I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.
Private Deputies' Business - Intoxicating Liquor (Amendment) Bill, 1948—Second Stage.
There is a motion in the name of Deputy Lehane—No. 17 on the separate sheet. That motion can also be discussed on this Second Stage of the Intoxicating Liquor (Amendment) Bill.
In moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I would like to point out that I am merely endeavouring to legalise the present position in regard to the opening of public houses in the country on Sunday. Everybody knows that that law is practically in abeyance at present, to use a very common phrase in this Assembly. There are not, at the present time, many licensed vintners in the rural areas who do not break that law, and there are not many Gardaí prepared to enforce that law. I intend proving those statements by quoting what was said here from time to time by responsible Deputies, who are now members of the Government.
I base my case, in the first place, on this, that the Act as it stands is repugnant to the Constitution of this State, which sets out equal rights for all citizens. Secondly, I can see no justice in the way in which the rural community are penalised. These people should be given first consideration by the members of this House. Through the nature of their business, they have to work at certain times on Sundays. That section of our community is penalised and driven to a position where, if those who compose it want refreshments on a Sunday in the shape of intoxicating liquor, they have to walk three miles. I will compare them with the residents of the cities of Dublin, Cork or Waterford. The people there do not work on Sunday, yet they can walk across the road, into a licensed premises that is specially opened for them for at least four hours. Those people are also facilitated in clubs, which are open for practically the whole 24 hours. That is the condition of affairs that now exists.
In order to prove my statement that the law as it stands is held in contempt, and is not recognised, I will quote from a statement made by the present Minister for Defence, then Deputy O'Higgins. On the 4th November, 1942, he said:—
"I would like to see in operation here a set of licensing laws that would have the approval and support of the average citizen, and that would then be ruthlessly carried out by the officers in the service of the State. What is happening at present and what has happened in the past is this: If the police in town or village are to do their normal job efficiently as policemen, the job of preventing and detecting crime, they have to be on good terms with the public in their area. The commonsense of the Guards and of the ordinary citizens would regard it as unreasonable to have a person, who got into a licensed house on a Sunday and had one drink, taken into custody and brought before the Court. The Guards feel that. As well as the Guards, every reasonable person in that area would say: ‘Ah, could you not have let him in for a drink; what is the harm in a man having one drink?'
There is no use in talking about the law, since if that man lived in the city he could drink for three hours on a Sunday afternoon,"
—it is now four hours—
"and do that within the law. People are not fools. They could never see any just case for that differentiation between the country and the city. The view of the Guards, men of common-sense, coincided with that of the average man, and when they saw a man trying to get a drink on a Sunday, they just walked the other way.
If the Minister, by sticking to the present legal position, is under the impression that there is no drinking going on in the country or that there is no drinking going on all over the country on Sunday, then he does not know the country. Whether or not the Minister legislates to have an opening all over the country for two or three hours on Sunday will not affect, by one bottle of stout, the amount of drink that is consumed in the country on Sunday."
I shall not quote him any further, but that is the position as seen by Deputy O'Higgins, now the Minister for Defence, in 1942. I do not think that conditions have improved or have changed at all since, except perhaps in this respect, that you have now more licence in the city and more city people travelling out to the rural areas on Sundays.
With regard to the position of the Garda authorities in this matter, I will quote from the present Minister for Justice, General Seán MacEoin. Speaking in this House on 16th October, 1942—Volume 88, column 1442 —he said:—
"As regards Sunday opening, it is only reasonable that the same law should extend to the whole country. There should be some period on Sunday in which trading would be legalised in the country. Everybody knows that there is a certain amount of illegitimate trading in every village in which the publican resides on the premises. The only place where that does not occur is where the publican is non-resident and, when he closes down on Saturday night, does not open until 10 o'clock on Monday morning. The cases in which that happens are very few. This illegitimate trading is sometimes due to the fact that the farmer is busy up to the hour the premises are closed on Saturday evening— 9 o'clock, new time, which is only 7.30 sun time. The getting of the groceries is, in these circumstances, left over until Sunday morning. The parcels are then made up and may contain a bottle or a naggin of whiskey. This business is, of course, illegal. What you are really doing is forcing the Guard to walk the other way—to walk up the street when he should be walking down the street to enforce the law.
I heard a publican complain that a sergeant of the Garda was persecuting him—not prosecuting him. I know the sergeant to be a reliable, steady officer. I thought that it would be no harm, if I met him accidentally, to mention the complaint to him, which I did. He said: ‘Everybody knows that on Sunday I enforce the licensing law until 1 o'clock. While the bona fide traffic is on from 1 o'clock to 8 o'clock, I do not run into every pub to see who is in it because I know that Paddy and Johnnie, who have been working hard all the week, are getting a pint. I am not going to follow those people. When the dance hall opens at 8 o'clock and when a bunch of brats come, armed with poteen, take a few glasses, distribute the rest, and then go down to a pub and get a couple of pints to throw on top of it, which sets them mad—these people I will prosecute and persecute so far as lies in my power.’ I said: ‘Good luck to you’.”
That is the statement made in the House by the present Minister for Justice on the situation with regard to the Garda authorities throughout this country at the present day—that they have to walk the other way.
Why did you not vote for me on that occasion?
Why do you not vote for him now?
The Minister himself did not vote. That is the condition of affairs which prevails. I am only seeking in this Bill to give the same right to the ordinary rural resident as the city people enjoy at present. I say that the law is not recognised. That is generally understood and admitted here. The law is in abeyance; the law is held in contempt; and I am sure that this House does not wish to see any law held in contempt, because, if one law is held in contempt and flagrantly disobeyed, it will not be long until a few more laws are held in contempt. All I am seeking is to give the rural people the same rights as city people already have. I do not think that is asking too much or that there is anything wrong in it. I firmly believe the statement made here by the Minister for Defence, Dr. O'Higgins, that not one extra bottle of stout would be drunk if the public houses were thrown open in the rural areas on Sunday for a certain number of hours.
What happens? Take the ordinary rural resident whom I know, the ordinary chap in a country parish. He has no hall and he has no clubroom such as is available in Cork city, into which a man can go at 10 o'clock in the morning and drink until 1 o'clock; then go out to the "pub" for a change and remain there until 3 o'clock; go back to the club from 3 o'clock to 5 o'clock, and back again to the "pub" from 5 o'clock until 7 o'clock; and then become a bona fide traveller, and go out two or three miles to the rural “pub” to see what kind of stuff is there.
He must be a millionaire.
He must be a tank.
Under the present law, a man, if he wishes, can remain drinking in that club in Cork City until 9 o'clock on Sunday night and cannot be stopped. That is the situation with regard to the city man. Take the rural resident, the type of farmer we meet in the country who does not see his neighbours for the week, or the ordinary rural labourer who does not change into his Sunday suit until Saturday night or Sunday morning to go to Mass. He has to get up on Sunday morning and go out and milk and feed his cows.
With his Sunday suit on?
Would the magpie shut up? He has to milk and feed his cows while the city resident has the privilege of lying in bed. He generally goes to last Mass, and, if he wants to see his neighbour on business, after coming out from Mass, no matter how inclement the weather, whether it is raining, freezing or snowing, the only place available to him for the discussion of business with his neighbour is the side of the fence, because the hotel doors are closed and bolted against him, unless he breaks the law by going in there. That is the position, and I can defy contradiction of what I say in that regard. I know the amount of pressure and the amount of intimidation which has been used in relation to Deputies for the past few months since this Bill appeared on the Order Paper. I am not a drinking man, but I break that Act every Sunday of my life.
If I were the sergeant in the district, you would not.
I told the magpie to shut up, but he cannot.
Deputy Flanagan ought to allow Deputy Corry to proceed.
The Deputy is admitting that he breaks the law.
There are other people whose duty it is to deal with a man who breaks the law.
Deputy Flanagan is a good judge of moral law.
We will have no more discussion on that line; we will hear Deputy Corry on the Bill.
Deputy Corry is addressing the House and is entitled to a fair hearing. I do not wish to interrupt anybody, but I will not tolerate any interruptions of my speech. If I get them, I give them back, and, when I give them back, I get under the hide. Nobody can deny that that is the position, so far as the rural population are concerned—they have to break the law every Sunday and they break that law with the full consent, in 99 out of every 100 cases, of those whom we pay to enforce the law. If Deputies have any doubt on that point, they can read this good and efficient sergeant of the Minister for Justice.
I do not intend to go into the different arguments which have been used, or to deal with the circulars sent to every Deputy for the past six months. Deputies know their own constituencies and are able to make up their own minds, but I say that if the law, as it at present stands, were enforced, there would be such an outcry in this House that not one Deputy would dare stand up to oppose this Bill. There would be such a storm of indignation from every rural area that Deputies would be compelled to vote for it, whether they liked it or not. These are the grounds on which I brought in this measure, and on which I am appealing to the House for ordinary justice.
We are told that there will be more intemperance, more drinking. By whom? Is it by the old farmer who has his oats in the haggard and cannot sell it? Is it by the ordinary rural labourer on the very stingy amount, a half-crown, handed to him out of his wages by his wife on Saturday night who says: "Have a couple of drinks on Sunday, Mike"? He will drink that half-crown, no matter what laws are there. Therefore, the least he might expect is fair play and justice. I do not wish to be forced to remove the repugnancy of this Act to the Constitution in another way. I do not want to be forced to go into the Supreme Court on the case. If I am forced to, I will—there is no doubt about it. If there is any justice or sense of fair play left, surely those who represent the cities here and those Deputies representing the rural areas who know things are as I state, will give justice and fair play to the ordinary rural community now? That is all I am looking for and there is no need for me to make a long speech, as Deputies know the position as well as I do.
No Deputy rose.
In the absence of a seconder, I will have to declare——
I will second the Bill, formally, and reserve the right to speak later.
I move:—
To delete all words after the word "That" and substitute the following:—
"the Dáil refuses to give a Second Reading to the Intoxicating Liquor (Amendment) Bill, 1948, for the reason that its enactment would be contrary to the social and moral welfare of the people."
I rise to move this amendment because I believe that the Bill sponsored by Deputy Corry and seconded by Deputy MacEntee would not be in the best interests of our people. I believe that there is no sincerity whatever behind the Bill and that it is based on hypocrisy. I have heard. Deputy Corry's speech, in which he made references to a statement made by Deputy Dr. O'Higgins. I would ask Deputy Corry why, on that occasion, Deputy Corry opposed Dr. O'Higgins' sympathetic advice and contention. When Deputy Corry was on this side of the House, why did he not take steps to move such a Bill? He could not possibly do it then, as he had to bend the knee to the regulation of his Party. We heard once, not long ago, a speech made in this House by Deputy Seán McCarthy, who said he had to vote against his conscience in response to his Party rules and that he was like a fish swimming against the current. Deputy McCarthy was more unfortunate than Deputy Corry: he lost his seat for swimming against the current. Deputy Corry did not, unfortunately.
I may point out, in advising this House to reject Deputy Corry's Bill, that there is no sincerity whatever behind it. The Deputy told me in this House that the reason he was about to move such a Bill was that he desired to be in the good graces of, and have the favourable ear of Guinness and people like Guinness, when the Deputy would be approaching Guinness to fix what he believed a fair price for barley. Deputy Corry told me that in this House.
That statement is not true at all.
The Chair cannot check it now. If a statement is a private statement made to Deputy Flanagan by Deputy Corry, it should not be quoted here. Public statements may be quoted.
I have all respect for private and confidential statements. The statement was made by Deputy Corry in an attempt to canvass me to vote for this Bill.
The House has no control over such statements and no means of checking them. Private statements made between Deputies should be treated as such.
That was not private.
I say the statement is not true and I demand its withdrawal.
The statement was made to me in this House by Deputy Corry.
The Deputy will pass on from that now.
On a point of order, when one Deputy denies that a statement is true, it has usually been the ruling of the Chair that that statement should be withdrawn. Is that not so, and has there not been a precedent established here in the past?
The Chair is in the unfortunate position that one Deputy says "yes" and another Deputy says "no." How is the Chair to decide between the two, with no means of checking up on the statement? That is the reason the Chair has always opposed and deprecates the use of private conversation. There is no means of checking it. Deputy Flanagan should not have used it.
Within the knowledge of the Vice-Chair, on a number of occasions within the present year when a Deputy challenged a statement made by another, the Chair asked to have the statement withdrawn.
Does not Deputy Allen see the position— that Deputy Flanagan says the statement was made and Deputy Corry says it was not? Who will withdraw? There are only two people involved and no means by which the Chair can check it.
I will deal with it in my own way.
I do not desire to argue on this point, but I would like to direct the attention of the House to the fact that we had the Deputy previously saying that this Bill was seconded by Deputy Sheehan, and we had Deputy Sheehan refusing to second it.
We will have no further private conversations.
Does Deputy Corry desire to see, in all rural districts, the public houses open on Sundays? I do not know how the Deputy does it, but he is always able to have and to introduce ideas that attempt to bring this country down to the lowest depth of disgrace. Contrary to the wishes of the Hierarchy, against the wishes of many of our local authorities, against the wishes of the licensed trade themselves——
The Dublin licensed trade.
——against the wishes of the temperance organisations, against the wishes of every decent citizen, including Deputy Allen, Deputy Corry is rising to ask this House to agree to a proposal that public houses be opened on Sundays. Does he desire to see a state of affairs prevail in this country whereby, on the dark wintry Sundays in rural districts, the young boys and young men will, immediately they leave Mass, plunge their way into the various public houses and remain there? Life is not so attractive in rural Ireland. We have not sports fields in every district and we have few recreation halls, but there would be pastime for the young men if the pubs were open on Sundays, though I venture to say that it would go a long way towards the damnation of their immortal souls. Does Deputy Corry stand for that, does any one of his Party stand for it or does any decent citizen stand for it? Does he know that intemperance exists to a very large extent in this country at the moment?
Cheap drink.
Does he know that intemperance is becoming more prevalent and is more prevalent amongst young people to-day than it has been in years gone by?
Cheaper drink, for which you are responsible.
Does he know that champagne is cheaper to-day than it has been for a considerable time past, thanks to Fianna Fáil?
Oh, no.
Does he desire to see the public houses in rural areas crowded on Sundays with young men and the various sports fields left derelict? Does he desire to see empty recreation halls in those areas in which they may be situated? Does he realise the consequences of young men leaving public-houses on Sundays under the influence of drink and going at all hours into dance halls until the early hours of the following morning? Does he realise the moral consequences that are likely to result from the presence of people under the influence of drink in dance halls? These could not be avoided if public houses were opened on Sundays. Does Deputy Corry desire to see men, who unfortunately have a failing for drink, going home to their wives and families on Sundays heavily under the influence of drink? I have said, and I repeat it in this House, that I am by no means a kill-joy. I enjoy myself equally as well as Deputy Corry or any other citizen of this State but I believe it is my duty as a citizen, as far as possible, to endeavour to make this country not alone a free and united country but a sober country. I believe that if this Bill were passed many a sad word would be said and many a curse would fall from many a wife and mother on those who voted for or promoted such legislation.
Deputy Corry has made reference to the existing licensing laws. He has stated that every Sunday he must break the law. I hope that the Minister for Justice will note that Deputy Corry says he must break the law frequently on Sundays and that the attention of the local sergeant of the Garda Síochána will be directed to that. I have known at least one glaring case —and there are others—where a decent, respectable sergeant of the Garda, doing his duty manfully, was transferred because he refused to close his eyes to the fact that the doors of certain licensed premises were open. That has happened in the past and I hope that practice has ceased.
Deputy Corry probably has other reasons for introducing this proposal. It is not too long ago since Deputy Corry lent a sympathetic hand, to the Government then sitting at this side of the House, for the granting of licences for the sale of intoxicating liquor in turf camps. There we saw that when the workers had carried out their week's work and received their remuneration, at the very rim of the area in which they were employed there was the temptation of newly-established licensed premises authorised by the past Government, to take away with one hand what they had given with the other. Deputy Corry lent a hand to the establishment of canteens in turf camps. Despite the fact that there are more turf camps and more bog workers in my constituency than in any other area, if I wanted to attract their votes —I did not give two thraneens what way they voted—I voted against the establishment of the canteens because I believed it was in the best interests of the men themselves, as I believe it is in the best interests of all our people that this House should reject the present Bill.
The legislation sponsored by Deputy Corry is unsound and insane legislation. I believe that Deputies, as honest public-spirited citizens, as advocates of decency and temperance, will vote against this proposed legislation. I feel that the House will show to the Hierarchy and to the temperance organisations that we are prepared to uphold decency and to advocate temperance instead of placing temptation in the way of our men and boys to indulge in intoxicating drink on Sundays.
If public houses are opened on Sundays, I venture to say that the next thing we shall see will be business transactions on Sundays. We shall see a further extension of that until we have markets and sales of all kinds and probably fairs on Sundays. If we open the public houses on Sundays we shall see people coming in from the country to carry on business in the various public houses. I would not be at all surprised to see the Sabbath seriously violated in more ways than one in such circumstances. Does Deputy Corry not know that Sunday was set aside by God as the Sabbath Day, a day of devotion and a day of rest? It was never meant to be a day of business, a day of drinking or a day of sin. It was meant to be kept by every decent man as a day of rest and a day of respect. The county councils and local authorities throughout the country realised that. Above all, the Bishops of Ireland realised it and they made an appeal even to the low depths of Deputy Corry's heart, which was apparently too cold to hear that appeal. He came here to move this unsound legislation despite that appeal and despite even the request made by the Dublin licensed trade. Deputy MacEntee has seconded the Bill despite the request by the Dublin licensed trade. I hope that the Dublin licensed trade will realise that it is against their wishes that Deputy MacEntee has seconded this motion.
I am not an agent of the publicans as you are. They did not give me £30,000 to reduce the price of drink.
Since the Deputy became director of so many concerns it is hard to know for what he would be an agent.
Acting Chairman
That is hardly relevant to this debate. If the debate continued on the Intoxicating Liquor Bill it would be better.
It is not my desire, and it has never been my desire, to occupy the time of the House with long speeches, but on this occasion, realising my obligation as a Deputy and as a citizen, I ask this House to do a good day's work for the future of this country. I say, as I have said from many platforms, that intemperance has caused more discontent and disunity in the home than poverty or unemployment ever caused. Surely it would be far from the intentions of any Deputy that intemperance should prevail. I do not wish to detain the House, in view of the fact that many Deputies desire to contribute to the debate. I appeal to Deputies who are members of the Pioneer Association to support the rejection of this Bill. I appeal to Deputies who have any sense of self-respect and decency to reject it. If it is forced to a division we shall see Deputy Corry and Deputy MacEntee walk side by side, alone, again, into the wilderness.
I believe that this Bill will be defeated if the Leader of Deputy Corry's Party, Deputy de Valera, votes on this occasion. In view of the fact that he has been an advocate of temperance, I believe he will not walk into the Division Lobby with Deputy Corry or Deputy MacEntee. I believe that Deputy Corry, my colleague, will not walk into the Division Lobby with Deputy Corry or Deputy MacEntee. I believe that Deputy Allen, who has seen fit again to oppose Deputy Corry's Bill, will oppose it, and that his opposition will not be in any mild language, but will be equally as strong and perhaps more vulgar than my own. I appeal to the House to reject the proposal because I believe it is a bad one, that it is not in our interests. In this race, Fianna Fáil are attempting to ride two horses — Deputy Corry, for, and Deputy Allen, against. Between two stools one falls to the ground. The Party cannot have it both ways. I hope and believe the Bill will be rejected. Its rejection will be greeted with delight and acclamation, not alone by the Bishops and clergy and the temperance associations, but every decent citizen, irrespective of class, creed or politics.
Acting Chairman
Is there any seconder for Deputy Flanagan's amendment?
I second, if necessary.
Must I move my amendment now?
Acting Chairman
It must be moved in the same order, I understand.
I move the amendment standing in my name:—
To delete all words after the word "That" and substitute the following:—
"having regard to the facilities provided under existing legislation for the sale and consumption of intoxicants on Sundays, Dáil Éireann refuses to give a second reading to the Intoxicating Liquor (Amendment) Bill, 1948."
I move the amendment with the object of setting out to convince the Dáil that the reason that we should reject Deputy Corry's Bill is not one of the many reasons given by the previous speaker but that members of the Dáil—I hope and trust a majority of the Dáil—believe that the facilities that already exist for the sale of intoxicants on Sunday are quite sufficient and adequate for our people. Much play has been made all through the years around this question of Sunday opening because of the fact that public houses are allowed to open in the three borough areas—Dublin, Cork and Waterford. I do not know why some previous Government decided in their wisdom that it was necessary to have certain opening hours on Sundays but we do know that this State found the position that public houses in the cities were allowed to open on Sundays for a certain limited number of hours. I am sure very good reasons could be given for that. I believe that no case has been made here by Deputy Corry for other public houses to open on Sundays for any length of time. If there are abuses or if there have been abuses of the law, that is no justification for opening public houses on Sundays. It might just as well be argued that if the law against stealing or robbery were broken a Deputy should come in with a Bill to abolish the law against stealing or robbery. The laws, unless they are unjust laws, should be enforced and the State should provide machinery for the just enforcement of the laws that are on the Statute Book.
It is no argument to say that any law that is on the Statute Book of this country is allowed to be brought into contempt and that it should be abolished for that reason. I do not believe—and I have fair experience of rural areas in this country—that the licensing laws on Sundays are brought into contempt as Deputy Corry leads us to believe. Every Deputy in this House who comes from a rural area travels round his constituency, I am sure, on very many Sundays of the year and he knows quite well that in any village or small town it is the same one or two public houses that cater year in year out for this sort of toper and that open their doors and break the law. The general mass of licensed traders in rural areas do not break the law on Sundays; they are a respectable decent type of people; they are law abiding citizens, good citizens who respect the laws and keep the laws. Very many of them if they had the power, if Deputy Corry's Bill happened to be passed, would not open their public houses on Sundays.
The licensing hours are long enough from ten in the morning till ten at night with two hours afterwards for the bona fide trade; 14 hours a day for six days a week should be long enough. In addition to that they have the right between 1 and 8 o'clock to do bona fide business on Sundays. The longest trading hours of any section of the community are available in the licensed trade and it always seems extraordinary to me that the trade unions have not seen to it that their members should not have to work such long hours. Many of their colleagues are working 14 hours a day in the licensed trade in this present enlightened age in this country.
They have done something about it.
Why there are such long hours is a mystery to me and that is why I contend that adequate facilities are there on Sundays and week-days for the provision of intoxicants.
There is no general demand for opening on Sundays and we might as well be straight about it. Not only the pioneers, the Church or any one section of the community are against it but the general mass of the people do not want to see the public houses thrown open on Sundays and the public in general would resent it. They know the temptation it would be in rural areas, especially to agricultural workers, to go in on Sunday evenings to the public houses and to spend probably a big proportion of their week's wages. We all know and can appreciate what that would mean. The facilities which are there already are more than adequate in my opinion and the temptation is too great as it is to go three or four miles for the man who is inclined to drink more than he can afford. The temptation is too great for any of us, for the rank and file of the community irrespective of whether they be farmers, agricultural workers, business people or anybody else. There is no demand whatever from the community for the opening of public houses on Sundays.
In 1942 we fully discussed this matter here in the Dáil. Deputy Boland, I think, was Minister for Justice then, and he opposed amendments which were moved by members who are now sitting on the Government Benches, and which were supported by members sitting on the Labour Benches. They had the same arguments then as now, and the Dáil, by an overwhelming majority on that occasion, rejected amendments to have the opening of public houses on Sunday. The self same argument holds good to-day, and there is no doubt about it. With the present set up in licensed houses all over the country where there is mixed trading, and where it is the common thing to find licensed premises with a grocery attached, a provision, hardware, drapery or general store, there is no doubt that if you had opening of the public houses after Mass on Sundays, people who come in from rural areas would make a habit of doing all their trading on Sundays, and the traders across the street who would not have licensed premises would be compelled to open their premises also. That is a real serious objection, an objection that this Dáil must in future take note of. That is where the big difference exists between licensed premises in the cities which cater for the sale of intoxicants alone and have no other side lines, and those in the country. I say definitely that if such a Bill as this were to be passed into law it would be bound to lead to Sunday trade and nothing could prevent it. No laws that we could make, or that any Dáil could ever make, would prevent wholesale Sunday trading.
God knows this country spends sufficient annually on intoxicating liquor. Our people pay more taxation per head than the people of almost any other country in Europe towards the State revenue for the consumption of intoxicating liquor. We are paying more than we should. More of our income, whether farmers' income or workers' wages, more of the total income of the community, is spent on the purchase of intoxicating liquor than the country can afford. The figures are stupendous and people scarcely could believe that a small poor country of 3,000,000 people can afford —or rather do it, as they cannot afford it—to spend so much money on intoxicants. It goes without saying that further facilities in the future for the sale of intoxicants are bound to mean more consumption. Whatever section would consume that extra liquor on Sundays it would be against the best interests of the nation, of the people as a whole, to have a further increase in the consumption of intoxicating liquor.
I am opposed to this Bill, but I am by no means a "pussyfoot." I have no narrow view of the matter at all. I have often enjoyed seeing people enjoy a drink, but I have observed all down the years on Catholic holidays in the diocese of Ferns the public houses are closed just as on Sundays, but the law is there, and there is nothing to prevent any publican from allowing into his public house any one he wishes on that day, and I know that on Catholic holidays, which are idle days when no work is done on the farms, more drink is consumed than is good for a lot of our people.
It is a well-known fact that it is a rare thing to see a drunken man in country areas. But, if there is one day in the year on which you will see drunken men in the villages or small towns, it is on the Catholic holiday when the public houses are open to everybody. That is a well-known fact which has been noted for years. If we encourage people to spend more money than they are spending on intoxicating liquor, it will be the small farmer and the agricultural worker who will avail most of these facilities and spend the most of this money. They will spend their week's wages or whatever small income they have. That will be encouraged if this Bill is passed. You will be encouraging people to spend more money than they can afford on intoxicating liquor, and that will lead to grave abuses.
I want again to emphasise to the Minister for Justice that, if there are known abuses of the intoxicating liquor laws on Sundays in any areas in the country, whether in villages, towns or anywhere else, it is his duty as the head of the Department of Justice to see to it that the laws are rigidly enforced. All laws should be strictly enforced. That is the only way by which people will have respect for the laws, and that is the appropriate way to answer the demand made by Deputy Corry in this Bill. Deputy Corry's main case for the Bill was based on the fact that the law was being abused at present. That is no justification whatever for an alteration in the law. I contend that the existing facilities are quite sufficient; in my opinion they are more than sufficient. The Dáil should say that the facilities available are sufficient for the good of the community, and I ask that this Bill be rejected.
Major de Valera
I second the amendment.
I am opposed to this Bill. I cannot accept it and I am asking the House to reject it. I have no intention of following the long speeches made by Deputy Corry, Deputy Flanagan and Deputy Allen. I am satisfied that the existing law should obtain and that it would be very unwise to alter it. I agree with the assertion made by two Deputies that the law must be enforced and, notwithstanding anything I said in 1942 in this House, as Minister for Justice I shall do everything in my power to see that the licensing laws of this State are fully observed.
I have listened to Deputy Flanagan's impeachment of Deputy Corry. It looked to me to be more or less a personal quarrel between these Deputies. I also listened to the evangelist Deputy from Wexford vilifying the publicans of rural Ireland, which was a horse of a different colour. Ninety-five per cent. of the publicans of rural Ireland are good, law-abiding, charitable persons. That may sound very funny to some Deputies, but the people in rural Ireland know exactly what publicans do.
What do they do?
If you listen you will hear a big lot about it. Apparently the rural publicans of Ireland are the only people who are to be ostracised and classified as parasites. One thing worse than another may be said about them. I wonder is the Deputy from Wexford in a position to criticise any particular category of business. If he is, I would advise him to put his own house in order first. Maybe he will find that he has as many parasites in that particular business as the publicans have.
On a point of order. Is the Deputy in order in trying to misrepresent what I said? I did not vilify the licensed trade in any way and I am sure every Deputy will bear me out in that.
I do not think that is a point of order.
I should like to say that for the Deputy's information.
I notice that we have a second Chairman at the moment.
In fairness to Deputy Allen, I think it should be said that he did not make any attempt to blackguard the publicans.
I should like to point out to Deputy Flanagan that if I interpreted Deputy Allen wrongly, I am sure a lot of other Deputies have interpreted him wrongly. I hold no brief for the publican who breaks the law. Let me tell the House that the publicans who really break the law are not the men who open their door on a Sunday but those publicans who keep people in their premises until 12 and 1 o'clock in the morning. We have not too many of them in rural Ireland.
I suppose it looks peculiar that I should be supporting Deputy Corry in connection with this Bill. Very often we do not see eye to eye with each other. Whatever his motive or reason is for introducing this Bill, the one thing I am concerned with is that he is voicing the opinion not alone of the publicans, who are a very small minority group, but the opinion of the small farmer, and probably the big farmer, and of the farm worker and the rural worker in general, who are looking for the same facilities to get a drink after Mass on Sunday as are given to the city boys in Dublin and Cork. Will anybody tell me that, with a wage of £2 16s. 0d. a week, these people can indulge in intoxicating liquor to the extent of getting drunk? The majority of them must cut their cloth according to their measure. They are entitled, however, to a certain amount of conviviality after doing a hard week's work on the land or on the roads or at any other avocation to which they devote their energy and time.
I must take exception, as I said before, to the implications of the speech of the evangelist Deputy from Wexford. I am afraid he is in the wrong shop. It looks to me as if he is trying to usurp another position. I have the greatest respect for temperance advocates. A lot of those people, however, who sent circulars to Deputies during the Summer Recess do not realise the hardship under which the people of rural Ireland are working. Is it too much to ask the Minister for Justice to allow two hours after Mass on a Sunday to those people in rural Ireland, who, we think, are deserving of this concession?
Perhaps this debate may lead to an intensive enforcement of the licensing regulations throughout the country. It looks as if the heat has been turned on the publicans by Deputy Allen and the Minister for Justice. The Minister stated that he would maintain the law in the country. The law of this country will have to be maintained outside of the licensing Acts. As the Minister should know, and as every member of the Garda Síochána, from a Chief Superintendent down to an ordinary Guard should know, it was the publicans of Ireland, at a time when public-spirited people were wanted, who put down crime, and not any of those people who retired to the sanctity of their own homes on a Sunday evening under the cloak of a certain curtain: people who, perhaps, would drink more in an hour than those who have been spoken about with such solicitude by Deputy Allen and Deputy Flanagan.
I am going to support this Bill. I would prefer if this proposal came before us in a general measure. I have no hesitation in saying: "Do away with the bona fide trade; let this be a general concession and remove the bona fides.” It is the bona fide trade that is responsible for a lot of the accidents that occur and not the casual trade where you have a farmer, his worker or a county council worker going into a “pub” on a Sunday and drinking there from 1 o'clock until 3 o'clock. I will conclude by asking the Minister for Justice to reconsider this. Perhaps he may think this a suitable moment to reconsider the licensing Acts in general and so facilitate the people of rural Ireland by putting them on the same basis as the city boys of Ireland, thus rendering to Caesar what is Caesar's. With these words I want to signify my intention of supporting Deputy Corry's Bill.
I was very pleased to hear Deputy Keane come to the rescue of the much abused publicans in the rural areas of Ireland. In this House and outside of it, they have been mercilessly abused. We find that, because a Deputy has the moral courage to stand up here and introduce a Private Member's Bill, he is attacked personally. Most of those who have been talking against this Bill have never, I am sure, considered what the Bill means at all. In the rural areas of Ireland there has always been a bona fide trade. I am quite certain that it is Deputy Corry's intention and that it would be the intention of the Minister if he accepted the Bill, to do away with the bona fide trade. If you did that, you would, in effect, be doing away with class distinction in this country. Class distinction is one of the fundamentals of Communism. The man who has been working on the land all the week, or at the building trade, or in some other occupation, finds on a Sunday, because of the fact that he has not a motor car to take him over the country, that he is deprived of being able to have a drink. The man who has a motor car or a decent pony and trap or a bicycle can always get a drink on a Sunday, and he is called a respectable person.
The effect of this Bill would be to do away with the bona fide trade completely, and with the privileges which are given to certain classes in this country. Listening to Deputy Flanagan, one would imagine that Sunday opening was something new in this country, something that had been suddenly sprung on us this evening by Deputy Corry. The truth of the matter is that publicans in Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford can open during certain specified hours on Sunday. By reason of that a privilege is conferred on the people living in these cities. They are entitled to drink as much as they please during certain specified hours on a Sunday. Stress has been laid to a great extent on this that Sunday opening would lead to a great amount of spending on the part of rural workers. As one who has stood at both sides of the counter— and I am not a bit ashamed to say it—I can assure the House that the working people of this country have a very limited amount of money to spend on drink. If any Deputy, or anybody else, states that the workers of this country over spend on drink and thereby neglect their families, then I say such people are slandering the workers of the country.
The Minister for Justice and the Garda Síochána are, at the moment, enforcing licensing laws, some of which date back to 1836, when the foreign Government we had here tried by means of its licensing laws and other laws to put the workers and people of this country into the category of savages. Their licensing laws amounted to this, that if the country people took a drink on Sunday they would not be able to conduct themselves. That is how the people in the rural areas were treated, while on the other hand, they put city workers on a pedestal as being intelligent, disciplined people who were able to take a drink in peace and go home sober.
The publicans of this country are not the parasites that many people would seem to believe they are. Whenever there is an appeal for charity they are the first to be approached and the first to come forward with a subscription. I can assure the House that I have hardly known of one case in which a publican has refused to make a response to a charitable appeal. They respond at all times and in all cases. I have said that some of the licensing laws we have date back to 1836. Some date back to a period when a pint of stout cost 2d. Now it costs five times that.
I have never seen cases of drunkenness amongst the people who would benefit if this proposal were accepted. I defy anyone to say that there is now any such thing as drunkenness on Church holidays or at other times. Drunkenness has ceased in this country, and the self-respect of our people has been responsible for that. Unquestionably, Sunday is a day of rest. If it be a day of rest for the people of the rural areas it should be a day of rest for the city dwellers too. There should be no distinction. The reason why a very strong case can be made for Sunday opening in the rural areas is that there is Sunday opening in the city.
Great stress has been laid on the fact that the licensed traders' organisation did not support this Bill. They did support it up to a point, but after that it did not suit them—for a reason which I certainly do not propose to introduce in this debate. They did support this Bill whole-heartedly for quite a long time. Then, a few days ago, on the eve of battle, they suddenly decided they would not fight any more. I have a great respect for the fellow who fights and runs away, but I have damn little respect for the fellow who refuses to fight.
They got Deputy MacEntee instead.
Do not draw me out on why the licenced traders of this country turned their coat. The reason is too obvious. They were embarrassing the Government.
Hear, hear! A political organisation.
I am afraid that Deputy M.J. O'Higgins has a happy knack of drawing me out. Having gone so far I have no hesitation in saying that, in my opinion, the licensed trade organisation never catered for the rural people. They cater for the city people only. They never refused to take our subscriptions any year, so far as I am aware. However, they could not very well continue, because they knew that at least five Ministers of the present Government had been speaking in 1942 for the opening of public houses.
We hear quite a lot about too much drink being consumed. We hear that said and yet the greatest opportunity in the history of this country that has ever presented itself to limit the consumption of intoxicating liquor was given to the people some months ago when a Supplementary Budget was introduced by the Fianna Fáil Government. The people who are speaking now against this Bill and who are pretending that they are doing something in the interests of temperance were the first to say: "Thank God we have Jack Costello's pint again."
I find myself in a rather peculiar position in relation to this Bill. I believe that Deputy Corry has taken an unfortunate course and gone the wrong way about something that has merit. I am not afraid to admit that I think it is odious that there should be a distinction between the city dweller and the rural dweller and a discrimination in the licensing laws to show that distinction. I do not believe in half the sanctimonious and pious nonsense that has been preached to-day. The people who have been spewing out to this House know very little about what they are talking.
Deputy Allen suggests that the holiday of obligation is typified in rural Ireland by drunks rolling through the village. I have never heard such nonsense in all my life. Has he ever been in a village in rural Ireland or spent the day with the people of his rural constituency on a holiday of obligation? If so, he would know that his assertion has no foundation in fact. I think that Deputy Corry, unwittingly, has made himself the gambit of mixed hypocrisy and lip service to certain organisations. Like him, I too got circulars from every conceivable interested organisation— which I may say never took any interest in me before this Bill came on the stocks of the House. Representations were made to me by people who purported to show the devastating effects that this amendment to the licensing laws would have on the country. It all reminds me of the story of the publican who was asked who was his best customer—the drunk, the temperate drinker or the temperance man. Without hesitation he said the temperance man, because he takes his three or four pints quickly and disappears. I say to a colleague from my county that unfortunately he has approached this matter in the wrong way. I would, however, very earnestly suggest to the Minister for Justice that he take cognisance of Deputy Corry's Bill to the extent that it brings violently to his notice the necessity for certain reforms in this country. The reforms are not to be mainly concerned with the hours of drinking on a Sunday. There are much more serious abuses and much more archaic penalisations on publicans that should be swept to blazes out of our legislation as soon as possible. I would suggest to Deputy Corry that in the present situation he take a soldier's motto, and, possibly, run away and come back here to fight another day on a different basis.
I will be back to fight, but I did not run away.
Because the Deputy is not able to do so.
I feel that, no matter what his motive may have been, Deputy Corry has brought to the notice of this House something that should not be in our legislation. I refer to the differentiation and distinction as between the people who really count in this country, namely, the people of rural Ireland, and the city boys, whose population floats in extraordinary ways and is represented by numerous nationalities.
I feel that it is unfortunate that Deputy Corry, being an old Parliamentarian, should have introduced this Bill at the particular time when he did so. He knew that certain budget business had to be dealt with and that it was not the time to deal with a private member's Bill. I also regret the fact that in endeavouring to introduce that Bill Deputy Corry used certain language regarding the Taoiseach which was most unparliamentary and irresponsible as far as a Deputy of this House is concerned. However, I agree with the principle of the Bill. I cannot see any reason why there should be one law in an agricultural country for the parasites of the country and another law for the producers of the wealth in that particular country. I will support this Bill in principle on the Second Reading but if the Bill goes to another stage I hope to introduce a number of amendments which will get rid of various abuses that I see existing in the licensing laws of this country. I represent a rural constituency that is convenient to Cork City. I know that the people of Cork City can drink legally from 1 o'clock until 2 o'clock and from 5 o'clock until 7 o'clock; and, if they go into a hotel, from 5 o'clock until 9 o'clock. If they do not go into a hotel they can travel out five miles and drink until 8 o'clock. I know that the rural publicans living round Cork City do not want that particular trade. I know that we have these modern abominations known as holiday camps where people can go and live in private chalets. They can take what liquor they like into these private chalets from morning until night, and they can bring whom they like into these private chalets and do what they like there.
If this Bill goes to a Second Reading I hope to introduce amendments to prevent that flagrant breach of both the licensing and the moral laws. The ordinary agricultural worker and the ordinary farmer who work long hours for six days in every week have to have the privilege or the luxury of a drink at odd times and the only occasion on which they can have it is on Sunday. I say quite definitely and deliberately that the licensing laws are not being enforced in the country. I take it that they are not being enforced because they are unreasonable. If you enact a law which is unreasonable and which the authorities accept as being incapable of enforcement that is a bad thing from the point of view of this Legislature. It is a bad thing for the country as a whole. I know that in certain areas in Kerry the people travel down five or six miles from the mountains on Sunday, go to 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock Mass and have one drink in the local public house after Mass. The farmers' wives do their shopping. That is the only social intercourse these people have during the year. The same thing happens in certain parts of County Cork.
There are grave abuses of the licensing laws in the towns and cities, in the holiday camps and hotels. Anybody who can afford to go into the Gresham, the Shelbourne or the Hiberman, or any big hotels in any town, can get all the drink he or she requires. The lounge lizards and their lady friends can drink their gin and lime until 8 or 9 o'clock in the evening; they can go out then bona fide to some public house outside the city limits. I do not think that that situation should continue. If this reading of the Bill goes through I hope to introduce a number of amendments on the next stage. Since the main purpose of this Bill is to give the ordinary country dweller the opportunity of legally taking the drink that he is now illegally having I support this Bill in principle.
I would like to say a few words in reply to those Deputies who have attacked Deputy Allen. I think Deputy Allen was very reasonable and, if you will pardon me using the word, very "sober". It seemed to me that Deputy Keane, when attacking Deputy Allen, really had Deputy Flanagan in mind but did not like to name him. He referred to him as the new Evangelist. All the hot gospelling that we have listened to to-night came from Deputy Flanagan.
Hear, hear! But it rang very hollow.
I am against this Bill more because of instinct than because of conviction or argument. But Deputy Flanagan's speech very nearly swayed me in the other direction. If I had listened to a few more speeches like Deputy Flanagan's I think I would have changed my mind. I do not think it was quite fair for him to suggest that Fianna Fáil were riding two different horses in this matter merely because Deputy Allen and Deputy Corry held different viewpoints. One of the charges made against us in the past was that we had no freedom of action.
Not for 16 years.
We have always had freedom of action in this Party. If we accepted a certain amount of discipline in the matter of legislation and parliamentary procedure I think the country has benefited by that discipline and the effects of it will be demonstrated in the next few years.
It is a pity the Deputy did not look for it before this.
I have the strongest objection to seeing the shutters pulled down and the shop doors open on Sunday. As to the effect of this Bill on the amount of liquor that will be consumed, I believe that every rural publican hopes the Bill will be defeated because I have heard many of them say that Sunday is their best day outside of fair days and markets. The publican feels that if this Bill goes through the Sunday traffic will fall off considerably. If I were to form my conclusions on those views I would vote for the Bill but I am voting against the Bill instinctively because I object to the breaking down of a custom that has long been honoured and established in this country. That is the custom of presenting to the public what I describe as a "closed" appearance on Sunday. I am quite satisfied that if the public houses were to open legally all the other goods would be put out on the side-walk. I think that was already mentioned by another Deputy to-day.
Deputy Allen referred to the diocese of Ferns and he told the House that holidays of obligation are observed in that diocese in the same way as Sundays. I think that it must be the only diocese in the country where that practice obtains. The lurid evils which Deputy Flanagan dealt with in such detail actually exist at the present time in every diocese in Ireland with the possible exception of Ferns.
Fairs and markets are held all up and down the country on holidays of obligation and even on Sundays in some areas. If this Bill were passed I do not think it would increase the amount of drink consumed on Sun days. But that is not the point. The important point is that Sunday observance in the small towns and villages should continue to be honoured by having Sunday closing. We should not depart with too great facility from that established custom. I have heard an alternative suggested to this proposed Sunday opening. The alternative is that there should only be a six-day licence for the consumption of liquor and that if people want to drink on Sunday they should take their liquor home with them. Deputy Keane said that the man who drinks at home drinks four or five times as much as he would drink in a pub. That is rather a deplorable reflection if that is so. If that is not acceptable because it is opposed to custom or tradition why take the illogical step of breaking down another well-established custom. I am voting against the Bill purely on instinct. I have not been impressed by any of the arguments I heard.
Is beag an méid atá agam le rá ar an mBille seo. I have very little to contribute to the debate on this Bill. As a publican and as a man who takes a drink when he wants one I oppose this Bill tooth and nail. If this Bill goes through you will have seven days a week trading all over the country. The shop assistant who is not a trade unionist will be pinned down to working on seven days in the week and will no longer have the recreation he at present enjoys on Sunday. No legislation will save him from the conditions in which he will have to work.
Recently I saw that the Kerry Traders' Association had done away with Sunday trading and fairs in cattle and sheep. That is a good thing. But if we pass this Bill the grocery shops will open on Sunday and there will be trading of all kinds. The finest piece of legislation ever passed in this House in relation to the drink trade was passed by the late Minister for Justice, Mr. Kevin O'Higgins. If the terms of that Bill had been enforced and there were less public houses there would be better trading facilities for everybody and a better living and you would not now be faced with the illegal trading that takes place at present. The pity of it is that the terms of that Bill were never enforced and about one-third of the pubs done away with.
Take the case of the small village I live in. There are ten public houses there. It is safe for me to say—this is a statement of fact—that six of them do not open on Sunday. The remaining four cater for the bona fide trade. If we pass this Bill, what will happen? The four of them will continue to open, and then we will have the other six; that means ten public houses open in that village and the owners and employees will have to work seven days a week without any recreation.
There is a lot of talk and play about the poor man who cannot get a drink. Let those talk who know what taking a drink means. I am one of them and I never knew an agricultural labourer or any poor man who wanted to get a drink on a Sunday but could get it. Those men can go a distance of three miles and they keep within the law, and there is nothing to prevent them getting a drink. Even in the Six Counties, where there is complete closing on Sunday, I know that if people want to get a drink they can get it. There is not a law that is passed that is not violated one way or another; but is that any justification for the present proposal? If you forbid a person stealing from another individual, is that any justification for abolishing the law?
I understood Deputy Allen, when he was speaking on this Bill, to say that where you have a Church holiday opening there is far more drinking than on a Sunday. That is a positive fact, and statistics prove it. I will challenge any Deputy to disprove a statement that I will make. There may not be many, but I suggest that there are more prosecutions for drunkenness on a Church holiday in the country than there are on a Sunday. I have heard men say, with regard to exemption orders on a Sunday: "I wish that exemption order was not there at all, because I would not have the sick head I have to-day if it were not." Those men would not bother going in for a drink, but when they see everybody else going in, they join in.
I want to make this point anyway with regard to Sunday observance in the country. In this matter I am not doing the moralist at all. It has this effect, that on one day out of the seven we can call our souls our own; we can have recreation; we can close our shops and we can let off our assistants. If we pass this Bill, all that is finished. At the Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis I opposed this Bill and from all over my constituency organised groups of shop assistants wrote to me congratulating me on what I did. I am opposed to this Bill tooth and nail.
Since I came into this House this is the first occasion on which I have felt sorry for Deputy Corry. I am sorry for him, not only for the things that have been said by those opposed to him; I am sorry also for him because of the things that have been said by those who are in support of the Bill, particularly his fellow Cork men. There seems to be some peculiar association between the cork and the bottle. In this instance Cork seems to be united to a great extent upon this Bill. I do not know why. Perhaps in County Cork there may be some deficiency in the soil or in the climate that makes the people more thirsty than in other parts of the country. It certainly seems extraordinary that this movement should have originated in that county.
Unlike some Deputies who have spoken, I would feel inclined to compliment Deputy Allen on his moderate, sane and reasonable approach to this Bill. I think he made a very good case against the Bill and he made it in a reasonable way. One point I think has not been stressed. Everyone agrees that you cannot make the people better, more holy, more good-living by legislation. There is, however, an evil in offering too great temptations to our people, especially in a matter of this kind. Sunday is the day of rest, the day upon which the worker puts on his best clothes and has a few leisure hours. If facilities for drinking are extended on Sunday it is only natural that more people will avail of them. It is not a question of whether those who have a taste for drink will drink more on Sunday if the public houses are open. I do not think that that really matters. Those who have acquired a taste for drink will get the drink on Sunday whether the public houses are open or not.
We must remember that if the public houses are open on Sunday we may bring into the ranks of those who take drink a lot of new recruits, young people who, up to the present, have abstained from drink. When they see others going into the open public house on Sunday after Mass they will feel inclined to follow. Those young people will not be the experts who know where the side doors, the back doors and the laneways are, giving easy access to licensed premises. If we open the public house doors wide on Sunday we will be adding enormously to the already very substantial number of drunkards in this country. Do we want to do that? Do we want to encourage young people of both sexes to drink? I do not think that is the desire of the House and it is not the desire of Deputy Corry.
The case he made is based mainly on the difference between the way in which rural Ireland and the cities are treated in the matter of drinking facilities. There are two ways of dealing with that problem. If the people in the cities enjoy facilities far in excess of those existing in the country, there is definitely an injustice there to the country people. Deputy Corry suggests we should remedy that injustice by extending the drinking facilities to the country. There is another way of dealing with that matter and that is by restricting the drinking facilities in the cities. Nobody seems to have thought of that.
Reference will be made to it to-morrow.
I see no reason why Deputy Corry should not introduce a Bill which he indicated it was his intention to introduce.
I will give the Pharisees their chance to-morrow.
The Deputy has based his case on a certain disparity and an injustice to rural Ireland. There is another way of remedying that and I wish him luck if he intends to avail of it. If he is to deal with temperance reform, now that he has changed over from being a great advocate of the Froth Blowers' Association and has, instead, become a great temperance advocate, I think there are a lot of other reforms that are urgently needed.
While drinking on Sunday is a great evil, late-hour drinking is perhaps an even greater evil, because people are more likely, in the late hours, to drink to excess. We know what happens in this city and its vicinity, and we know the evil of the bona fide trade in the immediate vicinity of the city. We know that these evils are crying out for reform, and, now that Deputy Corry has turned right about, I hope he will set out to tackle these evils and remedy them.
I have a certain sympathy with Deputy Corry, but I am totally opposed to the Bill. If Deputy Corry had set out, in the first instance, to tell us that the only thing that prompted him to introduce the Bill was his disgust with the facilities which the drinking public in Dublin, Cork and Waterford have, he would have got much more support. I am in agreement with him that there should not be these drinking facilities for the people in these three cities, but not so much because the rural people have not got them. It does not necessarily follow that, because Dublin, Cork and Waterford have these facilities, the people in rural areas should have them.
I do not believe, although I cannot claim a whole lot of experience of travelling around rural Ireland, that there is any demand from the section which has been most mentioned, the agricultural labourers, for the opening of public houses on Sunday. I think everybody will subscribe to the view that legislation comes from growing public demand and not one person ever suggested to me that public houses in the rural areas should be opened on Sundays. In any case, surely it is not unreasonable to say that in a predominantly Catholic country, a country in which the majority are Catholics, we should regard Sunday as a particular day in the week and should realise what it really means. People go to Mass on Sunday and in the evenings, especially in the rural areas, between 4 o'clock and 7 o'clock, there are devotions, and I am sure that Deputy Corry or any of the Deputies who support him in his plea for the adoption of this Bill would be the first to take exception to men even half-drunk going into devotions and this facility which Deputy Corry wants to afford to the rural areas would mean that certain of these people would stay in the public houses rather than go to evening devotions.
Sunday is a special day, a day which should be protected. I do not know if any other Deputy has had the experience I have had, but, on the occasion of midnight Mass which is celebrated in certain churches in this country at Christmas, I have seen the disgusting spectacle of drunken men coming into Mass to kick up a row and make themselves thoroughly objectionable, from points of view which I dare not mention here, which I should be ashamed to mention, apart altogether from the religious aspect.
What has Sunday opening to do with that?
I do not suggest that the Deputy wants to encourage that type of conduct, but I say that the only reason for his introducing this Bill is that he is disgusted with the facilities afforded to the people of Dublin, Cork and Waterford, and I am with him on that, because, if I had my way, the public houses would not be open at all on Sundays in these three cities. My experience of the people in rural areas is that they enjoy themselves on Sunday in a clean way and I should like to see that continued. I want to see them play football, go out with greyhounds and hunt, and I want to see a man taking his wife and family out for a walk as is traditional not alone in this country but in every country in the world. There is a certain weakness in human nature, and, if public houses are to be thrown wide open on Sundays, it is only natural that there will be a strong temptation for a man to go in and have more than one drink. I do not know if Deputy Corry drinks—I do not suggest he does—but I do suggest that human nature is weak and it will not stop at one or two bottles of stout.
People on different sides of the House may sneer and suggest that some of us, like Deputy Flanagan, should have on another garb, that we are trying to set ourselves up as preachers. We do not set ourselves up as preachers. Deputies may have taken exception to Deputy Flanagan's delivery, but they cannot but say that his sentiments were entirely correct all the way through. There are abuses in drinking, as everybody knows, but let nobody think that there has been an attack here on publicans. It was alleged that Deputy Allen made an attack on publicans. He did not, and I do not think anybody could interpret any of his remarks as an attack on any section of that trade. Deputies have tried to defend the Bill by misrepresenting what Deputy Allen said because they had to have some justification. There are bad publicans.
I will not say that the percentage of publicans who are bad is very high, but we know there are certain publicans who will stay open for two hours extra, if they think they can get some oinseach to come along and buy a half glass of whiskey from them. I will say this much also that, in the experience of, I am sure, most people here, the publicans who make a practice of the after-hour business and Sunday drinking do not survive very long. The solid publican is the man who adheres strictly to the licensing laws.
Deputy Corry has possibly done the House and the country a service by focussing attention on the fact that there is a terrific abuse. Whether the publicans or the public are to blame, I will not say, but I do say that there is no demand for this. It has been proved that practically all legislation enacted in this or any other country has come from growing public demand, and, in my constituency anyhow, and I am sure Deputy Allen has the same experience, there has not been a single call from any agricultural labourer, farmer or any other section for the opening of public houses on Sundays in rural Ireland. I think that if you did so, you would destroy everything. It would go a long way towards destroying religion in the country, as well as sport and other aspects of our life, and I am in thorough agreement with the Minister when he says he opposes the measure wholeheartedly. We are not so very strong as to be able to withstand the temptations of the facilities which Deputy Corry wants to afford to the rural community. We are pretty good in the rural areas and provincial towns and leave us like that; do not, for God's sake, put these temptations in the way of the ordinary man, because we are not so strong as Deputy Corry and other people think.
I shall be very brief because my position is very simple and very clear. I do not want to enter into the arguments for or against the Bill. I take a certain stand, and I make no apology to either publicans or the people who wish to take a drink. I am opposed to this Bill and will support a Bill to stop the opening of public houses on Sundays in the large cities, not because I am a rabid tee-totaller, but because I believe that, if drink is not an individual evil, it is a social evil. I believe that, on occasions like this, it is not a question of entering into the arguments, because arguments can be very specious and it is very easy to become entangled. I think every decent-minded man and woman will agree with efforts to reduce the evils of drink, but someone in some place will have to take a stand completely and totally against the evil as such, without any qualifications. I was reared in the tradition and belief: "Ireland sober, Ireland free". I still believe in that tradition—and free not only politically and economically but free mentally.
I think it is not enough, on an occasion like this, merely to go into the Division Lobby to show that and to commit oneself publicly. I am not concerned with the arguments. Over recent years, a situation has developed in which all right-minded men and women with a social conscience are seeing the evil growing up under our eyes. I do not believe it can be limited or stopped by legislation and I am not one of those who believe you can deal with the drink problem by suppression. There is one thing necessary if we are to try to reduce its influence and effect, that is, that individual men and women must not give way to this growing pressure and opinion that to take a drink is all right and that there is the excuse and justification that it is merely the abuse of drink that causes all the trouble.
I personally conceive—though I may be quite wrong—and on this occasion I am prepared to stand over it, that this is a case in which you have to take a stand for or against, if you are to give example and leadership to the people growing up and coming after us. We have been in recent years caught in a web and getting into a harmful position from which we hoped we had got away in years gone by, getting away from the state that existed in this country from 1918 up to some years ago. That was a condition of affairs which everyone welcomed, because our people, especially the young people, had found other interests and enthusiasm. They have lost those interests and that enthusiasm, they have lost the high purpose and have been caught in a mesh which is harmful to our people and which we should try to overcome.
I am not concerned with the argument as to whether the law is being broken in the country to-day or not, or whether there are advantages in the cities. I am personally opposed to any principle of drink, as I think it necessary to take a stand. If Deputy Corry wants to come in to-morrow with a Bill to control what he thinks is an abuse in favour of this in the city I am quite prepared to take that stand, as I take it to-night.
The Leader of the Labour Party has taken a stand uncompromisingly against this Bill, on the grounds that drink is a social evil. I agree with him that the abuse of drink is a social evil but so also, and perhaps—because its consequences may be more widespread—an even greater evil—is a disrespect for the law. I perhaps would not have intervened in this debate if it had not been for the statements which I heard for the first time when Deputy Corry quoted them, that had been made by the present Minister for Defence and the present Minister for Justice. It would be well to remind the House of what the Minister for Justice, then Deputy MacEoin, said when the Intoxicating Liquor Bill of 1942 was before the Dáil. He said, as given in Volume 88, column 1443:
"I heard a publican complain that a sergeant of the Gárda was persecuting him—not prosecuting him. I knew the sergeant to be a reliable, steady officer. I thought that it would be no harm, if I met him accidentally, to mention the complaint to him, which I did. He said (the sergeant, I presume): ‘Everybody knows that, on Sunday, I enforce the licensing law until 1 o'clock."
—I hope the House has noted that. The law enforcement officer considers that the licensing law can be put in cold storage for some period which begins at 1 o'clock on every Sunday—
"While the bona fide traffic is on from 1 o'clock to 8 o'clock, I do not run into every pub to see who is in it, because I know that Paddy and Johnnie who have been working hard all the week, are getting a pint. I am not going to follow those people.”
This is the statement which, on the authority of the present Minister for Justice, when he spoke as Deputy Seán MacEoin, was made by a reliable, steady officer of the Garda Síochána:
"When the dance hall opens at 8 o'clock and when a bunch of brats come, armed with poteen, take a few glasses, distribute the rest and then go down to a pub and get a couple of pints to throw on top of it, which sets them mad, these people I will prosecute and persecute so far as lies in my power."
And what was the comment of the present Minister for Justice, then Deputy Seán MacEoin, upon that statement made by a reliable steady law enforcement officer. It was:—
"I said ‘Good luck to you.' That is a situation in which a Garda sergeant was himself legislating. I have reason to believe that, in the south, a similar legislature was established in a certain area. It is reasonable administration, but we should not have that situation created."
So much for the present Minister for Justice, speaking in 1942. I am talking about social evils and am not quoting these statements to embarrass the Minister.
I am not the slightest bit embarrassed, as it is true.
I am quoting these statements as those of a man who knows rural Ireland and what goes on there, so that the House may realise that there is a problem to be dealt with—whether by the manner proposed in this Bill or otherwise is something I may dilate on later on. At the moment, let me continue to cite the evidence which shows that disrespect of the licensing law is widespread throughout this State.
No one denies that.
The present Minister for Defence, Dr. O'Higgins, speaking also on the Second Reading of the Intoxicating Liquor Bill in 1942 said, as given in Volume 88, column 1796:—
"What is happening at present, and what has happened in the past is this: if the police in town or village are to do their normal job efficiently as policemen, the job of preventing and detecting crime, they have to be on good terms with the public in their area. The common-sense of the Guards and of the ordinary citizen would regard it as unreasonable to have a person, who got into a licensed house on a Sunday and had one drink, taken into custody and brought before the court. The Guards feel that. As well as the Guards, every reasonable person in that area would say: ‘Ah, could you not have let him in for a drink; what is the harm in a man having one drink?"'
Has the Deputy any quotations from the late Deputy Fogarty?
The Deputy has many quotations from other members of the Fine Gael Party, some of them, alas, not here, and from some members of the Labour Party—some, for instance, from such a leading light of the Labour Party as Deputy Davin, who having gone on to detail that a similar situation as had been described by the present Minister for Finance and the present Minister for Justice, existed in his area—in the same constituency, by the way, as Deputy Flanagan represents—went on to say:—
"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."
The present Minister for Finance intervened in the debate in the same strain and in reply to those who had spoken about the possibility that a proposal such as is embodied in this Bill might be abused, said this:—
"I suggest that the abuses are not many and do not touch many places."
On a point of order, will the Minister give the reference to the portion of my speech which he extracted for his own purposes? Would he also admit that I advocated the abolition of the bona fide traffic?
The quotation which I have given from Deputy Davin is taken from column 1405, Volume 88 of the Debates and, as Deputy Davin was half in and half out of the House, on both sides of the fence, as he generally is, or sitting on it——
I voted.
——perhaps I had better quote the passage for him again:—
"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."
Read on.
What else did he say?
That is taken out of its context.
The Minister for Finance, then Deputy McGilligan, said:—
"I suggest that the abuses are not many."
The reference.
Column 1239, Volume 88:
"I suggest that the abuses are not many and do not touch many places.... I think we are paying far too much attention to the person who is abusing. We are certainly overlooking a lot of people who are not abusing something which has always been felt in this country to be a right and to be something approaching a necessity."
I certainly would not go so far as to regard indulgence in alcohol, in any form, as a necessity but, apparently, the Minister for Finance when he was Deputy McGilligan in 1942, did regard the right to buy and consume alcohol as something which was precious and thought that alcohol itself was more or less in the nature of "something approaching a necessity." However, the Minister for Finance then reinforced the view expressed by the present Minister for Defence and the Minister for Justice as to the general condition of affairs prevailing in the country. Quite obviously, if a law which affects everybody, certainly affects all adults over 21, is so continuously abused and so continuously disregarded, then I think a very serious problem must arise for consideration because we cannot have ordered social life, we cannot have a stable State, unless we have general acceptance by the people of the law as it stands. It is necessary that we should establish respect for the law, particularly in these difficult times. I think it is particularly necessary that we should, all of us, stand unequivocally for the maintenance and enforcement of the law, whatever it may be, in view of the speech which was made, eight or nine days ago, by a colleague of the Minister for Justice, the Minister for External Affairs, who indicated that perhaps any group in this country might arrogate to themselves the right to take life in certain circumstances.
That has nothing whatever to do with this Bill.
I think it has.
I suggest you bring in the mandate at that stage.
I suggest if a law is so continuously disregarded, then it must be for some good reason. One of the reasons suggested here was that this law is a discrimination against a certain section of the population, that section of the population which I think Deputy Lehane described as the producers in this country, the section of the population which carries us all on its back, the rest of us, according to Deputy Lehane, being parasites. If Deputy Lehane expressed the view of the ordinary rural dweller as to the rôle which is played by other elements in the population in the productive economy of this country, surely it is only natural that those who dwell in the rural areas should feel a keen sense of injustice, if they see themselves deprived of a right which is enjoyed by the parasites.
On a point of explanation, may I say that I spoke of the fact that this was an agricultural country and that the principal wealth we have in this country was produced from the soil, produced by the agricultural community?
I do not think the explanation has done anything to shake my interpretation of Deputy Lehane's speech. I think it still stands just as he expressed it. We have a section of producers in this country who are discriminated against and we have the remainder of the population, the parasites, who are favoured by the existing law.
I think in these circumstances that, whether or not we can assent to Deputy Corry's motion that this Bill should be read a Second Time, we must agree that there is urgent need for a searching investigation into the whole matter. It was in order that I might have an opportunity of expressing that opinion that I formally seconded Deputy Corry's motion when it appeared that he would find no seconder. Because, as Abraham Lincoln said, you cannot have one section of the population free and the other slaves, we cannot continue on the present basis, that is if we expect the officers of the State to enforce the law made by the Legislature.
Every one of you who represent rural areas know that that law is flagrantly violated day in, day out. The Minister for Justice now says he is going to enforce the law, but he has told us that, according to the opinion of every honest man, the law as it stands is not a just law and therefore is not likely to be readily enforced.
Not easily enforced.
Therefore, because it is difficult to enforce, it cannot be enforced in many cases.
Must be enforced.
And is not being enforced.
Cannot be.
Any one of us who goes on a Sunday out of the city and travels, not 10 miles, but 30 or 40, through any rural area, will find outside public houses cars standing, and men slinking in and out. The shutters are up, undoubtedly, but stop as a bona fide traveller in any one of those areas and go inside and you will find the bar packed, every sitting-room packed with the people sitting there. They are not even talking.
They would not be agricultural labourers.
In many cases they are not even talking. They are afraid to talk lest a Guard passing outside might hear a whisper and come in.
Would not he see the cars?
The only thing they will do is have their drink quietly and quickly and call for another.
There is one big car they will not see, that is, yours—the one you had. That is gone for a long time.
They will have their drink quietly and quickly and call for another and another and another until the proprietor decides that it is time he put them out in order that they may reach home under their own steam. That is what is happening.
That is a complete misrepresentation.
That is what is happening throughout this country and every honest man on the benches opposite knows that as well as I do.
You do not. That is just it.
Every one of them knows that as well as I do. Everybody in Ireland knows that once a man gets into the pub on Sunday he is very reluctant to leave it because he might not get into it again.
Will Deputy Kennedy agree with that?
What is the use of pretending that the situation is otherwise? Why not face up to it and say that one of the reasons for that is that the ordinary Garda thinks it is not fair that, while every Tom, Dick and Harry, if he happens to live in one of the big cities, can go into a public house on a Sunday and get a drink, his ordinary decent neighbours who have been working, as Deputy Corry has said, and as the Minister for Justice's sergeant said, all week, cannot get a drink on a Sunday unless he travels a number of miles in a car. He has not got a car and, therefore, he cannot travel. Therefore, as I have said, quite obviously, there is a problem to be handled here. I was never drunk in my life.
What is that?
I was never drunk in my life but I take a drink.
What a confession?
And I doubt whether some other people who are now posing as temperance advocates can say that. I do not want to see drink abused.
"Lord, Lord. I thank the that I am not as other men."
I believe, however, that when it has to be procured illicitly and illegally, covertly and not openly, there is much graver danger of its being abused than when it can be procured under reasonable conditions at limited times. I do not want to see universal opening. I do not want to see 12- or 24-hour opening, or anything like that. That would be, perhaps, stretching a theory too far. But I do know this, that if a man can go in and sit down in comfort and get a drink and have a chat with his friends, he will draw that drink out because he is not very keen, as prices stand even at the present time, on buying two or three. But if he has got to make use of a limited opportunity which is afforded to him illegally then, undoubtedly, the tendency for him to abuse it is very much greater. Therefore, I say again, there is a case for an investigation here.
Because I know the Bill as it stands might lead to abuses, I would not be prepared to vote for this Bill without grave reservations. I do think that if a concession of this sort were to be given, if public houses outside the four big cities in Ireland were to be open, we certainly should have to ensure that they will be open only for the purpose of refreshment and not for the carrying on of an ordinary general store such as many country shopkeepers do. I think you would have to make sure also that they would be open only at suitable hours which might not exactly coincide with the hours which are appropriate for Sunday opening in the City of Dublin. I think also that we would certainly have to accompany that sort of privilege with other provisions which would deal with the possible evils to which Deputy Kennedy has referred. There would have to be some provisions protecting the staff and the members of the family of the proprietor. These are all matters which would have to be dealt with. It might even be necessary to ensure that some sort of meal would be available on the premises. I do not know. In any event, while the principle of affording to the rural dweller the same sort of liberty and facility as you dare not deny to the city dweller could be accepted, I say that the matter would have to be very carefully considered to ensure that certain abuses which we know may develop in the rural areas would not spring up.
I have not been so greatly impressed by what Deputy Allen said as to the ill consequences which have flowed from the fact that public houses are open in his county upon holy days, because the position is not the same as the Bill provides for. If the rural dweller has a holiday on a holy day, the public houses in his neighbourhood are open from early morning till late at night. They are not open anywhere on Sunday for those extended hours and it may be that because of the difficulties of getting into the town and home again and the difficulties often of getting a meal in the town, when he is there, a man might consume more liquor than he normally would if he could go into a public house close at hand and have his drink and then go home for his meal or go to meet his children and go off to a football match. The position, therefore, as I say, is not exactly the same in regard to opening on a holy day when farm work is suspended as it would be if the houses were open for limited hours on a Sunday.
Another reason why I seconded this Bill was in order that I might hear Deputy Flanagan address himself to the amendment which stands in his name. Let me read it to the House:—
To delete all words after the word "That" and substitute the following:—
"the Dáil refuses to give a Second Reading to the Intoxicating Liquor (Amendment) Bill, 1948, for the reason that its enactment would be contrary to the social and moral welfare of the people."
Now, the spectacle of Deputy Flanagan as a crusader for public morality is too nauseating for any stomach to tolerate. To listen to him rallying the pioneers against Deputy Corry was too revolting even to be amusing. We know, of course, that there was not a single sentence in his speech which was sincere. We knew that every gesture he made— and he made many of them—was reeking with hypocrisy. We heard this champion of public morality come in here and divulge a private conversation which he alleged he had with Deputy Corry.
On a point of explanation, I divulged no private conversation with Deputy Corry. It was an open and public conversation in this House when Deputy Corry canvassed me to support his Bill which is insane and unsound.
There is conflicting testimony between Deputy Flanagan and Deputy Corry and for reasons which are known to the public I prefer to accept the testimony of Deputy Corry.
That does not surprise me. Your intelligence is well known.
Deputy Flanagan took the opportunity in moving this motion to refer to the fact that the late Government had passed a measure to give licences to sell beer and spirits in the canteens of the turf camps. Deputy Flanagan took great credit to himself in opposing that measure. But why was it necessary to give to these turf workers some sort of facilities for reasonable refreshment? Go and ask the people of Edenderry and they will tell you that these unfortunate men, not having any reasonable place for social intercourse in their camps, went in night after night to Edenderry, got drunk in the public houses there and created such public disturbance that every decent citizen in Edenderry was very glad that some provision should be made to prevent them from doing that.
That is not so. Those men conducted themselves well and properly.
The only opposition to the proposal was the opposition which was suborned by the publicans of Edenderry in order to obtain for themselves that rather lucrative, if at the same time not very respectable, business. Deputy Flanagan's opposition to that measure was, I say, entirely inspired by the licensed trade whom he attacked here to-day.
Still I got 100 per cent. of the bog workers' votes. Where would that come in?
Because, my friend, your glib tongue—Sir I withdraw the expression "my friend"; it is not worthy of me.
The Deputy has failed to insult me when he called me his friend.
Deputy Flanagan has asked why 100 per cent. of the turf workers voted for him. I do not know and he does not know whether they did or not, but if they did, I bet it is a mistake that they would not repeat.
Yes, in the morning or any time you say.
He has not got the saying now.
Might I direct the Deputy's attention to a night he spent in my company in Hynes's Hotel in Arklow on the 22nd September, 1947?
You may not. It is too far back.
The Deputy can refresh his memory, though I doubt if he remembers that night.
I remember having been in your company with great regret.
I am surprised that you do remember it.
Surely you do not expect me to make a public act of contrition because I was associated with you. It was my host's fault not mine.
Acting-Chairman
It is time you came to the Bill.
Deputy Flanagan made a very impassioned appeal to those who believe in temperance to reject this Bill. Does the Deputy forget that he voted in support of a Government whose boast it is that it has made drink cheaper in this country? The Deputy who questions the accuracy of my memory or the reliability of it, says that champagne was made cheaper, thanks to Fianna Fáil. If the Deputy will go out and read the Finance Act of this year, he will find one provision introduced by the Minister for Finance, supported by him, a provision to reduce the duty on imported wines, including champagne. Champagne, gin, rum and brandy have all been made cheaper by the Government which is supported by Deputy Flanagan, the champion of temperance.
And I will support the same Government as long as I am in the House.
To encourage drink?
To encourage decency and straightforwardness in this country which had been forgotten for 16 years.
Drink, we are told by Deputy Larkin, is a social evil. Admittedly, abuse of drink is a social evil, but I do not think that anything the Lord gives us, when it is properly used, can be an evil. If we abuse free will, if we abuse our rights and privileges, and if we abuse alcoholic beverages, then of course it is an evil. If Deputy Larkin is so concerned about drink as a social evil as to get up and uncompromisingly oppose this Bill and indeed to plead that the people of Dublin should be denied what Deputy McGilligan referred to as a right and almost a necessity, the right to have a drink on Sunday in a regulated way, why does he support a Government which, by making drink cheaper, has made it much more easy to abuse?
Because they have done something for the poor that you did not do.
To make drink cheap and bread dear is to do something for the poor. Is that the new philosophy of National Labour? Make milk dear, make meat dear and bread dear but make drink cheaper.
The road workers would not get much drink with your 2d. a day.
What about the light beer that Deputy de Valera was talking about some years ago?
Deputy Cogan said he was sorry for Deputy Corry but Deputy Corry in relation to this matter at least has been consistent. He has not had to eat his words as members of the Government have had to do. Why did not Deputy Cogan reserve his sympathy for the Minister for Justice, the Minister for Defence, the Minister for Finance and the rest of the Fine Gael members who were then in the House and who took up in relation to this matter the same stand as Deputy Corry has taken here to-day? They are the people for whom Deputy Cogan should be sorry, because they are the people who, for some reason that I do not understand, have been compelled to abandon the ideas which they had when in opposition in regard to this matter.
Then, again, we are told by Deputy Larkin that drink is a social evil. If drink is a social evil, will some person tell me why another element in this inter-Party Government—Clann na Poblachta—in the constituency of Dublin South Central made cheap drink the principal plank in their platform, to the extent that Deputy Lehane issued a leaflet showing a brimming pint and stating: "Your pint is 4d. dearer under a Fianna Fáil Government"? They are now going to tell us that drink is a social evil. But they have floated into power on the froth of the print; they have profited by this social evil, every one of them. Then they get Deputy Flanagan to get up and move this hypocritical motion:
"That the Dáil refuses to give a Second reading to the Intoxicating Liquor (Amendment) Bill, 1948, for the reason that its enactment would be contrary to the social and moral welfare of the people."
You are an authority on hypocrisy.
One thing anyhow about the astute politicians of Fine Gael is that they choose their instruments well. When they got Deputy Flanagan to put down an amendment phrased in those terms they knew that nobody was going to believe him or take him seriously.
We did well when we got Deputy Allen to agree.
I have listened very attentively to the various speeches for and against this Bill and I must admit, after listening to them for a couple of hours, that I am more confused now than I was at the start. So far as I am personally concerned, I have very set views on this question of Sunday trading both in the city and in the country. My own personal view is that which I advocated on the streets of Dublin over 28 years ago, that public houses should be closed altogether on Sundays. If Deputy Corry, as he threatened, brings in a more drastic Bill that public houses should be closed altogether on Sunday and if nobody seconds him, even in the spirit that Deputy MacEntee seconded his Bill to-day—I am inclined to think from Deputy MacEntee's speech that he was not supporting Deputy Corry's Bill at all, that he was more anxious to have a crack at Deputy Flanagan than to support his colleague Deputy Corry—if I am in the House I will second it and support it.
I believe, having listened to the Deputies' speeches, that we are not making progress. Everybody seemed to be speaking at cross purposes. Deputy Corry's demand for the extension of the city hours to the country is to facilitate the agricultural worker and the small farmer in getting refreshments. In supporting this Bill some other Deputies suggested that the people who drink behind the shutters in licensed premises on a Sunday get there in motor cars. I cannot see the agricultural workers of County Cork or any other county setting out on a Sunday evening in their motor cars, going into a public house and staying there until the Guards come to root them out. I believe that the whole question of the licensing laws will have to be considered and I do not think that can be done by a private Deputy's Bill. I sincerely hope, as a result of the discussion to-day, that the Minister for Justice will take cognisance of the different statements made. Taking into consideration the fact that the law as it stands is not being and seemingly cannot be enforced or will not be enforced, I think that more drastic laws will have to be passed and instructions issued to the people who are to enforce them.
The Fianna Fáil Government were responsible for the alteration in the opening hours in the city, which were three to five. They introduced a double shift, from one to three and five to seven. The explanation for that given outside, whatever explanation was given here, was that it was a terrible hardship on people coming from the country to the city on Sundays for football and hurling finals that when they left Croke Park they found all the public houses closed, and that if they succeeded in getting in before 5 o'clock the publican was unable to clear the house in time and the result was that a number of publicans were prosecuted. I think it is a deplorable state of affairs if the licensing laws are to be decided on what happens on two or three or possibly not more than six Sundays in the year.
I can speak with personal knowledge so far as the licensed trade is concerned. I am perfectly satisfied, both from my own experience and from the knowledge that I have gained from people working behind the counter and those who own public houses in Dublin, that the introduction of the double shift has not served any useful purpose. I sincerely hope that in any alterations which the present Minister for Justice introduces in regard to the licensing laws he will abolish that position altogether. While I am in favour of the complete abolition of Sunday trading, I feel that it is a ridiculous position that one set of licensing laws should operate, say in Blackrock, and another in Cabinteely. It makes for a very uneven distribution of what is considered right by the people living in two different districts. It encourages young men who are living on the borders of the city to drift into the city on a Sunday evening because they are encouraged by the fact that they can sit down in comfort in a public house at a later hour of the evening.
I do not think that anybody could seriously advocate that the rural workers are looking forward to the time when the public houses will open from 1 to 3 o'clock and from 5 to 7 o'clock in the country. It is an accepted fact that here in the city the individuals who desire that kind of trading and who support the public houses on a Sunday do not go away after the first two hours. In a great number of cases they linger outside the public houses from 3 o'clock when they are closed until they reopen at 5 o'clock. It would be ridiculous to see the same thing happening in villages throughout the country.
I would suggest to Deputy Corry that he should not delay the House any longer but ask for permission to withdraw the Bill and that he might make an appeal to the Minister for Justice to reconsider the whole of our licensing legislation with a view not to extending facilities for drinking throughout the country but rather to tighten the facilities that already exist. The case has been made to the Minister that, if he does reconsider our present licensing legislation, he should abolish the differentiation there is at present between the city and the country as well as the double hour, and that if, in his wisdom, he feels that licensed houses should be open for a period on the Sabbath Day, the opening should be for two or three hours in one continuous period, such opening to apply to both the city and the rural places at the same time.
The privilege that prevails at present in the country with regard to bona fide travellers represents something that we have inherited from past Governments. Everybody admits that this privilege has been generally abused. To carry on a bona fide trade, as laid down by law, would be almost impossible. I do not drink. Thank God I never took a drink, and I sincerely hope that I never shall, but, suppose I wanted a drink, the law, as it is generally accepted, is that if I walk three miles from one public house to another I can get it. Actually, if I travel five miles from one district to another and if a Garda sergeant comes in and asks me what I am doing in the public house and I tell him that I have come in for a drink I will be told that I am breaking the law. As the law stands at present, it means that a person can get refreshment to continue his journey. You are not entitled to get drink by walking three or five miles from one public house to another.
In view of the present position I suggest that our licensing laws need to be overhauled. I sincerely hope that the present Government and the Minister will take into consideration the suggestion that I have made, namely, that public houses should be closed altogether on Sunday. When I came to this city first, if I did not practise outside a public house bar I did behind one. In my time I was behind a lot of bars, iron bars as well as public house bars. One found it rather monotonous serving behind a public house bar especially during the period when the hours of trading were too long. Originally, the opening hours were from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m.
In those days the assistants merely existed or lingered, as one might say, from work to bed and from bed to work. They got very little for their long hours of duty. I have mentioned two types of bars. The assistants working behind a public house counter about 30 years ago were, as I have said, on duty from 7 a.m. until 11 p.m. They retired to bed after closing and were back again behind the counter at 7 the next morning. The space in which they had to work behind the counter was oftentimes not as big as a cell in Mountjoy. From 1912 the assistants became entitled by law to a half day in the week. They very seldom got it until about 1918 when they became organised. Due to the activities of the barmen's union, particularly in Dublin, they were in a position to enforce the half day from 1918. About that time, too, the licensing laws were altered and the opening hours were reduced. When the publicans found that their assistants would work only 52 hours a week instead of 74 hours they realised that it would be almost impossible for them to carry on. The introduction of curfew by the British authorities in 1918 first gave those employed in the licensed trade a breathing space. When curfew was revoked about 1921 the public houses could, by law, have kept open until 11 o'clock, but the assistants refused to work later than 9.30 p.m. As a result of that conflict between the organised assistants and the employers in the licensed trade, legislation was introduced for the first time regulating closing hours. That revolution in the licensed trade was brought about after careful consideration and not by cross-talk or the introduction of half-measures such as we have in this Bill.
I respectfully suggest to Deputy Corry that he should withdraw the Bill and allow the House to proceed with some other business. I would also ask that the Minister would give the House a guarantee that he would look into the whole question of our licensing legislation with a view to having it drastically altered. It may be that not even all the pioneers who are members of the House—I am glad to see quite a number of them wearing their pioneer pins because they are a credit to this Assembly—or others who, while not wearing the pioneer pin have openly stated that they are temperate in the matter of drink, would support a Bill for the total abolition of Sunday opening. I earnestly hope that, if not this Assembly, then some Assembly that we shall have sitting here in the future, will pass legislation for the abolition of Sunday opening in the Twenty-Six Counties similar to that which operates in the Six Counties at present.
Major de Valera
In dealing with a subject like this, it is very easy to get passionately lost in a point of view and to forget that our job here is to view our problems dispassionately and objectively and to come to a solution, if possible, in the best interests of the community as a whole, and also, as far as possible, in the best interests of the individual. There is very little use in basing oneself on any specific argument when you are dealing with a problem which has so many sides to it as this drink problem has. We might as well realise at the outset that there would not be a debate here to-day, and that there would not be the interest evoked by Deputy Corry's proposal if it were not for the fact that there is a social problem there to be dealt with, and if it were not for the fact that there is something somewhere in connection with this drink problem that needs further adjustment.
The very fact that you have the interest which has been evoked both here and outside is sufficient to show Deputies that there is a problem. One aspect of that has apparently appealed strongly to Deputy Corry and he introduces a Bill which, in effect, is designed simply to extend conditions obtaining in county boroughs to the whole of the country. As far as I can gather the activating motive in Deputy Corry's mind was a desire for equality, a desire for fairness. He saw it from the point of view that everybody in the country should be treated alike— which is a fair principle. But he only saw it from that point of view and up came his Bill. Immediately there were reactions—some of them, again from points of view, going to the extent of saying that there should be no Sunday trading at all. I have not heard anybody saying we should have complete prohibition. However, if the experiment had not been tried in America and found a failure I warrant that somebody here, before this debate had concluded, would have been advocating complete prohibition. That experiment, however, is a complete answer to the complete prohibitionist. From these two opposite extremes—I am leaving out such people as would cheaply try to exploit what they imagine to be popular sentiments or sentiments of religion because such people do not count. I take sincere people like Deputy Corry who see it from the point of view of a balance of fairness between the city and the country man.
I can look at it from the point of view of Deputy Fitzpatrick who from his own experience in seeing the evils both to the person who has consumed too much drink and to the people who have to supply the drink—long hours and so forth—would on that basis advocate complete closure on a Sunday. For my part, I would prefer, and I think it is the proper way for this House as a whole to take it, the subject having been raised, to look at it as a whole. It will simplify our discussion and bring us more closely into harmony in our final decision if we realise at the start that there are a number of sides to this problem and a number of factors to be taken into account. In enumerating them I want to stress that I do not want to be guilty of taking a narrow view in this matter. I am quite conscious that, either through ignorance or forgetfulness, I may in my enumeration omit to take into account features that are there. I would draw the attention of the House to the following. Firstly, you have the overall fact that, in this country, in regard to the consumption of alcohol over a period going back a long long time, a problem developed which had a certain kinship with, say, the opium problem in other countries; in other words, the problem of alcohol as a drug. It is only necessary to read some of the records available to see that in certain instances it had as completely a degrading influence, not only on individuals but on certain sections of the community as a whole as any other drug. You have the background of that problem and the gradual pulling out as a whole from the morass into which a large portion of our people in the past lived in that regard; a morass from which they were pulled by a combination of forces. There was the temperance movement directly directed towards modifying that situation. There was the legislation restricting the sale of liquor and checking it. There were the national movements that gave the people a self-respect which had a beneficial reaction in that respect, too, and there were the labour movements which made the working man conscious of his place and of his dignity as a human being and conscious of the fact that as a human being he was equal to a human being in any other stratum.
In doing that, in building up his self-respect, these movements contributed in no small way to curing a social disease which resulted from the over consumption of alcohol. However, there is the background there. There is a certain tradition here in regard to drinking—treating and so forth. These are factors which must be taken into account. Drinking in this country means something more than merely taking refreshment, more than merely taking a drink on the occasion of a conversation or social intercourse. There is this accursed habit that if one drink is taken at least the number of drinks corresponding to the number in the party must be consumed at the specific time. There is factor No. 1 and I need not go on to say that it is extremely desirable to control any excess like that.
I am not saying that factor No. 2 is next in order of importance but it is certainly a factor. It is the question of how far legislation can be effective to control such an evil; how far can you go with positive legislation to stop the undue consumption of drink with effect and where is the limit beyond which, if you go, you are going to bring in abuses which more than outweigh the evils which you seek to remedy. That such a limit exists I think is universally admitted now since the experiment in America. I will leave out whatever the motives were. The fact was that, whatever led up to it, at one stage in the United States there was total prohibition. It did not prevent the consumption of intoxicating liquor. Not only that but it gave rise to evils connected with, shall I say, the taking of alcohol as a drug. It gave rise to the taking of alcohol in the most obnoxious form.
In other words the drug angle completely outweighed the social angle in certain places. Not only did it defeat its own end—if that was its end in that regard—but it brought other evils of racketeering and murder and everything else in its train which inevitably made it necessary to repeal the prohibition legislation. Therefore, we do know now that there is a limit to which preventive legislation can be pressed. It is, I am afraid, a matter for opinion to some extent but certainly a matter for time, place and circumstances to be taken into consideration in determining precisely where that limit is; how far we in this House by positive legislation can stem the improper consumption of alcohol and how far short of absolute prevention we will have to stop in order to avoid abuses greater than the abuses which we seek to remedy. Time and again Acts have been produced and this legislation has come under review. On no occasion has it been completely successful; sometimes through lack of enforcement, sometimes through changing circumstances. Before dealing with the effect of recent legislation, however, and the particular problem that is involved I should like to enumerate a third factor that has to be taken into account as well as, firstly, the factor of social evil and, secondly, the factor of how far legislation can be effective.
The third factor I shall just touch upon because it has already been elaborated to some extent by other speakers. It is the problem in connection with the assistants engaged in the licensing trade and even the licensed vintner himself in relation to time. There is a problem with regard to trade. If you are going to permit trading of a particular type on Sunday have you then any real reason for discriminating against other types of trade? All these problems have been touched on already. They must be taken into account. I shall not repeat what has already been said in relation to those problems.
Another problem enters in with regard to other legislation which may have a bearing on this. It is for that reason that I rose to second Deputy Allen's motion. I feel that it meets the Bill at the moment. It meets it in regard to the facilities provided for the same legislation for the consumption of intoxicating liquor. These facilities are not provided solely by the licensing Acts. They are provided too by other legislation. I mentioned the shop assistants. In dealing with the shop assistants one has to have regard to shop hours and to uniformity and fairness in trading practice as a whole. All these Acts have to be scrutinised in a problem of this nature. Not only have they to be scrutinised but the fiscal provisions have to be examined into as well. If there is anything that facilitates the sale or otherwise of a commodity it is its price. If legislation has a direct bearing on price then obviously that legislation must be taken into consideration in dealing with intoxicating liquor.
While Deputy Corry's Bill does bring it forcibly to our minds that there is a problem in existence in urgent need of examination, I think that the present proposed measure both in its method of introduction as a Private Member's Bill and in its format is an unhappy one. It may serve a useful purpose in bringing the problem to light. Not only could I not subscribe to the present measure but I feel myself coerced into calling for its rejection. This problem is really one for the Government. There are too many ramifications in it to find a solution for it in a Private Member's Bill. It is a problem which requires all the resources of the Government in order to deal with it satisfactorily. The Government is the only organisation which can get that accurate information so essential for a proper survey of the social aspect of the problem. The Government is the only organisation which can know exactly what is fact and what is fancy. The Government is the only organisation which can inform the House generally and statistically as to the true social position before the House can be called upon to vote for any positive enactment.
It is a problem, as I have said, that is tied up with other legislation. There is legislation dealing with hours of trading, holidays for workers and possibly hours of service in order to keep the hours in conformity with normal business. There is the problem of remuneration and the keeping of it in conformity with other scales of remuneration for similar employees in other trades. All these problems will have to be co-ordinated by the various Government Departments interested in this matter. It is a problem which only the Government can tackle.
Then there is the question of the enforcement of law and order. Deputy MacEntee quoted an example which the Minister for Justice himself gave when he was in opposition. Everybody knows that the incident which the then Deputy General MacEoin cited can be multiplied many times all over the country. The problem of enforcing the law is tied up with police organisation and administration. It is tied up with the question of what is feasible and what is not feasible. That is not something which can be dealt with adequately in a Private Member's Bill. It is obvious that a legislature should pass no laws except those which can be and must be enforced. The laws which are to be enforced must be enforced impartially as against all sections of the community. They are laws which must be enforced rigidly and without discrimination irrespective of whether they relate to the illegal possession of stolen property or the receiving of stolen goods, to the illegal possession or consumption of liquor, or to the illegal possession and use of firearms. In other words, it is only sensible that legislation should be capable of general enforcement. If you legislate in such a way that the enforcement of the law is impracticable from a police point of view, then you defeat your own object, you are acting ineffectively and, worse still, you are bringing the law into contempt. No private Deputy, without the resources which a Government has, can deal effectively with such a task.
There is yet another aspect. There is the question of excise. If one examines the finance accounts for the last year there are some interesting figures there which bear upon this problem. In regard to the customs it is interesting to note that you have £38,000 gross receipts in regard to beer, giving a net £26,538. In regard to spirits there are four varieties given within a specific range. The gross and net receipts lie in the region of £390,000 to £334,000 odd. The four classes comprise brandy, Geneva, rum and other sorts. These are very considerable sums. Wines are a very substantial figure, being practically in the region of £700,000. The deductions in regard to spirits and wines under the headings of drawbacks, rebates, etc., are quite small. In the case of excise which, I take it, would correspond to the home product you have gross £10,000,000 and net £5,000,000. These are round figures. In spirits you have £3,900,000 — almost £4,000,000 — gross and more than £3,500,000 net. Scrutinise the remainder of the figures and you will see that the item of drink from the point of view of revenue is a very substantial one. Obviously that has been a consideration of the Minister for Finance in falling back on the income derivable there. It was obviously the judgment of the Government of the moment and the Minister for Finance that it was preferable to give more facilities for drinking and to have more drink drunk and so get a bigger revenue than to adhere to the restrictions which the previous Government put on in an emergency Budget and which got a less return. At least, that must have been one of the reasons.
One of the irritating things about some of the people who made overpious speeches here to-night was the failure to take these factors into consideration. The previous Government did take these factors into consideration and, in fact, they were severely criticised by a number of people here and outside this House for the fact that they made drink dear while other essentials were reduced in price. It has also been commented upon that whereas Deputy Corry's Bill has evoked large protests, many of the people protesting against it did not protest against the Budget introduced by the Minister for Finance, which made drink cheaper, particularly spirits, and which thereby increased the facilities for drinking. I could elaborate on things like that. The fact is that the Government had a problem, they had to balance the revenue, and obviously Deputy McGilligan as Minister for Finance thought that he had better let drink consumption go up in order to aid his Budget deficit.
The problem is not quite as simple even as that. One has to discriminate sometimes between the types of drink consumed. When I was on the far side of the House I would have had no hesitation in taxing spirits and wines, particularly imported wines, the stuff consumed in hotels in the afternoons, purely by way of recreation for people who have the money to spend. I would have no hesitation in taxing that type of drink up to the hilt and milking those people who have the money to spend for everything I could get out of them. But one has also to consider such a drink as beer. One has to take into account that for many a working man on a weekday the pint may be part of his midday meal.
I have not perhaps the same knowledge of this that some other Deputies may have, but I know of cases where men would bring sandwiches, bread and butter, because they could not go home for lunch. These men might get, at the appropriate break, a pint or a bottle of stout. That is not to be confused with drinking purely for recreation. If you check one, you have to be careful that you do not over-check on the other. So far as having a pint on weekdays, where there is the question of a meal, is concerned, I would not be in favour of taxing that, but I would tax the other type of drink right up to the hilt.
That is a simple point of view to put forward, and the Minister would be very right in saying: "That is all right, but what about the implementation of it?" Let me take a specific case; let me take the case that a working man should be able to get his pint, particularly in the middle of the day, because it is part of his meal. With regard to all drink, beer included, I say that if it is being drunk merely as a recreation, having regard to the social problem here, it should be taxed up to the hilt. That is quite an understandable principle to adopt but where does it lead you with regard to enforcing the law? You cannot charge one price for beer between the hours of 1 and 3 or 12 and 3 on a weekday and charge a higher price at night or on Sundays. Therefore, to be practical, I am forced to the position where I must say: "We will have to put on a tax on spirits and wines, but I am afraid we will have to exempt beer that is in a certain category." That is an administrative problem.
I am going into this merely to show that there is a problem here. The type of talk we heard from certain people to-night has got us nowhere. There is a problem for the Government and for the Opposition, for the Minister and for the private Deputy, that cannot be solved by a mere stroke of the pen. It requires careful examination. One has to weigh the pros and the cons in order to arrive at a solution. Where are we with Deputy Corry's Bill? The Bill, to my mind, does not remedy the abuse which has prompted him to put it forward, nor does it give any real benefits to the community. It it rather open to further abuses. For these reasons, while realising the very understandable motives for raising the problem, I feel we cannot support the Bill. It must be rejected on the ground that the present facilities are ample and also on the ground that any problem of this nature with so many sides to it can only be tackled adequately by the Government.
I suggest that obviously there is an interest in this subject now. Deputy Corry is, so to speak, merely the manifestation, in moving the Bill, of some feeling at large through the country and this is, therefore, possibly the best time to reconsider our licensing laws. I suggest the Minister should do that. I would not be so foolish as to say to him: "Come in here next week with all your plans cut and dried," because the problem is too serious and the Minister and his Government could not solve it overnight. They will probably have to come to this House and consult Deputies, as was done in 1942 or 1943.
Unfortunately, the mover of the first amendment kicked off in his usual way and nearly threw the debate off the lines it should be on with his usual irresponsibility. We should have some regard to the manner in which the debate in 1942 or 1943 was carried on. I was not in the House then, but I have gone to the trouble of reading the report of that debate. That is more than a lot of people have done, obviously. There was an intelligent and tenacious discussion on many points arising at that time and there was a certain desire manifested in the House to approach the problem objectively. That was shown by the fact that the Bill the Minister brought in was passed without a division on the Second Reading. If Deputies read the reports they will see that amendments were tabled and they were withdrawn or voted upon, all in a spirit of appreciation of the difficulties that were involved.
If this social problem is to be tackled, it can only be usefully tackled by the House in much the same way. People will have their points of view. Individual Deputies will be seized of and struck by one aspect of the problem rather than another and will urge their views on that aspect, but these will be balanced by others who will give the counterblast, and the net result will be a law which will do the best that can be done at the moment to meet the particular situation and also will probably contain a few experiments which the enactors of the Bill are quite prepared to see either a success or a failure.
There are very few reforming or novel pieces of legislation which have not got flaws somewhere and do not meet with unexpected success in other directions. That is to be expected. It is a most futile and foolish thing to think that, even in the most trivial matters, it is possible to enact something which will be suited to the circumstances for all time. We must be prepared for change; we must be prepared for errors in human judgment, and we must be prepared to make the necessary alterations from time to time, as the occasion demands.
Therefore, if the Minister, with the resources at his disposal, feels that this is the time to reconsider this problem I urge him to do so, but I should like to see whatever Bill is to deal with it emanating from the Government Benches rather than from any private Deputy who will not have the information, personal or acquired from others, the facilities available to him to marshal what information is there or the time or breadth of outlook which can be brought to bear on the problem by the organs of the State with the various Departments charged with specialist inquiries at their disposal to be co-ordinated and directed to the effort. Let us have it, but let us have it from the Government Benches. We have heard Deputy Corry threatening us with another Bill. Frankly, though again I appreciate his tenacity, his anxiety to iron out a grievance and his feeling that the countryman is every bit as good as the city man—a feeling with which we will all possibly agree, in principle—it is futile for him or anybody else to bring in a private Bill to deal with this problem. It is too complex.
I should like it to be noted, however, that, in putting this to the Minister, I am not challenging him to produce a Bill here and now, or even immediately. There are too many factors to be examined and possibly the existing state of the law might be the better position to maintain for some time, particularly if he is engaged on a drive to enforce the law. We have had a drive to enforce the law relating to wireless licences, and if this debate will bring a drive to enforce the law in relation to intoxicating liquor licences, well and good; but you cannot do too many things at one time, and it might be that the Minister would be better employed in enforcing the law.
What law?
Major de Valera
The Minister has come into office after an emergency period. He has come into office after a period of war, of unrest and of change, and we must give him time. There are any amount of law enforcement jobs to be done—as I have said, from stolen property down to the illegal possession and use of firearms. I am not, therefore, pressing the Minister as he might be better employed in enforcing the law.
As the opportunity has arisen, I should like to comment finally on some of the specific problems involved in Sunday opening and the bona fide traffic generally. Before I do so, I want to make one general comment. There would be too many patronising people talking about the poor man and the poor worker and whether he is a drunkard or terribly sober.
The problem is not amongst the poor working men but in the higher stratum of society. It is not down in the docks or in places where the ordinary worker meets that you will find the real abuse of drink. It is in other establishments, amongst the people with a lot more money. It is not amongst the people who drink a bottle of stout or a pint that you will find that abuse, but amongst the people who drink their gin and other fancy drinks in some of what I suppose I may call the well-lit-up places in the city.
Do not let us make the mistake at the start of talking about the poor working man, whether he be the agricultural labourer, the small farmer or the city worker. By contrast with other elements of the community, he has his feet on the ground, and I would rather trust him with the Sunday opening and other hours of opening than many of the other people. If we are to get after this problem, let us get after the other type; the type who have their drinks in one place in the city and who get into their cars with their lady friends, well primed with gin-and-it, or whatever they take, and go somewhere else for a few more drinks.
There is this immediate question to be answered: Would Sunday opening be so much worse than the present position? In other words, the bona fide experiment is still left in the 1943 Act. Is it not still open to all the abuses which it was designed to remove? People can still get drink in the city— it is made easier to that extent—but does it wipe out the problem around the country of these people who have the cars and the money and how far are they the real problem rather than the agricultural labourer? I am not competent to express an opinion on that, but I note—I am not having regard to people who might be open to the accusation of being cranks—that certain responsible people, people who are in a position to know accurately the facts, are against Sunday opening. I know that the people charged with local administration and local clergy are against it. They are against it for good and sober reasons, if I may say so, without perpetrating a pun. That being so, I for one would not vote for a Bill providing for universal opening on Sunday, without very good reasons as to why they are wrong.
On the other hand, however, there is the question whether this bona fide traffic, this getting into a car and “skiting” off three miles, tanking up and moving on again, is not an abuse which is even worse and, if it is, what is the remedy? Personally, I do not think it is Sunday opening. What is it, and why cod ourselves in chasing one thing when the real evil is something else? Remember that this question of bona fide traffic is a more dangerous thing at present than it ever was when the idea was conceived. This provision for the bona fide traveller is a relatively ancient thing in licensing law now. It is a feature which was introduced in days when travelling was travelling, but the motor-car has brought about a big number of changes. Three miles was three miles then; it is only a hop in a car now; and a day's travelling at that time is only a matter of an hour or so now. Is there a case at all for discrimination on a mileage basis? That is a problem to consider, which is at least as important as Sunday opening.
There is no use in throwing all the mud at Deputy Corry. At least, he can made the case—firstly, why should you discriminate between the city and the country; secondly, are you not trying to keep the people on the land instead of flocking into the cities, yet you are giving more facilities to the cities; and, thirdly, a man is going three miles at the moment, so why not let him have the drink in his own home town rather than somewhere else? These arguments can be extended. Deputies may disagree with Deputy Corry, as I do, but there is some sense behind what he has done. We must deal with the Bill with solid reason, instead of with the type of carry-on we had here at the beginning of the debate.
Against the Bill, I say, first with regard to discrimination, that we have chosen the lesser of two evils. That was really why these provisions regarding county boroughs were put in. In that type of trade, there was an important problem in the big towns— an important police problem, anyway. In the outlying areas of Dublin, with the use of the motor-car the law became a joke and the trade became dangerous. Anyone in the courts would realise the number of accidents which were attributed to this stopping at public houses, and that must be taken into account. This attempt to change the hour in the cities was really a choice of the lesser of two evils, which the House more or less accepted ultimately. Whether the experiment has been a success or not is another question; whether these provisions for bona fide travelling over the country should not have been abolished is another question. Whether, as Deputy Fitzpatrick put it, we should not close on Sundays all over the country is another question.
Why should we have all these subjective attacks on Deputy Corry and the passing over of the Budget? If Deputy Corry is susceptible to attack, so is the Minister for Finance. As it happens, I do not agree with either of them, and I know many other Deputies who do not. But Deputy Corry will have done a service in bringing before the House the fact that there is still a problem to be solved. It is creating interest outside regarding Sunday opening, regarding the whole question of driving motor vehicles and also of luxury drinking, amongst a class who have money to spend in hotels in Dublin and can run out then in their cars around the country, and who are not drinking beer. There are customs problems, excise problems and administrative problems. For that reason, in ainm Dé, let us leave this alone as a private enterprise in this House and let us ask the Minister to have this problem examined objectively and to put forward at the proper time proposals for us to discuss. Then we can be informed on the matter. We can do no greater disservice to the cause of temperance and to the cause of good government, than to embark on this legislation with a one-track mind dominated by one idea.
There is a problem, but Deputy Corry's Bill is not the answer. It is not altogether a social problem, though that is the ruling factor, as has been suggested in another amendment. I am opposing this Bill generally, because it cannot be met in this way and because a great disservice will be done to the cause of temperance and to the administration of the law if this just developed into a ramp in the House. Let us have the proposals put forward, with all the information as to the existing laws marshalled and correlated, including Budgets and the Shops Acts, and so on. Then we can discuss the question usefully. That is why I second Deputy Allen's amendment to reject the Bill. Let us hope we will not hear of this subject again by way of a Private Member's Bill. By all means, let it come forward with the information emanating from those responsible at the moment for administering the affairs of the people.
Mr. Maguire
Undoubtedly, the Bill before us on its merits has a lot to recommend it. The distinction existing in the liquor laws between the rural and the city or urban dweller is one that calls for very serious consideration and, undoubtedly, for reform on the basis of equity. However, during this discussion, as on every occasion when these liquor laws have been under discussion, there has been such a lot of contradiction that one is inclined to doubt where sincerity begins, or if sincerity is really in the background of all those attempting by legislation to do temperance work or reform the people from the abuse of excessive drinking. I received many communications, since this Bill was introduced, from temperance reformers. What I admire and recognise is that these societies are largely composed of people with high ideals, people impressed by the necessity of having less drink consumed and a greater understanding of temperance by the community generally. Their motives are good, but I do not consider them as outstandingly in a position to direct policy for the rest of the community.
Unquestionably, the great majority of our people do not belong to temperance clubs, but consume intoxicating drinks to a lesser or greater degree. I am not entirely impressed by the representations made to me from these societies. At the same time, I recognise that they are idealists inspired by their own ambition and outlook on these things, that they are following the example of great Irishmen in that regard. I am not despising them, but I do not regard them as capable of directing policy on this important question of reasonable legislation.
The very fact that over the years, I might say over the centuries now, Governments have found it necessary to introduce legislation to control the sale of this commodity is evidence that it is a product the use of which is liable to abuse and to be injurious to the well-being of the community. I do not know when the first legislation to control the sale of intoxicating liquor was introduced but the fact that so many changes have since occurred in legislation—mention was made here by one speaker to-night that he used to open his public house at one time at 7 o'clock in the morning and that he did not shut it until 11 o'clock at night—shows that this is a matter which has had to be constantly kept under review.
It is obvious that inspired from some quarter or other—perhaps by temperance reformers, by the Church authorities or by some other source—the Government did find it necessary from time to time to restrict the power of individuals generally to purchase liquor. One extraordinary thing, however, stands out from all this condemnation of the licensing laws, condemnation from temperance reformers who go so far as to say that no spirits whatever should be sold except under the strictest control or that the sale of them should be altogether proscribed. That fact is that all these people— Governments, temperance reformers and the community generally—acknowledge the right of the State to draw revenue from the sale of that commodity which, in their opinion, has to be controlled and is in reality, according to their viewpoint, an immoral thing to sell. Let these temperance reformers bring in a Bill here and ask this Dáil to refuse to accept revenue from the sale of a product that is such a danger that it requires continual changes of legislation to control its use. That I suggest would be something logical.
I have listened to Deputies on the Opposition Benches quoting speeches made by present Ministers when they were in opposition and when legislation dealing with the sale of liquor was under consideration here. Deputy MacEntee in quoting these speeches undoubtedly confused these Ministers who are now resisting any extension of the licensing laws as proposed by Deputy Corry. What is the explanation of that? Is it not that we are dealing with this social problem from the Party point of view and not from the essential national point of view or the point of view of the well-being of the community? Ministers who to-day occupy the Government Benches, when sitting on the opposite side of the House and speaking on the same subject, gave expression to views which are quoted against them to-night and they have no answer to give when they are asked why they have changed their views.
Why have they changed their views? Because they have become a Government, responsible in a serious way. Why have Deputies on the Opposition Benches who were Ministers some time ago and who insisted on imposing restrictions and on enforcing restrictive licensing laws, changed their point of view? Is it not due to political motives? Is it not appealing to public clamour, to try to set themselves right with what they believe is a popular point of view? Having regard to that manner of dealing with legislation I ask you, Sir, is it any wonder that the ordinary man down the country views with disgust the rigid control that prevents him from taking a pint of stout when he feels like it? To-day we have Deputies criticising laws which last year or the year before they were responsible for embodying in legislation, men who said at that time: "Enforce that law and at your peril fail not." To-day in opposition they say: "We think now that that situation should be remedied", thereby admitting that the laws they had been enforcing so rigidly and at the expense of so many people down the country, who were technically caught out a few minutes after the prescribed hour, brought to court and fined, were unreasonable. Where is the morality of that?
Ministers of to-day, some years ago spoke in favour of an extension of liberty for the would-be consumer of spirits. To-day they defend with all the vigour and the power that is vested in them, the continuance of the laws enacted by men who to-night are in opposition and who say now that the law should be amended and extended to give further liberty in these matters if liberty at all is to be worth anything. Is it any wonder you have disrespect for the law? Is it any wonder that you have, as has been asserted, public houses open at times outside the prescribed hours? How, in the name of Heaven, can you ask for respect for the law from the humble ordinary citizen when successive Minister change their mind from day to day and year to year according as they are in power or out of power. Where is the moral responsibility to the community there?
I agree with some speakers who have said that this is a social problem affecting in a serious way the living, the homes and the well-being of a vast section of the community, but I hate to hear people come in here who have never probably taken a drink in their lives and who refer, with a sort of sob appeal, to the simple man, the man who drinks a pint or takes a bottle of stout as against the person who has a motor car and who flies from one public house to another. All that is nonsense.
The man who is buying this drink is contributing to the revenue of the State. I doubt very much if there is much between the morality of the men who put an excessive tax on drink last year and the men who reduced that taxation this year. Both were seeking revenue. It certainly was not the moral well-being of the community that they were legislating for. The last Government introduced a Bill increasing the price of drink in order to get revenue to make up losses in other directions. The present Government reduced the price of drink. Was it moral influence or the desire to catch votes?
I hate this pandering to the mentality of not objecting to the working man getting his pint and objecting to the man with the motor-car and other facilities to move from one place to another for the purpose of getting drink. Both sections are paying revenue, and if one section is more immoral than the other then legislation should be introduced to deal specifically with the section that is the more immoral.
This is a matter of revenue, and so long as the Government in office legislate for increased revenue then, if there is immorality in connection with drink, the Government is responsible. Stop it altogether. Let us have finished with drink, if it is so bad and immoral as one would imagine listening to the speeches of individuals in the various Parties. Personally, I do not think that it is so serious. I believe that drink is an essential and a good thing. Perhaps there are abuses, but there are abuses in many other aspects of our civilisation.
When I was young I used to be told that cigarette-smoking was bad from a health point of view. If that is so, why have Governments adopted the policy of deriving revenue from smoking? If it is bad for the people, it is the duty of the Government, with other authoritative bodies, the Church and others, to say to the people: "We are going to stamp that out as we have stamped out other serious crime." Drink has been condemned. Yet it is taxed and revenue is derived from it. Smoking is condemned. Yet it is taxed and the revenue helps to pay for social services. Dancing is condemned as being bad in excess. That word "excess" applies all round. Everybody interprets that word according to his own idea. Dancing is taxed. You say it is wrong but you tax it and derive revenue from it. Is not most of our revenue, therefore, drawn from things that are condemned as wrong and immoral?
I agree with those who say that they are in sympathy with Deputy Corry's proposal that there should be no discrimination between the facilities afforded in country areas and in city areas. I do not see why our benign, fatherly and loving Governments should have greater regard for the people living in the country than they have for the people living in the cities. There are nearly as many living in the cities as in the country. Why should the Government discriminate against the people living in the cities? If it is bad to drink, why give facilities for that bad habit to those in the cities and give protection to the country folk? I cannot see the reason for it.
I can only say that the whole scheme of things will have to be considered in a different way if there is to be reasonable and proper legislation. It will not be done by the present Government denying their statements of three years ago and hiding their heads in the sand. Neither will it be done by the ex-Ministers on this side of the House repudiating their own Acts of two or three years ago. It will not be done as long as Party politics enter into it or as long as Deputies advocate a policy merely for the purpose of vote-catching. If this question involves, as it does involve, morals, good conduct, respect, it should be dealt with by a body outside Party politics. It will never be solved by the exchange of smart talk between one bench and the other. It will be done by the establishment of an authoritative body who would examine the question from a purely moral and national aspect, whose recommendations might be embodied in legislation. Let us stop hypocrisy in regard to this question. It is an important question. It is so important that it is the chief source of revenue. Let us cease talking about morality in regard to it. It is good business. Let it go on.
Deputy Corry's motion is not extensive enough and, as Deputy Major de Valera said, he cannot have at his disposal resources sufficient to enable him to tackle the problem. He has done well by bringing the matter before the community. There is a problem existing and it has to be solved. I say to the Government, do not try to solve it as your predecessors did. Try to establish a body of people who are outside politics and who are inspired with a philosophy and who will understand the psychology of the matter, to consider how far the introduction of control of the sale of liquor can effectively operate for the benefit of the community.
When I started the debate to-day I did not think that it would take until 8.20 decide whether an unfortunate country boy should walk in the front door or the back door of a public house on Sunday. That is all this Bill means. This Bill means that he is going in the front door instead of the back door. No more. You have that on the authority of Deputy Dr. O'Higgins, Minister for Defence, on the authority of the Minister for Justice, Deputy Seán MacEoin, on their statements made here in 1942, that the law was ignored.
The law is still being ignored. Deputy Vivion de Valera tells us that it would be better to leave it to the Government and Deputy Ben Maguire was saying something along the same lines. The thing was brought in by an Order of the State four years ago, but in my local public house any Sunday I can see 47 motor cars outside the door while the public house is packed with ladies and gents and, as Deputy Vivion de Valera said, it is not porter they are drinking.
If the Gardaí were doing their duty there would not be 47 motor cars outside.
If the Deputy will not shut up I will make him shut up.
Deputy Flanagan should let Deputy Corry conclude without interruption.
Those people come quite within the law. They are quite entitled to be in there from 1 o'clock on Sunday. They need not leave until 8 o'clock and can drink away all the wine and whiskey and gin they like as long as they have a good pocket to pay for it and a good car under their tails to take them home, and they do not care what unfortunate rural labourer they knock down on the road home. It is class legislation and wretched class legislation at that.
I have been charged here with changing my mind in the speech I made when introducing this Bill, but it is the same as the speech made by me on the 17th October, 1942, when the last Bill was introduced here, and there is no changing about that. Talk about moral courage! I will see them all trooping in here to the lobbies and from where? From the Dáil pub where they are spending the evening after being hypocrites here all day. From the arguments which have been put up one would think that some enormous crime was being committed. I am told that the licensed vintners are against it. They are. Why? Because it will mean a reduction of the sale of drink in rural areas, and nobody knows that better than the licensed vintners. Right, left and centre, in every parish, if the law were enforced there would be so much pressure brought to bear on every rural Deputy in this House that this Bill would be passed here to-day by 95 per cent. of the Deputies. Why are they not voting for it to-day? Want of moral courage. They are driven by the crack of the whip. Thank God that never in my lifetime was anybody able to drive me, nor ever will.
Not even the Hierarchy?
The Hierarchy is quoted by a gentleman that the High Court Judge said was perjuring himself.
On a point of order. The Deputy has referred to perjury with regard to Deputy Flanagan. I would ask you, Sir, in the circumstances, to ask Deputy Corry to withdraw as no High Court ever used the word "perjury".
The Chair has very little sympathy with a Deputy who interrupts and Deputy Flanagan has interrupted Deputy Corry on several occasions, quite unnecessarily and unjustifiably. I am asking Deputy Corry, however, to withdraw the word "perjury" with regard to any Deputy in this House.
I will withdraw if you, after reading this document which is the decision of the High Court, say that he did not commit perjury.
Deputy Corry must withdraw the word "perjury".
All right, I withdraw. He is not worth talking about.
You have on the one side licences under which legally a man can start drinking on a Sunday morning and stop at 9 o'clock on a Sunday night whereas if the unfortunate rural labourer who has to be out milking the cows and feeding the cows on a Sunday morning wants to go into the local public house he has to crawl to the back door and sneak in and take what he gets, probably the tail ends of the firkins of the week. This Bill only provides that these men can walk in as honest men and take a drink on Sunday as decent men can. That is all the Bill is looking for rather than have them going as beggars to the back door breaking the law every Sunday. That is the sole difference. There is not a day that I open the paper that I do not see applications for dance hall licences from some team from midnight until morning and that I do not see it granted by the local district justice and then we have the humbugs coming here with tears in their eyes talking about an increase in drink. What are the abuses that were spoken of here to-day? Where were they committed and who committed them?
Is it the class of the community that I am looking to get fair play for? Is it the unfortunate rural labourer who is handed half a crown on a Sunday morning out of his mangy £2 15s. and told "have a drink for yourself to-day"? That man will drink that 2/6 on Sunday if all the Gardaí in Munster are on his tail. The question to be decided is whether he is going to walk in with his neighbour to the public house on Sunday, sit down for half an hour or an hour and drink that 2/6 in peace and comfort, or whether he must sneak in the back door, three or four together, and swallow a few pints in succession and when they go out fall on their heads across the road. I am not a drinking man myself. I do not drink, but I want fair play and justice for the men who are producing our food.
Deputy Kennedy was very troubled here to-day, very worried entirely, saying that we should not have any work on Sunday. We might leave Deputy Kennedy, then, without the milk to colour his tea, for if it is breaking the Sunday observance for a man after his week's work to have a pint, then it is breaking the Sunday observance to take milk into the city for the drones. If it is breaking it in one way it is breaking it in the other. It is all part of the humbug that was brought out here to-day and that will be expressed in a minute by Deputies who have not the courage of their convictions, who know they are wrong, who are afraid to do the honest thing and who sneak around there below and then having come up here and voted against the country boy taking a pint go down to the bar of the Dáil and take three whiskies.
There was a lot in what Deputy Maguire said about the hypocrisy of it all. I am looking for nothing but ordinary justice and fair play for every man. I know that the licensed vintners of Dublin City have sent out their ukase led by Mr. Christy Reddin. I am not afraid of them. I know what the reduction in the value of the Dublin public houses would be if the country public houses were allowed to open. These fellows have their own outlook; these bucks have their own manoeuvres.
But you represent the ordinary rural community here, the ordinary working man who for the last seven years was lauded up to the skies as the salt of the earth, the man who produced the bread and the rashers, the man who fed you all. Michael So-and-So lives in a palace and does no work after 5 o'clock on a Saturday. He can come out of that palace on a Sunday at 1 o'clock, walk across the road and sit down in comfort in a public house with his neighbours and drink away from that until 3 o'clock. If he lives in Cork, he can adjourn to the Grocers' Club and stop there until 5 o'clock, come back to the public house from 5 to 7 o'clock and then go back to the Grocers' Club from 7 to 9 o'clock. That is one class of the community. But the other class, the class that I am pleading for, is the poor, unfortunate rural labourer who is working from Monday morning until Saturday night, who has to be out on Sunday morning to provide fresh milk for the drones, who has to come along on Sunday evening and milk cows and feed them again. He is told: "Because you must work on Sunday, you must walk three miles to the nearest public house, while the other fellow need only walk three yards."
That is the law as it stands which I am asking you to change. I am not asking you to do one iota more than you have already done for the city men. Give the countryman his four hours on Sunday, two in the afternoon and two in the evening, the only hours in which he can enjoy the company of his fellow men. We hear a lot about the flight from the land. How is that caused? These people have no club room, they have no recreation of any description. We have heard a lot of talk about these men drinking. I have been all my lifetime dealing with them. I have four men employed. When there is a strange sergeant in the district, these four men will come into my place to milk on a Sunday as drunk as four owls, falling over the stools in the stall. What is the reason for that? The sergeant who is a respectable man goes into the Church. These four boys will come in and have a look to see if the sergeant is about. They stay near the door and, when the priest gets up to give the sermon, they go out and down to the pub and have four pints each within ten minutes. Imagine the condition of these men going to milk cows or do any other work. If they had two hours on Sunday during which they could sit down in comfort and have a couple of pints of porter——
I thought it was four pints.
Four pints in two hours would not make any man drunk. I agree that if there is a sergeant like the man the Minister for Justice alluded to here on one occasion, things are all right. In that connection, I should like to quote the words of the Minister himself back in 1942. I am quoting from Volume 88 of the Dáil Debates, column 1443, where the Minister is reported as saying:—
"That is a situation in which a Garda sergeant was himself legislating. I have reason to believe that, in the south, a similar legislature was established in a certain area. It is reasonable administration but we should not have that situation created."
I think we heard that before.
You did not hear it from me. The Minister went on to say:—
"Therefore, I think that, all over the country, there should be an opening period on Sundays in the middle of the day."
That was the view expressed by the present Minister for Justice when speaking in this House on the 16th October, 1942. He saw evil then; he realised the evil then. Does he realise the continuance of the evil to-day? If so, what steps is he going to take to rectify it?
Would you leave it to me to deal with?
I left it to you before and the moment I opened my lips you ran away.
When? Was it in 1942?
No, but in 1948.
At least I am entitled to examine the matter. Will you leave it to me now? Deputy de Valera asked you to leave it to me.
I am going right through with this to-night. I never stop half way. The Minister for Justice has his responsibilities and duties and, if he is not prepared to carry them out, let him not blame me. He knows the evil is there and it is his job to rectify it. If this Bill is beaten to-night, I will bring in another to-morrow, providing for the closing of every public house, every club and every hotel in this country from 10 o'clock on Saturday night until 10 o'clock on Monday morning. I will give every humbug who will vote against this Bill a chance of showing he is a humbug on another day. I will put you through your paces my boys.
I have put the case as well as I could. I do not want to delay the House. I am not responsible for all the long-winded speeches made here to-day from one side or the other. I was brief enough in opening, and I will be brief in closing. I leave this to the commonsense of the ordinary Deputies who know the evil and realise it, and who know very well that if there is a scandal and an outrageous condition of affairs in this country to-day in regard to drinking, it is not caused by the unfortunate farmer or rural labourer who goes out on one day in the week when he puts on his Sunday clothes. It is not his fault on that day but rather the fault of the gentlemen who were specially provided for here. It is the fault of the club rooms and of the clubs which have been provided where those gentlemen can get drink, and of the hotels where they can walk in and, so long as they order a slice of bread, get all the porter and whiskey they want. That is the position so long as they pretend it is a meal. These are the things that are the cause of all the trouble. You will not see an old farmer or a rural labourer going out in a motor car on a Sunday "pub" crawling, with two men in front and three lassies behind. It is not among the ordinary farmers that you find that condition of affairs.
I am putting it to the House to-night to end that. It is not my job, but until the Minister has his Bill prepared, I think the decks should be cleared and that there should be a general closing down on Sunday. For that reason, if this Bill is defeated to-night I am going to hand in No. 2 Bill, so that the whole country will be dry from Saturday night until Monday morning and so that the Minister can sit down in peace and comfort and prepare his Bill.
The motion is that the Bill be now read a Second Time. To that motion two amendments have been moved, proposing after the word "that" to delete the words that follow and substitute the other words in the two amendments. I am putting the question: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 23; Níl, 106.
Tá
- Belton, John
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred Patrick.
- Carter, Thomas.
- Collins, Seán.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Davern, Michael J.
- Desmond, Daniel.
- Keane, Seán.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Lehane, Patrick D.
- Lynch, John.
- McAuliffe, Patrick.
- McGrath, Patrick.
- McQuillan, John
- O'Gorman, Patrick J.
- Ormonde, John.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Spring, Daniel.
- Walsh, Richard.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Beirne, John.
- Brennan, Thomas.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Browne, Noel C.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Butler, Bernard.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Coburn James.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Colley, Harry.
- Collins, James J.
- Commons, Bernard.
- Connolly, Roderick J.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, John A.
- Cowan, Peadar.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Crowley, Honor Mary.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- De Valera, Vivion.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Donnellan, Michael.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Dunne, Seán.
- Esmonde, Sir John L.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finucane, Patrick.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Friel, John.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Halliden, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Hughes, Joseph.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kinane, Patrick.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lahiffe, Robert.
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Brennan, Joseph P.
- Larkin, James.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Lydon, Michael F.
- MacBride, Seán.
- McCann, John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Madden, David J.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Patrick J.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, Timothy J.
- Norton, William.
- O'Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.)
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, Martin.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
- Pattison, James P.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
- Reidy, James.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Rice, Bridget M.
- Roddy, Joseph.
- Rooney, Eamonn.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Sheehan, Michael.
- Sheldon, William A. W.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Timoney, John J.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Tully, John.
- Walsh, Thomas.
Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Corry and Davern; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Flanagan.
Question declared lost.
Deputy Flanagan's amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 62; Níl, 55.
Tá
- Beirne, John.
- Belton, John.
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Brennan, Joseph P.
- Browne, Noel C.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Coburn, James.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Collins, Seán.
- Commons, Bernard.
- Connolly, Roderick J.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Halliden, Patrick J.
- Hughes, Joseph.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Larkin, James.
- McAuliffe, Patrick.
- MacBride, Seán.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Madden, David J.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, Timothy J.
- Norton, William.
- O'Gorman, Patrick J.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- Costello, John A.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Davin, William.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Donnellan, Michael.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Dunne, Seán.
- Esmonde, Sir John L.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finucane, Patrick.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Flynn, John.
- Giles, Patrick.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.)
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- O'Sullivan, Martin.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
- Pattison, James P.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
- Reidy, James.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Roddy, Joseph.
- Rooney, Eamonn.
- Sheehan, Michael.
- Sheldon, William A.W.
- Spring, Daniel.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Timoney, John J.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Brennan, Thomas.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Butler, Bernard.
- Colley, Harry.
- Collins, James J.
- Cowan, Peadar.
- Crowley, Honor Mary.
- Davern, Michael J.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- De Valera, Vivion.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Friel, John.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Kilroy, James.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lahiffe, Robert.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Lydon, Michael F.
- Lynch, John.
- McCann, John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGrath, Patrick.
- McQuillan, John.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Patrick J.
- Moylan, Seán.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Ormonde, John.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Rice, Bridget M.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Walsh, Thomas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Doyle and Flanagan; Níl: Deputies Allen and Gilbride.
Amendment declared carried.
Amendment as a substantive motion put and agreed to.
In connection with the Intoxicating Liquor Bill, Motion No. 17 on List No. 3— Private Deputies' Business — is not being moved.