Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 9 Dec 1942

Vol. 89 No. 1

In Committee. - Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1942—Report and Final Stages.

Mr. Boland

I move amendment No. 1:—

In page 7, Section 21 (1), to delete all from the word "consequence" in line 55 to the end of the subsection in line 60, and substitute the words "its absolute discretion prohibits the issuing of such licence either on the ground of the unfitness or inconvenience of the new premises or on the ground that the existence of a licence in respect of the new premises would be unreasonably detrimental to the business then carried on in some licensed premises in the neighbourhood of the new premises."

During the Committee Stage I promised to introduce an amendment on these lines. Fears were expressed during the debate that, under the section as it stands, transfers might be granted which would interfere with the interests of other licence holders. The purpose of the amendment is to empower the Circuit Court judge to refuse a transfer in any case where he is satisfied that the transfer would be unreasonably detrimental to the business of some licensed premises in the neighbourhood of the new premises.

Mr. Linehan

That is quite so.

Mr. Boland

I think that is what we agreed.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Boland

I move amendment No. 2:—

In page 13, before Section 31, to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) A person who is at the one time the holder of a beerhouse licence and the holder of a publican's licence shall, if the premises to which the said licences are respectively attached are situate in the same district or adjoining districts, be entitled, on application at any sitting of the justice of the District Court in whose district are situate the premises to which the beerhouse licence is attached, to have the publican's licence transferred to the premises to which the beerhouse licence is attached, but subject to the condition that, on such transfer being made, the beerhouse licence shall not be renewed and the premises to which the publican's licence was attached before such transfer shall, for the purposes of the Licensing (Ireland) Act, 1902, be deemed never to have been licensed.

(2) In this section, the expressions "publican's licence" and "beerhouse licence" have the meanings given to them respectively by Section 52 of the Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910, for the purposes of Part II of that Act, and the word "district" means a district of the District Court prescribed under Section 68 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924 (No. 10 of 1924).

This is also an amendment that I promised to bring in on Committee Stage. It is to enable the holder of a beerhouse licence who has bought a full publican's licence to transfer that licence to the beerhouse. It appears that the holder of a six-day beerhouse licence can at present do this, but the holder of a seven-day licence cannot. The effect of the amendment will be to put the holder of a seven-day beerhouse licence on the same footing as the holder of a six-day beerhouse licence.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed: "That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration."

Mr. Boland

Before you put that motion, I may say I did promise towards the end of the debate on the last evening to bring in an amendment dealing with residents in hotels. I thought it would be possible for me to bring in a satisfactory amendment but, on examination, I found I could not do it. I wrote to the three Deputies who had spoken on the matter, explaining that I could not do it, and I gave them an opportunity to table an amendment. I see they have not done so. I feel I should make my position right with the House.

Mr. Linehan

I was very grateful to the Minister for going to the trouble of writing to me but, unfortunately, owing to the present state of the post, I did not get the letter until Monday morning. Anyhow, if we have anything to put forward about that amendment, we can get somebody to put it down for the Seanad. There would be no question of asking for a delay now in connection with it.

Mr. Boland

I just wanted to make my own position clear.

Mr. Norton

Are we taking the Fifth Stage now, Sir?

Mr. Boland

If the House will agree, I would like to take it now. We have had practically two Committee Stages.

Mr. Norton

Does it matter if it is held over until to-morrow?

Mr. Boland

I do not mind, if there is any point in it.

Mr. Norton

If the Minister wants it to-day——

Mr. Boland

I have no particular reason. The only thing is that if the Seanad meets to-morrow, there will be a debate I am expected to attend. I do not mind very much.

Mr. Norton

The Minister can have it now.

Question put and agreed to.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Mr. Cooney

I merely wish to ask the Minister is he satisfied in his own mind in respect of the County Borough of Dublin? He has gone away from his original proposal of the 1 o'clock opening in the County Borough of Dublin and has given it to the other three county boroughs. Is he quite happy about that? I hope, before this Bill passes through the other House, the good sense of the Senators will bring the County Borough of Dublin into line with the other three boroughs.

Mr. Linehan

In regard to the original Bill and its passage through the House, as far as I and others associated with me were concerned with amendments, we have nothing to complain about. On one or two minor details the Minister disagreed, and even if he did disagree, he met us very well indeed. The only matter of regret outstanding is that the Minister was so strong on the one small item, that is, the question of the Sunday opening. It is the one thing that we broke completely on.

I am personally of the opinion that, as far as the rural areas are concerned, the extra half hour on five nights a week, and the extra hour on Saturday nights, will certainly make a great difference to the trade and to the ordinary people in the country. I think that sooner or later some Minister for Justice in this House will have to face the Sunday position in the country as well as in the cities. I regret very much that the Minister did not do it, because this Bill, in its original form, was quite a different Bill from the one that is now about to leave the House. The Minister may have felt that he was slipping away from the standard that he had set himself in the Bill as originally drafted. I think that every slip he made was a definite improvement.

Mr. Cooney

Except as regards the borough of Dublin on Sundays.

Mr. Linehan

I am speaking of the rural areas. As I have said, I think that every slip he made was a definite improvement. I have the feeling that if this job is ever going to be done properly, if you are ever going to put on the Statute Book a Licensing Act that will command the confidence of everybody—those administering the law, the people in the trade and the consumers—you will have to treat the entire country as a unit, and bring the hours in the rural areas into line with those for the city areas. I think that the minor amendments that have been made in the Bill do represent an advance and will lead to better trade. The Minister was possibly unwise in not going a bit farther. One of the things that convinces me of that is the position in regard to Sundays. Even though that question was debated on a number of occasions in this House we had nothing like the violent opposition from the powers that be outside that one would have expected. When we first put down some amendments relating to an extension of hours on week nights and on Sundays, I was very much amazed that we were not deluged with protests from people outside against those proposals, but for some reason or another we were not.

Mr. Boland

Because I stuck to my guns.

Mr. Linehan

I admit, in regard to some of the amendments that we put down, that I possibly expected the Minister would be firmer. In view of the original form of the Bill, I did not expect that he would give way on the extra hours of opening. I do not think there was the great objection to Sunday opening that people expected. One of the things that frightened me about that situation—I want to be quite honest in giving my own viewpoint about it—was this, that I would have been much more strongly in favour of Sunday opening were it not for the fact which Deputy Allen mentioned, namely, the matter of mixed trading. If we had in this country the public house business completely separated from any other trade carried on in the premises, I feel that I could have made a much stronger case for Sunday opening. But the position that we have as regards mixed trading was certainly one good argument against Sunday opening. As far as the minor amendments that I and other Deputies were concerned with, we are perfectly satisfied. There is just this one exception which the Minister himself has mentioned. I had expected that some of the other Deputies who live nearer to Dublin than I do would have done something about that matter. As I have already explained, there would be no point in my trying to do anything on Monday.

Mr. Cogan

I am opposed to the passing of this Bill. I think that, in many ways, it is one of the most contemptible and humiliating pieces of legislation that has ever been put through this House, and that at a time when the country is facing the danger of economic collapse, when, as it were, we are standing on the brink of a world volcano. At this moment, this nation of ours is the only one that is immune from actual hostilities. In view of that, I think it is disgraceful that for weeks this House should have been engaged debating a measure which concerns only a limited number of very wealthy and influential people with vested interests. One may ask, who wants this measure as it is before us to-day? The licensed trade as a body do not want it, the employees in that trade do not want it, the people who stand for temperance and for reform in the matter of drinking do not want it, and the most important section of all, our old friends the drinking public, they are not worrying about it, and have made no demand for it.

Mr. Linehan

All the sections of the people that the Deputy has referred to must be very badly represented in this House.

Mr. Cogan

As far as I can see, nobody wants it except the particular firm or individual who is having his licence re-established. In regard to an amendment which I put down, Deputy Linehan raised a constitutional question. This is a free country in which all the citizens are supposed to be equal. If a plain citizen down the country, the owner of a wayside business house whose licence had been allowed to lapse, were to apply for permission to have his licence restored, does anybody think that a Bill would be drafted and put through the Dáil to benefit him? I want to know why there should be one law for plain Dan Murphy down the country and another law for Denis Guiney in this city. That does not seem to be in accordance with the Constitution of this country. Again, there has never been any public demand for an extension of the hours of opening at night in this city. An additional half-hour has been added. Nobody in the city has demanded it. A very good case was put up for an extension of the hours of opening in the rural areas in the summer time, but no suggestion was ever made that there should be this additional half-hour to the opening hours in the city. There, again, a small section of the Dublin trade will benefit from that, a section in the centre of the city which caters for people attending cinemas and theatres. The Bill, in that respect, will simply be catering for a small but wealthy and influential section, while adding to the inconvenience of the average city publican as well as putting additional work and inflicting hardship on the employees in licensed houses.

As originally introduced, the Bill had one outstanding feature. It set out to abolish completely the bona fide trade. On the Second Reading, I said that I believed there was no sincerity behind that proposal, and that the Bill would either be hung up until after the general election or be drastically amended. I was right. The Bill has been drastically amended. The bona fide trade has been preserved to all intents and purposes insomuch as it preserves up to 12 o'clock midnight and from 6 a.m. the opening hours in the country. Why, I may ask, was this sweeping and drastic change put into the Bill? I can only suggest that it was done to attract the attention of the licensed trade and of other interested parties to the Fianna Fáil Party for election purposes.

My forecast has been confirmed. I said the Bill would be drastically amended, and it has been. I knew perfectly well that whatever the Minister's intentions might have been —and I do not accuse the Minister of being insincere—the Fianna Fáil Party, as a Party, had no intention of putting that section of the Bill into operation. The Minister stated at various times that he was on a slippery slope and that he was forced to give way on a considerable number of points. I think the Minister slipped on so many occasions in connection with this Bill that he would have been well advised to have shaken a little sawdust under his feet before he introduced it. He would be now well advised, having made so many changes in the Bill as he originally introduced it, to withdraw it and draft something in the nature of a real reform. It is undesirable that changes in the licensing laws should be introduced at frequent intervals.

Since there is need, as the Minister pointed out, for real reform, it is altogether undesirable to have legislation put through this House which does not touch the main evils which exist in regard to the sale of intoxicating liquor. Therefore, I ask the Minister to withdraw the Bill. If he does not feel he would be prepared to face the task of drafting a new measure, he should set up a tribunal to consider the licensing laws and the sale of liquor with all its implications and on the tribunal's report he could base more satisfactory legislation. In addition to that, he could, in the proposed legislation, provide for a codification of the laws in regard to the sale of intoxicating liquor so that every person will know where he stands. Perhaps the legal profession might not welcome that change, but I think most people will agree that there is need for a codification of the laws.

The Minister might say that the licensing laws, as they stand, are quite all right, and there is no need for reform. I do not think that view is shared by any considerable section in this House. We, as the representatives of a Christian country, are compelled to face this question with a sense of responsibility. Every responsible person realises that there are evils in connection with the sale and consumption of intoxicating liquor, evils which ought to be remedied. The main evils which require remedy fall under three headings. You have, first of all, the fact that there is far too much drinking. Secondly, there is an alarming increase in the consumption of drink by young women. Thirdly, there is the fact that the licensing laws are not being enforced effectively and impartially.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is obviously making a Second Reading speech.

Mr. Cogan

I may be, in a sense.

An Ceann Comhairle

In the plainest sense of the word.

Mr. Cogan

This Bill, as it reaches us on the Fifth Stage, bears no comparison, or at least very little comparison, with the Bill which was introduced.

An Ceann Comhairle

The question for consideration is that the Bill, as it stands, do now pass. The Deputy should realise that, and regulate his speech accordingly.

Mr. Cogan

There have been some very slight improvements and many disimprovements in this Bill. The Minister justified the introduction of this Bill with the plea that there was a new trade growing up, a very undesirable trade, the consumption of intoxicating liquor by women. He justified this Bill on that ground, but, as the Bill now stands, there is no provision which would bring about a check on that evil. One check which was suggested was the abolition of the bona fide trade after 10 p.m. That has gone by the board inasmuch as licensed houses may remain open until 12 midnight. I suggested that the Bill should have included some provision which would deal with the growing evil of the sale of drink to women.

An Ceann Comhairle

If the Chair refused to accept an amendment on the Committee Stage, it cannot be debated now.

Mr. Cogan

I have no intention even of suggesting that this particular amendment should be debated.

An Ceann Comhairle

I was under the illusion that the Deputy was adroitly referring to it.

Mr. Cogan

I am referring to the fact that the Bill contains no provision for a check on that particular trade. As the law stands, there is an age limit below which drink may not be consumed by women on licensed premises. I understand that age limit is 18 years. Commonsense would indicate that that age limit ought to have been raised. Eighteen years is altogether too early an age, so far as women are concerned.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should not debate the amendment, and he is obviously doing it—I trust not deliberately.

Mr. Cogan

Certainly not deliberately. I think, as the Bill stands, it does not conform with the point the Minister made when introducing it, namely, that it would check the consumption of drink by women. It makes no provision whatsoever in that connection. For that reason I think the Minister, having failed to justify the plea he put forward when introducing the Bill, has no alternative but to withdraw it. He expressed himself as pained and grieved by reason of the undesirable traffic that was growing up within a certain radius of the city. What attempt has he made to check that traffic? It is possible now for any person residing in the city to travel to an area within a certain radius and drink until 12 midnight. In addition, there is a new evil introduced through the extension of the opening hours in the city. People who formerly might travel outside the city to get the benefit of the extended hours can now get an additional half hour's drinking in the centre of the city, and this additional half hour will fit in with the closing of the cinemas, theatres and other places of amusement, thus creating an undesirable traffic which, I am sure, the Minister would not wish to see created.

I cannot understand why the Minister decided to grant these additional facilities in view of the emergency through which we are passing. This is not the time for granting additional facilities to special luxury trades; this is not a time for granting special facilities to the airport and to people travelling by air. Nobody wants them. The number of people affected is very few and the general public are not interested. Here we have this Bill which, while causing annoyance and difficulty to a large section of the licensing trade, confers a very great financial and trading benefit upon a comparatively few wealthy people in the centre of the city and on people travelling by the air line. Is that not in itself sufficient condemnation of the Bill?

I am certain that the Minister, when introducing the Bill, did not intend that it should drift along the lines it has drifted. I am certain he had some serious intention of reform in regard to the liquor laws, but the Bill, as introduced, was insufficiently considered and had very obvious faults. In trying to eliminate these faults the Minister has succeeded in benefiting nobody, except, as I say, the few people in the centre of the city who will benefit by the extended hours of opening and the firm to which I have referred. If the Minister cannot think up a better Bill than this, he ought to appoint a tribunal——

An Ceann Comhairle

That is quite irrelevant to the Fifth Stage, on which the Deputy should confine himself to the Bill. Proposals for alternative methods should be, and were, made on the Second Stage.

Mr. Cogan

The case I am making for the withdrawal of this Bill is that it does not reform the present liquor laws. It does not provide any check on excessive drinking. Obviously we are all agreed that moderate drinking is quite in order and is no evil in itself, but excessive drinking is certainly an evil, on which this Bill provides no check. An obvious check would be an increase in the penalty for drunkards, and, in addition to that, a tightening of the law is urgently needed, with more impartiality and efficiency in its enforcement. The Minister has made no provision for the removal of the outstanding evils which he knows exist in connection with drinking. He has made no provision for the better enforcement of the law as it exists, and since he has apparently handed over the carrying through of the Bill here to Deputies Cooney and Fogarty and has failed to direct the Bill along any coherent or reasonable lines, I think the only thing he should do, if he values his own self-respect, is to lose his temper now and tear up the Bill.

Mr. Boland

Is there not some rule in the Standing Orders which prohibits a Deputy repeating himself about a dozen times? I thought there was.

Mr. Linehan

The statement was made by Deputy Cogan that the Minister had given way to the Fianna Fáil Party in respect of certain amendments dealing with the bona fide trade. The Minister has treated me fairly and I should like to treat him fairly. So far as I recollect, on the Committee and Report Stages of the Bill, any amendments to which the Minister gave way came from the Opposition Benches, and the only amendments which the Minister definitely refused were those put forward by Deputy Cooney relating to hours in Dublin.

Mr. Byrne

The Minister has had a difficult task and he has certainly made one great improvement, that is, compelling certain public houses to close for some time during the night, thus doing away completely with that night trading. He has to be congratulated on that. I rise to enter my protest against, and to ask to be recorded as dissenting from, the increased opening period on Sunday in the City of Dublin. I think it a retrograde step to alter the existing hours of opening on Sunday which were quite sufficient for any man to get what he wanted in decency. The alteration of the hours to the periods from 2 to 3 o'clock and 4 to 7 o'clock affects the whole life of the working man who went home on Sunday evening, having left the licensed house at 5 o'clock, and enjoyed his cup of tea with his family. It spoils completely the evening of the licensed trader who wants to close down his establishment at 5 o'clock and, in summer, go out to the seaside or the hills. It destroys also the assistants' evening, and it is not fair to the assistants after their great struggle for many years for the hours which are now being altered. I remember in my young days being a member of the committee which fought for the 2 to 5 o'clock opening when the opening hours were 2 to 7 o'clock. We thought we had won a great victory when the closing hour was fixed at 5 o'clock. Now, we are putting the assistants in the same position as that in which they were in those early days.

Mr. Cooney

How many hours did they work in those days?

Mr. Byrne

I am not talking about that. I am talking of the grocer's assistant, as he was then known, and the battle put up by the local committee, of which I was a member, to get the closing hour altered from 7 o'clock to 5 o'clock. We are now breaking that down and compelling an assistant to stay in until 7 o'clock. By the time be cleans up, it will be 7.30. You are now spoiling his evening—whether he wants to go to church, to the theatre, or out to the Phoenix Park on a summer evening for hurling or football— by making him remain until 7 o'clock, with an extra 20 minutes or so for cleaning up, with the result that it will be too late for him to go to the seaside or the Phoenix Park, and almost too late for him to go to the cinema.

That is the only thing I see wrong in the Bill. There are many other wrong features in the Bill according to other Deputies, but I say that the interference with the assistants' hours on Sunday is a retrograde step, and, if it is not too late, I appeal to the Minister, in the interests of these hard-working young men behind the counter who want to have their evening out, to close the houses at 5 o'clock on Sunday —a right which was won for them 25 years ago.

Mr. Belton

I had not intended saying anything on the Final Stage of this Bill, or, indeed, on any stage of the Bill, for many reasons, but I am afraid that I cannot agree with my friend Deputy Cogan. I think it was considered in legal circles that the improvement of the licensing laws was long overdue, and the Minister for Justice took his courage in his hands when he set about improving those licensing laws. He was, and I think is, a teetotaller, and that fact was a good qualification for him to take up this matter, and I do not think he showed his prejudices, from the teetotaller's angle. I was a lifelong teetotaller until I was medically advised to have a little drop now and again.

Mr. Boland

I do not want to be misunderstood on that matter. I am not a teetotaller, and never was. I do not want to say anything more on the matter, but I never was a teetotaller.

Mr. Belton

At any rate, the Minister recognised the existing abuses, and set about remedying them. There was this matter of the extended hour or half hour to the city traders, which was a device of the Minister to help to cure an evil—to help to cure the evil of drinking by women in bona fide public houses—and he was adamant on the point that he wanted the period between city closing and bona fide closing to be short, so as to stop the rush from the city, when the last drink was got, to catch a bona fide house open. There was a good deal of reason in what the Minister did in that connection, and when the Minister set out to cure an evil—and, theoretically, at any rate, this is making, if not for a cure, at least for a minimising of the evil—it is not fair to accuse the Minister of granting more facilities for drink. It must be remembered that even if people do get drunk in public houses, the public houses are not there to set people drunk. The law governing public houses says that it is an offence to give drink to a man who is drunk or on the borderline of drunkenness. I do not know whether all the offences in that connection are punished or not, but it is not the Minister's fault or the fault of the law if, when an offence is committed, punishment is not meted out.

When I was a youngster—and I am sure Deputy Cogan knows this as well as I do—you started out at about 11 o'clock at night behind a batch of cattle to drive them along the roads so as to hit the fair or market at about seven o'clock in the morning. Now, many middle-aged and elderly people are engaged in that business, and those of them who are fond of a drink feel, when they pass a public house on the way, that they are entitled to a little refreshment, and surely it is not encouraging the sale of drink to leave in the licensing laws the right to open the public houses for such people at six o'clock in the morning. The Minister has amended the laws, so far as the bona fide question is concerned, by closing the public houses at 12, and I think that, generally, the licences have not much objection to that because, very often, the owners of such houses found themselves in a position that was neither of their making nor their choosing—a position that they did not want to be in. They did not want to turn people out and tell their customers that they were shutting up when the customers felt that, according to the law, these houses should be kept open. The idea of closing at 12 o'clock will settle that matter, and I think that unless it is the case of a really genuine traveller that is quite time for these houses to be closed.

In that connection perhaps I might be permitted to criticise something that is not in the Bill. The Minister had trouble in connection with the handling of offences in bona fide houses, and there was a difficulty in the matter of reform. I always thought that in connection with the infringement of the bona fide traffic laws the law was too harsh on one side and not harsh enough on the other. When a man comes up and says that he wants to get a drink outside prohibited hours, he is asked by the publican to say where he comes from, and he says that he comes from such-and-such a place. The publican does not really know where he is from, but he lets him in and, if the question should come up in court, and it is proved that the man did come from that place, then the publican is acquitted, but if it is not clearly proved, or if there is a doubt, the Justice convicts the publican and fines him £3 or £4, whereas the really responsible man, the man who told the lie, gets off with, perhaps, a fine of half a dollar. I think that the greater part of the responsibility should be placed on the customer and that the fines should be at least equal. The customer should be fined as much as the publican, because the customer knows whether he is a genuine traveller or not, but the publican does not know. There is a doubt there, and I think that if the Minister had enshrined that in the Bill it would make the work of the Civic Guards much easier. There is another omission in the Bill, it appears to me. If a man in Dublin can have a drink on a Sunday for four hours, why should not a man in the country also have a drink?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is now discussing matters that are not in the Bill. This is the Fifth Stage of the Bill, and all these matters should have been discussed on the earlier stages of the Bill.

Mr. Belton

I think it is a pity that they are not in. On the whole, I think the Bill is a sensible attempt to deal with the licensing trade. There were many curious features about the law as it stood. If a publican's premises were in a bad condition, and he had a site on which he could build proper premises beside it, with the best will in the world on the part of everybody concerned he could not construct good premises on a good site. This Bill enables that to be done. It enables public houses to be improved—a lot of them want improvement—and in that it shows a practical appreciation of what was required. I am surprised that a Deputy from Carlow, where they grow malting barley, should be so stern about barley juice being sold.

Mr. Cogan

In excessive quantities.

Mr. Belton

There is no law permitting the sale of barley juice in excessive quantities. The law is adamant against that. If it is sold and consumed in excessive quantities, that is not the Minister's fault. It is not the fault of the law.

Mr. Cogan

He is responsible for enforcing the law.

Mr. Belton

The Civic Guards are looking after that, and if they get the man who is responsible he will find that there is a place in which he must answer. I think the Deputy should get it out of his mind that the Minister has forged a weapon here to encourage excessive drinking. The position is quite the contrary. On the whole, I think the Bill has given substantial satisfaction. From inquiries I have made, and from my little personal interest in the matter, I will say that it is a fair and honest attempt to improve the licensing position. The Minister is to be congratulated on that honest attempt, and on having, I would say without hesitation, made the position better than he found it.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Boland)

That is about as much as I can say for the Bill; I think the position is somewhat better than I found it, but it is not as good as I would like to see it. I think the bona fide traffic, so called, has been a farce for a number of years. I gave way to a demand from all sides of the House, and I am puzzled to know what Deputy Cogan was talking about. Surely to goodness the voice of the people, if expressed anywhere, is expressed here, and I found on all sides of the House that my proposal was not acceptable. I hoped anyway, when I found that there must be some bona fide traffic, that they might have agreed to 11 o'clock. I was disappointed that that was not accepted. However, I am satisfied that the 12 o'clock closing makes the position very much better than it was before. From now on, there cannot be any doubt that a man commits an offence by being on a licensed premises during prohibited hours. In regard to the question of proving whether a man was a traveller or not, I may say that it simply could not be done. If a man said he was out for business or pleasure, it was almost impossible for any Guard or any publican to prove that he was not. That meant that when the public houses closed in one area, a man could simply go out and walk, or cycle, or motor the required three or five miles, as the case may be, and drink there for the round of the clock. That cannot happen now, and to that extent I am satisfied that the Bill effects a huge improvement.

I was asked by Deputy Cogan what demand there was for the Bill. There was no demand from the publicans, or, if there was, I did not bother about it. I did not bother about the publicans, and I did not bother about the assistants either. As was pointed out at some stage of the debate, this is a catering trade. We do not bother about busmen grumbling about being out until 12 o'clock, because the public must be given reasonable facilities, and in a catering trade you must have those, if you like, unsuitable hours for the workers. Those workers have a limited working week now anyway, and they need not work any longer. As far as that is concerned, there is nothing to grumble about. I agree that it is not nice to have to work until 7 o'clock in the evening on a Sunday, and if I could have got agreement to reduce the hours for bona fide trading I would have fixed the closing hour for county boroughs on Sundays at 5 o'clock. When that was not accepted I was determined to lower the gap between the closing in the city areas and in the country. That is why I insisted on 7 o'clock. With regard to the 1 o'clock to 2 o'clock arrangement, I tried to meet the county boroughs which wanted 1 o'clock. In Dublin, I think, on the whole I interpreted the wish of the Dáil on this matter. All I was determined on was to lower the gap as much as possible. I have done that.

I think I should say here that certain people who have been using the Press and sending resolutions to Deputies about what has been done, stating that extra facilities have been given for drinking, seem to have ignored the big fact that we can now most effectively deal with people drinking after midnight. That cannot happen any more. All those people were under the impression that we were giving extra facilities on St. Patrick's Day. What was really done there was practically nothing at all. It was also stated in the Irish Times that I was abolishing the greatest and most desirable reform which has been introduced into the licensing code by the late Minister for Justice—the split hour. There was no foundation whatever for that, but I found people who should have known better coming to me and protesting against it, or actually writing to me and saying that it was a shame to do any such thing. There is nothing whatever of that kind in the Bill.

I am saying this now in the hope that the papers may draw attention to the fact that that has not been done. I also want to take this opportunity of saying that, in my opinion—although I am not as well pleased with the Bill as I would have been if I had got the Bill I introduced—the Bill effects a definite improvement. The biggest improvement of all is that there will now be no difficulty in proving that a person who is caught in a public house after 12 o'clock, between the hours of 12 and 6, has committed an offence. With regard to the suggestion that the effects of the Bill are confined to Dublin, I intervened several times to say that it was not Dublin alone with which I was dealing. We all know what happens in country places. We know that where there is a dance in a village or small town, say, on a Sunday, as soon as midnight comes the public houses open and remain open all night, so the people leave the dance hall and remain drinking for hours. That cannot happen in future.

I will wind up by appealing to the district justices to take a very serious view of any breaches of the licensing law when this Bill is finally passed. Deputy Belton mentioned the matter of penalties, but, as the Deputy knows, that is not a question for the Minister; it is one for the district justices. It is for them to say what fine they will impose. They try the case, and it is not for me to tell them how they should handle it, but I do hope that they will deal very stringently indeed with anyone found on licensed premises during prohibited hours, and with publicans who allow people to drink on their premises during those hours. I do not think the Guards will have any excuse for not enforcing the law from this time onwards. Up to this, they had genuine difficulty in proving their case. Now there will not be any difficulty, so I think we may look forward to a proper enforcement of the licensing law, and I think the position will be much better than it was.

On the question raised by Deputy Linehan about Sunday opening, probably a Minister will come along, with more courage than I have, who will face up to it. I cannot explain why the discrimination was there between town and country. I found it there, but I did not think it was up to me to justify it. I found it working well. I only set out to deal with abuses. On the whole, I think the licensing laws were working well, except for the bona fide abuses. Therefore, I am well satisfied, on the whole, that if the Bill goes through the Seanad as it is now, the position in the licensed trade will be much better than it is at present.

Mr. Linehan

I hope the Minister will resist any attempts in the Seanad to whittle away the good work that has been done.

Mr. Boland

I was not very successful in resisting them here.

Question put and agreed to.