patrick's Day which is aimed at by this amendment. We have had something fairly near to it. We have had complete closing, with the bona fide traffic running. The case that was put up in the Seanad was the case that I put up in 1924 to the Dáil, that not very many years ago the efforts of young men and public opinion, generally, in a great many towns through the country, almost all the towns through the country, were directed to practically compelling licensed traders to keep strictly closed on St. Patrick's Day. At that time we had not the power to legislate that we have now, and I have very little doubt that if Dublin Castle and British administration were still prevailing here, and if we were relying on Westminster for our legislation, that you would still have a considerable volume of public opinion in the country crying out that traders should close on St. Patrick's Day.

Well, the situation has changed. If we feel that they should close on St. Patrick's Day, it is now in our power to legislate to that effect, and the irony of it is that no sooner had we the power to provide for that by legislation than public opinion seemed to fade away on the matter. We heard a great deal about individual rights, the right to get drunk on St. Patrick's Day just as well as on any other day, and so on. One got a little cynical on the whole thing. If it meant anything it meant a gesture. It meant that the country wished to signify in that way that it was turning its back on intemperance, the intemperance which, deservedly or otherwise, was thrown at us as something of a national characteristic in the past. It had a good deal to recommend it, that the country should, on each recurring St. Patrick's Day, so to speak, remind itself of the necessity for the virtue of temperance by ordaining the complete closing of the licensed houses. But if it is something that has to be done by a narrow majority or at the expense of a tussle between the two Houses of the Oireachtas, then, personally, I see very little value in doing it, even if one could count on pulling it off by the process of counting heads and a small number of heads at that. I do not really care very much whether the Dáil accepts or rejects this amendment. I cannot assist the Dáil in the matter of forecasting what the attitude of the Seanad will be if this amendment is rejected. The Seanad may conceivably hold very firm on the matter and hold up this Bill for nine months, or it may give way and decide not to press its desire for this provision in face of the fact that the less idealistic Assembly has rejected it. But my personal position is that I recommended a provision of the kind to the Dáil in 1924, and I recommend this now.

Mr. DALY

I suggest that the Minister for Justice might refer this matter back to the Seanad, and mention to them that in 1924 it was decided by the Dáil that St. Patrick's Day should be the same as Sunday. We passed at that time the structural alteration amendment. There was a suggestion at the time to hold up the Bill for 270 days on these two amendments. Deputy Johnson, in his wisdom, suggested that a Committee of the Dáil should meet a Committee of the Seanad and decide what would be the best thing to do, so we swopped the St. Patrick's Day amendment for the structural alterations one. The Minister for Justice did not think that the 1924 Bill was either satisfactory or final, and he set up a Commission which was going to be infallible—one that would bring forth a Bill that would satisfy all parties in the country. That being so, full powers were vested in the Commission, which recommended that St. Patrick's Day should be the same as Sunday. We adopted that recommendation here. I respect the admiration which the Seanad has for St. Patrick's Day, but a great many of the Senators, I should say the big majority of them, are not in the same position as members of the Dáil. They do not know the habits and customs of the Irish people as well as Deputies do. The majority of them, I think, are not either hurlers or footballers.

The Seanad and all of us have a great respect for Good Friday. I think there is a great difference between Good Friday and St. Patrick's Day. One, to my mind, is a day of sorrow, but St. Patrick's Day should be observed, I think, as a day of joy in this country. We are not going to have real joy, I think, if we cannot have football matches on that day, and if all our footballers are to spend the day on their knees. Some of them, perhaps, may go twenty miles away to play matches, as Deputy Gorey and myself used to do. We are, I say, more in touch perhaps with what would be occurring on St. Patrick's Day than the Seanad. Of course, we all respect the members of the Seanad. They are all good men, and we respect the desire they have to keep St. Patrick's Day holy, but we do not like to go the whole hog with them and keep it too holy. After all, I think, the Minister for Justice should go back to the Seanad, and point out to them that we are of opinion that there is a difference between St. Patrick's Day and Good Friday, and that if they would allow the Bill to go through without holding it up for 270 days, it might help to cure a lot of the evils in the Act of 1924. We were told at the time that that Act was the best that could be done for the publicans and the country, but it created a lot of evils that this Bill— I do not think it is altogether too bad— may cure.

Mr. JOHNSON

Take care you do not lose it.

Mr. DALY

The Act of 1924 caused a lot of wounds that festered, and perhaps this Bill is going to cure them. I would not like to see this Bill placed in any danger, but perhaps the Minister would take a message from this House to the Seanad to the effect that we are of opinion that St. Patrick's Day should not be observed in the same manner as Good Friday, and that the young people of the country to-day do not come home as Deputy Gorey and myself used to, with our friends long ago. The Minister might tell the Seanad that there is a wave of temperance spreading amongst the young people of the country to-day, and that what they are going in for now are healthy exercises such as hurling and football.

Then there are celebrations. There are celebrations all over the world on St. Patrick's Day. At night time dances are held and other social functions are carried out. In every country in the world our patron saint is going to be honoured except in Ireland where he died and where he sanctified us all, or at least tried to do so. In addition, there are fairs and markets held in some parts of the country on St. Patrick's Day. I do not know if the Seanad desire they should be put a stop to. There would be holy war then. When there are fairs and markets held in the country the majority of farmers will tell you that they cannot make a bargain until they have a drink over it. I know a leading farmer in the country and his greatest fad is to do away with luck-pennies. That is when he is selling. If he was buying he might not like to do away with the luck-pennies.

I think the Minister for Justice is proud of this Bill and we will take it because it cures the other bad one that he gave us. Perhaps the Minister will tell the Seanad that on St. Patrick's Day the people could not be so mournful as they would be on a Good Friday. I am sure that might meet the situation. If the Minister saw the Seanad were out against us he could say "Thy will be done," and that would not endanger the Bill. I think the Bill is in safe hands if we leave it to the Minister. I am satisfied with it and I think the Minister should try to convert the Senators the same as St. Patrick tried to convert others.

Major COOPER

What would be the effect of the rejection of this amendment? Would it be to make St. Patrick's Day an ordinary day or make it as a Sunday?

Mr. DALY

We do not want to make it like Good Friday.

Major COOPER

In 1924 I voted against the Minister. Deputy Daly has now convinced me that I ought to vote with him.

Mr. JOHNSON

Deputy Daly is afraid that he may lose the Bill. Of course, it is a very great risk. If this amendment is not accepted and it goes back to the Seanad, the probability is that Deputy Daly will not have the protection that the Bill gives him, that is, for nine months; he will have to go along suffering the pains and penalties of the existing law for another nine months. I am sure Deputy Daly and those who think with him in this matter will regret that very much indeed. The Deputy suggested the Minister is proud of his Bill. I do not think he is so proud of the Bill as he would have been had it been passed in the way in which it was introduced.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Or as he will be in ten years' time.

Mr. JOHNSON

I hope the House will agree with the Seanad in this amendment. On this matter, for some good cause, or perhaps the absence of cause to the contrary, I am not quite so cynical as the Minister finds himself. I think that it would still be a very good thing to notify all whom it may concern throughout the world that at any rate Ireland is deciding that St. Patrick's Day habits shall be changed and that not only on Good Friday and Christmas Day will Ireland be dry, but that even on the day dedicated to the patron saint of the country we deliberately choose to celebrate it as a temperance day, or, if you like, a total abstinence day—one day of the year dedicated to the idea of total abstinence, and that day St. Patrick's Day. I think that would be a very fine gesture, to use the word of the Minister, and I think we would be doing something really valuable to the cause of temperance if we reaffirm the decision come to some time ago, that St. Patrick's Day was to be a dry day. After all, there are three hundred and sixty-three other days in the year on which intoxicating liquor may be taken ad lib. There seems to be no objection to Christmas Day and Good Friday being dry. St. Patrick's Day, in my opinion, might well be deliberately chosen by the people as a day when it can be shown that they can rejoice, have the joy of open-air games and all the rest of it, and still remain without intoxicating liquor. I do not believe that the joy of open-air games that Deputy Daly speaks of depends upon the exhilaration due to intoxicants. I have not the slightest doubt that the people of the country can celebrate St. Patrick's Day in the most beneficial way conceivable and yet remain without intoxicating liquor on that day. On three days in the year the people will be required by law to refrain from the purchase of intoxicating liquor. I do not think that is a tremendous handicap upon a nation. On the contrary, I think it is a very great help, and it is desirable that we should maintain the position taken up in years of moral enthusiasm and not have it to be said that with freedom to determine our own course we have decided to turn our backs on the moral enthusiasms of the years of agitation.

There is another aspect of this matter and that is that St. Patrick's Day is a day on which the assistants have, by concurring in the public agitation, demanded that there shall be a closing in the city of Dublin and other areas, too. I think that ought to be taken into account. The larger houses that employ assistants will remain closed and if this amendment is not allowed to pass it will mean that the smaller houses where there are no assistants employed will be open. The consequences, of course, will be a good deal more friction and irritation than are necessary. That is a comparatively small matter as compared with the larger one, but it has to be taken into account. The men engaged in the business in cities have demanded a complete closing on St. Patrick's Day and have exercised their influence in that direction for some years back. I hope the House will agree with this amendment and not put Deputy Daly to the inconvenience of having to explain to his friends that he has, by his action, left the law in its present state round the necks of the licensed vintners of the country.

Mr. DALY

I am glad you admit that. You did not in 1924.

Mr. JOHNSON

Deputy Daly would much rather risk a total closing on St. Patrick's Day than have the law remain as it is. I think if he considers it for a moment and balances this matter pro and con he will say "Let it go; we will agree with the Seanad in this matter for the sake of passing the Bill."

Mr. GOREY

I think a certain impression has got abroad in regard to this particular amendment that it does not deserve. Deputy Daly has said that the attitude of the people in the Seanad responsible for this amendment could be questioned. I think that is not so. The people responsible were people whose attitude, I think, could not be questioned.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy did not say that.

Mr. GOREY

Well, the inference was there.

Mr. DALY

I said I had the greatest respect for them and for their opinions.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Deputy Daly did not say anything about the people responsible for the amendment. He made a very general remark. Had he been more particular he would have been ruled out of order.

Mr. GOREY

I agree it was a general remark, but the inference was there.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy must not draw the inference.

Mr. GOREY

Very well, I will not draw it. Deputy Daly thinks a great slight has been offered St. Patrick by the suggestion that the day should be a dry one. It is held, on the other hand, that a slight would be offered St. Patrick by having the day wet. It is a question of who is right. The spectacle so noticeable on St. Patrick's Day in years gone by has, in modern times, become less objectionable. In those days it is not half so objectionable. There was a time when the practices on St. Patrick's Day were exceedingly objectionable. I think we might go the other step, as Deputy Johnson suggests, and make it a day of national—I forget the word he used.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Joy.

Mr. GOREY

Not so much of joy.

Mr. JOHNSON

Non-intoxicated exhilaration.

Mr. GOREY

Not even that. Anyway, we ought to depart from the old custom and reach a higher standard. I will favour having St. Patrick's Day a dry day. Reference has been made to football matches and other games on St. Patrick's Day. Very seldom are these games played on holidays, or even on St. Patrick's Day. Sundays are the only recognised days for that sort of thing. The practice of having fairs and markets on St. Patrick's Day has also disappeared. I know of no place at the moment where a market or fair is held on St. Patrick's Day. I am open to correction, of course. I think the Dáil ought to agree with the amendment.

Mr. DALY

What about races on St. Patrick's Day?

Mr. GOREY

They can have their races and go home dry. They give a drink of water to the horse, and that is quite enough for some of them.

Mr. C. HOGAN

I am rather tempted to intervene in the debate by a remark of the Minister for Justice. He made a reference to the irony of the situation —that the Irish people, when they got control of their own destinies, had reversed their attitude towards the observance of St. Patrick's Day, as distinct from the period when we were under Dublin Castle rule. But does the Minister not realise that at this stage there is a bit of irony in the celebration of St. Patrick's Day at all? Let me ask the Minister and Deputies generally to cast their minds back to less than one and a half years ago. At that time we hailed as a victory a certain agreement which constrained us to cede St. Patrick's gave to another State, to people who, without pushing the issue very far, really do not care a tinker's dam about St. Patrick. Of course, there is a reason for everything, and by taking this action about St. Patrick's Day it may be that we are expressing atonement; it may be a symbol. I am not in a position to judge. But I do say that this puritanical observance of St. Patrick's Day will really serve no useful purpose.

None of us wants drunkenness; we do not want the horrid spectacle of intoxicated persons on the streets. But I do think that we are trying to fall in with with the views of a group who are clamorous, not alone for making St. Patrick's Day try, but every other day in the year dry as well, and who, even if they did reach that stage, would still remain unsatisfied, would not be content with the closing of the public houses alone, but would actually require that their sites be ploughted up. Personally, I am indifferent as to whether St. Patrick's day is dry or wet, but it seems to me that too much attention is paid to the clamour of these people. If we are leaning on the side of absolute prohibition we are taking a step which may have the same fatal consequences here as it had in America. We all want a decent and well-regulated drink trade; but I am not altogether disposed to give those people their innings on a dry St. Patrick's Day. I have an objection in my bones to meeting them. While I would not challenge a division on this question, if Deputy Daly challenges one to revert to the position of the Bill when it left this House I will certainly vote for him.

Mr. DALY

I will not press the matter if the Minister thinks there is any danger of the Bill being held up. I will throw all the responsibility on the Minister. The Act of 1924 created a terrible sore for the publicans, and if this Bill is going to cure it, and I believe it is a good plaster for it, I will not oppose the amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Question: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in Amendment No. 2," put and agreed to.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I move:—

"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in the following amendment:—

Section 11. A new sub-section added at the end of the section as follows:—

(2) A person who is at the one time the holder of an early-closing licence and the holder of an on-licence which is neither a six-day licence nor an early-closing licence (in this sub-section called an ordinary seven-day licence) shall, if the premises to which the said licences are respectively attached are situate in the same licensing area, be entitled to have the ordinary seven-day licence transferred at the annual licensing District Court to the premises to which the early-closing licence is attached, but subject to the condition that on such transfer being made the early-closing licence shall not be renewed and that the premises to which the ordinary seven-day licence was attached before such transfer shall for the purposes of the Licensing (Ireland) Act, 1902, be deemed never to have been licensed."

When the Bill left the Dáil it had a section enabling the owner of a six-day licensed premises to obtain a full licence on the condition that he extinguished a seven-day licence in the same licensing area. I do not know whether it will be very fruitful, but it is in the Bill. This amendment was inserted in the Seanad to enable the owners of premises with an early closing licence to obtain a full licence in a similar way. I recommend its acceptance, for this reason, that to whatever extent either of these two provisions is availed of they assist towards what is, after all, the main object of the Bill, the elimination of redundant licences in the country.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I move:

"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in the following amendment:—

Section 13. A new sub-section added at the end of the section, as follows:—

(2) Nothing in this Act shall operate to prohibit the holder of an on-licence in respect of premises situate in a county borough which are for the time being a hotel or restaurant permitting intoxicating liquor to be consumed on such premises on any week day between the hours of half-past two o'clock and half-past three o'clock in the afternoon, provided such intoxicating liquor is

(a) supplied to such person before the hour of half-past two o'clock in the afternoon, and

(b) is consumed at the same time as and with a substantial meal begun before the said hour of half-past two o'clock, and

(c) is supplied and consumed in the portion of such premises usually set apart for the supply of meals."

This amendment has to do with the question of the break in the day in the county boroughs. Hotels and restaurants are enable to remain open to supply meals during the split hour in the afternoon in the county boroughs. They are not, however, entitled to supply intoxicating liquor during that hour. As the Bill stood, intoxicating liquor could not be consumed with meals between 2.30 and 3.30, and if Deputies reflect for a moment on that they will realise that it would be vexatious to insist that people who had ordered a substantial meal with a drink before 2.30 should not be allowed to consume the drink after that hour. The alternative to the amendment would be that waiters in restaurants and hotels would be obliged to go along on the stroke of 2.30 and clear off the table all intoxicating liquor that might have been ordered before 2.30. I think this is a very desirable amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Question—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendments 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10"—put and agreed to.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I move: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in the following amendment:—

Section 23. After the word ‘by' in line 24, the word ‘registered' inserted."

This is merely a drafting amendment. The proper expression is "registered medical practitioner."

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I move—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in the following amendment:—

Section 23. The words ‘pharmaceutical chemists or registered druggists' added at the end of the section."

This is also a drafting amendment. "Chemist and druggist" is a term describing a class that is rapidly fading out. The modern expression is "pharmaceutical chemist and registered druggist."

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I move—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in the following amendment:—

Section 28. A new sub-section added at the end of the section, as follows:—

‘(2) Where a licence is forfeited under this section no new licence shall at any time thereafter be granted in respect of the premises or any part of the premises to which such licence was attached.'"

Under the Act of 1902 a new licence might be granted for premises which had been licensed on the date of the passing of the Act. The general purpose of the Act of 1902 was to say that no new licence might be granted as from that date. The exception to that is that a new licence might be granted in respect of premises that were licensed prior to that date. In the absence of a provision to the contrary, when a licence is forfeited on three recorded convictions there would be nothing to prevent the Circuit Court from granting a new licence in respect of the same premises, assuming the premises to have been licensed prior to 1902. That would defeat the intention of the enactments relating to forfeiture, and the amendment remedies what was a latent defect in the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I move:—

"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in the following amendments:

Section 46 sub-section (7). The sub-section deleted and the following new sub-section substituted therefor:

‘(7) Every sum advanced and paid by the Minister for Finance to a compensation fund pursuant to a a requisition by the treasurer under this section for the benefit of an ex-employee or ex-employees of the holder of a particular licence which was the subject of a compensation order shall for the purposes of the next succeeding section be added to and deemed to form part of the compensation money (hereinafter referred to as the original compensation money) actually fixed by such compensation order and shall be deemed to have been advanced and paid by the Minister for Finance to such compensation fund pursuant to the same requisition as that on which the original compensation money was advanced and paid by the Minister for Finance to such compensation fund and to have been so paid and advanced at the same time as the original compensation money was paid and advanced by the Minister for Finance to such compensation fund.'

Section 55, sub-section (2). The words ‘within the meaning of and for the time being registered under the Registration of Clubs (Ireland) Act, 1904,' deleted in lines 33-34."

These are purely drafting amendments and make no change in the substance of the sub-sections.

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I move:

"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in the following amendments:—

Section 56, sub-section (1). After the word ‘consumed,' in line 44, the words ‘on the club premises' inserted.

Section 56. sub-section (2). After the word ‘consumed,' in line 9, the words ‘on the club premises' inserted.

Section 56, sub-section (3). After the word ‘consumed,' in lines 32-3 the words ‘on the club premises' inserted.

Section 57, sub-section (1). After the word ‘consumed' in line 8, the words ‘on the club premises' inserted."

These are all drafting amendments to correct an error which crept into the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Question: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in Amendments 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, and 24," put and agreed to.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in the following amendment:—

A new section inserted before section 58 as follows:—

58.—(1) If any excisable liquor is supplied for consumption on the premises of a club registered under the Registration of Clubs (Ireland) Act, 1904 or is consumed on the premises of any such club by any person in contravention of the rules of such club relating to the supplying and consumption of excisable liquor on the premises of such club, such club 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 fine not exceeding twenty pounds, or, in the case of a second or any subsequent offence, to a fine not exceeding forty pounds.

(2) Proceedings under this section may be brought against a club in the name under which it is registered under the Registration of Clubs (Ireland) Act, 1904, and any summons or other document required to be served on a club for the purpose or in the course of such proceedings may be served on the secretary of the club and any warrant for the recovery of the amount of a fine imposed on a club under this section may be executed against the goods and chattels of the club.

This deals with clubs. The position with regard to clubs under the law as it now exists is that there is no other or lesser form of penalty for breaches in a club than the revocation of the registration. The law provided for no penalty on the club or on its committee or officers in respect of breaches. Revocation of the registration is, of course, the ultimate resort, but if a magistrate decided that the abuse was not sufficiently grave to warrant that, there would be the other penalty open to the court to impose. The amendment provides for an intermediate penalty between revocation of the certificate and allowing the club to go scot-free. The new section renders the club funds liable to a fine of £20 for the first offence, and £40 for the second or any subsequent offence. The provisions in regard to the Registration of Clubs Act, 1904, regarding the revocation, still holds good, and can be used in appropriate cases, but in addition to that we provide for a fine of the club funds in respect of any breaches on which there may be a conviction.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in the following amendment:—

"Section 60, sub-section (1). The words ‘chemist or druggist' deleted in lines 10-11 and the words ‘chemist and druggist, pharmaceutical chemist, or registered druggist' substituted therefor."

This is a drafting amendment, to include all classes of chemists.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I move:—

"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in the following amendment:—

28. A new section inserted before Section 61 as follows:—

61.—(1) The holder of an on-licence (in this section referred to as the on-licence) in respect of premises situate in a county borough may apply at the annual licensing District Court next after the passing of this Act that in lieu of a certificate for the renewal of the on-licence there be granted to him in respect of the said premises a certificate for a new spirit retailer's off-licence or a certificate for a new beer retailer's off-licence or certificates for both such new licences.

(2) When an application under the foregoing sub-section is made the Justice of the District Court, if he is satisfied that a certificate for the renewal of the on-licence might have been granted and that the sale of intoxicating liquor for consumption on the premises is not the principal business carried on in the premises to which the on-licence is attached, may, if he so thinks fit, grant to such applicant the certificate or certificates so applied for by him.

(3) When an application under sub-section (1) of this section is granted, a new licence or new licences shall notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other Act be granted to the applicant in accordance with the certificate or certificates granted to him in pursuance of such application.

(4) When a new licence or licences is or are granted under the foregoing sub-section no new on-licence shall at any time thereafter be granted in respect of the premises to which such new licence or licences is or are attached.

(5) When an application under sub-section (1) of this section is refused such application shall be treated as an application for a certificate for the renewal of the on-licence and dealt with accordingly.

(6) In this section the expressions "spirit retailer's off-licence" and "beer retailer's off-licence" have the same meanings as such expressions respectively have in the Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910."

This is an amendment that I do not anticipate will be widely availed of. It is limited in its application to county boroughs, and the time within which the decision must be made is also limited. It provides that at the first licensing session after the passing of this Bill the holder of a licence for consumption on the premises in any of the county boroughs may apply to the Court for an off-licence, and the court may grant such off-licence, if it is satisfied that the main business which is carried on is not the sale of liquor for consumption on the premises. The position is that it is just possible that some holders of licences for consumption on the premises who do a very limited business in that way might, having regard to the provision which is now made for a split in the day in county boroughs, prefer to apply to the court for an off-licence, off-licensed holders not being compelled to close between 2.30 and 3.30. It is considered reasonable to give them one opportunity of making up their minds on that matter, and at the first licensing session after the passing of this Bill any holders of on-licences in county boroughs who wish to apply to have their licences converted into off-licences can do so and in certain conditions the court may grant that application.

Question put, and agreed to.

The Dáil went out of Committee.

Reported: "That all the amendments made in the Seanad have been agreed to."

Question—"That the Dáil agree with the Committee in its report"— put and agreed to.