This section deals with definitions. I think it contains all the necessary definitions and they seem to be apt.
Question agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Eucharistic Congress (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1932—Committee and Final Stages.
Question proposed: "That Section 1 stand part of the Bill.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."—(Minister for Justice).
From the special definition of motor omnibuses in this section, I take it that it is intended to cover improvised buses and that a lorry can be turned into a bus for the occasion. Does the Minister think that there is any fear of such vehicles coming to Dublin under special licence and being used for haulage purposes here instead of passenger purposes? Would it not be desirable to safeguard the position by providing that these vehicles are to be used only for passenger purposes? Does the Minister not think that the definition leaves it open to vehicles such as we see at big football matches being brought in here and then being used for purposes other than those for which they are intended to be used under the Bill?
I think the House is anxious to get this Bill through quickly and that no unnecessary objection should be raised from any side of the House. It seems to me that the desire is by this section to enable people to travel to Dublin in any conveyance they can get on this particular occasion. Conveyances will be difficult to obtain. If Deputy Moore reads the section he will see that the expression "motor omnibus" means a mechanically propelled vehicle which has seating accommodation for more than six persons, exclusive of the driver.
If Deputy O'Neill suggests that I am objecting to the section, he is quite wrong. I am calling the Minister's attention to a provision in the Bill which might enable something to be done that he does not wish to be done. I think that it is my duty to do that.
This Bill deals with a very exceptional set of circumstances and Deputy Moore is trying to pin the Minister down to definitions that would apply under the ordinary Motor Car Acts. The Minister is going out of his way to give the public a lot of facilities.
All I am doing is asking a question. I called the Minister's attention to the definition of "motor omnibus" and I asked had the Minister in mind that vehicles improvised for the occasion would be used and whether an abuse of the privileges accorded by this Bill might not arise by these vehicles being used for haulage purposes here. It may be a small point but I thought it was one to which I should draw attention.
I wish to draw attention to a matter which involves Sections 4 and 5 as well as this section. Sub-section (1) permits the importation of omnibuses free, as I understand, of customs duty. Sub-section (1) of Section 4 permits the use of unlicensed cars and vehicles— that means, I presume, cars and vehicles that have not paid the road tax. Sub-section (2) of Section 5 prohibits the use of these vehicles in the City of Dublin for the purpose of plying for hire. If the omnibus is imported for the purpose of the Congress only, it will, of course, be re-exported. Is it intended that the road tax shall be paid on it before it comes into the City of Dublin? If it is not, then, assuming that a vehicle brings a load of passengers from Cork, when it comes within the city boundary it is plying for hire under the section.
In reference to Deputy Moore's comments, I may say that it is difficult in any Bill to provide for calculated, deliberate, well-planned violation of the law in certain very exceptional cases. In a Bill dealing with quite a long period, it is desirable that an effort should be made to leave no possible loophole. In a Bill of this nature, dealing with a short period—a very exceptional period during which a large number of persons will be coming here for whom it is desired to provide transit—you must look to the main purpose, and if you overload a clause like clause 2 it is doubtful if the overloading is really worth while. As this clause deals with the importation of motor omnibuses, it is unlikely that ramshackle vehicles of the type referred to by the Deputy will be brought in here. It would be scarcely worth while. Very few of them, I think, will be brought in. The vehicles brought in will be,. I venture to predict, what we would refer to in the ordinary course as motor omnibuses and will not be of the type described by Deputy Moore. A further safeguard is that the Revenue Commissioners under sub-section (2) of Section 2 have power to prescribe various conditions. I am sure that the Revenue Commissioners will avail pretty liberally of the powers conferred on them by sub-section (2) to protect the public against abuses such as Deputy Moore has given by way of illustration. Deputy McMenamin inquired if sub-section (1) of Section 4 referred to the road tax. It does.
Section 2 and 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That Section 4 stand part of the Bill."—(Minister for Justice.)
Would the Minister not think it necessary to put the words into this section "for passenger purposes"? As the section stands, unlicensed motor cars could be used for any purpose.
I have very little preference one way or the other. If the House thinks it worth while, it can make the provision suggested, but I would caution the House against making the Bill too elaborate.
Section 5 put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.
I should like to ask the Minister if there is any real reason for making the concession embodied in this section. The cost of a driving licence is small. Is there any real reason why a person who comes here to drive during that period should not pay the ordinary tax for driving?
As Deputy MacDermot states, the taking out of a 10/- licence or the paying of 10/- for a driver's licence is not a very great burden. At the same time, it is felt that it might preclude some persons who are quite competent to drive a car from being allowed to drive it, persons who may be required under the exigencies of the situation to drive a car, from being available to drive it. As the House is aware, the possession of a licence to drive a motor car is not evidence of any degree of skill——
Hear, hear.
——to drive a car. Anyone who has not been disqualified by the order of a competent court and who is within certain prescribed limits of age is entitled to obtain from the licensing authority a licence to drive on payment of the 10/-. I am now speaking generally. If the possession of a driver's licence ordinarily ensured that the driver has experience or skill in driving, I would see a considerable objection to this section. But as it stands, it seems to me that it is merely the loss of 10/-, and no objection has been made by the parties concerned to the granting by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health of permission to drive during the 12 days though the man has not paid the 10/- for the licence. It is a matter that scarcely concerns the public as a whole.
Am I not right when I say that the objects of allowing unlicensed cars to run, and in allowing persons who have not got a licence to drive cars, are that it is hoped there will be a very large influx of country visitors into Dublin during the Congress period; that cars not ordinarily in use will be called into use for this week or for, possibly, one day, and that drivers who are perfectly skilled drivers will not, because they happen not to have a licence, be prevented from being hired for that week or, possibly, for a day or two? I take it that it is because you are going to have cars that will only be pulled out for that week, and that you are going to have drivers who will only drive during that week, that you propose to make this extension for both motor car licensing and drivers licensing for the Congress period. I am in favour of this section.
I fully realise the advisability of exempting cars from the necessity of being licensed under these circumstances, but as regards the drivers' licences the situation is different. Is it not a fact that a man who does not ordinarily drive a car, but who takes out a car for one day only, as Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney suggests, is not apt to be as good a driver or as careful a driver as the man who is usually driving a car? I should like to ask this question: if the necessity for taking out a driving licence is waived, will the system that takes its place ensure that the identification of drivers will be easy and that we shall not have a lot of people careering about the countryside with cars during that period, people, perhaps, who should not be driving them, but who, during that week, may get away with what they would not get away with on an ordinary occasion?
Deputy MacDermot has raised what seems to me to be a quite substantial point as to the identification of drivers. I feel sure that the Minister for Local Government and Public Health will take such precautions in granting permission under this Section 6 as will enable drivers to be identified in the event of a collision. Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney has given one illustration of the class of persons that this section is intended to assist. Deputy MacDermot mentioned those coming from abroad. Many of them may be quite competent drivers who may be willing to assist us over here while resident in Dublin, and yet may not wish to take out licence.
May I say also that the police will have a great deal to do in the regulation of traffic during that period? They will have various other duties which will necessarily arise where there is a large concourse of people. I doubt very much if it would have been possible, strictly, to enforce the law requiring every driver to have a licence even if that were the law. There would be very great difficulty for the police during that period of rush in ensuring that the law would not be broken.
There is a general question raised by Deputy MacDermot and that is that the fact of having a driver's licence would do no more to ensure identification than it would to ensure the competency of the driver. The fact that drivers' licences can be exchanged does away with any certainty of their being useful in the way of identification.
I cannot agree with Deputy MacDermot, for ordinarily the licence which is tendered by a driver is a genuine document. The cases where a driver fraudulently gives somebody else's licence are very rare.
I think the Minister might act on the suggestion and introduce a sub-section to ensure that drivers might wear a distinctive badge which would get over the point raised by Deputy MacDermot.
Let them wear the Congress Badge.
Section 7 and 8 put and agreed to.
SECTION 9.
I just want to make one suggestion to the Minister in connection with this section. The whole House will agree with me, I am sure, that it would be very unpleasant indeed if the licensed premises along the route which the procession is going to take were open while the procession is passing. I do not say that there should be any suggestion for any necessity for legislation for closing them, because I daresay the good sense, the good taste and the good feeling of the owners will, in fact, keep them closed. I should like to ask the Minister if the owners have given any undertaking that they will keep them closed. I am sure if they are approached that they will give such an undertaking.
I am not aware that any such undertaking has been given or sought, but as I stated earlier to-day I have a good deal of confidence in the good taste and decency of the licence holders along the route.
So have I.
I wonder would the Minister consider the advisability of extending the distance. Sub-section (1) of the section says "within a radius of 20 miles from the General Post Office." Would the Minister consider the advisability of having that radius extended, because if the numbers which are expected to arrive at the Congress will be as great as is supposed, certain persons will have to stay outside the 20 miles area. We know that with modern facilities for road traffic 20 miles will only mean a half an hour's journey now. I am sure that many of the visitors will stay in places like Wicklow, Glendalough, Navan, Drogheda and several other places outside the 20 miles radius. I should like to know if the Minister would give favourable consideration to this point and consider the desirability of extending the radius beyond 20 miles from the General Post Office.
In fixing 20 miles I thought the radius rather wide, and I wondered if there might not be criticism that it perhaps was too wide. These are some of the few words or figures in this Bill, apart from clause 12, for which I am responsible. But if the general sense of the House is that it should be 25 miles, there is really no argument which can be used for 20 miles as against 15 miles or 25 miles.
Section 9 and 10 agreed to.
SECTION 11.
(1) Nothing in the Licensing (Ireland) Acts, 1833 to 1929, shall be deemed to prohibit or restrict during the Congress period the sale of intoxicating liquor on vessels moored in the harbour of Dublin, for the purposes of the Eucharistic Congress, to persons bona fide residing on such vessels.
(2) In this section the word "vessel" does not include a passenger vessel as defined by Section 52 of the Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910.
I desire, with the permission of the House, to move an amendment to Section 11. As Deputies will observe, the section reads "Nothing in the Licensing (Ireland) Acts, 1833 to 1929, shall be deemed to prohibit or restrict during the Congress period the sale of intoxicating liquor on vessels moored in the harbour of Dublin.""The harbour of Dublin" is a phrase that may not be perhaps precise enough. There might be a difference of opinion as to what constituted the harbour; and the amendment that I desire to move to that is that in lines 3 and 4 the words "the harbour of Dublin" be deleted and that there be substituted therefor the words "Dublin Bay including the harbours of Dublin and Dun Laoghaire."
Put in the 20 miles radius there. It would be just as good.
That is a practical suggestion.
Would that include a line from Howth Head to Dalkey? The three miles limit extends from the low water mark. It is a very considerable distance from the land.
As Deputies may observe, the amendment I propose is "Dublin Bay including the harbours of Dublin and Dun Laoghaire," it is not to substitute "The harbours of Dublin and Dun Laoghaire," but to substitute "Dublin Bay." I think that in the ordinary vernacular sense, that covers a pretty wide sea area.
Presumably what is meant is "Within sight of Dublin."
That is another practical suggestion.
There is one point arising out of the fact that the Minister says that these vessels may be liable to visits by the Gárda Síochána. I presume that it is really intended that the management of any sales of liquor on these vessels will be really left entirely under the control of the vessels' authorities. There may be occasions upon which persons who have come to Dublin and who are residing on these vessels will bring their friends on board either for their own personal talk, or perhaps for a little dance in the evening; and I think it would be reducing our proposals to absurdity if a person who was a guest of anyone on board one of these vessels could not be treated to a glass of sherry.
As far as I know it would not be possible for them to sell tobacco on board a vessel unless some provision is introduced into this statute. I think that if people are going to stop for a week on board a vessel, as they are liable to be, moored out some distance from the shore, they ought to be able to purchase tobacco on board their vessel. I know that there is this objection that, of course, tobacco sold on board a liner of this character would not pay duty, and that, therefore, it would be very much cheaper than tobacco bought on shore. But I do not suppose that many people would bring it off to their friends.
I confess that the observations of Deputy Mulcahy have force. As I stated, while the Guards have, in my opinion, power to visit the vessels, my own feeling is that the control of the vessel will be really exercised by the captain and those under him, and that order will be ensured by the captain and the crew, that they will be very jealous of the reputations of the liners while they are here in Dublin and that everything is likely to go off all right. Of course the difficulty is that once you extend it beyond persons who are bona fide residing on the vessels, it is not easy to prevent abuses, and you, probably, then might make it needful for the Gárda Síochána to visit the liners. I feel that they will have a great deal to do during that period. If, as I said in another connection, the sense of the House is in favour of extending the provision by the introduction of words that will include the guests of persons residing on the liners, I would not resist it. In reference to what Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney says regarding tobacco, I feel that facilities for the sale of tobacco would be much more liable to abuse, much more likely to be abused than facilities for the sale of drink. Personally, for that reason, I would hardly support the introduction of a provision enabling tobacco to be sold. Tenders will be plying to and from the liners at frequent intervals; and very little difficulty will be encountered in obtaining adequate supplies of tobacco, cigars and cigarettes by the persons on the liners.
I should like to support Deputy Mulcahy's suggestion that opportunities should be extended so as to include guests, that is, that opportunities should be given to the passengers on the liners to buy drink for their guests if they wish to do so. I think that anyone who has experience of travelling on a good class of liner will agree that there is not the slightest danger of a captain allowing his ship to be turned into a drinking shop.
What I suggest is this, that it might be highly inconvenient for any Deputy, with a view to amending this clause so as to include guests, to draft an amendment here and now; but when the Bill goes to the Seanad, possibly a considered amendment might be drafted and introduced there. I do not know whether the Deputies interested will think that is a more convenient way.
I do not know whether it would be better to enshrine the suggestion in the meantime and it might be amended afterwards—to prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquor— through persons bona fide residing on such premises. I suggest deleting the word “to” and putting the word “through”. I do not know if that would be considered a perfect solution. “To persons” if strictly applied would tie things up in an absurd and abominable way. “Through persons” may not be entirely correct, but I think it would prevent any absurd restrictions being imposed.
"Ordered and paid for by persons". Perhaps the Minister would accept that?
I feel that is a reasonable amendment and if the House generally is of that opinion it can be adopted.
I formally move: "To delete the word ‘to' and to insert the words ‘ordered and paid for by'".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
I listened with interest to what the Minister said upon Section 12. I am glad his intention is as he expressed it—that the offices should be closed. I will ask the Minister to consider this matter with the object of seeing whether it might be advisable to alter the section in the Seanad so that it would be much clearer and so make the intention known to the general public. This particular period might be made part of the Long Vacation. During the Long Vacation all offices are closed. If the Minister agreed to that, there would be no court sitting. Of course, if there was anything urgent such as a habeas corpus or anything of that sort a judge would have power to sit during the Long Vacation, as is customary. Perhaps the Minister will consider if that would be necessary to effectuate his real intention. If, after consulting his advisers, he comes to that conclusion, he might insert an alteration of the section in the Seanad. I am not opposing the section.
I shall consider that suggestion. During the Long Vacation the offices are open during certain hours; they merely close earlier than usual. Possibly if this matter is left entirely to the judges and to those in control of the officers of the courts it may go further than any provision as to vacation. However, I will consider the introduction of the words suggested. They will, perhaps, ensure that the courts will not sit, but to all intents and purposes I think it is just as certain that they will not sit if the matter is left to the good sense of the judges themselves.
I am perfectly satisfied, provided the courts do not sit except in a case of great emergency, such as a habeas corpus. If that is made known to the general public, I am satisfied. I am afraid this section, unless it is examined, will not convey the impression to the court officers or the general public. I will ask the Minister to consider the matter.
I shall.
Sections 12, 13 and 14 and the Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Question: "That the Bill be now received for Final Consideration"— agreed to.
Question: "That the Bill do now pass"—agreed to.
Message to be sent to the Seanad accordingly.