Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 18 Nov 1959

Vol. 178 No. 1

Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1959—Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Cosgrave

In considering this measure we recognise that certain amendments in the law are necessary. We are equally satisfied that many of the matters covered in the legislation proposed, a number of which were referred to in the Report of the Commission of Inquiry, are matters of no great consequence; indeed a number of them are matters on which individual members, irrespective of Party affiliations, may have particular viewpoints. We are, however, opposed to this Bill because we consider the proposed hours unsuitable.

Again, different conditions between the county boroughs and the rural areas make it difficult to secure agreement on uniform hours of trading and while we recognise that the law requires amendment, the report of the Commission of Inquiry itself indicates that the problem is complex. In fact the almost equal division of the commission on some vital points makes it obvious that the members of the commission were themselves placed in a difficult position as regards the various matters which they had to consider.

Having heard evidence from a number of interested parties, having given the matter a great deal of thought, and having had available the facts on which to base their conclusions, when the commission came to submit its report it was almost equally divided on a number of these questions. A very slender majority influenced a decision in one way as against a large minority in favour of another decision. These conclusions impress on those who have read the report the complexity of the problem involved and the conflicting views between different interests on particular matters as well as the responsibility which now faces the Oireachtas of passing amending legislation.

We consider, however, that the proposed extension of hours in the county boroughs is unsuitable and, indeed, unwarranted. We are also opposed to the measure because it does not take into account the special position of six-day licence holders. This legislation would have afforded an opportunity of regularising the circumstances which obtain and enable a change to be made by which, provided they paid the appropriate licence fee fixed for a seven-day licence, those who have a six-day licence would be entitled to a seven-day licence.

The proposed extension of opening hours in the county boroughs was not demanded by any large section of the public and, so far as one can gather, has not any great support from the traders concerned or from those employed in public-houses—employees who are represented by trade unions or those who are not members of any trade union. In fact, when, in the early years of An Tóstal, special exemptions were granted under the facilities then afforded for later hours there was, I think, no evidence that the public—either holidaymakers or those normally resident in the city areas— wanted longer hours. Indeed, when one considers the fact that many people have to travel some distance after their work—whether they are people who frequent licensed premises in order to partake of refreshment or persons directly concerned, either owners or employees—it is obvious that many would be faced with a transport problem if the hours are extended.

There is, I believe, in the proposed later hours for rural areas, a recognition that somewhat different hours are required in certain circumstances in rural areas especially at the peak of the summer work when farmers and farm workers are obliged to work longer hours. If that problem requires to be dealt with, special provision can be made for later opening in those circumstances. Similarly, if the tourist resorts require extra time for a specific occasion, or even for a specific holiday period, provision could be made by way of special exemption orders for these localities, for limited periods.

The proposed later hours for the cities, though, is a proposal which we believe is unnecessary, and not justified by any evidence tendered to the commission. Although I have said a slender majority of the commission decided in favour of later hours, a substantial minority were opposed to them. As I understand it, at the penultimate meeting of the commission the views were very evenly divided. In fact, the suggestion was that, at that stage, a majority were in favour of the existing hours for the county borough areas, and by the time the final meeting was arranged there had been some slight change of opinion. I mention that because I think it goes to show how evenly divided the members of the commission were on this, as on a number of other matters.

The objections to later openings and longer hours are many. I do not propose to elaborate them at length. So far as one can gather there was no demand from the public for later hours in the cities or in the county boroughs. There is no demand from those directly concerned, either owners or employees, and there is no demand from any section which would justify an extension of the drinking hours.

On the question of the six-day licence holders it is reasonable, when a measure of this sort is being brought forward, to consider their position and, provided they are prepared to pay the appropriate fee, an effort should be made to have a uniform licensing system. Certain areas in the country are affected more than others. I suppose there is hardly an area—certainly there are few—in which there is not at least one, and in some cases many, six-day licence holders. If these facilities were granted to the six-day licence holders quite a number probably would not open on the seventh day, but certainly those traders who provide the usual facilities for six days of the week and who are so obliged because of an old Act brought into force when circumstances and times were entirely different, now find they are not entitled to open for business on the seventh day.

In dealing with this matter I feel that we ought consider very carefully an arrangement under which it would be possible for them to open on the seventh day of the week, provided they pay the appropriate fee. Other Deputies have closer experience of this problem because it is peculiar to certain counties and, indeed, to certain parts of certain counties, but even in my own constituency I have experience of six-day licence holders who feel that their interests have been jeopardised because of the terms of ancient legislation, under which they are precluded from getting the right to open on seven days of the week, and who feel that, if they were afforded the opportunity, they would be prepared to pay whatever fee is appropriate.

The proposed hours for Sunday opening in certain cases appear to us to be too long, and it should be possible between now and Committee Stage, and on the Committee Stage, to consider detailed proposals for alternative hours. This measure deals with so many individual matters concerning aspects of the licensing law that obviously the Bill is one for discussion on Committee Stage, more so than on Second Stage.

In addition to these questions of principle about the proposed longer opening hours, to which we are opposed, there are other matters upon which I should like to comment. The commission referred to the question of redundant licences, and a recommendation was made that an applicant for a new licence to succeed should have it made a condition that two licences should be surrendered. As I understand the proposal in the Bill, in Section 11, this is confined only to rural areas. I believe it should also be considered with a view to getting a more equitable distribution of licences in the county boroughs.

The commission made a variety of recommendations about certain matters which have been included in the Bill and which we can discuss when the relevant sections are reached. There is, however, one matter that I feel should be considered on this Stage and that is the recommendation of the commission that the law be amended which would enable a coroner to hold an inquest other than in public houses. I feel that is a desirable change, and one which recognises the changes which have been made as a result of better transport and other facilities which were not available when earlier legislation was drafted.

There is one provision in this Bill, in Section 30, which I find it difficult to understand. I understand that a proposal about weights and measures came up for consideration by the commission, but the commission made no recommendation on it. Now it is proposed that a change will be made under Section 30 by which it is proposed to withdraw the terms of the Weights and Measures Acts, 1878 to 1936, relating to intoxicating liquor specified in an Order under the 1924 Act. The commission, having considered this matter, made no recommendation and, in fact, considered that there should be no change made. Why the proposal is included in the Bill is difficult to understand because I believe that the commission had evidence from a number of interested parties, including Messrs. Guinness, the Irish Glass Bottle Company, and others. It may be possible to get further information on that on Committee Stage.

Some of the other amendments are of no great consequence on this Stage, but I should like to repeat what I said initially, that we feel the longer hours are not in the general interest, that the Bill should take cognisance of the peculiar position of the six day licence holders, and that the proposed longer opening hours on Sunday do not meet with our approval. Accordingly, we are opposed to the Second Stage of the Bill, and other matters can be dealt with more appropriately on Committee Stage.

Mr. S. Flanagan

I am somewhat disappointed with Deputy Cosgrave's speech because, while I agree with him that many of the matters in this Bill could be more appropriately discussed on Committee Stage, I should have liked him to go more fully into the attitude of his Party to the specific provisions of the Bill. In particular he mentioned the question of uniformity and I think it is clear that the object of the Bill is to introduce uniformity in licensing hours throughout the country. In this connection he mentioned the six day licences, and I think, in principle, it is a good thing to have uniformity in the law.

All sorts of anomalies have grown up, over the past century or so, in licensing legislation in this country. For instance, the bona-fide system which operated in the country has become completely out-moded by the passage of time. Any decision to do away with the bona fide system is a decision with which I fully agree in principle, as regards the country areas with which I am familiar. As regards the city areas, I am not making any comment. As regards the country areas, I fully agree in principle with the decision to abolish the old system and to introduce uniformity.

It is, of course, a matter of considerable regret that, as the Bill stands, it quite fails to introduce uniformity in the country areas because it is heavily weighted in favour of seven day licences and against six day licences. Deputy Cosgrave mentioned that six day licensed houses are precluded from opening by virtue of ancient legislation. I am not sure that is quite accurate. I believe that many of the people who at present hold six day licences voluntarily accepted a change from seven day to six day licences. Surely it was perfectly reasonable for them to do so under the circumstances that obtained 80 or 90 years ago when nobody, irrespective of whether he had a seven day licence or a six day licence, could legitimately sell drink to anybody within a radius of three miles from his premises? In the vast majority of the small towns in the West of Ireland very few people travelled over three miles at that time to take a drink. Therefore, many people did, in fact, accept whatever small reduction was involved by changing their licence from a seven day to a six day licence. By doing that, they were losing nothing since nobody, no matter what kind of licence he had, had the right to sell drink except to somebody outside the three mile radius.

Times have very vastly changed. Travel has become very much easier. The habits of people are entirely and completely different from what they were when the legislation under which these people accepted this change was enacted but as well as that I am informed—and I believe—that many people had not the opportunity of getting a seven day licence in the first instance; that all they could get on application was a six-day licence, more particularly, if under the circumstances then obtaining, the person to whom they made the application was against Sunday drinking on principle.

I believe, for instance, that that may have been the position in the part of the country I come from, in the towns of Ballyhaunis, Charlestown and Ballaghaderreen in particular But, indeed, in all parts of Mayo you have the problem of the six day licensed premises. It seems to me quite irrelevant whether it is voluntary or by force of circumstances that these people had or now have six day licences. What seemed to be important and, indeed, vital is that if the principle of uniformity in this Bill is to be fairly applied, then it should apply to everybody.

It will, of course, be suggested that if that is to be done it will involve some sort of a reversal of public policy adopted since 1902 of reducing the number of licensed premises in this country. I approve of any policy designed to reduce to sensible proportions the number of licensed premises here but I do not and I cannot approve of the application of that policy so as to discriminate unfairly against any section of the community. It is my belief that the Bill, as it stands at present, does, in fact, discriminate unfairly against the holders of six-day licences.

May I make it perfectly clear that I do not wish to discriminate against the seven day owner either and that I am not advocating that we should do anything which would devalue their licences or which would unfairly weigh an Act of this Parliament against them? What I am saying is that the Bill, as it stands at present, is quite unfairly weighted against the six day licence and that something must and should be done, first, if the principle of uniformity is to be applied and, secondly, if the Bill, when it is enacted, is to have a reasonable chance of having public support.

I mention the matter of public support because it must surely be the object of all of us here to introduce a Bill which will have the support of the people and, therefore, will be capable of being put into effect. It is, of course, an open secret that the law that we operate at the moment is an outmoded one; that it has not the support of the public and, therefore, that some sort of a reasonable arrangement had to be arrived at between the law and the people in regard to the matter of drinking.

In that respect, I believe that the people have been fairly reasonably met and have not abused any privileges that they may have enjoyed but time marches on and it is surely appropriate now that we should introduce legislation which a sincere and determined effort should be made to have operated and thereby put an end to much of the illegal drinking that has been going on in the country up to now.

There are, of course, completely different circumstances as between the Borough and the country areas. I feel sure that in this debate, which promises to be an interesting one, the fact that such a divergence is there will become apparent. It will also become obvious from the speeches which one hears where a particular Deputy comes from. In that respect, I have no comment to make in regard to what Deputy Cosgrave said about the extension of the hours as they affect the urban areas beyond saying that I think the majority report of the commission was one that was not arrived at lightly and that the proposals involved in this Bill represent pretty fairly the considered opinion of that Commission in regard to the extension of hours not merely in the country but in the urban areas as well.

Let me return again to this matter of the six-day licences. It is, I think, sufficiently well known from public reports in the newspapers and so forth that the town in which I live is a particularly vivid example of the unfair effects that this Bill will have if it is put into operation as it now stands. There are 56 six-day licensed public houses in Ballaghaderreen. There is a handful of seven-day licences. It appears to be quite unfair to suggest to the customers of the six day licence that they should be told that on Sunday they are not allowed to go to their regular pub but that they must go to one of a handful of others. It appears to be quite obvious that, now that the area exemption order is to be put an end to, in Ballaghaderreen you may have a sporting fixture or other type of fixture or event which would cause 2,000 or 3,000 to come into the town. It appears perfectly obvious that the four or five public houses would have no conceivable hope of being able to cater for the trade. Indeed, it seems perfectly obvious that they will not be able to cater for the ordinary trade which is there at the moment and which has been going on all the time, as in every other small town in the West of Ireland, covered over so far under this bona fide system.

Under the Bill, as it stands, all these and their counterparts throughout the other counties of Connaught, Monaghan and elsewhere, where this problem exists, have been given the opportunity of going into the open market and purchasing and extinguishing seven day licences within their own district court district. I always get confused in regard to these district court areas and districts. However, I mean whichever is the bigger.

Mr. Traynor

And the adjoining one.

Mr. S. Flanagan

And the adjoining, that is right. In theory that looks all right but a good deal of my constituency ranges along the seaboard. A person in, say, Laois or Offaly would be able to go to any of the four points of the compass whereas a person in Louisburg or Belmullet would be able to go to only one. In view of the preponderance of six day licences in that confined area, I am not prepared to accept that the price of the seven day licence in that confined market would not be prohibitive. I hope it is not going to be suggested that it is easy in the West of Ireland at the present time to purchase a seven day licence in the open market. It is not. I speak from personal knowledge since I have, through my profession, been involved in several transactions where seven day licences were purchased. I can say that I know of cases where seven day licences within one of the three towns I have mentioned reached a price either at or in excess of £600 and I am prepared to give the instances to the Minister in private. The lowest I have heard of is £175 and with regard to that case I am not too sure that the money that passed represented the whole of the consideration. It is fair to say that over the past seven or eight years, which is a representative period, in the counties of Mayo and Roscommon the market price of a seven day licence has been on average £250 to £300.

The statistics available as to the number of seven-day licences which are dormant, redundant, not being used, may be a very untrue guide to the actual number of licences which will be available for purchase when this Bill goes through. Indeed, licences are retained year in year out by people who rarely sell £1 worth of liquor from one end of the year to the other, who do not make their livelihood by selling liquor and merely serve an occasional bottle of stout to an occasional person. Even so, these people hold on to their licences and I believe they will continue to do so. People hold on even to six day licences which are virtually dormant. Do not ask me why that should be. I have made inquiries in quite a few local towns from many people who have this kind of licence and they have told me that they would not sell even if they got several hundred pounds for the licence.

In those circumstances I think the Minister will be compelled, in fairness, at least to broaden the area within which a seven day licence may be purchased to cover the whole country. If I were satisfied that as a result of such a change in the Bill a six day licence could be purchased for a price not exceeding, say, a couple of hundred pounds, I would confess that at least a six day licensee would be no worse off after the Bill was passed than before it but we must take care that these people are not forced into a market where they will have to pay £500, £600 and £700 for the privilege of opening on Sunday.

I said that if that happened I would be satisfied that the six day licensees were not worse off than before the Bill was passed. Even then, I would not be satisfied that they were as well off after the Bill was passed as their counterparts, the owners of seven day licences. It is perfectly obvious that the seven day licensees are obtaining concessions under this Bill which they did not enjoy at any time before its passing. I am referring now to the fact that the seven day, any more than the six day, could not legitimately sell a single drink to anybody living within three miles of their premises. Nobody will suggest that the seven day licensees should not get the concession that they are getting. I do not think anybody could but, when this Bill goes through, the seven day licensee will be able to throw open his door on a Sunday at whatever hour is decided and anybody and everybody, including his next door neighbour, can be allowed in to take any beverage he desires. That is something he does not enjoy today.

Therefore, the Minister has a compelling case to meet on behalf of six day licensees. I feel sure that he will be fair in his efforts to see that the principle of uniformity is, in fact, applied. He will, of course, as I said before, be fair to the seven day licence owners too but, as things stand, they are getting something they never had before and, in addition, those who have dormant seven day licences are being given a market in which to dispose of them if they so desire.

With regard to the hours of opening generally, I believe that they are thoroughly welcomed in the country as a whole. It is common knowledge that the pattern of life on the west coast does not permit of the average man coming into town in the summer months much earlier than the present closing time, 10.30 p.m. The extension to 11.30 p.m. during those months is merely regularising a practice which has been going on in those counties down the years—going on, indeed, because it has always been recognised that a man who has worked a hard day's work is entitled to relax for half an hour or an hour if he so desires and that if his work keeps him in the field until ten o'clock he is, in effect, being denied the opportunity of enjoying a drink if he wants to under the present hours. I believe, therefore, that whatever misgivings the various interests involved may have as regards Dublin, Cork and the other cities there will be no misgivings on the part of any representative or any people in rural Ireland.

I think the same thing can be said in regard to Sunday opening. The hours suggested seem appropriate enough to me. I would perhaps prefer that the opening on Sunday afternoons should not be quite as late as 3 p.m. It is too late and it disrupts the day of the people working in the public houses. I would prefer that the pubs should be closed on a Sunday not later than 2.30 p.m. As regards the evening opening, again there appears to be quite a distinct conflict between the interests of the city and those of the country. I have been thinking the whole matter out. I realise that if the country people are to be met and an hour such as 11.30 must, therefore, be agreed on and if, in the process, opening in the cities is a little bit longer than the trading interests involved would like, a return could be made from the point of view of the country by accepting for a Sunday evening the hours which suit urban more than rural areas. In that way, fair play would be done to all.

I should like to congratulate the Minister on this measure as a whole and to express the hope that whatever Bill goes through will go through as a result of a non-Party atmosphere discussion here. I believe each one of us would like an Act to emerge from this House which would have, we think, the full moral support of the people of the country and, therefore, the support of the people for the operation of that measure strictly by the Guards and by the Courts. In that way we shall eliminate whatever evils exist in the matter of drinking.

It is quite misleading to say that an extension of the licensing hours automatically involves increased drunkenness or giving opportunities for the abuse of drink. I do not believe that is true. It is the duty of every Parliament to try to put through realistic laws which will meet with the approval of the people and, by having their approval, their full support. Only if we do that, can we expect the licensing laws to be observed. I believe the present Bill will practically make opposition certain at least in the small towns of the West of Ireland to which I have referred. I do not mean specific instances but all the small towns where the six-day problem exists. I believe there will be no possibility whatever of the Bill in its present form having the approval of the people because it will involve a measure of coercion which they will resent and certainly will do everything to circumvent. I, for one, sympathise with them in that. That is why I have supported Deputy Cosgrave's statement regarding the six-day licences.

We must try to do the right thing by every section of the community. We must not allow ourselves to be misled by any statistics in this matter. This is something which goes far deeper than statistics, as I think this House will realise if they pay attention to the fact that those parts of the licensing laws which have not had the approval of the Irish people have never actually been operated in this country and never will until we give the people an opportunity by passing a law which is capable of having their endorsement.

Mr. Blowick

I was particularly struck by one passage in the Minister's introductory speech last week in which he remarked that laws were pretty useless if the people did not respect and obey them. No truer statement has been made in this House for a long time. Like the last speaker, I want to bring one glaring injustice to the attention of the Minister which this Bill is about to perpetrate on one section of the owners of licensed premises. I refer to the six-day men.

If this Bill becomes law in its present form it means that virtually the seven day licensed premises have opening on Sunday. They have a certain concession given to them for Sunday opening that is completely denied to the six-day people. I am sure the Minister, the Civic Guards and the officials of the Department are well aware that the six-day licensed premises were selling drink for years past on Sundays during the very hours the seven-day people will now have the advantage of, under law. The seven-day people were doing the same, particularly to non-bona fide trade. I am not speaking of the bona fide trade now but of the discrimination that will exist when this Bill becomes law in its present form.

I want to put to the Minister that he is virtually wiping the six-day licence people out of existence. I do not think he has the desire to do that. I do not think he is the harsh, sweeping type of Minister who would wish during his period of office to do something which would manifestly be unjust but there is that danger here. The position is that there are certain licensed premises in which people like to drink. These people will have a drink on Sunday. They have been taking drink on Sunday over the years, despite the best efforts of the Guards. There is no use in blaming the Guards for breaches of the law in the past. You would need to have a Guard stationed outside the door of every public house before the law could properly be enforced and the Minister mentioned something like that in his speech. Now, under this Bill, the person who was accustomed to drink in or who was a customer of a six-day licensed premises will, if he wants a drink on Sunday or if he wants to give his friends a drink on Sunday, have to go to a seven-day licensed premises. He has to ask the seven day licensee with whom he has not been accustomed to dealing to give him a drink on Sunday while he has to go back to the six day licensee on the other days of the week. That will have the effect of closing down most of the six day premises throughout the country. This idea of the six day licence has come down to us from the old days when the landlord or some agent of his had charge of these premises. If he did not like the colour of your eyes he gave you a six day licence; if he took a greater dislike to you he did not give you a licence at all. He gave seven day licences to particular pets in those distant days.

That has survived down through the years and it was accepted as part of our set up, particularly in the rural areas up to the present time. This Bill makes a difference and a very big difference. It is giving a double gift to the seven day people; one of them is the Sunday opening; the second is the stealing of the customers of the six day man for the seven day man. That is unfair. There is a certain amount of injustice in granting a seven day licence to the six day people, but let us consider the injustice this Bill does. I want to assure the Minister that most of the seven day people to whom I have been speaking do not want the extermination of their six day neighbours which is virtually certain to happen.

Deputy Flanagan who has just sat down spoke at length and very ably on that subject. On 20th May last I asked the Minister for details of the number of public houses with six-day licences as against seven-day licences. In Mayo there were 418 six-day licences as against 388 seven-day licences. The only other county that has a majority of six-day licences over seven-day licences is the county of Monaghan with 104 six-day licences and 66 seven-day licences. Deputy Seán Flanagan quoted the town of Ballaghaderreen in Co. Roscommon. He said there were 56 six-day licences and only 4 seven-day licences in that town. The same applies to Ballyhaunis, Castlebar, Ballina and other towns in the west of Ireland. What will happen amongst these people? There will be a stampede to these four houses. When they are full the overflow will go to the six-day houses and even the Guards standing at the doors with their batons will hardly be able to control the situation. I welcomed that part of the Minister's speech which had regard to that situation and in which it was indicated that the Guards would not be just run off their feet and be out at all hours of the day and night trying to enforce the law. However, we are making things more difficult for them on Sundays, apart from the injustice that would be done to the six-day people.

Personally I am glad the bona fide traffic is being done away with. Over the last 20 or 30 years the increase in transport facilities has made that part of the law a joke. If I were asked for my opinion I would say we should not open on Sundays at all, but my voice is only one crying in the wilderness. If we are to have drinking on Sundays it is better for it to be according to the law. There is a certain feeling of guilt —I lack words to describe it—that is not good when you have people deliberately breaking the law. There is a certain amount of stealth in their actions and the Minister is wise in causing that to be eliminated.

I would hardly have spoken at all were it not to put the case of these unfortunate six-day people. If this Bill becomes law I believe that in a few years most of these six-day licensed businesses will fold up.

It was very clearly revealed in a reply to a Parliamentary Question by the Minister that an anolamous situation exists in the assessment of licence fees on licensed premises. The rateable valuation of the premises apparently comes into the determination of what the fee is. It does not seem a just or fair way to determine what the licence is. In any town I think there should be some flat rate because it is quite possible that you could have one person, say, with a licensed premises at a very high rateable valuation paying a very high fee and doing little or no trade, while the person next door might have a very low rateable valuation on his premises and be getting away with a much lower licence fee. I was told that in my own native town of Castlebar, side by side there are two public houses, a six-day and a seven-day licensed premises and that the six-day was paying practically double the fee the seven-day was paying. There does not seem to be much justice in that. Possibly there is a sound explanation but it is something the Minister should revise now that the whole question is in the melting pot, and since he has an opportunity while this Bill is before the House.

If the Minister does not give us an assurance that he will amend the Bill, I must vote against it. If I voted for it in its present form I would be voting for a serious injustice on many six-day licensed premises all over the country, a thing which my conscience would not allow me to do.

Mr. Dillon

We consider that we must vote against this Bill in its present form because we feel the proposals in respect of opening hours are not appropriate. We propose to discuss this proposed amendment of the licensing law on the assumption that whatever changes are ultimately made will be made with the intention of rigorously enforcing the law. Deputy Blowick may say he does not command words appropriately to describe the consequences of the citizens of this country habitually breaking the law by drinking on Sunday but I think he described it very well. I think it is a wrong thing; it is a bad thing and a much greater evil than the specific breach of the law to allow a situation to obtain in this or any other country in which the legislation of the Oireachtas is by universal consent ignored, and it is peculiarly evil if that disregard of the law is tacitly approved by the police force of the State whose responsibility it is to enforce the law. Therefore, we confidently hope that this legislation, in whatever form it ultimately leaves this House and the Seanad, will be effectively and rigorously enforced on everybody—publican, consumer and everybody else.

The multiplicity of matters with which this Bill is designed to deal strongly suggests that it is a Bill which can most profitably be discussed in detail on Committee Stage. I expect our experience will be that detailed examination of the Bill will, in fact, take place on that Stage. I want to reiterate what Deputy Blowick and others have said. On more than one occasion I have directed the attention of this House to the fact that, despite what one of our colleagues once said here, that we could not have omelettes without breaking eggs, that is not the philosophy which ought to underlie our legislation. It is too easy, through the remote situation in which we find ourselves in this House, to discount the significance of individual eggs. It may be relatively easy here to make omelettes by breaking eggs, if we are the omelette makers, but it is an extremely disagreeable experience for the individaul eggs. It should be our duty in this House to be solicitous for the welfare of the humblest eggs in our community and we should not lightly break them or ignore their relatively—and I use the word "relatively" by design — insignificant affairs. What may in our sight be a relatively insignificant matter can mean to an individual family in rural Ireland the difference between modest comfort and virtual destitution.

There are, in this country, approximately 10,400 seven-day licences and 1,450 six-day licences. If the proposal made by Deputy Blowick and others were in operation, not half the six-day licensees would avail of the right to convert their licences into seven-day licences. Anyone who understands rural Ireland knows that a great many mixed businesses in rural Ireland comprise, in addition to their other trades, a bar. In the vast majority of such cases where there may be a drapery and bar, or a grocery and bar, or a grocery and boot department and bar, such establishments would not contemplate for a moment opening on Sunday, or wish to open on Sunday, or wish to have a seven-day licence. Over and against that, if this Bill—and indeed if it is thought advisable that this Bill pass in its present form— operates to permit a seven day licence holder to open generally for trade on Sunday, and there are in the immediate vicinity six day licensees who depend upon the business they do in their licensed houses for their livelihood, the inevitable result will be that those six day licensees' customers who on Sunday resort to one of the seven-day houses, will gradually cease to be regular customers of the six-day licensee and the six-day licensee will see his or her business slowly wilting away.

What I should like the House to remember is that we are not dealing in the case of such persons with wealthy and affluent business people. To my certain knowledge, many of these people are in the humblest circumstances and find it extremely difficult to make ends meet, as they at present are, and if this additional burden of competition which they are quite unable to meet, is cast upon them, many will cease to trade altogether and have nothing before them but virtual destitution. It is right that this House should recall that the small rural publican, if he loses his business, rarely has anything else to turn to. If he, or in many cases, she—and there are many cases of widow women who are raising families with a small business of that kind—loses his or her trade, the circumstances of their lives are such that they cannot readily turn their hands to any other source of livelihood. Therefore, we should be very circum spect indeed, especially bearing in mind that there are in existence 10,500 seven-day licences, and only 1,500 six-day licences, not to legislate in such a way as to put upon these people a grave and serious burden to which I suspect the Minister did not fully advert when this legislation was under consideration.

I want to emphasise to the Minister that even if the option of conversion were given to the six day licensees, a great number of them would not avail of it because they would not want it. Therefore, when we get this problem into true perspective, it is really very small from the point of view of the country but of immense significance to the 500 or 600 families, mainly in rural Ireland, to whom negligence on our part in this matter might prove a disaster.

I do not propose to add anything to what I have already said on this Stage of the Bill, but I am convinced that a more fruitful discussion can be conducted on this legislation when the individual issues arise on the several sections. I do not know if this view has been expressed elsewhere in the House, but I feel that it has been well said when we come to Committee Stage, that we should try to hammer out legislation to secure the maximum support from all sides of the House to fortify the hand of the enforcing authority and to convey to the public the knowledge that, after everything had been considered, our joint wisdom in this House produced what will ultimately be the Intoxicating Liquor Act.

For that reason, I feel that it would be a material contribution to the realisation of that end, if, on Committee Stage, the Whips, in the Parliamentary sense, were withdrawn on all sides of the House. I certainly hope that the members of the Party which I have the privilege to lead will feel quite free to express their views energetically and in accordance with their individual judgment on the several individual issues that arise on this Bill. I hope that they will vote in the lobbies in regard to this measure on the details that present themselves for consideration on the Committee Stage as their consciences may direct. I think it would be a benefit if a similar dispensation obtained on all sides of the House. In that way, I think we would get a much better Act of the Oireachtas and one which would be easier to enforce and easier to bespeak public acceptance for.

On this Second Stage of the Bill, we are charged with considering it in the form in which it appears in the draft submitted by the Minister to the House. On that form, this Party proposes to vote against it and we await the developments on Committee Stage. On its Final Stage we shall look upon it again in whatever form it then takes, and then determine whether this Party can give their support on the form ultimately determined by the joint deliberations of all sections of the House.

Mr. P.J. Burke

The other speakers on this Bill put forward personal points regarding their own constituencies. I have a few such points to make regarding my own constituency. I heard a certain speaker say that the law was not observed but I can say that in County Dublin, anyway, the publicans and the Gardai went out of their way to see that the law was observed. I know of no traders in the county who took advantage of it.

I want to recommend that section of the Bill which gives equal rights to all citizens. Under the present system of licensing laws a man in a large borough could qualify to get a drink by sleeping beside a public house. There was no limit at all. Then he had to mount his bicycle, use a car, or walk three miles to get a drink. Therefore, I welcome that section which gives equal rights to all citizens and I hope that our people will appreciate the privilege that is being given to them, and I hope that privilege will not be abused.

In County Dublin we have a particular problem in that a number of public houses will be very hard hit as the result of the loss of bona fide trade. Some of my constituents have told me that they believe their trade will be reduced by two-thirds. It is my job here to endeavour to be fair to every section and, while we have agreed in principle that we will have uniform hours, nevertheless there is that grievance of some of my constituents. The bona fide trade in County Dublin is different to that in any other county, because all through County Dublin public houses have been built in areas in which there was no population, and over the years these public houses have been solely dependent on the bona fide trade.

I do not know whether a system of compensation could be evolved to compensate people who could definitely prove that their livelihood would be destroyed by an Act of the Oireachtas. How far could one go with that attempt? I do not know how many claims would be made in that respect throughout the country, but I want to make a special plea for County Dublin because it is different to other parts of Ireland, inasmuch as public houses have been operating in areas in which there is no worthwhile population. These properties will be reduced in value by at least 50 per cent. We have to be fair to all sections and, as I have already said, we have agreed on uniformity as far as closing hours are concerned, but I do feel that we have an obligation to those whose livelihood we are destroying. It should be possible to consider them for compensation of some kind.

I know that the Minister has a tough problem. I suppose that in his long career, and with his long experience in Government, he has never introduced a Bill that has bristled with so many difficulties as this one. He is endeavouring to resolve the difficulties and grievances of every section of our people but it is impossible to please all the people. Even so, I do feel that those on whose behalf I have spoken should be given some compensation. In County Dublin those houses which carry on a bona fide trade are owned by conscientious people who at no time abused the law, good, bad or indifferent. I had the pleasure of speaking to two men last night who were concerned all their lives to see that no drunkenness occurred on their licensed premises. They have family houses which are well conducted. Sometimes there have been exaggerated stories about bona fide houses but I want to say that the houses in my constituency are very well conducted and have always observed the law.

Mr. Moher

Does anybody misconduct himself in County Dublin?

Mr. P.J. Burke

My dear old friend, Deputy Moher, will have a lot to say about East Cork in a moment.

Mr. Dillon

And not about Deputy Burke's constituency.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I am talking about my own constituency. Approaches have been made to me regarding opening hours on Sundays. There is a strong volume of opinion that Sunday opening hours should be from 12.30 to 2 o'clock. People who have said so say that the man who can get a drink between 1 and 2 o'clock on a Sunday will go home to his dinner, let him be a married man, a single man, or anybody else.

Mr. McGilligan

What else?

Mr. P.J. Burke

He will go home to his dinner on a Sunday and will avoid getting the hot tongue he usually gets when he goes home at 3 o'clock and upsets his family.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That would seem to be a point for the Committee Stage.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I am merely giving the observations which I have heard on this aspect of the Bill; I shall not delay the House. Another observation was made in regard to the mid-day closing—2.30 p.m. to 3.30 p.m. The comment I heard was that there should be a longer break in the middle of the day especially in the city of Dublin. A number of the licensed trade feel that the hours from 2.30 to 4.30 or even 5 p.m. would be more acceptable. The members of the Barmen's Union feel that the hours are too long. That is a matter that will have to be discussed and resolved on the Committee Stage.

Generally speaking, these are the only points upon which I wanted to speak on the Second Stage. I shall reserve any other comments I have to make for the Committee Stage. There are a number of problems which will have to be dealt with and I suppose that, as discussion on the Bill proceeds, new problems may arise. The Minister has a very difficult job to try to resolve all the problems put to him. He introduced a Bill which was based on the recommendations embodied in the majority report of the Commission which was set up by the previous Minister for Justice to deal with this matter.

As a previous speaker rightly stated, our function in this House is to be fair and just to every section of the people and to ensure that we eliminate drunkenness as far as we can and also that the law will be fair and will be respected by all our people. These are difficult problems. Every member of the House has an obligation to do the best he can for his constituents as was mentioned by a previous speaker who dealt with the question of six day licences.

That is not too serious a problem in Dublin. We have few six day licensed premises, and the problem in that respect could be resolved by the people concerned. We have not the problems they have down the country where there is a large number of six day licensed houses. I intend to reserve anything further I have to say for the Committee Stage. Accordingly. I shall not make any further comments.

Mr. McQuillan

I agree with other speakers who said that this is a Bill which would be considered most effectively on Committee Stage, but I do think that there is a very important principle involved when it falls for discussion on Second Reading. I think it rather illogical to start at this stage talking about amendments and improvements in the measure if the idea behind the measure is to be opposed at this stage.

The reasons so far given for opposition to this Bill range round the idea that an injustice is being perpetrated on the holders of six day licences. I sat here since the debate opened and I must honestly say that for a while I began to wonder whether it was a Bill to deal with injustices to the six day licence holders or a Bill to deal with the licensing laws in general.

I happen to have been a member of the commission which investigated the question of the licensing laws some time ago. Evidence was tendered to that commission by certain representatives of the six day licence holders. I must say that prior to the sitting of that commission a great deal of attention was given to the methods by which evidence would be obtained so that no section of the community would be without privilege or position to make its case before the commission.

Advertisements appeared in the papers at regular intervals notifying the community at large of the fact that this commission intended to take evidence and invited the public, the trading people, the trade unions and all sections of the community to come and give their evidence so that a reasonable recommendation in regard to the licensing laws could be put before the Government by the commission.

Let me say that to my knowledge the only group of the six day licence holders who deserve any commendation in this House are the members of the six day licence holders from the town of Ballinasloe. They thought it worth while to sit down, prepare their case and give evidence but I found very little enthusiasm on the part of the remaining six day licence holders to put the case which has been so ably put to-day in this House on their behalf.

Even though the commission may not have, shall we say, met the wishes of those who opposed this Bill in so far as the six day licence holders are concerned, there is nothing to prevent the Government, if they so desire, giving further consideration to the overall position of the six day licence holders if this legislation is carried through but the matter with which we are mainly concerned at the moment is to get the agreement of the House to a licensing code that will be respected by the community.

In my opinion the Bill before the House is the nearest approach to such a measure. I welcome it. I do not think for one moment that it is revolutionary. I think that to a large extent this Bill is merely an enabling measure to make legal a practice that is in operation all over this country at the present time. I refer specifically now to the main problem.

Evidence was given to the commission by circuit court judges, district justices, the Commissioner and various experienced officers of the Garda Síochána. They all had the one cry— that the licensing laws were being flagrantly abused; that not alone were they being abused but that the majority of the people had no respect for the laws that obtain at the moment. They argued that, if you had not the backing of the community in any legislation brought forward, such legislation was not worth the paper it was written on. It might even do harm because if that particular law is brought into contempt there will likely be other aspects of legislation which will be treated with contempt too, if certain elements of the public disapprove of it.

I listened to some speakers in this House. I read the reports in the daily papers recently to the effect that there is no demand for the hours proposed in this Bill. There is no demand for the change proposed in this Bill. It is fair to argue that on its merits. I am convinced that there is an overwhelming demand at the present time for the hours proposed in the Bill because those are the hours which are in operation. There are even more liberal hours in operation in many areas.

It may not be the case that there is a vocal demand by the general public to the Minister or the Government to legalise the hours that are at present in operation. The general public say to themselves, "We can drink up to 12 o'clock at night every night of the week except Sunday. We can have our drink on Sunday by having it illegally and we shall go on having it illegally unless the Government are prepared to change the law and make the present practices legal." The general public are not getting up on a soap box outside this House shouting for their present arrangements to be made legal. In a case like this the general public take the view that they are already in a position to obtain liquor at very liberal hours and no protest will be made unless there is an attempt by this House to restrict them.

Deputy Dillon made a very important statement, that, whatever happens, the law must be respected and that we must have the most rigorous enforcement of whatever law this House passes. I agree with him but I think Deputy Dillon is talking from the exclusive area of Leinster House. When you try to enforce the existing law, particularly in rural Ireland, you are up against a stone wall of either indifference or hostility on the part of the general public.

If this House decided to make no changes in the existing law but, in the words of Deputy Dillon, to administer that law rigorously, in my opinion the police force would have to be trebled if you were to hope in any way to administer that law. That brings us back to the point that the goodwill of the majority of the community is absolutely essential.

What is the overall objection by certain groups to the hours proposed in this measure? First, let us take the City of Dublin. Objections come from two main sources. First, from the publicans—I should say from a limited section of the publicans in the city—in addition to those on the city fringes who have a vested interest, namely, the owners of the bona fide public houses. They are the main opposition to this measure, together with a small section of the trade union. Is their opposition on the basis that it is bad for the general public, that there will be more drunkenness or that there will be broken homes? Is that the opposition that is put forward by any of these groups? Not to my knowledge.

The opposition on the part of that section of publicans in the city who oppose the measure is based on the belief that the overheads which will result in the extra hours of opening will be too heavy for them to bear. In other words, they do not believe that there will be such a great trade as to recompense them for the extra staff or, perhaps, the extra wages they will have to pay their staff. That is the argument of the publican. The argument of the barman, which, I suppose, is logical, is that they do not want to work extra hours at night. I appreciate their point of view but there are other sections of the community who have to work late at night on behalf of the general public and while I may have sympathy with members of the union on the basis that they may have to work later in the city, that is not a full argument why the Bill should be opposed, why the hours should not be allowed. Undoubtedly, they must get protection and an increase in remuneration for the later hours but again I must point out that there is no onus on any publican, under this Bill, to open his premises for the full hours suggested in the Bill. There is nothing to prevent any publican from saying, "I do not intend to open at 10.30 a.m. I will not open until 12 noon." There is nothing to prevent him from closing for two or three hours in the middle of the day if he so desires and thus shorten the working hours for himself and his staff.

The third objectors to the Bill are the owners of bona fide public houses around the fringe of the City. They are a special problem. Evidence was tendered before the Commission with regard to the losses that these publicans were likely to sustain as a result of the proposed change in legislation. Taking the overall picture, if we are to keep the principle of uniformity, I cannot see how we can in law make an exception of these public houses. If we admit here that, due to their special case, they must get special privileges, then we must forget all about the question of uniformity. I think the entire country is in favour of the idea of uniformity and that a majority of the people on all sides of this House are in complete agreement on this issue, namely, that the bona fide trade as we know it must cease.

We can be under no illusion whatever about the necessity for putting an end to the bona fide trade as we know it. I do not propose to quote the reams of evidence given before the Commission on what happens as far as this traffic is concerned. The Minister has at his disposal the evidence tendered to the Commission. The Report of the Commission, I am sure, has been read by most Deputies and is available to the general public. Without that report at all, the general impression publicly was that the bona fide business was a dangerous one.

We have only to read the daily papers every day of the week, one daily paper in particular, to see the pleas and arguments put forward in connection with death on the roads and the demand for further legislation to eliminate accidents. We have the evidence, which is the only evidence I propose to quote, from the circuit court judges, in their report on this matter, paragraph 58 of which says:

A large number of road accidents are caused by persons under the influence of drink but it cannot be proved that the driver was drunk. It is the experience of the judges that many of these arise out of the bona fide traffic. It is also the experience of the Dublin circuit court judges that people returning from these houses frequently get involved in brawls.

There is evidence by very responsible men in connection with this matter. Evidence was tendered to us that quite a large section of the people in the City are anxious, rather than to have to go to a bona fide house for a late drink, to have the opportunity of having a drink in a civilised manner in their own local public house in Dublin. Consider people after a show or a picture. They have to sit into a car and race out to a bona fide premises for what they feel they are entitled to. Why should they not be allowed to have in their local pub in the city whatever they require without having to go out quite a distance, possibly being a menace to everybody on the roads or being hurt as a result of some irresponsible person on the road racing to a bona fide premises?

I hope we are growing up in this country to the extent that we can say the liberalisation of, you might say, from 10.30 to 11.30 in the night opening will not turn this city into turmoil. No evidence was offered to the commission that that was likely to happen. No evidence was brought before the commission that there was any grave danger to the morals of the community by making those hours available, 10.30 to 11.30, in the city. With regard to the country areas, the view was put forward that the dangers were more likely to be apparent where the traffic was outside the city.

Strong evidence was given—I do not know if it was mentioned so far in the debate—by members of the Garda Síochána with regard to the difficulties they have in Dublin in getting the premises closed at the legal hours. Strong arguments were put to the commission that there should be a period of grace, even a period of grace in order to allow people who like to have their drink around 10 p.m. to have the drink without having to gallop out the door. A great deal of evidence was before us, too, that the long hour, instead of causing drunkenness, in many instances helped to prevent it. The number of drinks taken in a hurry and with one eye on the clock was a far more potent cause of drunkenness than the slow drink taken deliberately with an opportunity for a friendly and convivial conversation. That is a civilised approach rather than the rushed manner in which people have had to avail of these facilities up to 10.30 at the moment.

Deputy Dillon again pointed out the necessity for the rigorous enforcement of the law. Fine Gael are opposing the Second Reading. If they want a rigorous enforcement of the law as it stands, what will we have in this country? Let us face it. Do we want what exists in other cities? I refer now to places across the Border. I refer to the situation in Belfast. Do we want the bottle party in operation in Dublin city and in parts of Ireland? If the demand is there—and there is no denying the demand for a drink late in the evening—I think there is nothing wrong with it. If the public feel like it, they are entitled to it. If that demand is there and if this House in its wisdom decides it should not be met, will those people who want to have their drinks not buy them in those premises and bring them to their houses, flats and some other centres? What have we then? Have we not the start of the bottle party?

Where can this House decide that the police or any other section of the community would be entitled to exercise control at that particular stage? Is more control not exercised over the drinking when it is done publicly in the licensed premises and hotels than if we divert the community drinking habits into secret dens, flats or parties? This House should bear all that in mind when we oppose, with high principles, the Second Reading of this Bill. We do not want to see a return to the shebeen or the secret drinking dens. There is nothing as depressing or demoralising in this country as that and we know it is going on to a great extent at the moment.

There are Deputies here from rural areas who know that from 11 o'clock on at night it is one long session until 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock in the morning in clubs or in public houses in various provincial towns. I believe the law should be rigorously enforced but I believe we should liberalise it first and give a reasonable opportunity to a civilised people, as I hope we are, to have their drinking in peace and comfort.

There is opposition to this measure from vested interests, on one hand. There is also opposition from other groups who are very well-meaning. I am a firm believer in not trying to shepherd the people too much. I do not believe it is necessary for everybody to go around and to act as a guardian to his neighbour. It is not necessary that that strict control be exercised over your neighbour. In this country there is a feeling or a tendency to worry too much about how you can keep your neighbour within bounds. There is no end to societies which spend their time thinking out means of achieving that object. I do not think they should get their way on a measure of this nature.

I want to be quite blunt on the aspect that there is a great deal of hypocrisy and talk throughout the country to-day on all this and there will be plenty of it I am sure in this House before this measure goes through. Let me remind Deputies of what took place here a few years ago. A certain Deputy—I shall not mention his name: he will probably speak soon —saw fit to introduce a Private Members' Bill in Dáil Éireann to give facilities to people in rural Ireland to have a drink on a Sunday locally. It was discussed in this House. I never listened to anything like the discussion. References to morals were trotted out here "goodo" by Deputies on both sides and to the dangers involved in having a drink in rural Ireland. The Bill was defeated by an overwhelming majority on the basis that it was wrong to open the pubs on a Sunday in rural Ireland.

About 12 months or two years afterwards the same Deputy, being of the opinion that this House felt seriously about the question of Sunday opening in rural Ireland, decided he would give this House an opportunity of dealing with the Sunday opening in the cities. He brought in a Bill suggesting that the city pubs should be closed on Sundays. What happened? I cannot give the exact figures. In the first debate, about 120 Deputies voted, on moral grounds, not to open the pubs in rural Ireland on a Sunday. Approximately the same number and the same people trotted into the division lobbies to keep the Dublin pubs open on a Sunday—twelve months or two years afterwards. It was immoral for country residents to have a drink on Sundays but it was strictly moral in the cities.

I am trying to bring home that Deputies had a free vote of the House. When the Whips were off, every association in this country ranging from the Pioneer Total Abstinence Association, the Father Mathew Union, down along to some very doubtful ones, made representations. I have the greatest respect for the first two societies I mentioned, but a lot of undesirable ones moved in on the tail of these very high-principled organisations. They all got together to deprive the rural man of his drink on Sunday. Let us ensure that, on this measure, we shall have less of that hypocrisy and more common sense, and that we shall not be afraid to face the music as individuals outside the House.

Let us try to have a Bill that will be respected by the majority of our people. It would be an impossibility to get a measure to suit everybody, but I have not the slightest doubt that if each Deputy here votes according to his conscience we shall have legislation that will meet with the approval and respect of the majority of our people.

I hope on the Committee Stage to move some amendments or support amendments that may be moved by other Members. I do not think it would be desirable for me at this stage to make reference to different sections in the Bill. However, as far as the Commission's report is concerned, may I point out to the Minister that the Commission felt very strongly that the same regulations should apply to clubs as apply to public houses? When I mention "the same regulations" I mean the same powers of investigation and control to be exercised by the Garda Síochána over these clubs rather than have the special privileges accorded to them at the moment where nobody less than the rank of an inspector dare enter the sacred portals of a number of these clubs throughout the State.

Clubs have a privilege to this extent, that the members can decide who is going to sit beside them having a drink. They can decide for themselves that they do not like certain individuals who are precluded from these premises. No club is entitled to more facilities than the ordinary members of the public are entitled to, and if it is within the power and control of the Garda Síochána to make the necessary investigation into the conduct of an ordinary public house, I cannot see why it is necessary to invoke the aid of the higher officers of the Garda Síochána before any investigation is made into the affairs of clubs.

That is the only point in relation to the Bill to which I would make specific reference. I would like that matter to be thoroughly examined. I do not know how amendments can be framed but I hope to put amendments down if I possibly can in relation to a particular section which gives to certain people in the community privileges to which they are not entitled.

An appeal has been made to have the Whips taken off when it comes to voting on this question. I do not know what the position of the Government is but it would be a desirable thing that each Deputy would be able to say that when he voted on the sections of this Bill he was not under any direction from his Party and that he could not—I presume this would apply to a few—shelter under the banner of a Whip and say to his constituents or any section of the people: "I would like to have voted in such a way but the Party Whip was on and I could not do it." Let us have legislation passed in this connection so that every Deputy will make up his own mind conscientiously. If that is done the result will not be too bad.

Mr. Johnston

I wish to congratulate the Minister on his courageous approach to the revision of the licensing laws. I am sure we can all agree on every side of the House that revision of those laws is long overdue. Speaking with a lifetime of experience of the licensed trade I can say that up to now it has been chaotic.

The case for the retention of the bona fide trade has been argued here this evening. It is one of the blessings of the Bill that that is being done away with. I agree there is a special situation in relation to the vicinity of Dublin City but it is peculiar to Dublin and not to any other part of the country as far as I am aware. It has been the cause of a great deal of complaint both on the part of the publican and his customers. It did seem ridiculous that a man went into your premises on six days of the week but was no longer welcome on the seventh day. There was no equality of human rights there. Under no circumstances could the retention of the bona fide law be justified. It is a relic of another day, of another age.

Another aspect of the Bill with which I am very pleased is the uniformity of hours. This matter caused a great deal of trouble all down the years, different hours in different localities. Whether a man lives in Ballina or Ballydehob the hours should be the same. People should know when the public houses open and when they are not open. There has been an argument about extended hours. I hope they are not really extended hours. Under the existing laws the bona fide trade can be conducted from ten in the morning to 12 at night. Under this Bill I visualise the hours will not be of that length and irrespective of that it has been my experience and that of many other people in the trade that extended hours do not mean extended drinking. I think that will be found out in due course.

As regards the hours of Sunday opening I would prefer to see public houses opening early in the day, from 12.30 p.m. to perhaps 2 p.m. However, that will arise on the Committee Stage. If we are framing a measure in this regard let us frame one that can be enforced. I do not believe in repressive legislation, that we should always be appealing to people to do something they do not want to do. Let us give reasonable facilities to most people to have their drink in comfort. If these facilities are extended I am quite sure they will not be abused but if they are, the full rigour of the law should be enforced.

I have always felt down through the years that publicans and their customers have contributed a tremendous amount of revenue to this country and every other country. They have never received fair treatment. We have a chance now of putting these people in the position they deserve to be in and we should do it without hesitation.

Captain Giles

Like Deputy Flanagan I believe it is only right that every Deputy should air his views in connection with this Bill. I am one of those who know very little about the affairs of public houses because I am a strict T.T. but I am not against the publican. The majority of publicans in this country are a decent set of men. They are going through a very lean period and it is only right that they should be treated fairly.

One thing is certain, that some Bill was needed because the licensing laws were abused wholesale and openly with the result that the Guards gave up the idea of raiding public houses. I am satisfied the Minister has made a good effort to improve the position in this Bill but he could have gone a little further and I hope the Committee Stage will enable us to produce a Bill that will be satisfactory to all of us. If a just Bill is enacted I would ask the authorities to enforce the law rigorously and let those who are caught under the lash of the whip bear the brunt of it.

This Bill does not give justice to all. Anyone can see the six-day licensee is not getting justice. The day has come for some Minister to abolish the six-day licence. I do not mean to wipe them out but to give the six-day licensees a seven-day licence. Let us have equality for all. If the six-day licensee sees his neighbours on Sunday, open for three or four hours, and drawing in a handsome profit, he will think it very unfair. He should be entitled to some of the profits of the Sunday trade.

I believe it is far better that we should have a few hours open on Sunday than have the bona fide trade. I shall be glad to see that wiped out because it involved many abuses. People had enough drink in the city and then went on bicycles or in cars or taxis nine or twelve miles to get more drink and saturated themselves, until they did not know where they were and had to be put in taxis and sent home. It is absolutely wrong that they should have the facility to saturate themselves like that. Only a few drink too much but people come from other countries and see them and say: "Look at Paddy, always drunk." I am very glad that the bona fide trade is being done away with.

I am very much concerned about Sunday opening hours and I should like to know from the Minister if the Church was consulted in connection with it. I do not want to see opening hours on Sunday that will interfere with the devotions of congregations of different religious denominations. Sunday opening hours should be approved by the Hierarchy. I would ask the Minister to go very cautiously in the matter and see that proper hours are put into operation. I do not want to see opening hours at a time when people are going to devotions, when half will go to the left and half to the right, some to the church and more to the publichouse. Publichouses should be closed while Divine Service is going on. We can get over that by getting the approval of the Church for certain hours. We do not want long hours, but the shortest possible, to facilitate the people but I believe that opening on Sunday instead of a bona fide trade would be better.

The proposal to have opening hours from 10.30 a.m. to 11.30 p.m. is going too far. I think 11 o'clock is late enough for anybody. If anyone wants a drink after that, there is no reason why he should not have half a dozen bottles of stout at home or perhaps a half pint of whiskey. Provision could be made the night before. I believe 11.30 is too late. After all, at that time most people should be in bed, unless they have some interesting work to do. We must think of the family man who has a wife and children waiting for perhaps two or three hours for him to come home. He may not turn in until 12 o'clock or 1 o'clock and he may perhaps have spent most of his wages. I do not want to deny a labouring man a few drinks but I do not want to see longer hours in operation in which more money will be spent and perhaps on Sunday or Monday the person has not a penny for the whole week and his wife and children have to suffer. I want to see a tightening up of the law.

There is one thing we all know. So far as drink is concerned, we are in the happy position that because of its price, there is not much drunkenness. I remember in my young days after a fair, on a Saturday night, if one went to the door and listened, one could hear people singing and shouting and fighting. That was 30 or 40 years ago when one could get a pint for 2d. and, I am not sure of the price of whiskey but I think one could have got a half of whiskey for a few pennies. They go home now merry and happy instead of hitting their head off the roads or against one another.

Mr. Corish

The whiskey has improved.

Captain Giles

The scarcity of money has done it. We must realise that in many areas there is no parish hall and that is why the publichouses are so much abused. The young people in those areas want some place to meet and if there is no hall in the village and a publichouse is available and nothing else, they must go there to hear the talk and singing and they are quite happy. If there were a proper village hall——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The case for a village hall does not arise on this Bill.

Captain Giles

The drink in this country—I do not know much about it—is extremely strong. If an American drinks three or four glasses of whiskey, within a short time his head is whirling, even though he can drink the same amount in America without any effect. If the whiskey and brandy and wine were diluted we would have very little drunkenness. I believe they are too strong and go to the heads of many people.

The licensing laws had to be changed. The Minister has made an effort to do so but he has not gone the whole way. I hope before Committee Stage we will have a Bill which will give satisfaction to most of us and to people down the country. I ask the Minister to listen to the different views because I am sure that nearly everyone will speak independently. Deputy Corry has often to answer the crack of the whip but I hope he will not have to do so now. We should have a free vote of the House to see exactly what people think, and the public will then know that it was a free vote and that nobody can say he was under the lash of the whip. We should take our sides in a manly fashion.

It would be a good thing if, periodically, we had a free vote on a Bill like this. The Minister has made a fair effort to meet the case as best he could, but there are snags that will have to be faced, such as the giving of a seven day licence and the same rights as other people to the six day licensees. So far as the late hours are concerned, 11 p.m. is late enough for anyone, and if anyone wishes to drink after that, let him have it in his home and give at least some of his time to family life and to peace and happiness with his wife and children who, in many cases, have waited long hours to see if the father of the family will come in drunk or sober or with anything left of his wages. There are not many of that type but there are a few who bring trial and tribulation into their homes. Longer hours will tend to encourage people to spend too much money and get drunk.

Mr. Everett

I appreciate the difficulties the Minister and the Government had in trying to bring in a Bill which would satisfy the views of the members of this House and the people outside it. Like the Minister, I wish to congratulate the chairman and the members of the commission who gave their time in an attempt to solve this difficult problem.

I regret that there are a couple of points in the Bill that I have to oppose. I think we are all in agreement on abolishing the bona fide trade and in favour of Sunday opening, especially in rural areas. Anyone who has represented a rural area knows that the licensing law was never observed in any of them. The Gardaí had to close their eyes to what was a common practice, even in the British days. There was mixed trading. After Mass the women purchased their groceries and the men adjourned to the lower end of the premises to have a few drinks. At 2 o'clock the Gardaí would come and they would all get away. Now the shops in the rural areas will remain open and I believe that is in the interests of the people.

With regard to the question of hours I am not influenced by trade unions or anything else, but I have seen where extended hours were given at certain periods of the year, particularly in tourist centres, from June until December, and during those hours there was not the excessive drinking that went on when public houses were closed from October onwards. Licensed traders have told me that they are not anxious for the extra hours in rural areas, with the exception of summer time. They are very anxious to have their premises cleared at 10.30 p.m. in the winter, because there is not sufficient business being done to justify them remaining open longer.

As regards the hours for Sundays, I oppose them because they are breakup family life. They are open from 1 o'clock until 3 o'clock, and again from 5 p.m. until 8 p.m. I know of men who go home to their families and in the afternoon take a walk with them, maybe to some seaside, have another few drinks and rejoin their families again, and there is nothing wrong with that.

In respect of clubs, I am worried about the definition of "meals". I have always been against clubs having privileges that the ordinary licensed trader had not. A man could leave the premises of a licensed trader who paid rent, licence duty, and trade union rates of wages in many cases, go to a club and remain there as long as he wished because no Garda, other than a superintendent, had the right to inspect the club. What is the definition of a substantial meal? If I order a plateful of sandwiches have I sufficient excuse to continue my drinking up to a late hour because that plate of sandwiches is in front of me? Will that be defined as a substantial meal?

There are only six six-day licences in my constituency. In the town where I reside there are 10 licensed traders and only two with six-day licences. Are we to have the Guards watching those two premises to see there is no breach of the law by entry through their front doors? There is no guarantee that people will not enter them in some other way. When the other houses are open why not let the six-day houses open also and leave the Gardaí free to look after their other business? There is also the problem of late drinking in tourist areas where car drivers can be a danger to pedestrians when they are making their way back to Dublin. Hundreds of thousands of pounds are being spent on roads, making race tracks of them, but there is no provision for pedestrians. No paths are provided and, by extending the hours in a tourist area, there is the danger that a car driver may start for home while "under the influence."

I am not in favour of the opening of public houses on St. Patrick's Day. We have got on very well without it and there is no good argument for it. I do not know if there is a demand for it. I suppose there would be a demand from a certain section of the people for public houses to remain open all day, but I do not know if there is any demand for a St. Patrick's Day opening. However, if you allow one section to sell intoxicating liquor on St. Patrick's Day I can see the difficulty that will arise. There is no use in sanctioning opening for clubs and other places while ordinary premises are prevented from opening.

There will always be criticism of whatever Bill any Minister introduces. There are good points in this Bill but I would ask the Minister to amend it so that it will command the support of everyone. I do not see the necessity for longer hours and I do not see the point in the argument that you must look after the poor workers in rural areas at harvest time. I have always criticised the action of Gardaí who go at nighttime to a small licensed house, complete with motor car, and find six or seven men there talking. Those men would not spend all that night the amount that would be spent on one round of drinks in some of the clubs, but they are prosecuted. I do not see that there is any demand to extend the hours of small public houses in rural areas in the summer period because the people who work at the harvest always work late. They are not in form to travel maybe three or four miles to get a drink as they have to be up early next morning.

There is no substance in the argument that because the bone fide trade is being abolished there should be an extension of the opening hours at night-time. I sympathise with the licensed trader. He has to be very careful and can easily offend a customer by refusing him refreshment, and some of his rivals will take advantage of that.

I do not agree with Bord Fáilte in their excuse that foreign visitors want these extra hours. I do not want to wander from the Bill but I should like to express my appreciation of the difficulties of the commission. I would be anxious to see the abolition of the six day licence. In my own county, where there are 187 licensed premises, the Gardaí should not be called upon to watch the six six-day premises there. As I said, I should like to have a definition of a "substantial meal" and I believe that there is no necessity for an extension of the hours. I believe it is uncalled for, that there is no demand for it, and that it will create trouble for people in various places. By that I mean cars coming from tourist centres.

I sympathise with the members of the licensed trade because, while there is much talk about the drunken driver, while a car may stop at a public house it is often one of the travellers in it who goes into the public house and gets drink to bring out to the driver. I have known cases of drivers being prosecuted for being guilty of drunkenness, yet they had no drink in any licensed premises within 30 miles of the spot in which they were found. It was passengers in their cars who secured drink for them.

I welcome the principle of the Bill. I would ask the Minister on the Report or Committee Stage of the Bill to try to amend it to meet the demands of the people and meet the support of all sections of the community.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr. J. Brennan)

The confusion on this Bill both in the House and throughout the country with regard to its application is, in itself, an indication of how difficult, in fact how impossible it is, to get any sort of measure that would be satisfactory to the country as a whole. However, it is my experience that in the country the Bill has been well received. It goes a long way towards meeting many of the things advocated by the Licensed Traders' Association in the different areas for some time past.

The Bill does nothing more than try to legalise what in practice was growing up amongst people who take a drink. Its purpose is to eliminate irregularities and breaches of the licensing laws. I hope it will make the publican's life somewhat more congenial than it has been in the past. A peculiar situation had developed in the country—anybody who ignores it is simply closing his eyes—whereby the laxity or otherwise of the local Garda sergeant set the standard as to whether one could have a drink or not after hours without running the risk of prosecution.

The enforcement of the law varies from town to town and from village to village. That leaves publicans in a most peculiar and anomalous position. No matter how desirous a licensed trader may have been of observing the strict letter of the licensing laws, he was obliged, if his neighbour did so, to engage in after-hour traffic. I think publicans, as a whole, will agree that if this Bill becomes law, they will be obliged to observe it strictly and by that means the family publican, the man who lives on the premises, will be assured that, when the closing hour comes, his premises are really closed and that if he refuses to answer a knock, his next door neighbour will not allow those customers in. By that means, the situation is avoided in which every publican feels obliged to do a certain amount of after-hour traffic. The Bill does not confer any privilege or benefit on the publican except that the hours now proposed will tone in with the hours which, according to the experience of all publicans in the country, are the hours during which drink is sought by the public.

I do not think there is a great difference of opinion in rural Ireland with regard to these hours. The average publican, particularly in the summer time, opens his house in the morning at 10 o'clock. The amount of business he did until, say, 5 o'clock in the evening was negligible and the time he was closing at 10 o'clock or 10.30 in the summer was just the time when business was becoming brisk. It is only natural that people, looking at this Bill from different angles, will have different views, depending on whether they are publicans, customers, Total Abstinence Association members or people who abhor drink under any conditions.

The fact remains that a publican has a pretty tough life. No person need think it is otherwise. His profits are not great. The work is heavy. The hours are long and he is all the time in a state of suspense. He has to deal with a type of customer who is different from the customer you find in any other type of business. He has to be alert all the time as to what might happen or run the risk of "permitting." If he is a conscientious publican, the suspense is all the more. In spite of that, he is frequently made the target for all sorts of persecution. He is looked upon as being over-avaricious. He is looked upon as almost going out to bring the people in off the street to make them drunk. At the same time, he is providing about a quarter of the total revenue of the State. In other words, he is a suspect tax collector for the Revenue. If there is anything in this Bill which will alleviate or ameliorate his position, I think it is overdue.

By and large, publicans are a hard working decent section of the community who make a very worthy contribution to the revenue of this State. Those people who refer to the dangers inherent in, or supposed to be inherent in, this Bill seem to think that the Bill imposes an obligation to drink; that men will be taken from their family at night, as if the publican went out, took them out of their beds and brought them in to drink until closing time.

The number of people who drink in this country is not so great at all. As a matter of fact, the one person I would imagine who would not welcome this Bill and the proposed extension of the hours is the tippler who prefers to wait until the shutters are going up, the lights becoming dim and who gets into a shady quiet environment of a closed pub which seems to be the only atmosphere in which he enjoys a drink.

Drinking under this Bill will be done openly and publicly where the toper must mix with the man who takes a few drinks by way of refreshment and who regards the "pub", as what it is to a great extent in the country, the Mecca of social contact. He goes home at closing time feeling all the more relaxed after what was possibly a strenuous day. The percentage of people who commit serious breaches or who can be regarded as addicted to drink must be very low indeed.

I do not think anything in this Bill will in any way tend to increase the number. In fact, I believe very firmly that it will have the opposite effect. I do not know these inland counties. They probably have not the experience which the seaside counties have with regard to tourists, but I venture to say that if you want to try out the question of the effect which easy access to public houses has on the tourist business try to curtail the hours in some seaside resorts for a few years. You will soon see a serious decline in the number of people who frequent them.

I know people who are most abstemious but who when on holidays will relax for a few hours in a public house. In fact, if the tourists who visit us have not a lounge in which to sit while they write a few postcards to their friends, have a smoke, a few drinks, a chat and, as often as not, a sing song, I doubt if they would find much outlet on a rainy day in a seaside resort which has not all the facilities of sun parlours and what not.

If you visit a seaside resort on the western seaboard or any part of Ireland or, for that matter, any other country, and want to contact tourists, particularly on wet evenings, you will get them in one place, that is, the public house. Tourists are not people who have abused the privilege in any way. The amount of drunkenness amongst tourists is practically nil.

I welcome this Bill. I do not think it will make any publican any better off. What it means is that, if the law is enforced, when this measure is enacted, at the end of a year the publicans will have collected just the same amount as they would have collected in any case from the public. It will not increase spending capacity or entice anybody to spend more. It will certainly relieve the suspense of the publican and make his position a much more genial one in that, knowing that he is committing no breach of the law, he can entertain his customers at a reasonable hour and, when he closes, can go to bed happy in the knowledge that he will not be expected to reopen for mitchers who come along late.

I have yet to meet a publican who would not welcome that situation. If the publican who wishes to close at the correct hour knows that the other fellow is only opening his door then, there will be a re-hash of the old situation. There should be no excuse for it now because the hours are reasonable. Make no mistake about it, a man who wished to drink into the late hours could always manage to do it. With the 11.30 closing, the man who was accustomed to remain to a late hour will be in his bed much earlier than he has been in the past.

The Bill is an attempt to apply to the trade hours which, through custom, through lack of law enforcement if you like, have been the hours in which people sought to have drink. It is nothing more than that. It will legalise a position which heretofore was an illegal position. If it does that, it will certainly be welcomed by the trade in general and will not tend towards abuses or excessive drinking. In fact, I am convinced that it will not mean a shilling extra in the overall takings of a publican during the year. At the same time, it will put the public and the licensed trade generally in a much better position and it will, I hope, dispel the feeling that licensing laws are made to be broken. If the hours are observed and the times fixed as suggested in the Bill, it will be welcomed by everybody.

Most of the speakers whom I have heard congratulated the Minister on his courage in bringing in this Bill. I want to say that for a time I felt we might not have such a measure. I was one of those who gave evidence before the Liquor Commission. Briefed by the licensed trade in my county, I advocated certain reforms in the laws. I am satisfied that most of what we advocated is included in the Bill. The Sunday hours are not the exact hours for which we were looking but, there again, what might suit one village will not suit another. One set of traders want Sunday hours to suit football matches. Another set of traders want hours to suit big dances in the local hall. I can appreciate the position in which the Minister found himself. It would be impossible to have uniformity if you were to accede to the desires of all the elements in the various areas. By and large, the Bill goes a long way to give an optimum of hours and I think it will be appreciated by the trade generally.

Mr. Belton

There are certain sections of the Bill with which I agree. There are other sections with which I cannot see eye to eye. First of all, I should like to point out that there are four types of establishments in this country which have a licence to sell liquor. There is the wine licensee, the restaurant, the hotel and the ordinary publican. It is very strange to me that, on the introduction of a Bill such as this, a wine licence can be granted on a simple application to the Garda Síochána. That is ridiculous when one considers the difficulties that are placed in front of other people who look for a licence to sell intoxicating liquor.

It has been said to me that the consumption of intoxicating liquor in ordinary public houses in the City of Dublin has declined considerably since 1939. I agree that that is substantially correct. Yet, the consumption of liquor in the City of Dublin has considerably increased. The Minister should ask himself where that increase has come from in view of the fact that there has been a reduction in the sale of liquor by publicans in the borough area. I suggest that the ordinary drinker in the City of Dublin has been driven underground over the last 20 years.

Deputy McQuillan was perfectly correct in stating that there is more illegal drinking in this country at the moment than ever before. If this Bill is passed, I suggest that the Minister should see that the same supervision applies to clubs and hotels as applies to the ordinary licensed house at the moment. If the Minister is not prepared to do that, I suggest that he immediately considers the promotion of about 200 Garda sergeants to the rank of inspector because they will be needed.

I have great sympathy for the six-day licensees, particularly those in the Province of Connaught. I think they have a great case to have their demands considered by the Minister. There is a mistake, whether it is intentional or otherwise I do not know, in Section 5 of this Bill. It is the section relating to exemption for hotels and restaurants.

It reads as follows:

The following section is hereby substituted for section 13 of the Act of 1927:

13. Nothing in this Act shall operate to prohibit the holder of an on-licence in respect of premises which are for the time being a hotel or restaurant from supplying intoxicating liquor to any person on the premises or from permitting intoxicating liquor to be consumed on the premises—

(a) on any week-day—

(i) during the months of June, July, August and September, after the hour of half-past eleven o'clock in the evening, or

(ii) during any other month, after the hour of eleven o'clock in the evening.

Until what time is it proposed to permit the restaurant and the hotel to trade? I think the Minister's intention there was to permit trading until midnight but there is no mention of time there.

Mr. Traynor

The day ends at midnight, 24 hours.

Mr. Belton

I would be quite satisfied with the Minister's explanation——

Mr. Traynor

The new day begins at one minute after midnight.

Mr. Belton

It is also provided that, in rural areas, two licences should be extinguished when a new licence is being granted. I suggest that should apply to the whole country—to the four borough areas and to the rural areas—that two licences should be extinguished when a new licence is being granted.

Deputy Giles made a suggestion that all pubs should be closed on Sunday. I could not agree with Deputy Giles's statement and particularly with his suggestion that the customer could bring home a dozen of stout and a bottle of whiskey to consume at home.

Mr. Russell

Deputy Giles is a teetotaller.

Mr. Belton

That view possibly emanated from a man who never took a drink, as he suggested himself. However, any Deputy listening to him knows very well that when we go to Mass we want to see the priest. Drink taken in a public house is far more palatable than the one taken at home. The majority of the customers who wish to take a drink would prefer to take it in the atmosphere of a public house rather than have it at home in their own houses or in the house of a friend.

I have heard a lot of discussion every place, all over the city and in certain places just outside the city, about the proposed Sunday hours. I often wondered why the Irish Country-women's Association and the Irish Housewives' Association over the past 17 years, since the last Licensing Bill was introduced, did not object to the existing licensing hours in the cities of Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford, namely, 1.30 to 3 and 5 to 7. The main criticism of those hours is that the public houses are open at meal times. The average worker in Dublin city, the builder's labourer, the manual worker, the office worker, has his relaxation in the form of a few pints on a Sunday. They arrive at their local at about 1.30 and have a drink with their friends. They are not home until 3, 3.15 or 3.20. The pubs are open again at tea time. The majority of the people concerned with the trade and the majority of the customers of the trade would be more anxious to see a 12.30 to 2 o'clock opening than 1 to 3. That, I will admit, would be a reduction of half an hour's trading but it would meet the wishes of the majority of the publicans throughout the country, not alone in Dublin, and the majority of the people who want to use the pubs on Sunday.

There are several viewpoints on what should be the opening hours on Sunday evening. I feel public houses should be open between 7 and 10 o'clock. That would permit publicans and their staffs to have a reasonable time of relaxation between 2 and 7 o'clock. It would give time to the young assistant to bring his girl friend to the seaside or to the pictures or to attend at or play in a football match.

Mr. Corry

After 10, is it?

Mr. Belton

Between 2 and 7 o'clock. I do not know what the Deputy does in County Cork after 10 o'clock but, between 2 and 7 o'clock, the people in the trade will have free and leisure time. The chief problem, as the Minister knows, in a public house at the moment is working on a half staff on Sunday. Before 5 o'clock would be too early to expect a publican or his assistant to have their tea and after 9 o'clock would be too late. Meal hour must be provided between 5 and 9 o'clock and, in order to provide that meal hour, another staff must be employed. If those hours should be persisted in, I suggest the licensed trade might have to go to the Minister or might have to increase the price of drink to enable them to pay the overhead costs they will have to meet.

I was comparing the proposed opening hours in this Bill with the existing opening hours in London. The Licensing Act of 1902 or 1901—I forget the date—was introduced here by the British. The present laws under which we are working are more or less those laws, slightly modified. In Britain, as regards the licensing laws, they are moving about 20 years ahead of ourselves. I am sure the Minister has considered these licensing laws. I think the licensing laws in the London area for Sundays are five hours with not more than two between 12 noon and 3 p.m. and not more than three between 6 and 10 p.m. I believe they have been in operation in London most satisfactorily from the point of view of the general public and they are the people for whom we should have the most consideration and for the trade in general.

The section of people interested in the licensed trade who will receive the biggest wallop as regards this Bill are those engaged in what has caused the greatest discussion here, the bona fide trade. The majority of the people within the vicinity of Dublin City, Cork City, Limerick City and Waterford City carrying on a bona fide trade are people who, over the past 17 years, have invested a lot of money in their houses. In some cases I suggest they have invested up to about £20,000 in providing the public with the service which the public have demanded. Whether or not the publicans or the assistants agree with my statement is really beside the point. Publicans and their assistants are servants of the public. They are in a catering trade and must work and carry on their employment when the rest of the people have their leisure hours or are on holidays. I would ask the Minister to consider favourably the representations that have been made on behalf of those publicans engaged in the bona fide trade and to consider the welfare of the men they employ.

Mr. Corry

I should have started my remarks on this Bill by telling a little story. Long ago, when for my sins I was representing Cork City suburbs, I was holding a meeting in my constituency and I had difficulty in finding a room. Eventually I held the meeting in a room in a public house. The meeting was in progress for about half an hour when the unfortunate publican came rushing up saying: "Martin, the police are knocking at the door." I said: "Send up whatever ‘scatters' you have down there." He sent them up and some very strange fellows came into that Fianna Fáil meeting that night. The sergeant came up and I told him I had the room taken for a meeting. He peeped in through the room and said: "I must say, Corry, you have some very notable converts."

We have some very notable converts here, when I look back to the year 1948. When I look at the list here and find the Minister who is in charge of this Bill, voted in 1948 against opening the country public houses for even four hours on Sunday and each Deputy who spoke here in turn voted the same way. It took 11 years for it to sink into the heads of the Dublin people what the country people wanted and it took some tough thinking at that. I find "goody-goodies" here who made some very solemn speeches on the moral aspect of opening the country public houses on a Sunday. You will find the list here in page 125 of the Dáil reports of the 17th November, 1948. They voted to keep the country public houses closed on a Sunday and when you come to the 17th February, 1949, you will find there the same list of people who stood up and solemnly declared that on moral grounds they could not give way so that the country people could have the public houses open on Sundays. When it came to keeping the city public houses open on Sunday, they voted in favour of that— the same Deputies who were crying and moaning about the evil that would befall the country if the country boys were allowed to walk into the public houses on Sunday for a drink, if they were let in the front door instead of going in the back door.

When my Bill was beaten I brought in the second one and lo and behold the same regiment of soldiers voted in favour of keeping the city public houses open. If there is anyone doubtful about this I shall give the names from this list.

What are we doing tonight? We are endeavouring to change a law which, in my opinion, is repugnant to the Constitution of this State. I tried to get that much backbone into the publicans to test it. I failed to do it. The Constitution says: equal rights for all citizens. It does not say that because a man lives in Dublin he should be able to walk into the public house next door but that the man living in the country should walk three miles to have a drink, that it is legal for one and not for the other. That is not equal rights for all citizens. I am convinced that if the publicans had fought their case they would have won it.

I wish to make one other remark about the previous Bill before I speak on this. Deputies here were inundated with little missives from Pioneer Associations, total abstinence associations and so on. When the Bill to which I have referred was brought in to close the city public houses from Saturday night to Monday morning all the pioneers became dumb. There were no explosions in relation to that question. The Dáil in its wisdom decided to set up a Commission. On that commission you had representatives of all Parties in this House; you had representatives of the Fianna Fáil Party, the Fine Gael Party, Clann na Poblachta, Independents and Labour. As representatives there were John K. Clare, Esq., of the Pioneer Total Abstinence Association, and Dermot J. O'Flynn, Esq., member of the executive of the Pioneer Total Abstinence Association. Look at the majority report on which this Bill is based. It is signed by John K. Clare and Dermot J. O'Flynn. So much for the Pioneers and their objections.

General MacEoin

Is it fair to make a deliberate attack upon a temperance society which is not here to defend itself?

Mr. Corry

It is not a deliberate attack on anyone at all. I am dealing with arguments that might be put up——

General MacEoin

Is the Deputy praising them?

Mr. Corry

The Deputy is entitled to say who was appointed on that commission.

Acting Chairman (Mr. MacCarthy)

Yes, very definitely.

Mr. Corry

And what they did.

Acting Chairman

Definitely, yes.

Mr. Corry

I am talking about what they did, and what right has anyone to object to that? The commission was set up by this House and representatives from this House were selected to go on the commission. This is a majority report which is signed, and I have picked out some names because of the objections I heard previously from the goody-goodies who pretended to be representing the pioneers or to have been selected to represent the pioneers.

General MacEoin

What then?

Mr. Corry

I am making the argument that the majority——

Acting Chairman

The Deputy should be allowed to make his own speech.

Mr. Traynor

There is a rule of this House that a Deputy does not attack an individual who is not here to defend himself against the charges made against him. If the Deputy was referring to these people, or to their rank in the association I could quite understand it, but the individuals who have been mentioned are not here and cannot answer the charges.

Acting Chairman

As I understand it, the Deputy is just putting on record that these two gentlemen signed the majority report, but it would be well that we would not attack any organisation or any people outside the House.

Mr. Corry

I am attacking nobody. I am giving the facts, and the facts are that the Pioneer Total Abstinence Association recommended to the Government two representatives on that commission and those two representatives signed this majority report.

Acting Chairman

With many others of course.

Mr. Corry

With representatives of this House and the licensed traders' association. I am speaking as a member of that commission and I say it was the fairest commission I have seen for a long time. There were men of wide experience on all sides, representatives from the rural licensed trade and the city licensed trade, others who represented their own interests, and representatives from all Parties in this House, on that Commission. This is their report and, so far as I can see, the Bill is based on that report. I even find here the name of Deputy Boland who was a Minister for Justice in this House. He signed the majority report.

Mr. Carty

What did Deputy Corry sign?

Mr. Corry

I signed the minority report as usual.

Acting Chairman

It would be well not to go into too much detail on Second Reading.

Mr. Corry

I am giving the facts and there is no use in Deputies pretending they do not know what was happening down the country. This House had plenty of opportunity of dealing with this matter when other Bills were here previously.

I shall now quote from a statement made in this House on 16th October, 1942—and this is 1959—by Deputy MacEoin who is a former Minister for Justice.

General MacEoin

And is here to defend himself.

Mr. Corry

I quote from column 1442, Volume 88 of the Official Report:

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 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:

"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 was Deputy MacEoin speaking away back in 1942 on the present licensing laws. In 1948, when I endeavoured to remedy that scandalous state of affairs Deputy MacEoin walked into the Lobby and voted against it. Fair play is fine play.

Acting Chairman

The Deputy should now come to the Bill before the House.

Mr. Corry

I am entitled to deal with what happened in previous legislation.

General MacEoin

He is, of course.

Mr. Corry

I am quoting from the records of the House.

Acting Chairman

These extensive quotations are not desirable on this Stage.

Mr. Corry

I have a few more here.

Acting Chairman

If we go back over the debate on a previous Bill we shall hold up the time of the House.

General MacEoin

There is plenty of time. Go ahead.

Mr. Corry

When the division was taken I appealed to Deputy MacEoin and I was told to leave it to him and he would fix it. I asked half a dozen questions afterwards but it was of no use. It shows that in 1942 Deputy MacEoin knew there was illegal trading all over the country and that the law was a joke so far as public houses were concerned. I agree entirely with his point of view when he said good luck to them. Wrong laws and unjust laws are not capable of enforcement in this country and that is what we have in the present licensing laws. I have my own experience of it. I had men who had to be in my yard at 7 o'clock in the morning to milk cows and feed them, but after working all the morning and attending 11.30 Mass, kneeling in the porch, they had to run out down to the pub, to say: "Another three pints, Mick." They landed up drunk at my yard at 2 o'clock in the afternoon to milk my cows, after swallowing 3 pints a man in the 5 minutes they had.

Mr. W. Murphy

If you were a decent employer you would go down and get a few more for them. You should have gone down with them after Mass.

Mr. Corry

I am always ready to ask them out.

Mr. W. Murphy

If you had got a few pints for them you would be surprised how the work would get on.

Mr. Corry

It is noteworthy to compare the present hours of trading with the hours proposed in the Bill. At the present time on Sundays you have from 1 p.m. to 8 p.m., that is seven hours. The hours proposed are from 12.30 to 2.30, and from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m., or six hours. On weekdays the present hours are from 10.30 in the morning until 12 o'clock at night, that is 13½ hours, but this Bill will reduce the hours of opening by four hours each week, instead of increasing them. That is what the Bill is doing, with this difference, that for those hours a man will not have to walk two or three miles to get a drink. In actual fact, the hours proposed in the Bill are four hours a week shorter than at present. That is an extraordinary thing, and it shows how much removed the people up here are from the ordinary people down the country.

It took 11 years for the justice of that matter to sink into the heads of the Dublin people. It is 11 years since all the goody-goodies marched around here for the purpose of keeping the country boy in slavery and subjection. That is what it amounted to. The city man can stop work usually at 12 o'clock on a Saturday and have plenty of time for drinking until he goes into work on Monday morning, but the man in the country has his cattle to milk in order to supply the city man on Sunday and Monday with milk.

Mr. W. Murphy

But the Deputy has just said that they went back to his yard stone drunk.

Mr. Corry

God bless the Deputy; he is always open on a Sunday.

Mr. W. Murphy

That is one thing; I like to have a few drinks after Mass on a Sunday.

Mr. Corry

There is no man more glad of that than I. I have studied this Bill as best I could. I have seen the difficulties in it and there are a few changes which, in my opinion, will have to be made on Committee Stage. One is to change the opening hours on Sunday from 1 o'clock to 12.30. I shall give my reason for that. The public house is the club house for the country worker. There are men in the country who do not meet each other until Sunday. They come to Mass from three miles on one side of it, and from three miles on the opposite side, and they have to discuss their business on a wet, cold day standing outside by a wall at a Chapel gate, while a Guard marches up and down outside the front of a public house, into which they are not allowed to go to have a couple of drinks before going home. The last Mass on a Sunday is generally at 11 o'clock or 11.30 a.m., and I can see no earthly reason why the public house should not open at 12.30 a.m. and remain open to say, 2.30 p.m.

I realise the difficulty stressed by Deputy Belton in regard to evening hours. There is the case of men who go to hurling matches, which generally finish about 4.30 or 5 o'clock and who want a drink before they go home, or a drink on their way home. Those men have to be satisfied. I admit that the country man is better served, perhaps, between 6 and 10 o'clock as stated by Deputy Belton, but it is impossible to get a law that will suit everybody. The best thing we can do is to get a law that will suit most people.

The best feature I see in this Bill is that there will be the same hours for everyone, and after that the public houses will close and stay closed. I am not in favour of giving extra hours to hotels or clubs. That should be done away with. If we are to have a hard and fast rule let it be a hard and fast rule for every member of the community, without exception.

I intended to deal rather more with some of my friends' remarks in these volumes, but perhaps it is better to leave them alone. I would not like to be too hard on anyone.

I want to give credit to two Deputies in this House who I consider were very honourable men. They were two Deputies who voted against Sunday opening in the rural areas. They were two Deputies who like men, came along and voted to close the city pubs. One of them was, I think, a Dublin city Deputy—Deputy Larkin, and the other was Deputy Corish. I admire the manhood of the two Deputies who came along and because they had voted on moral grounds against opening the public houses on Sunday they voted on the same moral grounds for closing the city houses. But you had others on both sides of this House who came along and when they had the country fellow closed they said they were going to look after their own. They walked into the lobby to keep the city fellow open.

Mr. Traynor

Will the Deputy tell us how many of the country boys marched in with the city fellows?

Mr. Corry

The Minister knows what a Whip is. If he does not, he ought to.

Mr. Traynor

The Deputy can tell us that.

Mr. Corry

A few misfortunate devils last week trotted around the Lobby to vote themselves out of a seat in the Dáil. I saw them here last week, Corkmen, walking round the Lobby giving a seat to Wexford instead of to themselves. I am told then about the country man. We know what happens to him.

Mr. Traynor

That is not answering the question.

Mr. Corry

If the Minister likes, I will read out the Divisions.

General MacEoin

Do.

Mr. Corry

I am entitled to do so, but I will not.

General MacEoin

Read out the one for 1942.

Mr. Corry

I have a kind of sympathy for you all.

Mr. T. Lynch

What way did the Deputy's own Party vote in 1942?

Mr. Corry

These were the conditions that prevailed at that time. Those are the facts in regard to the elected representatives in this House. Let no one burke it. I have seen that law broken since my childhood days. I remember having to come along in 1920 to 1922, when I first got the opportunity of making laws of my own, and opening every public house for an hour after Mass on Sunday, and I can tell the House that it was very much appreciated all round. Will anyone outside this House believe —I do not think they will—that you can have two public houses within 50 yards of each other where the man living next door to one of them at one o'clock every Sunday can walk out and sit down in the pub for two hours and enjoy his pint, whereas the fellow 50 yards further on if he dares to open his door or allow his neighbour in will have the Guards walk in immediately and ask for his name. The majority of the Garda Síochána are decent men.

Mr. T. Lynch

I am delighted to hear it.

Mr. Corry

I am not going to delay the House. I think I will have a few amendments to bring in on the Committee Stage that will improve the Bill.

Mr. Corish

I should like to say, first of all, that my remarks are purely my own remarks. They are certainly not, and I do not want them to be taken as the views of the Labour Party or of any section of the Labour Party because, in view of the nature of this Bill, the Labour Party have decided that each one of its members is free to say what he likes about it. He is free to vote for or against the Second Reading of the Bill and to propose what amendments he wants to or oppose what amendments he wants to. I think that is only as it should be.

I should like the Minister to explain, if such is not the situation, why this Bill could not be left to an absolutely free vote of the House because, apart from any of the remarks of Deputy Corry with regard to Whips, we know the Whips are very necessary on the majority of occasions, but on a Bill of this kind, I think it would be much more desirable if the Whips were taken off all Parties and that each and every member was allowed the opportunity to express his opinion on this, which can be a pretty delicate subject.

I think that by that method there could be got a general consensus of opinion which would assist the Minister in determining what the final nature of the Bill would be. I appreciate that the Government introduces a measure dealing with the economy of the country, the social welfare of the country, and industry or anything like that and that these are the considered proposals of the Government. I appreciate that the Minister as the instrument of the Government, brings them into the House but his mind and the mind of the Government is determined that, by and large, the main proposals will be retained when the Fifth Stage has been passed but there are so many differences of opinion on the licensing laws of this country that I think the Minister should be prepared to hear them from the Deputies as free agents and then determine, as I say, what the final Bill is going to be.

Of course, the Minister is probably saying to himself at the present time; I set up a Commission which is representative of all the different sections of the community. They have made certain recommendations and I am going to implement the main bulk of their recommendations but with all due respect to the members of the Commission and with due praise to them for the time and energy they spent in their deliberations, I think the essence of democracy is that a Bill should be produced in this House which represents the views of the Members of this House and, of course, the members of the Seanad.

I must say that I am not attracted to the main proposals in the Bill at all. I listened to a speaker in the House today and from his remarks I gather that the Garda force is going to be increased twofold and even threefold because the impression we get now is that if these licensing laws are to be introduced the public houses, the various licensed premises, hotels, clubs, and restaurants will be closed on the dot of time. The Minister is up against something else in the country—something I think he does not bargain for in this Bill.

I do not think anyone will take offence if I say that we have not a reputation for being law-abiding, particularly in respect of licensing laws. I am rather doubtful as to whether we can enforce absolute closing of public houses at a particular time because for years and years we have been given grace by the authorities turning the blind eye and by the publicans. Of course, those of us who drink take certain liberties which the publican finds it very difficult to deny us when we are on his premises. Therefore, the enforcement of these proposals, if carried, will provide the biggest headache for the Minister and his Department because, with the number of public houses and hotels, the Gardaí will have a whole-time job, particularly on Sundays, when they will have to do a double shift to ensure that people are out of licensed premises in the early afternoon and at the nightly closing hour.

I hope I am not a kill-joy but I do not see any particular merit in opening licensed premises on Sundays from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. and from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. in summer and 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. in winter. It may be said that one is moralising when one talks in the strain in which I propose to talk. I fear for what will happen to family life, not generally, but amongst certain drinking sections, if we open public houses all over Ireland from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. on Sunday. Men who are in the habit of drink and who, at the present time, seem to be able to get drink on a Sunday, may go to 12 o'clock Mass and afterwards may be induced to go to a public house, or may go voluntarily, at 1 o'clock. A big proportion of them will not come out at 3 o'clock. There are some men who will take a few bottles of stout or a few short drinks and leave the premises at 1.30 or 2 o'clock. The hardened drinkers—and there are some in every town, village and city in Ireland— will stay on until the public house closes at 3 o'clock. At 3 o'clock they will come home. They will not be drunk but they will be fairly well on. The dinner will be spoilt. Perhaps they will not have any dinner at all because after drinking for two hours many people feel drowsy and go to bed. They will wake up about 5 o'clock with a minor hangover, will feel a little cross and will want another drink and will do down to the public house for another two or three hours. Their Sunday is gone.

It is not for us to prevent them doing that. One of the Parliamentary Secretaries said here to-day that we are not asking them to drink. This Bill does not beat them into the public houses. This Bill does not tell them that they must drink on Sunday or must drink up to 11.30 on weekdays. There have been very strong and convincing arguments expressed in this House, which most of us accept, with regard to the censorship laws. If we were to apply that sort of theory that we had from the Parliamentary Secretary to-day to the censorship laws it would mean that we could allow in all the filthy books we liked and say, "We are not asking people to read them." This Bill is putting that sort of temptation in the way of a certain number, thank God a minority, and will be detrimental to family life.

The week-day is a day of work. A man is at work from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. or 6 p.m. He comes home for his tea. He does not go to the public house during working hours because he cannot. At least, he is with his family for an hour or two. If he wants to drink after that time, at 7 or 8 o'clock, that is all right. Sunday is a different day. Traditionally, Sunday is a family day in Ireland, especially in the case of men with young families. I fear to think what will happen if we change the traditional Irish Sunday and allow facilities for drinking from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m., the lunch hour, and from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. or 8 p.m. in the evening. The children will have gone to bed at 8 o'clock. When the father comes home at that time he does not see them and wants to go asleep again.

The case may be made that that happens in the cities. I do not say that it is necessarily right. I cannot talk about the cities. I have not enough experience of city life, particularly on Sundays, to know. I do know that even at the present time, when the blind eye is turned on drinking, in the country, there is a certain amount of upset to the household and to family life by reason of the fact that people can get drink.

The Minister may say that this Bill will cure that because there will be regular hours. I think we are admitting that there is a number of alcoholics in the country if we give way on this business of giving special facilities for drinking on Sunday, because a man who cannot forego a drink on one day of the week, if he is not an alcoholic, is fairly addicted to drink.

These are my views. I do not expect, nor do I want, anybody in the House to share them. I merely express my own opinion. Others may say that on the occasion of a football match they have to travel 50, 20 or seven miles or that they may have to travel such distances to the seaside and that I want the public houses closed. I do not. I believe that if the law is administered fairly, administered in accordance with the Catholic or Christian teaching which is held by the majority of the people, and exercised by the district justices, we can have some control. I certainly would not object, even though there are abuses, to exemptions being given for football matches or even for a particular period. The tourist season was mentioned. I certainly would not object if there were provision in the Bill, in substitution for the proposals contained in it, for special exemptions and a greater degree of power to grant these exemptions for the occasions which all of us have in mind, such as football matches, tournaments, carnivals, feiseanna or for recognised seaside resorts.

I do not believe that there is any great demand for extended hours on week-days to 11.30 p.m. It is true that in many licensed premises people drink up to that hour at present and maybe up to 12 p.m. I suppose they do that because they are so much restricted in the present hours. I would be the first to admit that 10 p.m. in the winter and 10.30 p.m. in the summer greatly restricts anyone who wants a drink. I think 11 p.m. would have been reasonable. I do not say that because it is halfway between. From experience, I think 11 p.m. in summer would be reasonable and 10.30 p.m. in winter would also be reasonable.

I am particularly opposed to Sunday opening, with the reservations I made about exemptions. I am opposed to opening to 11.30 p.m. in summer and 11 p.m. in winter. I believe these times should be reduced by the half-hour. I think it would certainly suit the requirements not alone of the drinking public but in particular of the publicans.

I want to make another point not so much an argument as a plea to the Minister to consider if he has not already done so—I am sure he has— the position of people with six-day licences. How it came about in the first place I do not know. I did not go into the matter. I had not investigated it. The best argument—it was the only one I heard—was that made by Deputy S. O'Flanagan from the Fianna Fáil benches. I could not attempt to pursue the argument which in my opinion was very convincing. The Minister ought to consider between this and the Committee Stage the position of those who hold six-day licences. More particularly he should consider the matter in view of the provisions in this Bill which from what I hear will be carried by a majority of this House, as the Whips are on. He should consider how many anomalies exist as far as six-day licences are concerned. In most counties, the proportion of six-day licences to seven-day licences seems to be of the same pattern. It seems funny that in Mayo where there are 418 six-day licences they have only 388 seven-day licences whilst in Meath there are only nine six-day licences as against 228 publicans holding a seven-day licence. I do not know the history or the financial implications of all that. The Minister may be able to explain it. I should like the Minister to consider the position of these people and to see if anything can be done either to switch those on the other side to six-day licences or to make them all seven-day licences.

The Minister has done one good thing in abolishing the bona fide trade. It was a trade that was gradually abused. I will not say it was deliberately abused by those engaged in the bona fide trade. To my mind, the bona fide trade was established to cater for genuine travellers, those on a journey, those going from place to place, and not for people who took an excursion out to a public house, four, ten or 15 miles away merely to get a drink. The Minister is to be congratulated on his action. I am sure that in the past few weeks attempts have been made to make him change his mind. These pleas he has resisted and I think rightly so.

I am in disagreement with the main proposals in this Bill and I intend, when the occasion arises, to vote against them.

Mr. Russell

Irrespective of what has been said outside this House, there is a general desire on the part of the public and of the trade concerned to have another look at our licensing laws, having regarding to present-day conditions. As the Minister said when introducing this Bill, these various factors were considered by the then Dála in the 1920s and 1940s. I think he is correct in saying that the time is opportune to have another look at the laws to see what can be done to rectify some of the anomalies that exist and have existed over many years. Whether one is a strong opponent of the whole idea of taking a drink or whether one is a person who likes a drink, I think there would generally be unanimous opinion that the laws as they stand at the moment are being openly abused, are certainly open to abuse and are quite unfair and unjust indeed in some respects.

I am in agreement with the general principles of the Bill. There are certain amendments the Minister might incorporate at a later stage to which I shall refer in a few minutes. The position to-day allows for differentials between the hours during which drink may be sold in the urban centres and the rural areas. Previous speakers have referred to that, particularly rural Deputies, and have referred to the injustice of the situation. I agree in general with those views.

Under the present bona fide laws, persons can drink in country public houses. The changes proposed in the Bill do not fundamentally alter that fact. Reference has been made to the fact that if a gathering or a group go to a country football or hurling or soccer match, or some other form of sport there, they can get a drink in a country public house up to 8 o'clock at night. I do not think there is any possible means by which the limited Garda force in any country town or village could possibly segregate the bona fide customers coming from the outside areas to attend these matches and the locals who go in with them to have a drink also. It would be beyond the capacity of any Garda force, no matter how they might be supplemented, to differentiate and tell the locals they cannot have a drink and allow the visitors in with open arms. In effect, the present changes are only regularising the position that has in fact existed in country areas down the years.

Next then, to be considered as the Minister has considered them, are differences which exist within the urban areas themselves where clubs and hotels enjoy privileges not available to the ordinary public house. The Minister is right in regularising that state of affairs.

The Minister has considered the problem of the St. Patrick's Day general closing. That was introduced comparatively recently, in the 1920s. The time has come to realise that in many respects that is a fraud. Anybody who can afford to go to a race meeting or a sports meeting, or any sporting function, can drink as much as he likes. The man who normally, during the week, enjoys a pint or a small whiskey is prohibited from that enjoyment which he has every normal day or, as the case may be, his Sunday drink, on St. Patrick's Day. The time has come to regularise that situation. The application of the suggested Sunday hours to St. Patrick's Day is a fair and equitable solution.

The Minister said, in regard to existing legislation, as reported at column 938 of Volume 177, No. 7, of the Official Report: "...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." That is very true as far as it goes. I wonder if the Minister is satisfied that, by bringing in these new laws, he will achieve the change in public opinion which he hopes to achieve? Conditions have changed to such an extent that a liberal approach to the question of taking a drink is very desirable. I have already indicated that in my remarks.

I think the hope for a force of public opinion will have to be augmented by an increased force in the Garda Síochána. I do not think you can hope to have such a desirable change in public opinion, that by the mere fact of adding an hour or two at the end of the day or bringing in the new Sunday opening hours you will not have drinking after hours. That would be too much to hope for. I am quite certain the Minister is realistic enough to know that even if you close at 11.30 p.m. you will have people wanting to stay on till 12 o'clock or later. That is a problem of which the publicans are conscious and of which the trade unions are also conscious. If 11.30 p.m. really meant 12 o'clock and getting home at 12.30 a.m., the working man would have to be protected from himself. In the early stages you would have to visualise a much stricter observation of the public houses by the Guards and possibly the augmentation of the force.

A view has been put forward, not in this debate so far but certainly outside this debate, in some of the daily papers, that legislation of itself is quite unnecessary, that if we abolished all licensing laws, after a few hectic months things would settle down and you would have a normal state of affairs where a person who wanted a drink would drink in moderation. France has been quoted as an example of a country where there are few or no licensing laws, but as most of us know France has the highest number of alcoholics in Western Europe. At the other end of the scale Sweden has been quoted as a country where you have a considerable amount of legislation rigidly enforced and there again the percentage of alcoholics is considerable. As I say, France has the highest figure in Europe. Therefore, it does seem the Minister must decide between doing away with the licensing laws and having them rigidly enforced. We must find some moderate, in-between view, and I think in that regard the Minister has made the best of what must have been a difficult task and, of course, he has had great assistance, for which he has paid tribute, from the members of the Commission who examined this whole question and issued their reports thereon.

We must have legislation of some kind. We Irish of our very nature at this stage of our existence still require laws that must be enforced, and it is foolish to think that by liberalising to the extent of doing away with all laws, you would improve the situation. I think you would in time but I for one would like to take these things in steps and hope one day we would get to the stage where no licensing laws were required, no Garda supervision, no husbands coming home drunk at night or not coming home at all.

Several Deputies have referred to the position of the country public house. As I indicated, I welcome the additional facilities being given to the country publican to open on Sundays. Anybody who lives in a rural area knows that the rural public house is a social centre as much as it is a place for the sale of drink and I for one would like to see that social atmosphere, that social attribute of the country public house continued. I do not suppose we shall get to the stage in this country where the whole family go into a public house, as they do on the Continent and have drinks there, the man drinking in one section and the women and children, perhaps having some soft drinks somewhere else. If we admit there is little or no harm in taking a drink in reasonable quantity, we may some day have the state of affairs where the whole family can go to the licensed premises, have their different types of drink and then go home together.

I should like to support the suggestion made by Deputy Corry that the hours for Sunday morning opening in the country public house be changed from the 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. suggested in the Bill to 12.30 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. The last Mass in the great majority of country chapels is usually 11 a.m. and certainly not later than 11.30 a.m. It would be desirable that drinking should finish at the latest at 2.30 p.m. in the country to give a man the opportunity of going home to his meals at a reasonable hour. Deputy Corish is quite right that otherwise you will have men staying on and going home when the dinner has been eaten and the children possibly gone away to games or some other activity.

I should like to support Deputy Belton in the view that instead of 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. during the Summer nights the hours should be 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. The country Deputies here will appreciate that Sunday is a day of rest and is observed as such from the point of view of not working, but it is also a day for playing games. Practically every Sunday there is a hurling, football or more frequently now a soccer or a rugby match both in the country and in the cities and some effort must be made to cater for people coming home from these matches. I think 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. or 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. would be reasonable hours in which to cater for the trade.

I believe that 11.30 p.m. is too late as a closing hour and I should like it to be 11 p.m. I know the Minister's reason for making it 11.30 p.m. was in order to do away with the bona fide trade and taking away half an hour, making it necessary for the public houses to close at 11 p.m. may make that effort of his more difficult. However, there is a lot to be said for closing at 11 p.m. because even that will mean that it is 11.30 p.m. before the people are out and it is late enough for any ordinary working man.

There is a problem arising in the Bill in connection with the county boroughs. Heretofore between 2.30 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. a publican in one of the country boroughs could serve drink and could sell groceries, as a lot of publicans do in the county boroughs to customers coming in from the country. He will now be precluded from carrying on that trade between 2.30 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. Naturally he will not be able to sell drink but he will also not be able to engage in the sale of groceries or other household necessities or commodities to his customers. I do not know whether the Minister would consider looking into that aspect again but I do suggest that it is a reasonable, legitimate trade that might be preserved.

I agree with the other Deputies who have supported the abolition of the bona fide trade. I must also express concern at the fact that a number of publicans within recent years have invested substantial sums of money in buying public houses, mainly on the outskirts of Dublin, which had this type of trade.

When they bought these public houses and made this substantial investment there was no question whatever that a change in the licensing laws was likely to deplete their businesses to such a huge extent as now seems inevitable. I suppose that is one of the fates this Bill will result in, but it will result in extremely heavy losses to the people concerned. If for no other reason, the Minister was right in grasping this problem firmly, having regard to the huge increase that has taken place in the motor traffic since the end of the war. I think there is now something like three times the number of private cars there was in 1939, and that number is growing rapidly if not every week, certainly every month. We must have regard to the fact also that statistics show that a large proportion of accidents are due to drivers who, if not under the influence of drink, at least have taken something to drink and whose judgment has been affected.

On the question of alcoholism and drunkenness generally, I think from personal observation and from the Minister's own remarks that that is not a problem in this country. In spite of what some people say, I do not think we are a country of drunkards. Our drinking habits are generally harmless although a man may get drunk once in a while on a festive occasion or some special occasion or social function. We have not the confirmed tipplers one sees elsewhere and we should congratulate ourselves that the problem of the dipsomaniac is not one which concerns us very greatly. I know, of course, there are individuals who drink out of weakness of character, and who, if not addicted to drink would be addicted to something else. I suggest they are a social problem whose care is outside the scope of this Bill. They cannot be legislated for in any form of legislation which might be proposed. They are in a special category and we cannot possibly legislate for them. If we did, we might make a mess of our whole licensing laws.

Speaking on that general question I hope I misinterpreted Deputy Corry when he was referring to the Pioneer Total Abstinence Association. I got the feeling, perhaps quite wrongly, that Deputy Corry wanted to have a crack at them. If he did, I for one, should like to refute any attack on them which was in any way derogatory. We owe them a big debt of gratitude for all the fine work they have done. Those who will never qualify for membership must in all fairness have pride in the number of young men who wear the Pioneer pin. I hope they will continue to grow in strength.

Legislation in any shape or form in connection with the sale or consumption of drink must have regard to the fact that the general body of persons who like to drink are decent, honest, respectable citizens, and I am quite certain the Minister had that view in mind when bringing in this Bill. The average working man, whether he is a manual worker, a white collar worker, a farmer or farm labourer or whatever he happens to be, drinks because he likes to have a drink after work or for relaxation because he is tired or has some troubles. It is for him we have to frame our licensing laws, to help him, and at the same time to preserve a sense of responsibility and balance in the community.

There is one small point I should like the Minister to look into. Perhaps the best thing would be for me to put down an amendment on Committee Stage. The point is in connection with the stamping of bottles. Under Section 30, I think, of the new Bill, it is not now necessary to stamp beer bottles. I have reason to believe that, as the law stands at present, there is an obligation to stamp spirit and wine bottles. If that is so and I am correct in my interpretation—which incidentally is a legal point of view—perhaps the Minister would take in an amendment to ensure that the bottlers of spirits and wine would enjoy the same facilities as the bottlers of beer or stout.

I should like to join with Deputies who suggested that this Bill might be left to a free vote of the House. I myself shall vote in support of it. I hope the Minister will give some cognisance to the points I have made. This is a step in the right direction. It will not please everyone. Those who support it will come in for criticism—there is no question about that—and those who do not will be criticised also. By and large, it is making the best of the conditions as they exist today. I have no doubt that in ten or 20 years' time we shall have to look at our licensing laws again. If we do, I hope the approach will be made with the same measure of moderation and general consideration for the ordinary man in the street which the Minister has evidenced in the drafting of this Bill.

Mr. Ryan

It may be alleged that there is some inconsistency on the part of the Fine Gael Party in speaking in support of some of the improvements in the licensing laws which are contained in this Bill. The reason, if I might explain, why the Fine Gael Party will be voting against the Bill on the Second Stage is that we believe the disimprovements in the Bill outweigh any of the improvements. Of course, it is our earnest hope, as I believe it is the hope of many Deputies on the Government side, that there will be some substantial amendments to the Bill before it reaches its Final Stages. Because of the fact that the Bill as it stands represents a very poor effort on the part of the Government Party to improve the licensing laws, we believe that the Bill must be opposed.

One of the most objectionable features of the Bill is that it proposes to extend the hours during which alcoholic liquor may be consumed by over three-quarters of a million of our people. Nearly two-thirds of our people are to be given extended opening hours which they do not want and never asked for, and which the unions and the owners of public houses have never asked for. I am bold enough to phophesy that if this House extends the opening hours in the county boroughs to 11.30 p.m. the House will meet inside 10 years to restore the hours to 10.30 or perhaps earlier. It would be a most undesirable thing and on that account it is hoped that the Bill will be amended with regard to county boroughs before we reach a later stage.

With due respect to the Minister, he was not being fair to the House or to the Commission when he said that the majority of the members of the Commission wanted the public houses opened everywhere until 11.30 p.m.

I would draw attention to the fact that the Majority Report was signed by 12 members and the Minority Report, which recommended earlier hours in county boroughs was signed by nine, and that the two representatives of the Pioneer Association, who have been mentioned here to-night, voted in favour of the Majority Report that is, 11.30 p.m., only because they wanted uniformity. Their observations are contained in page 27 of the Commission's Report where they point out as follows:

In accepting the recommendation concerning closing hours on weekdays, we are aware that a closing hour as late as 11.30 p.m. carries many and serious disadvantages, not the least being an undue interference with family life in regard to owners, assistants and patrons of licensed premises. However as the alternative to a general closing hour of 11.30 p.m. was to allow different closing hours in city and country, and so to open the doors to abuses attached to bona fide trading, we have agreed to this recommendation so as to secure a uniform closing hour in all areas. We would prefer a closing hour in all areas at 11 p.m.

Debate adjourned.