This Bill has had a most mysterious origin. We do not quite know whether it originated with the licensed trade or with certain Deputies on the opposite side who have, according to the Press, aspirations for higher positions and are anxious to advance their claims to judicial honours. If these Deputies are going to persist in advancing their claims to judicial honours, and if they succeed in setting up this Bill as a triumph for their statesmanship, they can be well assured that there will be, at least, one grateful interest in the Twenty-Six Counties which will strew their paths to the judicial benches with bouquets of flowers. But, as regards the ordinary working man, about whom so many crocodile tears have been shed to-night, I doubt if he can find very much room for gratitude to a House, to a Government, or to a Minister that stands over a measure of this kind and demands that our attention should be given to it until such time as it is disposed of, when, as Deputy Clery pointed out, matters affecting the bread and butter of every citizen, and for which we here are responsible, are pigeon-holed in the different Government offices. We had, as Deputy Clery pointed out, various Commissions which reported on matters far more important to the country than this, and which require urgent attention, matters affecting the farming community, affecting town tenants, affecting the cost of living to ordinary labourers. We do not hear a single word about these Commissions, nor do we see the Minister or his colleagues taking up the attitude that the recommendations of these Commissions are going to be carried into effect. But, because a small body of individuals, called together hastily to try to placate this interest, have seen fit to introduce a number of recommendations we are told that the House must now take what we, at any rate, consider a definite step backwards.
Deputy Fahy has called attention to the fact that twenty years ago the Gaelic League set in operation a boycott of licensed houses on the national festival and compelled them to close. The Gaelic League stands for the same thing to-day, and so does the G.A.A. I was very proud to read that the Leinster Convention of that splendid body of young Irishmen had protested against the attempt to turn the clock backwards and to revert to the old manner of celebrating our national festival. That an attempt should now be made to revive the idea of St. Patrick's Day as "the day we celebrate,""the drowning of the shamrock," and all that kind of thing, and that the national ideals that so many Irishmen have struggled and fought for in the last quarter of a century—that the clock should now be definitely set backwards, and that we should set all at nought and take this retrograde step, which in itself may not be a very big one, but which nevertheless is a step backwards, and which will probably lead to further steps back-wards—that that should happen at this stage of our existence in a country which has boasted so much of its freedom and independence and of the tremendous importance that it holds in the religious life of the world, that such a thing should happen is certainly an extraordinary commentary on Irish ideals. The only explanation is that this is simply and solely a political move. Under the guise of protecting or helping the licensed trade, an effort has been made by the Government which finds its forces scattered and finds itself in a weak position to attempt to put up a camouflage to persuade that trade that in fact something valuable is being given to them, that some great contribution is being made to alleviate their present position, and that in fact something is being done to improve the position of that trade.
Everybody knows that this measure will not improve the conditions in that trade. There is first, as Deputy Clery pointed out, the general condition of the country. Money is scarce, depression exists, and that is the first thing that the licensed trade suffers from. That can only be remedied by this House attending to the economic problems which confront us and striving to settle them, and by our preparing to meet this economic blizzard which, we are told, is not alone blowing now but will blow for some years to come. The best way we can restore prosperity to the licensed trade or restore it to the community in general is by setting out to build up and develop the resources of the country.
There is also the matter of the reduction in duties. Our attitude in that matter has been stated. We cannot see that the taxpayer at present can afford to give one and a half million pounds in the form of subsidy for the sake of a penny reduction in the pint of stout. We cannot see that it is reasonable. We are not alone in that. The Minister for Finance has constantly steeled his heart against all the appeals of the licensed trade. My friend Deputy Daly has time after time, with some of his colleagues on the Cumann na nGaedheal Benches, asked for some alleviation of the tax on drink, and the Minister has only steeled his heart and told him that such a thing is impossible. There is the other point which might have brought some relief to the licensed trade, and that is the provision for compensation under the 1927 Act, to which Deputy Daly has rightly called attention. Deputy Aiken asked the Minister for Finance last year, when he introduced a small Supplementary Estimate of £300, to cover outstanding expenses in connection with compensation for licence holders what the position was, and the Minister stated: "After our year's experience of the working of this compensation clause we are giving up the proposals for a year in order to examine the position; we are, therefore, only applying for a small sum of £300 to cover expenses, and we are going to start off again in September." September has come and gone and very many months have passed since, and still there is no sign from the Minister for Justice or the Minister for Finance that this matter, which every publican has expressed himself as being interested in, and which the licensed trade in general regarded as a remedy which might relieve the situation by removing a large number of the redundant public-houses—not a word has been said about it, and there is no indication that the Government are going to pursue the forward and progressive policy that we expected from them in that matter. I say that so long as these questions are not tackled then to talk of the present measure being anything in the nature of a real alleviation of the depressed condition of the licensed trade is simply trying to camouflage the whole issue and throw dust in the eyes of those who, as we all know, are finding it difficult to make ends meet, but, unfortunately, seem to have no alternative employment open to them.
Deputy Clery has also called attention to a very important matter in this Bill which has often been brought up before whenever this question of the licensed trade was discussed, and that is the question of the bona fide traffic. Does any Deputy on the Government Benches honestly believe that he can persuade this House that this privilege or concession which it is now sought to give the country publicans by enabling them to open during the same hours on St. Patrick's Day as on Sundays is either going to be of benefit to the trade or to the ordinary labourer or farmer? The people living in the immediate vicinity of these houses, whether in towns or villages, cannot avail themselves of the opportunities of getting drink on St. Patrick's Day. They will not be bona-fide and, in fact, there is no real concession of value to the trade in this. I am quite certain that any publican, either at a cross roads or even at a church, or in a small town, will agree that this is no real concession whatever.
The only thing about it is this: as Deputy Fahy pointed out, it is the thin end of the wedge, and by giving a vote in this House in favour of retrogression, and the opening on St. Patrick's Day you are doing a thing that once commenced there is no knowing where it is going to stop. Pressure is going to be applied on all sides to all Deputies and the attention of the House instead of being devoted, in the coming months or years, to present-day problems to which all its time and attention should be given will find its energy dissipated in fruitless discussions upon future concessions to the licensed trade. It has been well and truly said that when this law which has been in operation for a number of years, whatever the hardship it may have brought upon individuals or interests of the community initially, nevertheless when it was in operation for a number of years and without any general demand for its repeal the Government would have been well advised if they left well enough alone.
We know that the Vintners' Assistants' Association are strongly against the proposed opening on St. Patrick's Day. We know that 1,200 or 1,500 young men engaged in that industry claim that since they had only been getting two days they should get this extra one, and they point out also that the three hours' opening in fact means nothing; that as far as the publican is concerned in the City of Dublin he would cherfully open at 2 o'clock in the morning if he could make anything out of it. The three hours therefore would inflict hardship upon these young men who are the backbone of the national and Gaelic movement, and who would be up in Croke Park on St. Patrick's Day trying to divert the attention of the population to more congenial and national pastimes than sitting in publichouses if they are not sent back to the publichouses to work on St. Patrick's Day. And I maintain that any income that the publican and the trade will get—if what we hear from the Government Benches is true, that there is a great change in the country and that people are not drinking as much as they used to and that there is no fear of a reversion to what we were used to many years ago—will, if that is so, be negligible and if there is not to be an orgy of drinking on St. Patrick's Day then what is the necessity of opening the publichouses at all? If there is not going to be a considerable amount of drinking there is no great benefit to the licensed trade in opening the publichouses on St. Patrick's Day. The only advantage in opening the publichouses must be supposed to be that you are to have as well as a large number of poor people in Dublin, a large number of visitors attracted to the City and that these people are going to drink on that day. If that is so, it simply means that we are opening the door not to something temperate and moderate and reasonable, but we are simply telling all these people that we have opened the publichouses in order that they may go and drink as they can.
The split hours have also been referred to. We take that, as Deputy Fahy pointed out, to be a piece of class legislation. We believe that hotels and restaurants have quite sufficient facilities already. The matter is a very small and insignificant one, but, just the same as the question of opening on St. Patrick's Day, it is a beginning. It is quite obvious that Deputy Daly and the trade he represents do not consider this Bill of much importance, that it is only a beginning, and they are satisfied that they have got the Government into the position that they are forced to turn back upon the work done by the late Minister for Justice. They are assured of bigger things in the future, and they are not prepared to carp or criticise to any great extent at the moment. You are going to give the restaurants this hour in the middle of the day; you are going to enable a gentleman who is not able to finish his lunch and to order his drink before half-past two, another hour in which to order it. At the end of that time, if he is thirsty he will be allowed to go down to the bar and continue there for the evening. I think it is simply preposterous. If you admit that, you cannot in conscience and reason deny to the carter or labouring man at the North Wall the right to go into the publichouse and have his snack and bottle or pint of stout. You are opening the door, and the moment you do that the pressure will become so very great that you will be forced to go further. Once you admit there is reason in this, and that it is a question that must be reopened, and not now definitely closed, but that anybody can, at any time, reopen the whole matter again, you are letting yourself in for any amount of trouble and difficulty. It would be a very good solution of the question generally if a provision was made—I am not a lawyer, but I understand that there is in the licensing code a provision which a number of respectable publicans in the trade try to adhere to— that is, to insist on supplying the worker and the labouring man with food at the same time as he was taking drink. If that provision was carried to its logical conclusion, then well and good. There is some hope in that of reforming the licensed trade on a proper basis, but to suggest that you should make one law for the man in the restaurant, who can spend hours over his meal, and exclude the other class of case because a man cannot afford to go into a restaurant, is simply preposterous. Before Deputies agree to pass that into law they should remember that if they admit that principle in the one case they will inexorably be compelled to admit it in the other.
Deputy Davin very rightly called attention to the point to which attention was also called by the Vintners' Assistants' Association, and that is, that if they could have the concession they asked, and which, I think, to some extent the licensed trade was pledged to give, that is, that there was to be a definite understanding that all bank holidays should be put upon the same basis as Sunday—if they could have got that extra time off they were willing to accept that, but because that principle was not agreed to, of closing on all bank holidays as on Sundays, they naturally and very strongly objected to the proposal that St. Patrick's Day should be an opening day and that they should have to go back to work for one of the only three days that they have off, and that nothing is done to try and close, for at least some time, on other bank holidays.
There is one other matter that we think deserves attention besides the question of endorsement that Deputy Fahy referred to.
No doubt the question of endorsement is one we are prepared to consider as sympathetically as we can, but we are not prepared to consider it in the company of such provisions as that of the reopening on St. Patrick's Day and the abolition of the split hour. We want to call the attention of the House to another matter, and that is the question of the opening of licensed premises after midnight on Sunday night. We see here a flaw or a deliberate omission in the Intoxicating Liquor Act of 1927. It appears that not alone publichouses, but hotels throughout the country, can open for bona fide drinkers after midnight on Sunday night. We are told by those who have knowledge of the circumstances that what happens is that when a dance or some other pastime is over, or perhaps during the dance, the boys who have been drinking perhaps until 8 o'clock in the evening come along after 12 and go to the publichouses, which we understand are open to receive them if they can be said to be bona fide travellers.
We know that the bona fide laws are supposed to be very strict and in fact if a policeman calls even if you prove you are a bona fide traveller, if he should call again in a quarter of an hour you will then be no longer a bona fide traveller. You are then a loiterer on the premises; you will no longer be able to say you are a bona fide and you will be prosecuted for a breach of the law. In order to administer properly this law regulating the licensing of clubs, and the prevention of facilities to golf clubs to become drinking dens, you will simply require an enormous police force working at night as well as in the day-time. I think it would be physically impossible for the police, who, I must admit, have done their best, as far as I am aware, to carry out the law, to track all these so-called bona fide people who go into publichouses or hotels at 12 o'clock on Sunday night and stay there until all hours on Monday morning. There is no reason why publichouses or hotel bars should be open after 12 o'clock on Sunday night any more than after 12 o'clock on Saturday night.
There will always be the argument that you may have individual cases of hardship and that you want to make provision for people attending fairs or markets or travelling on business. We are quite prepared to consider that. There is at present a system by which publicans can get occasional licences where fairs are held or where for some reason a crowd is likely to gather and people may want refreshments. That is a matter that can be dealt with by the District Justice. You may, however, have a state of affairs which may not be prevalent in some parts of the country but which is a great and growing evil in other places that are associated with the dance halls which we hear so much about. I submit that those dance halls might not nearly be so harmful as is alleged if publichouses did not exist side by side with them and if the people attending the dances were not permitted to visit the publichouses on Sunday nights in the way I have mentioned. We believe there may be exceptions and that it ought to be possible, while ending that grave evil which we suggest is very bad and dangerous and which has reached alarming proportions in certain parts of the country, to leave adequate safeguards for people who are travelling on business or who are compelled to be out at abnormal hours legitimately and who should get refreshments if they wish to get them. It ought to be possible to tackle and eradicate the great evil I have mentioned, while admitting necessary safeguards. We believe that definite steps should be taken to remedy this situation. Definite steps should be taken to remedy the omissions in the 1927 Act.
I do not agree with the speakers who say it is a reflection on the national character that publichouses are closed on St. Patrick's Day. We have to recognise that we have particular circumstances in this country, and that there was a time when we were not above criticism. We have to recognise that this is a matter in which our personal feelings or predilections must not reign supreme. We must try to give a good example to the country, to set a proper headline. We must show that we are in earnest in this matter. It may be hurled at us that if we refuse to open on St. Patrick's Day it can be taken as an indication that the Irish people are not able to look after themselves and they have not the spirit of self-respect necessary to sustain them. I contend that by undoing what has been done already, by upsetting the law that has proved so satisfactory and in regard to which there has been no public demand for a repeal, we would be in danger of losing our national spirit of self-respect. It would indeed be a retrograde step if, because of some demand from vested interests in this country, we were to undo all the good that has been done. If we do that I do not think we could do anything that would be a greater reflection on our national character. The whole matter is closed and done with, and in the name of God let it be so. We are now approaching a time when an important religious function will be held in this country, and I say if this whole question is to be reopened it will do harm to the country, not alone socially, but it will tend to give Ireland a very bad name internationally.
