I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. In moving the Second Reading, I would remind the House that it is with the principles of the Bill that we are chiefly concerned at this stage, though I shall have something to say about its specific provisions as I go along.
The primary purpose of this Bill is to fix the hours during which licensed premises may keep open for the sale of intoxicating liquor so that the needs of the community may be served, that the anomalies that arise from any licensing system may be kept at a minimum and that enforcement of the law may be practicable and effective. These are the aims which the Government have kept in mind in their consideration of licensing problems. They believe that the proposals in the Bill are for the common good and that while they may not serve the vested interests of particular groups they will be backed by public opinion. The Government believe that the existing licensing hours are either unduly restrictive or unsuitable and that in recent years enforcement of the licensing laws has proved impossible due to the fact that they have not the force of public opinion behind them. The Bill, therefore, provides new opening hours on weekdays and on Sundays.
The Bill provides for many useful changes in the law of a secondary kind which could wait for a later day if they had to. The primary provisions are contained in a couple of sections dealing with (1) the abolition of the so-called bona fide trade, (2) the fixing of more suitable hours of trading on weekdays and (3) the general opening of licensed premises throughout the country on Sundays and on St. Patrick's Day.
Before I talk about the several matters dealt with in the Bill and why the Government have taken one course rather than another, I should like to refer to the background to the present-day licensing situation. Licensing legislation is nothing new to us. Since the restrictions on the sale of drink were first imposed in this country in the year 1695—for the closing of licensed premises during Divine Service on Sundays—our statute books record change after change in the hours of sale. In our own time, since this State was established, the hours have been changed by statute no fewer than four times: twice in 1924, again in 1927 and again in 1943.
The problems of to-day are very much the same problems as the Legislature had to consider in the Twenties and in the Forties and the reason we now feel compelled to legislate again in a more liberal way is that we are satisfied that undue restriction does not pay, that licensing laws which have not the respect of the ordinary man in the street and have not the force of public opinion behind them cannot be enforced.
We have had the licensing situation inquired into by two Commissions in the past 35 years. In 1925, the Government set up a Commission of Inquiry—it was reconstituted in 1929 for certain limited purposes—to advise as to whether changes in the licensing laws were necessary and in what respect. Some of the Commission's recommendations proved unacceptable to the Government or to the Legislature, but, by and large, the 1927 licensing statute was based on the Commission's recommendations. The hours of sale then fixed were given a fair trial but in 1943 it was apparent that they were unsuitable or too restrictive and the law was again changed.
The debates on the 1943 Bill and the controversy in the public press for and against particular provisions illustrated the wide divergence of opinion that then existed in relation to licensing matters. Little was settled, apparently, by the 1943 Act. In a short few years, there was renewed agitation for general opening on Sundays in rural areas, for later opening on weekdays and for the abolition of the bona fide traffic. In 1948, a Private Members' Bill was introduced in the Dáil which provided for general opening on Sundays outside the county boroughs from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m., and 7 to 9 p.m., in addition to the existing facilities by way of bona fide trade and area exemption orders. The Bill was defeated, on Second Reading, by 106 votes to 23, and in 1950 a similar Bill was introduced but was not proceeded with.
By the end of 1955, however, demands for liberalisation of the licensing laws had become increasingly persistent; there had been a substantial increase in the number of area exemption orders granted by the Courts; the abuses associated with the bona fide traffic on Sundays and late on weekdays were the cause of constant complaints by law-abiding persons; and, finally, there was a considerable amount of illegal drinking. In this set of circumstances, a motion was put down by Deputy McQuillan calling for legislation to amend the bona fide laws and to permit the opening of public-houses on Sundays and on St. Patrick's Day. Deputy Gerald Boland tabled an amendment proposing the appointment of a Select Committee of 15 members of the Dáil to examine the licensing laws. As a result of views put forward in the debate on the motion, my predecessor, Deputy Everett, informed the House that he would set up a Commission representative of all the political Parties, of the licensed trade, of the temperance movement and so on, to inquire into the operation of the licensing laws.
In the result, a Commission of 22 persons was established in July, 1956, which included the Master of the High Court as chairman, parliamentary representatives from the city and other constituencies, representatives of the licensed trade, the trade unions, Bord Fáilte and the Pioneer Total Abstinence Association. There were also some members who were not appointed in a representative capacity. The Commission had the following terms of reference:—
"To enquire into the operation of the laws relating to the sale and supply of intoxicating liquor and to make recommendations."
The Commission reported a year later, having held nearly 40 sittings, having taken oral and written evidence from over 70 witnesses including members of the Judiciary, representatives of the Garda Síochána, the licensed trade and the temperance movement.
I should like to pay tribute to the Chairman and members of the Commission for their painstaking services. They were given a very onerous task and they represented such diverse interests and viewpoints that even at the outset it was not to be expected that they would produce an agreed report.
I want to assure the House that the Government have given a deal of time and care to examining the licensing situation in the light of the Commission's recommendations. The Commission's report was printed and placed on sale. I hope that it has been carefully studied by every Deputy who proposes to speak on this Bill. Even though a Deputy may not agree with some of the Commission's recommendations, he will have available to him, in a handy form, the main facts of the licensing situation. While it is true that there was not unanimity, or near-unanimity in the members' recommendations on some of the main items, such as the necessity for uniformity of hours for the county boroughs and the rest of the country, or the appropriate hours of opening on Sundays or on weekdays, the very fact that the members could not come to agreement shows the complexities of the problems into which the Commission were asked to inquire and which the Legislature has to consider now.
In coming to the Bill itself, I presume I can proceed on the assumption that all Deputies have read the official explanatory memorandum circulated with it and, in particular, the tables setting out the existing hours of sale and those proposed in the Bill.
First of all, I would direct attention to the fact that provision has been made for full abolition of the bona fide hours of trading on both weekdays and Sundays, a proposal, which, I think, will have almost universal approbation. It is inevitable, of course, that the licensees of these premises, up and down the country but mainly situated around Dublin city, who have built up a lucrative business dependent on an after-hours trade, will not welcome this provision. I recognise that abolition will result in losses for them but there is no help for it: the public interest requires that the bona fide trade should be brought to an end.
It must be apparent to all—publicans and public alike—that scarcely any of those persons who patronise the bona fide houses are genuine travellers: they are, almost entirely, persons travelling to get drink and availing themselves of the bona fide provisions to get it in the knowledge that the motive for these journeys is not something that could be satisfactorily proved in proceedings against them in court. There is a provision in the Bill, which we will come to later, which provides for general opening up to 11.30 p.m. in the four holiday months and up to 11 p.m. in the rest of the year. These hours will benefit the bona fide houses to some extent. It is true that neighbouring publicans who are not doing any bona fide business at present can remain open too, but the fact that publicans in the cities may remain open to cater for the city trade is not an argument for giving longer hours to the proprietors of the so-called bona fide houses in the rural fringe.
I am convinced, as is, apparently, almost the entire Commission, that the bona fide trade must be stopped. To maintain it is to encourage people to drive to get drink and, of course, they drive home with drink taken. The evil consequences of driving with drink taken we all know. I am convinced, also, that the bona fide trade must not be given a new lease of life in another form by the creation of a differential in the hours of trade between the cities and other areas, as has been recommended in the minority report of the Commission.
I recognise that the trek from the cities to outside public-houses late on weekdays, and the trek from village to village on Sunday afternoons, has been caused to a large extent by a legitimate wish on the part of many law-abiding persons to partake of reasonable refreshments and in the Bill, in place of what has come to be known as the bona fide hours, we are providing for later opening on weekdays and limited general opening on Sundays.
On weekdays, the hours of opening proposed are from 10.30 a.m. to 11.30 p.m. in the holiday months of June to September, and from 10.30 a.m. to 11.00 p.m. in the other eight months of the year. The morning opening hours and the evening closing hours will be the same for both cities and country but the provision in existing law for an hour's closing from 2.30 p.m. to 3.30 p.m. in the four county boroughs has proved its usefulness and is being reenacted. We recognise that people who dine late should be able to have a drink as part of their meal and that there is a substantial demand for such facilities and, in consequence, we are providing that, up to midnight, drink may be supplied in a hotel or restaurant as part of a substantial meal.
At this point, I feel that I must emphasise that the Government are in no doubt that the existing hours ending at 10.30 p.m.—10.00 p.m. in winter time—on weekdays do not meet the legitimate, reasonable requirements of those who like to take a drink.
The entire commission were satisfied, apparently, that 10.30 p.m. was too early for weekday closing outside the four county boroughs and a majority of them thought that that closing hour was too early for the four cities too. Evidence was given to the Commission—this is referred to in the report—that the Dublin public-houses could not be cleared by 10.30 p.m. and that, moreover, there was an exodus to the bona fide houses.
The view of the Garda authorities in favour of an extension of the hours is quoted at pages 5 and 6 of the commission's report. Here are the extracts quoted on page 5 from the Garda Síochána memorandum.
"It is well known that it is impossible to secure observance of any law, unless the majority of the citizens are anxious to see it enforced. It is very doubtful whether this can be said of the Licensing Acts. People from all walks of life contravene them regularly. No social obloquy appears to attach to offences against the Licensing Acts. The penalties imposed by the Courts are often quite inadequate as a deterrent, and public representatives have frequently not alone advocated amendment of the law, but suggested that enforcement of the law should be relaxed."
and
"The general result is most unsatisfactory from the point of view of the Garda Síochána. Evasion of the Licensing Acts by people from all walks of life, inadequate penalties for offences and statements by public representatives tend to bring the Licensing Acts into contempt. Any contempt for one law may breed general contempt for the law."
The practice of the courts, too, in imposing extremely light penalties on the publicans and customers for breaches of the law relating to sales after hours would seem to indicate that the courts consider that the present law has not the force of public opinion behind it.
There may be some arguments, valid as far as they go, for later opening in some areas than in others, at any rate at particular times of the year, but the Government are satisfied that it would be a great mistake to have differentials between, say, the county boroughs and the large provincial towns, or between the seaside resorts and rural areas—differentials which, they have no doubt, would revive the evils of the bona fide traffic, now about to be abolished. What justification could there be for later opening in a purely rural area than in an adjoining village or small town, or in a town rather than in a borough or county borough? How could anyone justify allowing the public houses in a small rural village to remain open until 11.30 p.m. in the month of December, while at the same time closing the city publichouses an hour, or even half an hour, earlier as recommended in the minority report?
The Government are satisfied that the Commission's majority recommendation in favour of uniformity of hours for all parts of the country is sound and that it should be adopted. They believe that in the country, in the months of June to September, opening up to 11.30 p.m. is justified and that 11 p.m. is a fair closing time during the rest of the year. As everybody knows, farm work goes on late into the evenings during harvest time and a drink at the end of the day's labour is something the farmer and farm labourer look to. Furthermore, in rural areas, in a great part of the country "old-time" is observed and the present closing hour of 10.30 p.m. is 9.30 p.m. in the farmer's life. The Government are also satisfied that a genuine demand exists, particularly from tourists, holiday-makers and people accustomed to take late supper that drink should be allowed as part of a meal after that.
In this connection, my attention has been directed to the recommendations made before the commission of inquiry by Bord Fáilte in the interests of the promotion of the tourist industry. The board's recommendations and views were subsequently publicised in a weekly paper. They recommend more liberal hours on weekdays, opening on Sundays and the application of a uniform system throughout the country. They asked for special facilities for drink as part of a meal in hotels and licensed restaurants late in the evening when the ordinary licensed premises are closed. They stressed the importance of the tourist industry in the national economy and the importance of reasonable drinking facilities for the tourist who had holiday money to spend.
They stressed also that if our tourist industry is to capture a fair share of the British and American patronage now going to the continent and the continental tourists who have begun to show signs of interest in visiting Ireland, we must be able to show that Ireland is a pleasant place to live in and an enjoyable place to visit and we must be prepared to cater for their wants—and their wants include reasonable facilities for refreshments late in the evenings.
I understand that an extension of the hours is being opposed by some of those publicans in Dublin city who are organised in an association and— though for different reasons—by the barmen who are members of the trade unions. The publicans are, apparently, of the opinion that later hours would not mean more drinking to any appreciable extent and that the recompense for the trouble and inconvenience to themselves would not be worth while after payment of their overheads, including increased pay for their barmen. The opposition of the unions to their members being required to work late is, apparently, because of the inconvenience and, also, because the publicans might not be prepared to concede the increases in pay which the barmen would ask. It appears, however, that not all the publicans within the association are in full accord with the association's view and the same applies to many of the Dublin publicans outside of the association who number at least one-third of all the city publicans. There is no evidence at all that the hoteliers are opposed to the late hours—in fact the evidence is to the contrary.
As for the country as a whole, I am informed that the publicans in the association, which purports to speak for the trade, number less than 10 per cent. of the licensees engaged in the retail sales of intoxicating liquor. The licensed premises served by barmen and porters who are members of trade unions are also less than 10 per cent. of the number of on-licensed premises which sell drink to the public. The number of barmen and porters in trade unions according to their unions' figures, is around 3,500 which, of course, is only a fraction of the number of persons employed in the licensed trade. I mention these facts because the views of the Licensed Grocers' Association and the barmen's unions are being extensively quoted as if they spoke for the licensed trade as a whole.
The trade unions have been stressing the hardship on the barmen and porters which later working hours would entail. But the conditions of employment for barmen are already safeguarded by the Shops (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1938 and these safeguards would apply just as much when licensed premises keep open for a 70-hour week as in the case of an 80-hour week. Under the 1938 Act, barmen may not be required to work for longer than 11 hours in any day, or for longer than 48 hours in any week—56 hours, including overtime. The employment of persons under eighteen years of age between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. is prohibited. Barmen may not be required to work for more than six hours without a meal interval. There are provisions for annual holidays and for compensatory leave for work on half-holidays or Sundays.
If the present trading hours for public-houses in Dublin were increased, there might have to be an extension of whatever system of reliefs, etc., is operated at present so as to avoid contraventions of the 1938 Act unless, of course, publicans decided not to open as early in the morning as they are permitted to do, a decision which they are quite free to make. But, one way or the other, the worst that can be said of the proposed extension of trading hours is the wider spread but there does not seem to be any question of "intolerable" conditions of work for barmen. Many workers in transport undertakings, hotels, cinemas, theatres, etc., have to work inconvenient hours to suit the public. Acceptance could never be given to the proposition that the working of late or unorthodox hours, which suit the convenience of the public, should be forbidden by law because the employers and employees would prefer not to work them.
The proposal in the Bill, then, on weekdays is to be that all ordinary public houses will be open up to 11.30 p.m. during the four holiday months and to 11 p.m. in the rest of the year and that hotels and licensed restaurants can serve drink as part of a substantial meal up to midnight. There has been no objection, as far as I know, from the hoteliers or waiters to serving drink with meals up to midnight. One thing I should emphasise is that the hours are permissive —they are not mandatory—and any licensee who does not wish to cater for the needs of the public is not obliged to.
There have been some suggestions that increased facilities for drinking will result in an increase in drunkenness and alcoholism. As I mentioned a short while ago, the publicans' association feel that the later hours will not result in any appreciable increase in drinking, much less an increase in drunkenness. They would seem to be supported in their view by the fact that during the Tostal periods in Dublin, when some hotels and licensed restaurants were given extensions under special exemption orders up to 11.30 p.m. or so, there was no evidence of excessive drinking. I think that the dangers of increased drunkenness and alcoholism may be over-emphasised. As regards drunkenness, the Commission have stated in page 4, paragraph 8 of their report that their consideration of the question of general trading hours was "helped by the knowledge, based on statistical information and the evidence of the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána, that drunkenness has ceased to be a serious problem in the State".
The police returns of prosecutions for drunkenness do not indicate that there has been an increase in drunkenness over the years. In fact, the figure for 1958 at 3,080 is the lowest in the past 16 years and is substantially below the average for the Twenties, or the Thirties. Apart from the first three years of the war—1940 to 1942—when drink was in short supply, the number of prosecutions for drunkenness in 1958 is the lowest on record. Furthermore, the quantities of each class of intoxicating liquor retained for home consumption in recent years do not show any significant upward trend, apart from cider. The figures for the years 1925 to 1955 are published in Appendix C page 32 of the Commission's report and the figures for ensuing years, which are in the Statistical Abstract, do not show any significant variations. In the Thirties and early Forties, a period when incomes generally were lower than to-day, followed by the War when drink was in short supply, the quantities for home consumption declined, but in the past ten years or so they are at roughly the same level as in the Twenties.
I do not think that a comparison of the quantities of liquor retained for home consumption in 1958 or 1957 with the quantities retained in earlier years proves anything in relation to the amount of drink consumed by individuals. There are so many imponderables involved that he would be a rash man who would seriously suggest, on the basis of those statistics alone, that the same number of drinkers were drinking more in the same time. It is a mistake, of course, for anyone to draw the conclusion that increased consumption of liquor in a particular year will necessarily give rise to more drunkenness. Increased drinking may result from a variety of causes such as a prolonged spell of fine weather when people move about more, a substantial influx of tourists with holiday money to spend, bigger pay packets enabling a greater number to take a drink or an extra drink without hardship in other directions, and so on.
I am satisfied, with the Commission, that there is no substance in any suggestion that drunkenness is a substantial problem here or that it is on the increase or will be increased, if the public are given more suitable hours. In actual fact, we are doing little more in this Bill than giving legal sanction to what is going on at the moment under cover of the ordinary law, the bona fide provisions, the area exemption order provisions and the illegal drinking which the police say they cannot control because public opinion is not behind strict enforcement of the law.
There have been suggestions, also, that alcoholism—as distinct from drunkenness—is a serious problem in this country and that it is on the increase. If by alcoholism is meant addiction to alcohol, necessitating treatment in mental institutions, I think I can reassure the House that alcoholism is not a national problem. Alcoholism is a problem, of course, even if a few people only were suffering from this disease, for addiction to alcohol must be recognised for what it is, a disease that requires medical treatment for the rehabilitation of the alcoholic. I have had inquiries made in the Department of Health and have been informed that the annual number of voluntary and temporary patients treated in mental hospitals, public and private, for alcoholism in recent years is of the order of one-fortieth of one per cent. of the population—18 years and upwards—who are legally entitled to be served with drink for consumption on a licensed premises. While this may be a matter of concern, it is not significant on a national scale.
The terms "alcoholism" and "alcoholics" are sometimes applied, however, to cover the occasional heavy drinking of a social kind, not necessarily in licensed premises, or habitual tippling or any kind of drinking which causes trouble to the drinker or to society generally. There has never been an authoritative survey in this country in matters of that kind. I do not think any reliance could be placed on conclusions based on the per capita rates of consumption of alcoholic beverages in particular years, that is, the total consumption quantities divided by population or segments of the population. A report of an Alcoholism Sub-Committee of the World Health Organisation—No. 48 published in 1952—has this to say on the dangers of drawing such conclusions:—
Per capita consumption rates, even the most refined ones, should never be interpreted as indicating a high or low degree of alcoholism or changes in the incidence of alcoholism. It would require per capita rates of extraordinary magnitude— as a matter of fact, of a magnitude which has never come within range of observation—to permit of such inferences. Changes in per capita rates are frequently interpreted in such terms as “people have been drinking more (or less) this year than last year”, etc. Such conclusions are entirely unwarranted.
Before I depart from the subject of drunkenness, alcoholism and the per capita consumption rates of liquor, I think that it might interest the House to hear that, as regards the quantities of each class of intoxicating liquor consumed, comparison of Ireland's annual consumption with the consumption of 10 other Western-European countries, statistics as to which have been taken from a Danish publication, the Statistical Year Book, 1957, shows that Ireland consumes per head of the population less spirits than seven of these other countries, less beer than four of them and less wine than eight of them. Now I do not wish to make too much play with these figures, as the basis of the statistics may vary somewhat from country to country, but the conclusions are broadly true and I give them for what they are worth.
As regards the operation of the licensing laws on Sundays, the position is even more difficult to resolve than for weekdays. Under existing law, there is general opening on Sundays in the four county boroughs from 1 p.m.—1.30 p.m. in Dublin—to 3 p.m. and 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. with hotels and licensed premises being permitted to sell drink with meals from 1 to 3 p.m. and 6 to 9 p.m. Outside the county boroughs, there is no general opening but hotels and licensed restaurants are permitted to sell drink with meals from 1 to 3 p.m. and 6 to 9 p.m. and bona fide travellers are permitted to drink between 1 p.m. and 7 p.m.—8 p.m. during the period of Summer Time—and on special occasions such as football matches, galas, etc., area exemption orders can be granted by the courts for a period of four hours during which locals and bona fide travellers alike can partake of drink. In practice, area exemption orders have been freely granted for tourist resorts throughout the summer season and for hours before and after the bona fide period so that in a great many towns and villages throughout the country, there have been prolonged hours on Sundays when people may drink—sometimes as late as 10 p.m.— over several months of the year. In 1958, for instance, 56 holiday resorts got area exemption orders each covering 20 Sundays or more and 22 places got them for 15 to 19 Sundays. In all, some hundreds of places had increased facilities because of the grant of area exemption orders.
As I mentioned earlier, this Bill proposes to abolish bona fide trading on Sundays and, also, to abolish the area exemption provisions. The Government have had to keep in mind the scope of these existing facilities in writing general "Sunday opening" provisions into the Bill.
The hours proposed for general Sunday opening are from 1 to 3 p.m. and 5 to 8 p.m. except in the months of June to September when the evening hours will be from 5 to 9 p.m. and it is intended that hotels and licensed restaurants will be permitted to sell drink as part of a substantial meal up to 10 p.m. These are to be the hours on Sundays throughout the whole country, inside and outside the county boroughs. Again I would draw your attention to the fact that all the members of the Commission are in favour of evening hours from 5 to 9 outside the county boroughs throughout the year, while the majority are also in favour of these hours within the four county boroughs.
As I said earlier, the creation of a differential inside and outside the county boroughs would simply give rise to the re-creation in another way of the so-called bona fide traffic with its attendant evils. I think that there cannot be any possible doubt in anyone's mind that general opening in rural areas is preferable in the interests of temperance to the existing bona fide hours, plus the hours permitted under area exemption orders. I think that there cannot be any doubt in the mind of any impartial person that the opening hours on Sunday, inside and outside the county boroughs, must correspond in all respects. There can be no question of any differential.
As Deputies will observe, the Commission, in their Report, have gone to some pains—in paragraphs 12, 13, 19 and 20—to explain the present Sunday position and why they recommend general hours of opening from 12.30 to 2 and 5 to 9 p.m. The Government have come to the conclusion that the hour of 12.30 p.m. is too early having regard to the fact that it is so close to the time when Mass ends in most cities and towns; at the same time, they recognise that in truly rural areas where Masses may end as early as 11.30 a.m. and where country people have, in disregard of the law, been accustomed for generations to shop after last Mass in public-houses doing a mixed trade, strict enforcement of the law will create problems for many people. The problem of what to do is a difficult one and, on balance, the Government have decided not to have an opening hour earlier than 1 p.m. in any part of the country.
As regards the provision for the supply of drink with a meal in hotels and licensed restaurants up to 10 p.m. on a Sunday instead of 9 p.m. as at present, the Government are satisfied that there is a fairly substantial demand for meals up to that hour and they do not regard it as unreasonable that drink should be supplied as part of the meal.
In relation to St. Patrick's Day, the Government have accepted the Commission's recommendation that there should be general opening as on Sundays. I think that this provision will be welcomed generally. Under existing law when St. Patrick's Day has fallen on a Sunday—as it last did in 1957—the Sunday hours have applied and there have been no complaints of abuses. Up to 1924, the hours of opening on St. Patrick's Day were the same as on weekdays. Since then, however, ordinary licensed premises have had to remain closed but drink is served for long hours under occasional licences at dog shows, race meetings, dinners and balls and the like; in hotels and restaurants with meals; under special exemption orders late at night; throughout the evenings in sports clubs; at railway stations and airports for travellers; and, let me add, illegally behind closed doors. This anomalous and undesirable situation does not serve the cause of temperance. It does not serve any legitimate purpose. I am satisfied that there should be general opening on St. Patrick's Day as on Sundays, as has been recommended by the Commission, and this Bill gives effect to that conclusion.
The foregoing provisions are the primary provisions of the Bill. There are some other provisions in Part II which relate to the hours when liquor may be sold in clubs or holiday camps, or which clarify the law as to the duration of general exemption orders and as to the circumstances under which special exemption orders may be granted under the licensing code. These are matters which will be dealt with fully on Committee Stage and I do not propose to make anything more than a passing reference to some of them now.
As regards club hours, the Government have accepted the Commission's recommendations that they should be the same as for licensed premises and that they should have the same facilities as hotels and licensed restaurants for the supply of drink with meals. I am not sure that these hours will be welcomed by all the registered clubs and that some of them would not prefer to be left as they are, enjoying a special position under the provisions of the existing law, but I am satisfied that, in the interests of uniformity, the hours of clubs should conform to the hours of licensed premises generally.
I should mention here, perhaps, that the numbers of registered social clubs and sports clubs have remained fairly constant at about 120 and 150 respectively over the past 20 years and there is no foundation for the suggestion made in some quarters that new clubs have been springing up like mushrooms. Furthermore, I have been assured by the Garda authorities that the very great majority of clubs are very well conducted and that the police do not require any additional powers of supervision over them.
As regards holiday camps, these establishments will continue to have the same general opening hours as other classes of licensed premises and the same facilities as hotels and licensed restaurants for the sale of drink with meals. The lodgers in the camps may be served with drink during the same hours as they have under existing law and while these hours fall short of the hours for lodgers in hotels they are the hours asked for when the Tourist Traffic Act was being promoted, and I have no reason to suppose that either of the established holiday camps is not satisfied with the position.
Part III deals with three matters which are of some consequence. First is the proposal that, subject to certain safeguards to preserve existing equities, a new public-house licence can be granted for premises in a rural area on the extinguishing of two existing licences of the same character. The purpose of this proposal which was recommended by the Commission, is two-fold; it will contribute towards the elimination of redundant public-houses and it will enable licensed premises to be established in parts of the country—generally in the West—where there are no licensed premises at present—a situation, I might mention, which has given rise to a fairly substantial poteen traffic in some areas.
Secondly, there are provisions whereby a person who intends to construct a new premises or to make substantial alterations in an existing licensed premises, can get a declaration from the courts that if he completes his premises according to plans and fulfils other statutory requirements, he will get a licence in due course. This is a very important provision from the point of view of the licensed trade and one that the trade has been seeking for some time.
Thirdly, there is the proposal for public bars in certain licensed hotels which cannot have a bar at present, it being made a condition of the grant of the bar licence that an ordinary 7-day licence is extinguished. This proposal has also been sponsored by the Commission. It is welcomed by the hoteliers affected and it will result in the elimination of some of the redundant licences. When we come to the Committee Stage, no doubt the merits of these proposals will be discussed at length. I feel that there will be general approval for the provisions.
Part IV of the Bill deals with miscellaneous matters. While some of these matters are of a technical character or are only of limited interest, others are innovations in the licensing code which may have far-reaching effects. Amongst the latter I number the proposals to allow the health authorities to object to the grant or renewal of a licence on the grounds of the unfitness of the premises. If the provisions in this respect become law, and are availed of by the various health authorities, there should be many changes for the better in a large number of licensed premises in the course of the next few years. The Bill makes provision, however, for at least 12 months notice of the intention of a health authority to object in court to renewal of a licence and this safeguards the interim interests of the licensee.
Another matter which is of some significance is the provision whereby licences which are dormant for five years cannot be revived. There are a great number of premises up and down the country which were licensed prior to 1902 but which have not done any business for several years. Under existing law, these licences could be revived at any time. We are providing that after an interim period of two years after the passing of the Act, any licence which has been dormant for five continuous years cannot then be revived. This again is a contribution towards lessening the number of licensed premises, of which there are a great deal too many in the country, and it will be welcomed generally by the licensed trade.
A third matter of some interest is the proposal to restrict the sales of cider for consumption off the premises to persons licensed for the sale of spirits and beer. In recommending that this should be done, the Commission drew attention to the increase in recent years in the number of premises selling cider for consumption off the premises, and they gave figures at pages 18 and 32 of the report indicating a very sharp rise in the annual quantities of cider consumed, and they said that they had accepted evidence tendered to them as to the ill effects of excessive quantities of cider drunk by young people.
Coming to the close of the Bill, I would refer the House to the Schedule of "Enactments Repealed" which alters the licensing code in certain respects, the most notable of which are the repeal of the provisions relating to the bona fide trade and area exemption orders and the repeal of Part IV of the Act of 1927 under which compensation could be paid on the abolition of a public-house licence.
I have already referred at some length to the repeal of the provisions relating to the bona fide trade and area exemption orders. The repeal of the compensation provisions of the Act of 1927 is simply to take off the statute book a bunch of provisions which experience has proved are so costly and cumbersome to operate as to be useless for the purpose for which they were enacted, namely, to effect a substantial reduction in the number of public-house licences which were— and are—far in excess of public requirements. These provisions were, in fact, operated in one year only and their operation had to be discontinued.
There is one aspect of licensing legislation to which I have made no reference so far to-day, namely, the adequacy or inadequacy of the penalties in the licensing code for breaches of the law. There have been some suggestions that the penalties on publicans and customers for after-hours drinking are inadequate, that there should be minimum fines and that we should revert to compulsory endorsement of licences on conviction, with forfeiture of licence on three endorsements within a limited period, that is to say, the same rule about endorsements as obtained without qualification from 1924 to 1927, and, thereafter, up to 1943, subject only to the qualification that the Justice could make a special order against endorsement where he was in a position to certify that the offence was trivial.
I am reluctant to accept these suggestions. I think that the penalties provided by the licensing code are adequate to combat abuses. For instance, an unauthorised person found on licensed premises after hours can be fined up to £5; and for selling him drink, a licensee can be fined up to £20 for a first offence and £40 for a second offence and his licence may be endorsed at the discretion of the court. What has happened is, as I mentioned earlier, that in recent years many of the District Justices have imposed very small fines when a charge has been proven—on occasions the fines have been as low as a shilling or even a penny—taking the view, apparently, that the licensing hours are inadequate for the reasonable needs of the drinking public and that the law on the subject has not regard for the realities of the situation.
I have no doubt that when the law relating to licensing hours has been settled afresh by the Oireachtas, the courts will do their part. I should be reluctant, on principle, to prescribe minimum statutory penalties. I feel that the courts should be allowed to exercise a discretion in the matter of the penalties they impose, subject to a maximum prescribed by law. I should not like to see the principle of compulsory endorsement given a new trial, though I must admit that during the 19 years when it obtained, it was a powerful deterrent on publicans who were minded to take a chance on selling drink during prohibited hours. Let us hope that we are not driven to using such measures again.
In conclusion, I should like to say that the Government have given very careful consideration to the many serious issues involved in fixing licensing hours. It has not been easy to determine where exactly the lines should be drawn but the Government have endeavoured to act in the national interest.
I want to emphasise that it is the Government's intention that when the Bill becomes law, it will be strictly enforced and there will be no periods of grace allowed after the clock has struck for closing time. It is no secret that up to now, and particularly in recent years, the law has not been rigidly enforced and indeed, as I said at the outset, the Government believe that rigid enforcement was not possible in the absence of the support of public opinion. That is one of the principal reasons why the Bill has been introduced. But that phase, demoralising alike to publicans, to the general public and to the Garda Síochána, will be over with the passing of this Bill. Nobody should be in any doubt about that.
