Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1942—Second Stage (resumed).

Mr. Mullen

The margin between a good Licensing Bill and an indifferent one is narrow. A certain amount of progress has been made in recent years in this very important matter. That is generally admitted. In my opinion, the time has come to take another step forward. Previous speakers have made repeated references to abuses in and around the City of Dublin. As the elected representatives of a people who are trying to build up as good institutions as can be established in any country in the world, we should ask ourselves why those abuses have arisen. Are we going to adopt the attitude that, because those abuses are there, we as the elected representatives of the people will not take the opportunity to remedy them? Is there anything in ourselves as a people that we have anything to be afraid or ashamed of? If we know that certain abuses are there, and that we as individuals and as a country have suffered from those abuses, we have an opportunity now of dealing with them in a trenchant manner befitting the Irish race. Are we going to avail of that opportunity? If abuses are there, in my opinion they are there because the laws were bad. The outstanding example of bad legislation in this regard was the fixing of the hours of two o'clock and five o'clock on Sundays. If a competition between the throat and the clock came into operation, whose is the fault? Is it the fault of the working man who works all the week and needs recreation on Sunday?

A man who does a reasonable week's work is entitled in a free country to freedom on Sunday within the restrictions imposed by laws enacted by free men. Is he at the behest of any vested interest to be put unwittingly in the situation in which he is forced into competition between the throat and the clock? That is one of the reasons for many of the abuses about which we hear so much. The hours two to five are unreasonable. I have heard the word "reasonable" used here time after time. I cannot picture any more unreasonable hours than two to five. The average Irishman would prefer to have public houses shut altogether rather than be compelled to drink at the behest of anyone. On Sunday a man who wants recreation and wants to have a drink, if he has the price of it, should be entitled to go into any part of this country and have his drink at reasonable hours, not alone in the city but outside it.

I think it was Deputy Hickey—I do not want to make any particular point about this—who spoke yesterday about home life on Sundays. Let us be reasonable about this. What is home life on Sundays? Everybody recognises that there are three matters involved in this question — firstly, recreation, secondly, home life on Sunday, and thirdly, no restriction on the individual. In the average home in this country, the woman of the house would definitely like to see her husband go out for a walk on a Sunday morning with the children to take them out of her way. If that man is a worker and wants to have a drink, why should he be prevented from having a drink on Sunday morning? The woman of the house wants him there during the evening. He may have a walk afterwards, but if he wants to have a drink at night, when it will do him good, I think he should be free to take it. Perhaps it is not so much drink he wants as some intercourse with his fellowman—a relaxation that is lacking in my opinion in this country. We have an opportunity now of facing up to this question in a way that will suit the conditions of our own country. Different laws may suit other people. If we have an inferiority complex, and are afraid to enact laws to suit ourselves, then many of the charges that were levelled against us by foreigners would appear to have some kind of justification. The hours two to five on Sunday are definitely and absolutely unreasonable. They do not suit the person who wants drink, they do not suit the publican, nor do they suit anybody else. My first suggestion then is—it should be fairly clear from what I have already said—that we should give the man who wants a drink in the morning on Sunday an opportunity of having it and that we should again give him an opportunity of having a drink when it will do him good and do no other person any harm, at a time later, definitely later, than the hours suggested in the Bill.

There is another point which has not yet been touched upon. We have done, and are doing, everything we can to attract tourists to this country. People who have gone to other countries— there are people present who have travelled much further afield than I have—appreciate that, in countries abroad, special facilities are provided for tourists, and even though these are availed of by people living in these countries there is no abuse. To go back to the question of human intercourse, and the interchange of ideas, that is a practice that appears to be very necessary for us, the more especially because this country is an island and there is a danger that we may become too insular in our outlook. Why should we spend money in an endeavour to attract tourists—and we know that after the war quite a number of people will be very pleased to visit this country to see how our people have been getting on—and at the same time show them, when they come here, that we are insular in our outlook? One, in travelling, meets people of different types and different nationalities. The interchange of ideas and the encouragement of intercourse between various classes of people are all to the good and definitely should be to the good of a country whose reputation has been built up, as ours has been, mainly as a missionary people— not this year, not last year, but all through our history.

The tourist centres should be scheduled, not by us, but by the body which has been charged with the administration of moneys voted by the people for tourist development. On them should lie the task of deciding what are scheduled tourist areas. That suggestion may appear to hit across the ideas of people who have made such a row about abuses. Where is there a city like Dublin with 500,000 population without the urge—a thing I should like to encourage—to leave their tenements and their rooms, to get out of the city on the one day in the week on which they can have recreation? In fact, I would put forward this idea—that the country people come into Dublin and after a few generations they fade out. Why? Because they are so glad to get into a city that they have not acquired the urge to keep out in the open air. Wherever that has happened, wherever you have a city of that type, there are bound to be abuses; but why should we, as the elected representatives of the people, allow ourselves to be influenced unduly by any section, no matter how right they may think they are in dealing with a problem of that type?

There is a future for this country if we can help that type of recreation onwards, to give the people confidence in themselves, to let them see that when they want a drink they can have it, but where it would not be good for them it will be denied them. Once we get that idea into the people, we will have blotted out one stain on our character. What do other people say about us—that we could not make licensing laws for ourselves, that we could not be trusted?

In the County of Dublin, where the bona fide problem has been the main concern of every person connected with this Bill, or connected with the life of the people in the county, it is well recognised that a problem exists, but why should that problem be allowed to hurt traders on the spot? Dublin is the highest valued county in the country, not even excepting the County Antrim. The valuation of the premises which these men bought was assessed on the conditions at the time they invested their money. In the ordinary course, the assessment, was high, but it was unduly high in their case, on account of the high valuation. Due, to a large extent, to conditions for which this House has no responsibility, and which we are trying to correct, these men find themselves now in a certain financial situation and must face it. The complete cutting out of the bona fide traffic will not do away with the abuses, but will result in financial ruin for some of these people. If we look at the situation in the broad way I have indicated, giving reasonably long hours and not being stingy about it, I think that all interests in the country would be united in accepting the Bill. As I stated last night, the Government and the Minister deserve credit on account of their courage. Having gone so far, why not go the whole way—why not pass an act of faith in the Irish people?

Professor O'Sullivan

There is a certain awkwardness, I confess, in discussing this Bill at the present moment. The awkwardness is obvious. My own personal inclination is that I dislike laws which interfere with liberty and which are not absolutely necessary.

Mr. Boland

There is agreement between us there.

Professor O'Sullivan

I agree, and I will keep the tone of my speech in this matter non-controversial. Some excellent points have been made in a speech of which I heard, unfortunately, only to-day's part — points that might engage the attention of the Minister. What is the case for the Bill? I do not think it has been made out sufficiently by the Minister. At least, no case has been made out for what seems to the ordinary Deputy to be the outstanding clause in this particular Bill, namely, the bona fide clause. I do not know whether further legislation is necessary to deal with some abuses that are held to exist, particularly in Dublin and County Dublin, but the principle clause goes far beyond County Dublin. I doubt if that particular clause will help to deal with the abuses of which I have heard some rumours. I fear the wiping out of the bona fide traffic all through the country may have the opposite effect to that intended by the Minister and by some enthusiastic temperance reformers.

I wonder if many Deputies can remember the ordinary country town about 45 years ago. Comparing it with the same country town to-day, there is a great contrast, of which I think we should be proud—it is the extraordinary growth of temperance. Surely there are Deputies sufficiently old to know what the market day or fair day was like 45 years ago, when, very often, at the end of the day, the only sensible thing was the ass that brought the people home.

Mr. Killilea

It was only 2d. a pint then.

Professor O'Sullivan

Why not let 2d. a pint operate?

Mr. Cooney

And the whiskey was very young.

Mr. Belton

They must be a tough lot in Kerry.

Professor O'Sullivan

There has been that growth of temperance—an improvement which has been observed by everybody, in every part of Ireland, with a great deal of satisfaction. It was the same in the City of Dublin. Those who came to the city 45 years ago, and who have lived here since, must be struck by the same contrast. Will this legislation that the Minister proposes help towards greater temperance? Taking the country as a whole, is the abuse so great? I admit quite readily the earnestness and even the good work of what I might call extremists in this particular matter. If they were not there we might get slack. But I am not aware that extreme legislation is the best method of promoting temperance.

I think there is a certain point if you go beyond which you will do the very opposite. Take the experience of four people going to a place—you will see the analogy in a moment—to play a game of golf. Let us say there is no licence in the golf clubs, that three of them consider whiskey an excellent drink but the fourth thinks it a poor kind of drink. Three of the four are anxious for a drink of whiskey, and what is the method they adopt? The obvious thing for them to do is to buy a bottle of whiskey in a public house on the way to the golf club. Instead of having a glass of whiskey with their lunch, these three people have a whole bottle to consume. I doubt if the denial of a licence to that club would tend to promote temperance.

If you wipe out the bona fide traffic, surely the obvious way of side-stepping that legislation is for people setting out on a motor journey to buy a couple of bottles of whiskey. You are going to have worse abuses, not merely in the line of intemperance, but possibly still worse abuses in other directions. I put it to the Minister, and I know he will consider it sympathetically, that in reality the effort to cope with certain abuses, limited on the whole in number, may have quite a different effect to what is intended. Take the statistics in relation to convictions for drunkenness over a number of years—the Minister knows what they are. In an effort to cope with some abuses I am afraid we will be led into worse things, and that is really what I have particularly in mind—the general social effect of this. We know very well the effect of prohibition in America. I met people from America when prohibition was on; I am not referring to working-class people whom I met coming from America—possibly their enjoyment was interfered with—but, taking the better-off classes, what was the effect? In the normal way they ought to be the people who would be keen on observing the law. What was the effect? It was a matter of social distinction to evade and to break the law there.

If you make a law wiping out bona fide traffic you are not going to have it observed. You are going to have a worse abuse even than a certain overstepping of the limits in the direction of drink; you are going to have evasion of the law and that evasion being winked at, and that is a very serious thing. Has the Minister no method of dealing, under the present law, with some of these abuses to which he refers? Is the law that exists being enforced? I am not saying it is or it is not—I do not know the facts—but if it is not, and if you make it more severe and harder on ordinary human nature, you will have a worse situation. That is really what I should like to impress upon the Minister.

I am very much afraid that good laws—and one of the few things I do not agree with Deputy Mullen on is this, when he said that if there are abuses they are due to bad laws—do not make good people always; bad laws are not always responsible for abuses. If the law is being violated, making it harsher will not stop violation. In fact, there would be the ordinary human tendency on the part of those who are called upon to enforce the law to shut their eyes to the violation of it, and, though I am an advocate of temperance, which is very different from being an advocate of forcing teetotalism on people, I cannot see that you are helping that particular cause by winking at abuses. I have felt for a considerable time that there is possibly too much attention given to technical violations of the temperance law. I am satisfied, as long as the country as a whole is pretty temperate, to be satisfied with that, and I think there has been an immense improvement in this particular matter.

The question of property was dealt with by Deputy Mullen. It is an important matter, I admit. You are undoubtedly destroying an amount of property without compensation and without notice. It is important, even from the point of view of general principle. I think the Deputy referred to another matter that ought to be borne in mind, and that is the effect on tourist traffic, whether the tourists come from within or without the country. Deputy Norton said there ought to be the same law all over the country, because that is justice. I think it could be injustice. I think, from the point of view not merely of the publican but of the public who frequent the place, to have the same hours fixed in a tourist district during the summer as are fixed in Dublin is not even-handed justice, because the conditions are so completely different. There are places where, instead of the licensing laws being as strong as they are, the hours might actually be extended. There are places in my own constituency, one well known as a seaside resort—Ballybunion—and there, taking it from the point of view not merely of the people who go there— and remember the time there by the sun is one hour and 40 minutes behind the legal time—they are expected to keep decent houses for those who visit them in summer, but there is practically no trade for the rest of the year.

If you are going to encourage the tourist trade—and here I agree with Deputy Mullen—it is no use making the place unattractive for visitors, either from outside or within the country. There are countries in Europe that had prohibition. I once had the pleasure of being at a luncheon in one of those countries. One man told me that if I wanted a real drink I could go behind the curtain, but I did not want the drink. I asked him how was prohibition going on in his country. "How could it go on?" he said, "it is against human nature and you cannot prevent smuggling in Finland." He went on to refer to all the islands and bays, and he said they were made for smuggling and that the law was simply a farce. Then he told me to put the question to my neighbour on my left, who was a strong prohibitionist. I asked him what was the result of prohibition and he replied that the result was splendid, that everybody was obeying the law, that the people were quite enthusiastic over it and there was no trouble in dealing with them. In reality, of course, the law was being evaded.

If you try to abolish legitimate bona fide traffic you will be pushing legislation so far that you will do more damage, even from the temperance point of view, not to mention introducing other evils that are obvious, than you will confer benefit on the people. What are the best phrases we know in connection with the whole liquor trouble in different countries—bottle parties and flasks in hip pockets? Where did that practice come in and why did it come in? Precisely because the laws were too harsh. It came in in America. I should ask the Minister, even from the point of view of temperance and also from other angles, to reconsider this whole business. It is a matter which I should like him to discuss solely on its merits and possibly the present time is not the best for discussing a matter like this on its merits. I understand that enthusiasts are excellent and necessary, but if you give them their whole way you may get more trouble than anything else, and therefore what I should plead for is a sense of proportion where this matter is concerned, a realisation not of one side of the question but of the whole question—the general outlook, the morale, the morals of the people— and, candidly, I do not think you are promoting that in this way.

Anybody who has been in what I might describe, so far as the laws are concerned, the puritanical countries— our next door neighbour, for instance— will not be impressed by their licensing laws. It is a peculiar thing that all over the Continent, where there is a great deal more temperance than there is in England or possibly than there used to be in this country, there are no such restrictions, at least so far as I know. I have lived in and visited these countries, and in the university town where I was for a couple of years I do not know if there was any limit, except the economic limit of what time it was worth staying open to, and, on the whole, I do not think that that people were more addicted to drink —in fact, they were less so—than the ordinary people of the same class in England—leaving ourselves out altogether. If the Minister gives it further consideration, I am sure he will see the force of the arguments against one clause of the Bill in particular.

Mr. Killilea

I have listened to most of the speeches on this Bill, and one of the things I was expecting to hear from different sides of the House was some little indication of appreciation for a number of the things the Minister had the courage to put into the Bill. We have heard all sorts of criticism about just one section. There is only one section in particular about which any of us has any grievance, that is, Section 7. All the other sections are sections designed to help the licensed trade which was suffering from one thing and another in relation to the licensing laws. All those things have been remedied by the Minister, and that is the first thing on which we should congratulate the Minister. I am one of those who was here when the 1927 Act was put through, and the people who are doing all the criticising now probably do not want to appreciate the good points of the Bill because they had not the moral courage to face and to remedy these grievances at that time. The first thing I want to do is to congratulate the Minister from that point of view, and I think that every Deputy, if he spoke his honest mind, must feel the same way.

The next thing we have to consider is: what are the things which we see wrong in the Bill? I suppose all of us feel that Section 7, as it is at the moment, is going to inflict hardships on certain people. I believe that something should be done to cut out a certain trade carried on in the early hours of the morning. There were particular abuses of the licensing laws which did not occur during the day at all, but which occurred in dance halls in the middle of the night, or in the early hours of the morning, or they occurred when people were asleep, and their peaceful slumbers were disturbed by a crowd of rowdies coming home in the early hours of the morning. I am quite satisfied that something should be done to cut out the bona fide trade during certain hours, and I suggest to the Minister that public houses should be allowed to open for a bona fide trade from 6 o'clock in the morning until 12 midnight. The hour of 11 p.m. might perhaps suit, but probably 12 midnight would more fully meet the wishes of the House.

I do not see any reason for a public house being open between 12 midnight and 6 o'clock in the morning. There is no reason in the world for it. There may be exceptional cases of people travelling at that time, but they are few and far between. Anybody travelling during those hours is travelling on some urgent matter, such as taking a patient from the West of Ireland to a Dublin hospital, and drinking on the road is not troubling him. The anxiety in that case is to get to the place at which he wants to do business in a hurry, and such a person does not give a thought to entering a public house. The Minister should definitely consider the question of extending the hours for travellers and fixing closing hours during which nobody would be allowed into a public house from, say, 11 p.m. or 12 midnight until 6 o'clock in the morning.

Again, I do not think it matters whether the hour of 5 a.m. or 6 a.m. is fixed, because I do not think anybody is going to get out of bed to go for a drink at 6 o'clock in the morning; but in the West of Ireland most of the fairs start very early, and people who travel long distances with cattle or sheep are entitled to some refreshment when they arrive, and are entitled to try to buck themselves up for the rest of the day after the hardships they have gone through in bringing their stock along the by-roads and highroads.

I would go one step further in the Bill. I know the West of Ireland from A to Z, and, in the West, most country people do their shopping over the week-end. At the busy time of the year, they cannot get into the local shop on Saturday evening. In the little towns and villages, the local shops are shops which do a mixed trade. There is a grocery section as well as a bar and perhaps a drapery section, too. A number of people in the country cannot get in to do their shopping on Saturday night. If the weather is fine, they are busy on the land. They say: "I will get the few little things I want when I go in to Mass in the morning." Having had the courage to do a number of desirable things in this Bill, the Minister should have the courage to proceed further and give an opening period in the country from, say, 12.30 until 2 o'clock on Sundays. I am not asking this purely from the point of view of the publican. I am speaking about it from the point of view of relieving a hardship. A case can, however, be made for the publican. If he is free to open his public house after second Mass, which is generally finished by 12.30, until 2 o'clock, he can always say to those on the premises: "Time, boys; get out." He can clear them out as he clears them out at 10 o'clock on an ordinary night. If he cannot do that, he is going to have, and we are going to have, the law broken every hour in the day.

Some Deputy said that it is necessary to travel three miles to get a drink. If I feel like a drink, you are just forcing me to go three miles to have it. If the public houses are open, I may not feel half as much like a drink and I may not go into a public house at all. If the public houses are not open, I may try to sneak in by the back door when the Guards are not looking. Instead of having Billy, Jack and Teddy trying to slip in and the publican regarded as a "bad fellow" if he does not allow them in at any time—even if he wants his dinner—why not do as I suggest and let him get his public. house cleared at 2 o'clock? The Minister has been plucky enough to put a number of good sections into this Bill. He should go further and remedy a number of abuses in public houses all over the country by doing as I suggest. It would save the Guards an enormous amount of trouble. Guards in the country know the position.

Some members of the Opposition said that we had the means of dealing with the people who were breaking the law and asked: why not use these means? Guards must be commonsense people and must know the locality in which they are stationed. If the Guards know that people want to go into the local shop, which is, probably, a public house, to purchase some goods, they are not going to be so silly as to stop them. If what I suggest were done, the Guards could say to the publican: "You know that you should have your premises cleared at two o'clock and we must prosecute you." Then, people would not be running to me and every other Deputy, as they do when a technical offence is committed and a prosecution is brought. They try to get the Deputy to ease off the case because the offence is technical and the publican was merely doing something to satisfy a customer and not turn him against him. Publicans must keep customers on their side in the same way as T.D's. must keep their constituents on their side. If the persons concerned did not get a drink there, they could get it somewhere else. I suggest that the Minister should examine the two points to which I have alluded. I should definitely have a closing period between 11 and 12 o'clock — I prefer 12 o'clock — until 5 or 6 o'clock in the morning. Six o'clock would probably, meet the wishes of everybody concerned. In the second place, I would allow an opening period on Sundays in the country which would stop all sorts of abuses and give the Gúards an opportunity to stand on their own feet and do their duty regardless of anybody who might interfere later. It would also give them an opportunity of saying to the publican that the law was amended to suit him and that, when he outstepped the law, it was his own funeral.

I notice that some of the temperance people have been showing their temper or their teeth and sticking out their chins on this Bill. Some of them say that the Bill provides for opening on St. Patrick's Day. I have examined the Bill from beginning to end and I see nothing in the Bill to authorise a public house to open on St. Patrick's Day.

Mr. Lynch

It is my contention that the abuses in the liquor business have been confined largely to the boroughs and surrounding districts and that, because of these abuses, ordinary people throughout the country have to suffer, and areas, which depend largely on the tourist traffic, are suffering very considerably because of these limited abuses. There is another point that I wanted to raise on this Bill. I do not know whether or not anybody else has raised it, but many of the traders in the small country towns are in the position at the moment that they can get practically no supplies, especially of the Guinness products. Of course, in the small towns of the country the mainstay of the publican's trade is the Guinness products. For instance, I know of two licensed holders in one street in the town of Killarney, who have no quota of Guinness, for one reason or another. Now, if they cease to pay their licence, the licence expires, and I wonder whether the Minister could do something in that regard. It is not actually a matter for the Minister's Department, I know. It comes under a Finance Act provision, but I think it should be the Minister's business to put it up to the Minister for Finance that some provision should be made whereby such licences could be kept alive for a nominal fee, so that if these people had to go out of business, as a result of the restricted supplies, the licence would be still available when they would get their quota of Guinness, and when the present restrictions on the sale of Guinness would cease. On what they sell now, they do not make enough to pay for their licence, but if they cease to pay their licence, they lose what is a valuable, or a potentially valuable, property when the war is over, and if they had to sell their property, the question of whether they had a licence or not would make a very great difference in the sale. I am asking the Minister to consider what could be done about such persons who are receiving no quota of Guinness, with a view to having their licences kept alive for some nominal fee in the period in which they are not receiving their quota.

Mr. F. Crowley

There are one or two points which I wish to raise, particularly with regard to tourist centres. At the moment a special licence can be issued to tourist centres to open on Sundays from one to seven. Now, a person staying in a licensed hotel in a tourist centre is entitled to take a drink in the particular area in which the hotel is situated, but an extraordinary anomaly is that a person staying in a private hotel or guest-house in the same town cannot get a drink in any licensed bar on a Sunday. A guest staying in a private hotel or guest-house in the same town cannot walk into a licensed bar and get a drink. I think it is extraordinary that such a privilege should be given to a guest staying in a hotel which holds a licence — in other words, which runs a bar — and that a guest, staying in a private hotel next door, cannot get a drink in any licensed bar in the town. I suggest that that is an inequality which should not be allowed to prevail, and that it should be remedied in this Bill.

Another point I wish to make is that I do not agree at all that it is going to do any good to abolish the bona fide traffic. The hours from one to seven could be altered by breaking them up, say, from one to two, four to six, and eight to ten. That would be a better distribution of the hours and would take two hours off the usual hours allowed. I am referring to Sundays, and I am speaking from experience as a member of the Tourist Association for a number of years. I know that the hotel-keepers would prefer the breaking up and shortening of the hours on Sunday, rather than have a continuous opening from one to seven. We have recently formed the Tourist Board, and they are supposed to be catering for the amenities of the different tourist centres, and we have the Tourist Association, but I can tell the Minister, quite clearly, that if he abolishes the bona fide traffic it will go a long way to neutralise the activities of these two bodies. Accordingly, I would ask the Minister, seriously, to probe into this whole matter before he decides to abolish the bona fide traffic.

I agree with the last speaker that it would mean a great hardship on the farming community if the public houses did not open till 10 o'clock in the morning. Anybody who knows the conditions under which farmers have to travel to a fair on a cold, frosty day, or on a wet and blustery day, arriving at 6 o'clock in the morning, will realise that there is no sense in expecting these farmers to wait for a drink until the public houses open at 10 o'clock. There is one thing that I would seriously ask the Minister to do —I do not know how this is going to be interpreted, and I am speaking from my own point of view, but I hold that all drinks at dances should be abolished. When I say that, you can call me a pussyfoot, if you like, but I am very emphatic about the abuses that have taken place at dances.

Mr. Linehan

Hear, hear!

Mr. F. Crowley

I should like to say that I agree with the point made by Deputy Killilea. I do not exactly know the history of the licensing laws in this country, but I cannot see why public houses should be allowed to open in Dublin and the different boroughs in this country on Sunday when they are not allowed to open in the urban or rural areas. I am not a very great customer at bars, but I do say, in all sincerity, that it would be worth the Minister's while to open the public houses in the rural areas on Sundays, say, from one to two, and then the people could go back to dinner, and the public houses could open up again from four to five. After all, there is not very much pleasure in the country at the moment — no cinemas, no concerts, or anything else—and I do not think it would lead to any abuse at all. Apart from that, I wonder even if it is morally right that the people of cities like Dublin and Cork should hold privileges that other people have not got? Perhaps it may be said that this is a vote-catching speech, but I say quite seriously that I think it is wrong that people coming from last Mass on a Sunday, who want to do a little shopping, cannot do it because the shop concerned is a combined licensed premises and grocery shop.

My suggestion is that the Minister ought to try this out for a period of six months or 12 months, to see how it would work, but I wish to point out again that I am very emphatic about this matter of the tourist centres—particularly the case of the person staying at a private hotel or guest house, who cannot get a drink, whereas the person staying at a licensed hotel, in the same area, is entitled to get a drink. I also think that, instead of abolishing all bona fide traffic at tourist centres, the Minister would meet the situation by altering the hours and not having a continuous opening, because I think it is the continuous opening that is doing all the harm. I congratulate the Minister on certain sections, particularly on one section. As a man who comes up regularly to see the all-Ireland football final, I think it was an extraordinary state of affairs that when a person left Croke Park after the match there was no hope of getting a drink for his friends. That has been remedied by altering the hours. There are other sections also on which the Minister must be congratulated.

Mr. Benson

The majority of the Deputies who have spoken on this Bill so far have referred to the very vexed question of the bona fide traffic. I have very slight knowledge of that and any I have would not be of any assistance to the House. Therefore, I do not propose to discuss that question. I want to direct the Minister's attention to another section of the Bill, and as it is a matter concerning local government, I am glad that the Minister for Local Government is here also. At the present moment, if a local authority contemplate a street-widening or road improvement or anything of that description, one of the first things that they are likely to assess in that street is the number of licensed premises in it that would be affected by such widening, because the experience is that when one comes to take a licensed premises for street widening the value of the premises is only a fraction of the amount of compensation which has to be paid for the abolition of the licence.

So far as I am aware, at the present moment there is no system of overcoming that difficulty, but I want to suggest to the Minister that if Section 14, transferring a licence of a damaged premises, were stretched to include a premises acquired or about to be acquired by a local authority for road improvement purposes, and permit the transfer of the licence, it would then be possible for the local authority to acquire the licensed premises merely for the value of the premises. The licence would be transferred to an adjacent premises and the goodwill of the licence would still exist. That would materially affect the costs of road improvements in certain areas in the city. I think the Minister should consider whether anything of that sort can be done. There may be ramifications of which I am not aware, but if the Minister will have the matter examined before the Committee Stage I think it may be a thing that would be of great advantage to local authorities.

Mr. Daly

I am sorry that I cannot congratulate the Minister on this Bill. There are certain parts of it that are all right, but the section dealing with the abolition of the bona fide trade is, to my mind, most serious. It is taking away the liberties enjoyed by the ordinary people of the country for a long number of years. What is the position of members of the licensed trade at the moment? I am a member of the licensed trade, and I say, without fear of contradiction, that there is no section of the community suffering greater hardships than the members of the licensed trade. I am not speaking now for the big traders in the cities. I am speaking for the ordinary small traders in the country towns and villages who stand behind the counter from 10 o'clock in the morning until 10 o'clock at night for a very small wage. To my mind these traders are nothing but tax-gatherers for the Government. They sell Guinness over the counter at 10d. a pint, but the Government will get 7d. of that. What will the publican get? He will not get one penny for his time and his labour. Publicans are the worst paid section in this community at the moment. The laws that operated up to the present time were severe enough, but all the laws passed by this Government, in the past three or four years at any rate, have been crushing the people, especially the people of the small towns and villages.

One of the Deputies opposite, when speaking a while ago, explained the position of the housewife who would not be able to come into the village on Saturday night to do her shopping when her husband was paid, and who would postpone it until the following morning. Coming from first Mass she would do her shopping for the week. She can no longer do that, because even the small unlicensed trader who would supply her with tea, sugar or bread, dare not open his door. Under the laws passed by this Government they can no longer open on Sunday, they can no longer open after 8 o'clock in the evening. This Bill is introduced simply because you have a crowd of young people in the City of Dublin and around it who have so much money that they do not know what to do with themselves. They go to the outskirts of the city to enjoy themselves all through the night, and they can find people in licensed premises to entertain them and keep them there. The Commissioner of the Gárda Síochána complains to the Minister. I do not know what is the present strength of the Gárda Síochána, but it is very strange that the Commissioner and his men are not able to enforce the law in the city and outskirts of Dublin.

Mr. Cooney

What is the law at present?

Mr. Daly

I am more concerned with the hardworking industrious people in rural Ireland. What will their position be if this Bill is passed in its present form? As a publican, I believe I am in a better position to discuss this matter than many Deputies who contributed to this debate and who are not members of the licensed trade. I have first-hand knowledge of it. I know that people who were called upon by this House to produce food for the people, slaving from six in the morning in all weathers, have also to work at threshings until eight, nine or even 10 o'clock at night. Only a few nights ago, 12 or 14 men, after walking three miles, came into my house from a threshing. As the law stands these people could not get a drop of whiskey, although they were drenched. After Mass on Sundays if people live three miles from a village, but not outside the parish, if this section is passed, they will not be entitled to a drink. It is most unreasonable on the part of the Minister to treat people in that manner because of abuses that occur in this city.

There are abuses certainly through the country, but I blame the Minister for that, because any person who gets up a dance in any part of rural Ireland can apply to the court and get a licence for a bar, where he can sell liquor worth from £50 to £100. On the other hand, the man who works hard on the land and who wants a few drinks on Sunday evening, and who cannot afford more than two or three, cannot get them. As Deputy O'Sullivan mentioned, those who go to clubs can buy a bottle of whiskey and have a round of golf and a round of whiskey. There is nothing to prevent that. The poor man cannot go into a public house on Sunday to enjoy a pint of Guinness.

Of all the laws passed by Fianna Fáil in the last few years this proposal is the most drastic. I hope it is one of the last of this kind. I warn the Minister that if he persists with this section it will be the most damaging piece of legislation ever passed by this Parliament. If the Minister wants the law to be observed he should extend the hours of opening. The public houses in the country need not be opened until 5 or 6 o'clock in the evenings, because there is nobody to go into them until the day's work is finished, about 8 or 9 o'clock. On Saturday night licensed houses have to close at 8.30 p.m., and by the time men who were working two or three miles distant come in, I will be shouting "Time!" The Minister should do what Deputy Killilea suggested, and allow the public houses in the rural parts to open from 12.30 to 2 o'clock. Publicans could then clear their premises and everybody would be satisfied. People living in the country cannot now get a drink on Sundays, while other sections can go to their clubs and enjoy themselves, or can bring drink into their homes or have bridge parties and a good time. Country public houses are the only, clubs and the only places of recreation for those who are feeding the country. Here we have a Government elected by the people, and the Minister for Justice brings in a Bill which deprives poor men of the opportunity of getting a drink on Sundays. I know that the Minister for Justice is a just man, and a straight man, and I cannot believe after what he has heard during the debate that he will persist with this section.

Mr. Cogan

This is a Bill which the ordinary Deputy would be inclined to approach with great caution. One is inclined to ask, what is the real intention of the Government, and again to ask if the Minister intends that this Bill shall go through this House and the present Parliament as it has been drafted, or if there is not some other deep underlying intention behind it. We listened to many members of the Government Party attacking the most important clauses, and we are inclined to wonder if the Minister intends to stand behind the drastic changes which are embodied in the Bill in regard to the abolition of the bona fide traffic. If the Minister does so intend I think he has more courage than we have credited him with, and we have always regarded him as a man of great courage. I am inclined to believe that the Government and the Minister are simply “pulling the legs” of Deputies and of the country in connection with this Bill, and that they have no intention whatever of going forward with if as it stands, but will simply pass the Second Stage and then let it be hung up indefinitely, or, alternatively, let it be very drastically amended. In the event of the Bill being “hung up,” the Government Party and the Minister can go to the country and say to temperance reformers: “We have done our best. We introduced the Bill to improve and reform the law in regard to temperance, but we had not sufficient strength to go forward with it. We had not sufficient moral support.” On the other hand, they can say to the licensed trade: “We have been forced to take certain measures by temperance reformers, and if we get back into power we will show these people where they get off.” Again, if this Bill be very drastically amended the same arguments will apply. The Government Party will say to the temperance reformers: “We did our best. We tried to reform the law, but the forces against us were too strong, and we had to yield.” Then they can turn around and say to the licensed trade: “The forces of organised temperance reform in this country made a sudden organised attack on the Government. They overwhelmed the Front Bench, but the rank and file of the Party rose up in strength to drive back the enemy, and we captured the position and rescued the Minister for Justice.” Thus we will have the Fianna Fáil Party playing the old game of running with the hare and hunting with the hounds.

Mr. Cooney

What is the Deputy's attitude towards the Bill?

Mr. Cogan

The Deputy will state his attitude towards the Bill in clear and unmistakable language right now. If it is the intention of the Government to go forward with this Bill as it has been presented to the House, it stands condemned on the face of it. It seeks to extend the facilities for drinking in our four principal cities, and drastically to curtail facilities for drinking in rural Ireland. It is simply another exhibition of the mentality of the ruling classes in this country. I think it has always been the philosophy of the ruling classes in every country, when they want to show the world how superior they are morally and intellectually, to set about reforming the lower classes. They never set about reforming themselves. Thus we have the city mentality seeking to reform the benighted rural community, while at the same time extending facilities for drinking for themselves. I hold that there is no justification whatever for extension of the opening hours for drinking in the city on Sundays, having regard particularly to the fact that, in the rural areas, the public houses are not allowed to open their doors at all on Sundays. This is a small country, and you cannot have that far-reaching measure of inequality between the city and the country. It seems to me that if you are to continue the practice of opening public houses on Sundays in the cities you will inevitably, sooner or later, be forced to extend that amenity to the country. The question arises: if those opening hours in the city are extended, the inevitable result will be that you must give those extended hours to the country. I hold definitely that no case has been made by the Minister — I think he did not attempt to make any very substantial case— for extending the hours for drinking on Sundays in the city. I think that three hours are quite sufficient for anybody to get all the drink he requires. We have heard statements advanced here in regard to the race between the clock and the throat. I think it is a very useful kind of race. It often saves a man from having to be carried home —the fact that the clock has curtailed his bout of drinking. In my opinion three hours are quite sufficient. I think that an unanswerable case has been made for giving a similar concession to public houses in the country.

Now, it might be a popular line for a country Deputy to go on to emphasise this clash between the interests of the city and the interests of the country. I could develop it to a considerable extent if I were a professional politician, but I do not intend to do so. I think that in approaching a measure of this kind there is a bigger issued involved, one which no Deputy can afford to ignore and that is, the clash between right and wrong. In this, the national Parliament of the country, we have to consider not only the interests of the various sections in the country no matter how powerful or influential these sections may be, but also the best interests of the country — not only the people who are alive to-day but those who will inherit this country in the future. There is certainly a moral responsibility on our shoulders to see that the laws which we pass here, and which become part of the code of laws of the nation, are calculated to improve the lot of the people in general, to improve their conditions socially, morally and economically. We will be told that you cannot improve the condition of the people morally: that good laws cannot make good people, but it may be possible that bad laws may make bad people. Therefore we have to consider carefully whether, in passing legislation here, we are not permitting or encouraging habits which are demoralising. We have to consider carefully what the effect of this legislation will be upon the habits of our people.

This question of intoxicating liquor is a very delicate and contentious one for any Deputy to deal with. One fact, I think, clearly emerges, namely, that the consuming of intoxicating liquor in moderate quantities is no evil. Another fact upon which we will all agree is that excessive drinking is definitely an evil. Our legislation, therefore, should be calculated not to interfere in any way with the reasonable requirements of our people in the matter of taking intoxicating drink in moderate quantities. I think that everybody who is engaged in the licensing business, and everybody who has the best interests of the country at heart, will agree that any legislation which seeks to infringe unduly upon the ordinary man's right to take drink in moderation is unjust and unfair. It will also be agreed that any legislation which tends to promote or encourage drinking to excess is an evil.

On those guiding principles we can examine this Bill. We may ask how is excessive drinking, and other similar abuses in regard to drinking, to be checked or discouraged by legislation. I would say right away that the most serious check on excessive drinking which has occurred in this country to the knowledge of every one of us is the check which was imposed by the increased duties upon all kinds of intoxicating drink. There is no doubt whatever that drinking has declined to a considerable extent during the past 30 years, and that decline has coincided with the increase in the price of drink. We must, however, bear in mind the fact that the economic conditions of our people may improve with normal times, and with that improvement it may be possible for people, notwithstanding the high price of drink, to drink excessively in the future. We have the example, in fact, that here in the city area, where money is in greater circulation and where the standard of income is higher, drinking is more excessive than in remote rural areas. Therefore, it would seem that if, as we all hope, the economic conditions of the country improve, the check which has been imposed on drinking as a result of the high prices of all kinds of alcoholic liquors may not always be effective.

Now, it may be asked what are the other inducements to excessive drinking. I hold definitely that prolonged hours for drinking, and particularly late hours, do tend towards excessive drinking. Anyone who gives the matter a moment's consideration will realise that. Some people might suggest that since the one and only evil in connection with drink is excessive drinking, an easy solution of the whole matter is to have the public houses open at all hours and ration drink in the same way as, for example, tea is rationed at present. That might seem on the face of it to be a very easy way out of the difficulty, but let us consider for a moment what it would mean. It would mean that the Minister for Justice would have to go over to Ballsbridge and borrow a number of officials there who are skilled in this matter of rationing supplies. Then he would have to introduce a rationing system. First of all, he would be up against the difficulty that everybody does not indulge in intoxicating liquor, and, if coupons were issued to everybody, as in the case of clothing and food, the father of a family could pool the family coupons and have a very good time.

Mr. Cooney

Base it on the 1939 consumption.

Mr. Cogan

Therefore, the Minister would have to segregate the population into drink consumers and non-consumers. That would mean the issuing of drink consumers' licences, which I suppose would also have to be graded as between light drinkers, moderate drinkers and heavy drinkers. There would probably be three different forms of licence in three different colours, green for the novices, white for the moderates, and gold for the fully fledged "boozers". We can imagine then all the difficulties which would arise. It would also be necessary to have those coupons issued for each day of the year, to be cancelled at the end of each day, as you could not allow a consumer to use his week's coupons or his month's coupons all at once. This solution, therefore, would cause endless difficulties both for the Minister and for the trader.

Mr. Cooney

What has all this to do with the Bill?

There is another important aspect of the question which I think every Deputy completely overlooked. It is that there is no provision in the Bill, while it sets out to abolish the bona fide traffic, for compensation for those traders who are being deprived of such a large section of their trade. Surely any measure which sets out to restrict to such an extent a trade which has been legal and legitimate up to the present, which has the effect of lowering the capital value of licensed premises in many cases to less than 25 per cent. or 50 per cent. of their present value, should have embodied in it a clause making provision for adequate compensation? In this measure we are supposed to aim at raising the moral tone of the community. That is as far as it relates to the abolition of the bona fide traffic, but it does not make any provision for raising the moral tone of the community if we condone the confiscation of the means of livelihood of a very large and important section of the community. Take for example a young man who has invested all his money in a licensed house which by reason of its situation has a good bona fide trade. He may have invested £5,000 or £6,000 in that business. He finds as a result of an Act lightly passed through this House that his premises are reduced in value to perhaps £1,000. The savings of his lifetime are completely wiped out, and no provision is made for compensation. Surely a Parliament seeking to do justice to all sections of the community should make provision that where it is necessary, in the best interests of the community, to deprive a citizen of a very substantial portion of his means of livelihood, that citizen should be adequately compensated. It is because there is no provision for compensation in this Bill, because the step which is being taken is too drastic to take in the one measure, and because of the provision for the extension of the opening hours in the cities while no provision is made for similar opening hours in the country that I am opposed to this Bill.

Mr. P.J. Fogarty

I think it is a pity that the Minister had not the advantage of hearing the discussion he has listened to for the past few days before he decided to introduce this Bill. He would have learned more from the discussion between all members of this House than he has learned from the Commissioner of the Gárda and the civil servants who, I hold, are mainly responsible for the drafting of this Bill. The Minister in introducing the Bill gave very few reasons for it. Some of the reasons he mentioned were, the abuses connected with the bona fide traffic in licensed premises near the City of Dublin.

There are about 180 licensed premises in County Dublin, the constituency which I represent. The Minister did not give many particulars to the House regarding abuses, and I have no hesitation in saying that 95 or 96 per cent. of the publicans in the county conduct their houses in a proper way. The five or six houses where the bona fide law has been abused, and on which the Minister relies for the introduction of this Bill, could have been dealt with under existing legislation. The Minister has sufficient legislation at his disposal at the moment to deal with any abuses. The Department of Justice dealt with other abuses in the city and country very effectively—the Minister dealt with gangs at race meetings and football matches, and his action had very good results. We have not had many repetitions of the conduct which was experienced at race meetings and football matches for some years past. The Minister has the gangs safely locked up, and I hope he will keep them there. Decent people can attend matches and race meetings now without any danger of being assaulted, or of unseemly conduct occurring as heretofore.

If the Minister utilises the legislation he has at present he can deal effectively with the abuses. In how many houses in the area can the Minister state that the bona fide laws have been abused? Five or six? In only three cases, so far as I am aware, in the County Dublin have the Gárda thought it proper to oppose licences. The Minister could have introduced a Bill to deal with a matter of that kind. Three endorsements would have put those people out of existence. The Minister cannot contradict me when I say the abuses have been carried on by publicans with no experience in the licensed trade. The ordinary licensed trader in County Dublin and the adjoining counties, who has been engaged in this trade for years past, is ashamed of some of the tactics carried on by some newcomers. Why should the Minister inflict a Bill of this type on him because of the conduct of five or six publicans? I am speaking now on behalf of the majority of those licensed traders in County Dublin who are anxious to carry on their trade under proper conditions and in accordance with the Minister's regulations, and who would welcome any suggestions the Minister may put forward. If he suggests reasonable hours, the licensed trade are prepared to meet him.

I have listened to many Deputies speaking on this Bill and very few of them seem to have met it 100 per cent. They have expressed the views of the different constituencies. I have been looking up statistics since the Minister moved the Second Reading and I find that, in 1900, 92,000 people were prosecuted for drunkenness in this country. In the year 1941, as certified by the commissioner, there were 2,200 convicted of being drunk.

Mr. Browne

The rest had no money.

Dr. Hannigan

Was the Deputy one of them?

Mr. P.J. Fogarty

That is another question—probably he was not. Anyway, I must have said something that touched on Deputy Hannigan's corns or he would not be intervening. In order to justify this Bill, the Minister has relied on the abuses in County Dublin, where there are 84,000 people over the age of 21, that is, on the electoral list. During 1941 there were 150 people convicted of being drunk out of the 84,000. Considering that there is a city convenient with 500,000 people in it, 150 cannot justify the Minister in regard to abuses.

As far as the licensed trade is concerned in County Dublin, this Bill means practically confiscation of property; and in the adjoining counties it means a reduction by 50 per cent. of the value of the property. The Minister should view the matter from that aspect, and not from the point of view of the opening of public houses, and should try to remedy the evils he refers to. If he examines the statistics prepared for him by the Gárda Síochána, he will find that these abuses to which he refers occurred at two, three or four o'clock in the morning. This Bill has good points and, if amended, it could be an admirable one. The Minister should at least allow the bona fide traffic until 12 midnight and close the public houses then from one end of the country to another until 5 or 6 o'clock in the morning. That would go a great deal of the road to check the abuses to which he refers.

He and several other Deputies referred to the fact that the abuses took place within ten or 12 miles of Dublin, but no one has referred to the fact that you can go into any theatre in Dublin and have a drink in comfort for half an hour after the curtain falls, which is generally at 11.30 p.m. It is after that hour that people with plenty of money engage taxis and go out of the city to enjoy themselves until 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning. That is where the abuses come in, and that is what the Minister should consider. There is no mention in this Bill of clubs or hotels. I hold—and several other speakers, I am glad to say, have referred to this also—that there is no disgrace in having a pint. The ordinary working-man is entitled to his pint. He is just as much entitled to have a pint as the fellow with plus fours is to have his Scotch and soda.

If the Minister will only examine these licensing laws properly, he will have plenty of food for thought. Let me take some of the days during the year, say Christmas Day and Good Friday and some other days when the licensed houses are closed. An unfortunate working-man, having worked all through the week, finds he cannot have a pint, but if I have a set of golf clubs I can get a Scotch and soda on the club premises. The working-man, with his 8d. in his hand, will not be able to get his drink, but the clubs can supply drink to their members. I wonder did the Minister ever look at it from that point of view? The Minister is afraid that on St. Patrick's Day some of our people may drown the shamrock. I am very great with clergymen, and I have a number of relations who are clergymen, and I will say there is not a parish priest's table or a curate's table on which there is not a bottle of malt or a bottle of port on St. Patrick's Day.

I want to point to the defects in this Bill and to bring home to the Minister how the ordinary working-man, the farm labourer in Kildare, Dublin, or Meath, is situated in this matter of getting a drink. These poor men can see the cars going by on St. Patrick's Day; they can see the flash cars going by, containing Ministers of State, doctors, Deputies and others who can afford to run such cars. The working-man can see those people going to Baldoyle races, where they can drink at their leisure. The unfortunate working class cannot afford to go to a race-meeting and cannot have a drink because the Minister is afraid they will drown the shamrock and create scenes that would be unworthy of St. Patrick's Day. Well-to-do people may go where they like and drink what they like. They can go to Balydoyle race-meeting on St. Patrick's Day and to the Theatre Royal that night. These are matters which the Minister should consider.

I do not agree that the licensed houses around should be open all hours of the morning. I think they should be granted permission to open during reasonable hours and I suggest, as a reasonable period, up to 12 o'clock.

Mr. Davin

What about the other parts of the country?

Mr. P.J. Fogarty

If Deputy Davin puts up a case for later opening in other parts of the country, I shall not fall out with him. I am putting up a case for my constituency. I believe that legislation of this kind operates unfairly against one class, and that is the working class, the people who would like a pint. It operates against the type of man who likes to go into a public house—which is really the working-man's club — and have a drink with his friends and a chat. The working-man cannot afford to pay three guineas to become a member of a golf club; he cannot afford to go into hotels. After a hard day's work he likes to visit the local public house, have a drink and a chat, and possibly a game of rings or darts. The working-man is entitled to that, and I think the Minister would do a good day's work if he facilitated that type of man.

The Minister should remember that we are far removed from the days when Father Mathew started his campaign. There is no such thing now as trailing your coat along the street on a fair day. Those days are gone and the ordinary public house is now regarded as the working-man's club. Take this Bill in its application to Sunday trading. Is it not farcical that a man from one village should have to walk three miles to some other village for a drink, possibly meeting his pal from that other village walking in the opposite direction with the same object in view? I guarantee to the Minister that if the local publicans were allowed to open there would be less drinking on Sundays. A man would come out after Mass, have a drink in the local public house, a chat with his friends, and then he would go home to his dinner; but if he has to travel three miles for a drink he will remain in the public house until closing time. If facilities are offered to him near his own home he will have a drink or two and go home to dinner and I guarantee there will be little abuse.

I heard arguments put forward from different sides of the House that there should not be any opening of public houses on Sundays and holidays because you will have people rushing out from Mass to the public house. What about the ordinary Church holidays when the public houses are open from 10 a.m. until 10 p.m.? On those days I have not seen, and no Deputy here has seen, any great rush out of Mass in order to visit the local public house.

I have never seen any more people in a public house on a Catholic holiday than on an ordinary week-day. The Minister cannot produce any evidence to show that on a Catholic holiday in the country, when farm labourers have a day off, there has been any abuse. That is one good argument why there should be an opening of local public houses and not have the farce of compelling a man to walk from one town or village to another in order to get a drink. That generally results in a man remaining to drink all through the day, whereas if the local public houses were allowed to open he would have a drink or two and go home. If the Dublin man is entitled to have a drink in Dublin. I maintain that the Mullingar man should be entitled to have a drink in Mullingar.

Some objections were raised with regard to the special licensing of aerodromes and aeroplanes. I believe aerodromes are entitled to a special licence. I have had some experience of travelling by air and, in the course of the next ten or 20 years, when a big number of us will not be in this House, air travel will be the principal form of travelling. Anyone who has travelled by air on the Continent is aware that in the air liners there you can be served with drink. Since the air service between Limerick and Dublin was established I availed of it and I found, when I arrived at Collinstown, I could not get a drink because there was no bar there. When I reached Rineanna I could not get a drink there either, and I had to travel 14 miles to Limerick before I could get a drink. The aircraft on that service are not designed for that purpose. I had an unfortunate experience on one occasion, and perhaps if it were possible to have a drink served on the aeroplane, as is done in the case of continental air liners, that incident would not have occurred. When we were travelling by air one of the passengers went a little bit out of his mind.

Mr. Linehan

For want of a drink?

Mr. P.J. Fogarty

Perhaps if there were the facilities that they have on continental aircraft, where one can have a chat and a drink and move about freely, that might not have occurred. If some of you people had been there at the time, you might not have smiled, particularly in one of the small aircraft which carry only nine or ten people. There is no reasonable Deputy, and no association, can object to a licence at Rineanna, Foynes or Collinstown airports. They talk about the Minister getting discretion to grant these licences and speak of bona fide traffic in respect of people who fly 50 miles, but so far as I know no one flies a distance of 50 miles. The least distance I know of is not under 100 miles, between Limerick and Collinstown.

I hope the Minister realises that this Bill will affect 11,000 licensed premises in Éire and that for the abuses which have taken place in four or five public houses in County Dublin, he is going to penalise all the licensed houses throughout the country. He has sufficient machinery at his disposal at present to deal with such abuses, and let him deal with them, as he dealt with the race and football gangs, and let him allow the honest, decent publican in County Dublin and every other county who has been in business for years, and his father before him, to carry on his trade. They are all willing and anxious to give the Minister every assistance they can. I hope the Minister will agree to extend the bona fide hours until 12 o'clock and to allow some opening on Sundays in country districts.

Does the Minister realise that none of these golf clubs contributes anything in the way of revenue to the State? They have not to pay a licence duty equal to that paid by the publican, and that is a matter which should be considered by the Minister for Justice and by the Minister for Finance from the revenue point of view. They should not be given any special facilities as against the licensed trade. The Minister's object in introducing the Bill is to curb abuses, and I believe that, if it is amended, he will be able to bring forward a measure which will be acceptable both to the general public —the consumer, as he might be called — and to the licensed trade and that he will then succeed in his object of cutting out these abuses.

I know what the Minister has in mind. He has a good deal of information about the ladies who go out at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning for their "gins and limes", and "gins and its", but the Minister can cut that trade out without doing any harm to the licensed trade which, I believe, would welcome it, and without doing any harm to the ordinary working-man and the ordinary business man. I believe that if the Minister, as I am sure he will, accepts reasonable amendments to the Bill before it passes, he will be meeting the wishes of the majority of the people.

Portion of the existing licensing laws which have been in operation for a long period are, in my opinion, based on old-fashioned ideas which were quite applicable to the days of the stage coach. There is in sections of the existing licensing laws a definite preference in respect of drinking facilities for one class of the community as against another. The people in the cities are given all the facilities they need, within reason, for drinking as against people in rural areas. The people who are members of clubs and who have money enough to enable them to frequent hotels have facilities much in excess, if they care to make use of them, of those available to people who frequent public houses. People who require a licence to carry on dances in hotels have facilities over those who may apply for a licence for a dance in a parochial hall.

I put that to the Minister because he is a democratically-minded citizen, apart from being broadminded as a Minister, and if there is to be an alteration in the existing licensing laws, these points should be taken into consideration, and the laws amended accordingly. If the Minister and the Commissioner of the Gárda are to get co-operation, as they should, in the effective administration of the licensing laws, one of the things which will appeal to the average citizen is that there should be an equal opportunity for every citizen, regardless of class, to get any facilities of this kind which he needs within reason. That is not the position under existing legislation. Under this Bill, no attempt has been made to remove these inequalities. Additional facilities are to be given in the county boroughs under the terms of the Bill, but there is to be restriction of the existing facilities in the rural areas. I doubt if that appeals to the Minister as an individual, but I daresay his advisers have given him some good reasons which he has not conveyed to the House in justification of the continuance of out-of-date licensing legislation.

I stated here during the discussion on the 1927 Bill that I was in favour of a general opening for reasonable periods on Sundays. I repeat that statement, even though it may bring upon my head the same kind of criticism that I received at that period from people in high places. I cannot understand, as one who knows a fair share of what goes on in the rural parts of the country and especially in my own constituency, how any temperance advocate or reasonably broadminded man can justify the exchange of populations on Sundays for the purpose of enabling those who want a drink to get it. I believe in giving liberty to the workman, and every other man, to get a drink on Sunday wherever he gets it on other days of the week. If these facilities were given, there would be less drunkenness and there would be a smaller number of accidents. I appeal to the Minister to give that suggestion favourable consideration and, if it is possible within the framework of the Bill, to give the suggestion effect on Committee Stage. If there were a general opening on Sundays for a reasonable number of hours, not cutting across church-going hours, there would be far more effective administration of the licensing laws by the Gárda. Whenever a man was found on licensed premises outside these hours, there would be a clear case against the licensed trader and the person who ignored the law.

Over a period of 30 years I have attended, as many other Deputies have done, most of the G.A.A. matches in provincial towns. In Thurles, Kilkenny, Portlaoighise, Wexford and other towns where important matches are held on Sundays, there is a general opening. Will anybody here say that in Thurles or any other provincial town, where tens of thousands of people congregate for these matches, unfair advantage is taken of the general opening which is allowed at the discretion of the district justice? I have never seen many people drunk on occasions of that kind. That is part of the case I make for the general opening of public houses on Sundays for a short period.

Mr. Cooney

Dublin never had the privilege to which the Deputy referred yet.

Mr. Davin

I am prepared to agree to its extension to Dublin. Under the Bill, the concession is being given to those who come to the city for the purpose of attending G.A.A. matches. So far, I have not heard a good case for the double opening period in Dublin. Although I am not a temperance advocate or a teetotaler, I do not see the necessity for a double opening period on Sunday, nor do I see the advantage of having an opening between 1 o'clock and 2 o'clock. That is a matter for the majority of the members to decide on Committee Stage. I shall willingly accept whatever the majority of the Deputies representing the areas affected decide to do. Under the Bill reasonable opening hours will be allowed which were not allowed in the city up to now, but which were permitted in Thurles and other provincial towns where big G.A.A. matches took place. The question of hours is one for the Committee Stage. I advise the Minister to adopt the procedure adopted in connection with the 1927 Act and to refer the Committee Stage of this Bill to a Select Committee to be appointed by the Committee of Selection. This is a Bill of the type which could be more usefully dealt with by a Select Committee than by a Committee of the whole House.

I appeal to members of the Fianna Fáil Party and to Deputies on all sides to try to persuade the Minister to have the Committee Stage of this Bill referred to a Select Committee. The Minister would be present there to advance arguments in favour of his proposals and to listen to other arguments which might be brought forward. That can be done more effectively in Select Committee than it can be done in Committee of the whole House.

I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 9.30 p.m. until Friday, 16th October, at 10.30 a.m.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 15 Oct 1942