Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 19 Nov 1959

Vol. 178 No. 2

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

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

Sir Anthony Esmonde

When the debate was adjourned I was dealing with the position of the 6-day licensees vis-á-vis the 7-day licensees. I was dealing with the point that if the 6-day licensees were given the privilege of 7-day licences, that would be unfair to the holders of 7-day licences who have been paying licences over a great many years. The argument might be adduced that the 7-day licensee had paid more than the 6-day licensee. I stated that in my own constituency the 6-day licensees are concentrated in two towns, Wexford and New Ross. I have taken the trouble to make inquiries in reference to the actual position that obtains to see if there is any disparity as between the two sections. A typical case is where, in one of these towns, a 6-day licensee with a £30 valuation—I understand licences are based on valuation—is paying £15 in licence fee. A 7-day licensee with a valuation of £32 is paying £16. That puts the two absolutely parallel and seems to prove the case that there is no great divergence in the amount of the licences paid by 6- and 7-day licensees. I say this for the benefit of the House and for the benefit of the Minister and the Government. If the Minister sees fit, as I hope he will, to do justice to this particular section of the community he will find that he is not doing a financial injustice to the 7-day licensee. Although the Minister has not mentioned the matter on Second Reading, I hope that, in view of this debate and in view of the number of Deputies who have made the case on behalf of the 6-day licensees, the Minister will appreciate that the 7-day licensees have a genuine case and one which should be considered at Government level. Perhaps the Minister would introduce on the Committee or Report Stage something to meet the requirements of those people who have paid licences over the years and who are contributing towards the revenue and who will be placed at a complete disadvantage if this Bill goes through in its present form. They will, in fact, be faced not only with a loss of livelihood but also with a loss of business and a serious devaluation of their property.

We come now to other matters in the Bill. There seems to be a widespread feeling of revulsion against this Bill and it is very hard, in the short time at one's disposal, to find out the cause of that revulsion. Of course I realise that we will still have ample time to deal with the different items in the Bill. As far as I can find out the feeling of revulsion against this Bill—and of course I speak as a rural Deputy—is because new facilities are being created for the sale of intoxicating liquor. It might well be argued that these new facilities are better in the main because they are legalising an illegal situation which exists. Be that as it may, I am only voicing the opinions that have been expressed to me and in the main I do not disagree with them. I suppose in middle age or in our young days we form our habits. The proverb says that a leopard does not change his spots. Those that are addicted to the consumption of alcohol and who are regular consumers of alcohol will consume it at any time, whether it is an illegal time or not. The main argument put forward in this Bill is that these illegalities exist; let us make a law that everybody will respect and which everybody will look up to. I agree with that.

If people are drinking after hours, if they are using the bona fide law for a purpose for which it is not intended, it is right to regularise the position, to extend the hours and liberalise them to meet that case. The arguments that have been put up to me were that if you open licensed premises for longer hours—and on this point I want to refer particularly to the opening of the licensed premises on Sundays—you will create a new drinking public. A lot of Deputies may think that that is a foolish argument. I am citing the arguments put to me by parents and by those who have moral principles at heart—that by opening licensed premises on Sunday and making it easier to drink you bring into the orbit of alcoholic consumption the younger generation who have not been inclined heretofore to take alcohol. That may be a rather broad statement but it was an argument put up to me. Take the case of rural Ireland. I think the hours of opening are from 1 to 3 o'clock on Sundays and from 5 to 8 o'clock in the evening. Could I ask the Minister's advice on that point? Is it proposed on Sundays to open the licensed premises constantly from 1 to 7?

Mr. Traynor

From 1 o'clock to 3 and from 5 to 9 o'clock.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

That is the point I want to make. They open from 1 to 3 and from 5 to 8 o'clock in rural Ireland. Is that correct?

Mr. Traynor

From 5 o'clock to 8 o'clock in the eight months of the winter and from 5 o'clock to 9 o'clock in the four months of summer.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

The argument put to me is that if you open a licensed premises in rural Ireland from one to three—and those are hours I feel constrained to oppose and it is one of my reasons for voting against this Bill—you are going to encourage after Mass drinking. In villages after Mass the people assemble and very often there are three or four public houses in a village. You are going to encourage the youth to go into those public houses as a general meeting place to discuss rural topics, or football or hurling, or anything you like. In the first instance they will probably consume a nonalcoholic drink. These are young people who are not inclined to drink but after a bit, through force of habit and from watching what other people are doing, you will encourage young people to take drink in the morning.

I do not know if that is correct or not but those are the representations made to me by parents and by those who have the moral welfare of the youth at heart. I am inclined to agree with them. The arguments which the Minister used in his opening speech were that it is a long-standing custom for people to go to the shops and do their shopping after Mass in rural areas and that as a lot of promiscuous drinking has taken place—in other words illegal drinking—in rural Ireland as the public houses were not open, then he would open them now for that purpose.

I feel there may be something to be said for the Minister's point of view but taking it by and large I think it would be a mistake to have an earlier opening during the day. I have spoken to the owners of licensed premises on this matter and I have asked them what they thought about it. I asked them if they thought it would impose hardship on them; did they think it would create difficulties from the point of view of employment, their paid hands, and so on. I spoke to a limited number but I spoke to people whom I considered to be representative. They expressed the opinion that the hours would not be satisfactory, that it would lead to a great deal of trouble and that it would mean that they would be working virtually all day on Sundays. I think there is a lot in that. In many villages in rural Ireland there are three or four licensed premises and one owner has to do the same as another owner if he wants to remain in business. It virtually boils down to the fact that the owners will work all day themselves on Sundays. They will work from 1 o'clock to 3, close for a few hours and then open, in the summer months, from 5 o'clock to 9 o'clock again.

Where is their day? Are they not virtually working day in day out? They do not seem to want that. I may be wrong and I should be glad to hear the opinions voiced by other Deputies, but that is the opinion they conveyed to me. The reason I am voicing it is, as I said before, I have heard it from parents, the owners of licensed premises themselves and from them in relation to their employees.

I do not object to the opening on Sunday evenings or to the hours. If you are going to abolish the bona fide trade—and I think there is general agreement on that in the House as a whole—I think it is desirable that the Minister should consider the other matters and weigh all the facts and, perhaps, all the advice available to him from experts and from his legal advisers and perhaps he will then see fit to make a differentiation with regard to opening in rural Ireland and Dublin in the middle of the day. It may be hard for the Minister to do that. I read the Commission's Report and one of the things they stressed was that we should have uniformity of licensing laws everywhere.

The only other point that strikes me in that respect is in regard to the extension of licensing hours in the evenings. I have had a good deal of representation in regard to the hours at which premises should close at night. I am speaking principally of rural Ireland and I think everybody agrees that the hours at the moment are not conducive to meeting the requirements of those who live in the country and particularly of those who work on the land. I think an extension of the hours is necessary. The Bill, I think, proposes an extension in the four months of the Summer to 11.30 and in the other months to 11 o'clock. Those who live in the country know that "old time," as it was called played a very prominent part in Irish rural life up to a few years ago. While I do not know what they do in the West of Ireland, in Leinster at any rate "new time" appears to have come to stay and most of the businesses go by "new time." Yet people work in the Summer as late as they can on the land and I think the hour of 10 o'clock or 10.30 at the moment is insufficient to meet the requirements of the rural community. Also from my experience in Dublin, I think it is probably insufficient to meet the requirements of the boroughs. Generally—and I am speaking on the advice I have received from constituents and people actually concerned outside—I think 11 o'clock as the overall hour in the four summer months of the year, at any rate, would be sufficiently late.

I cannot help feeling that if the licensed premises were to stay open in Dublin until 11.30 we would create a host of problems both from the trade union and the transport angle and that the ordinary social life of the city would be completely disorganised by keeping licensed premises open until 11.30. As far as I know the major portion of transport from the centre of the city is not much later than 11 o'clock and I think the Minister would be well advised to consider that point.

It has been said that the Tourist Board are one of the parties that are vitally concerned in the new licensing regulations. I think it has also been stated that the idea is that if we extend licensing hours we would get a far heavier influx of tourists here but the point we should have emphasised in regard to the tourist trade is—is the family tourist trade more valuable to us than the type of person who wants to drink late? Apart from the moral impact of the question, taking it by and large, I think the family tourist trade, parents with their children, spend far more and are of far more benefit to the community also than the late-drinking type of person.

I do not think there is anything to substantiate any argument that the tourist board or others concerned may have made, though I am practically certain they have made those suggestions, other than suggestions in relation to hotels. The suggestion that there should be a prolongation of hours in hotels for the serving of people with meals would be sound. I make that suggestion—again I am advised by those who know more about it than I do—in the belief that the majority of our cross-Channel tourists come from the North of England and that the South of England people are inclined to go East to the Continent and go there because they have uninhibited and free licensing hours. They can eat a meal or get a drink as late as they like. If we extend that in this country I think we will be catering for an increase in a limited type of tourist. It may seem unfair to give an advantage to one class as against another, but I believe that it is necessary that we should encourage those with money, to come and spend it here. For that reason I rather welcome all the provisions concerned with that.

In conclusion, I think it is probable that a new licensing Bill was thought to be necessary because of the difficulties in which the Garda Síochána find themselves in regard to the implementation of the law. Perhaps there is a feeling among district justices who seem to impose such light sentences for infringements that the present licensing laws had not the support of the people as a whole. I think those views were expressed by the Minister and I have no particular reason to disagree.

This is an important measure affecting every walk of life and it will affect future generations in Ireland just as it affects those who are walking about to-day. In this House, therefore, we should try, at any rate on the Committee Stage, as my Party has indicated, to give free choice. It would be a good thing if the House were free to vote as each individual desires so as to produce for the country the best possible Bill. But I think we ought to be mindful of the fact that if we do get a Bill by a free vote of the House it should be somewhat different from what is being offered to us to-day. We, in this House, are representative of every shade of opinion and of practically every walk in life. If we produce a Bill it is our duty as public representatives not to alter the law, not to override what the Bill contains, provided the law is freely promulgated and is constituted law by the Deputies in Dáil Éireann.

Mícheál Mac Cárthaigh

Léigh mé go cúramach Tuarascála an Choimisiúin úd gur bunaíodh an Bille seo, mórán, orthu agus ina theannta sin tá léite agam an réamhchaint a rinne an tAire Dé Céadaoin seo caite nuair a thug sé an Bille isteach den Dara Céim.

Is soiléir go ndearna an Coimisiún scrúdú cruinn beacht ar na cúrsaí a bhí idir lámha aca. Bhí na baill ar aonfhocal ar a lán rudaí, rud a chuireas ionadh ormsa. Sa mBille seo cloíodh go cruinn le cuid mhaith de na moltaí a rinne an Coimisiún, na moltaí ba mhó le rá, gan amhras. Níor ghlac an Rialtas le moltaí eile.

Tá a fhios againn go léir nach bhfuil an dlí atá ann faoi láthair sásúil ná leath-shásúil. Fágann sin go bhfuil drochmheas ag an bpobal uile air agus sin é an fáth a bhristear chomh minic sin é. Más mian linn an scéal sin a leigheas ní mór an dlí a athrú agus é a chur in oiriúint do shaol an lae inniu. Sin é an rud atá i gceist ag an Aire anois, creidim, agus sin príomh-chuspóir an Bhille nua seo atá ós ár gcomhair.

Fadó thuill muintir na tíre seo droch-cháil i gcúrsaí óil agus bhíodar ina gceap magaidh ar fud an domhain. Bhi fáth leis sin freisin, agus bunús stairiúil. Ach le blianta beaga anuas ó bunaíodh an Stát nua anseo tá feabhas mór tagtha ar an scéal.

This Bill proposes to get rid of a very absurd anachronism we had in this country for many years, the bona fide trade. I believe it should have been abolished years ago, and I think that most reasonable people will welcome the drastic change that this Bill proposes in regard to that trade. I compliment the Minister on the courageous stand he has taken with regard to this matter, and I also compliment him on the straightforward and unequivocal manner in which he spoke when he introduced the Bill last Wednesday. We all know that the bona fide trade had long outlived its usefulness, and public opinion was not in favour of its renewal. If the bona fide trade has to be removed some compensation has to be brought in by way of fixing more suitable hours for drinking, and this the Minister proposes to do.

As far as country districts are concerned the proposed new hours on weekdays seem to be generally acceptable, and seem to meet the requirements of the community. Certainly, from 10.30 in the morning to 11 p.m. at night, for eight months of the year, offers ample facilities to people who want to have a drink, and the extra half-hour for the three summer months and the month of September also seem to be satisfactory, and to be appreciated by people with whom I have discussed this matter.

The Minister has also adopted a very realistic attitude as regards Sunday opening. I have listened to people suggesting that there should be no Sunday opening, but every one who has his eyes open knows that people drink on Sundays, with or without the sanction of the law. They go into a public house on a Sunday and if the local Garda sergeant is a realist he keeps his eyes closed. If he is a bit of a crank he causes trouble, but people will get a drink whether he wants them to have it or not. That has been happening for many years and it is about time that some Government, or some Minister, had regard to that fact and based the law on the needs of the community.

To me it seems most ridiculous that a man who drinks for six days of the week, and who behaves himself, should be denied the right to have a drink on a Sunday. If Sunday opening is to be a fact, as we all hope it will, then great credit is due to Deputy Corry who, as he stated last night, introduced a Bill many years ago to make this possible, only to find that he had the great majority of the Deputies in the House, irrespective of their political affiliations, whether from city or country, voting against him. I think he has made a lot of converts in the last ten years.

The hours which the Minister proposes for Sunday opening seem to be all right, with the exception of the 1 o'clock opening. I would venture to suggest that that does not meet the wishes of the people in rural Ireland. Most of the Masses end around 12 o'clock. Does the Minister expect the people to hang around on a wet, cold Sunday for an hour before the pubs open? He is inviting them to break the law if he does not make it more realistic and have the proposed opening hour within half an hour after last Mass, say 12.30 p.m. If he insists on holding to 1 p.m. I venture to suggest that extra half hour will help only one group of people, the politicians. It will keep the people together for an hour after last Mass to hear an election speech before the pubs open. I would ask him to bring the opening forward to 12.30 p.m. and close at 2 p.m., or 2.30 p.m.

The evening opening seems to be all right, from 5 o'clock until 8 o'clock for eight months of the year, and to 9 o'clock for the other four months. It has been stated that people will not attend Evening Devotions if the pubs are open, but it is my experience that people who take a drink on a Sunday evening are not much attracted to Evening Devotions. If they are going to go into a pub they will hardly attend religious services. The 5 p.m. opening will suit towns that have hurling and football matches and other sporting events. It will give an opportunity to the people who frequent these fixtures to have a drink and go about their business after.

I should like to hear the Minister clarify the position with regard to early opening in towns for fairs and markets. I am not sure of the changes this Bill will bring with regard to that kind of opening. I know that fairs in country towns start at an early hour of the morning. When the farmers arrive, they have often been on the road from 2 or 3 a.m. They arrive in a country town wet and hungry. Most of them look forward to liquid refreshment of some kind, whether it is intoxicating or non-intoxicating. In my town, the public houses cater for that service. I should like to know if it is proposed, under this Bill, to deny the publicans the rights they have enjoyed down through the years of early opening for fair days and markets.

I would also ask the Minister to insert some provision in the Bill so that at the annual licensing court, there will be some representative of the local authority or the local development company present and that the dates of fairs for the following 12 months be made known so that a general exemption can be got from the court for an opening of this kind. I understand that the solicitors are making a good thing out of it at present. They have to have special courts for these and the solicitors are paid very well for making an appearance on behalf of the public. I think that is grossly unfair.

I would ask the Minister to throw some light on what he proposes to do about holiday resorts. These resorts, whether they are coastal resorts like Salthill, Kilkee, Lahinch or inland resorts like Lisdoonvarna—I speak only of those resorts I know anything about—should be allowed to have the same facilities as they have enjoyed for many years. Part of their charm is that you can adjourn to the "local" at night, whether it is a hotel or a pub, and enjoy a drink in the company of the other visitors to the resort until a reasonable hour of the night. That is the position at the present time.

Down through the years, a pattern of drinking habits has been followed in these resorts. Each place has its own rules and regulations. They have their sing-songs and socials. I think that is a great attraction in each of these resorts, on the western coast, at any rate. Nobody would deny that these singsongs and get-togethers are the main attraction in many of these places.

The publicans have a very short season. They have to reap in as much as they can in the course of a few months. Their receipts over these few months keep them going for the rest of the year. No legislation introduced in this House should set them back.

I may mention that some time ago I was looking at T.V. and listening to Sir Compton McKenzie who was being interviewed about the Edinburgh Festival. He was asked what he thought about the Edinburgh Festival. He said that the Edinburgh Festival was not a festival at all. He knew of only one festival—the Wexford Festival. He said that part of the attraction in Wexford was that when he returned from a concert or an opera, he could sit in his hotel, entertain his friends and buy drinks for them. I do not know what hour of the morning he mentioned but he mentioned a late hour of the morning. That is what made Wexford such an attractive place. It would be a pity that attractions of this kind which have been enjoyed by resorts in this country should be stopped as a result of this Bill becoming law.

In his speech on the Second Reading, the Minister mentioned that his purpose was to keep the anomalies which revealed themselves under any licensing system to a minimum. That was a very laudable purpose and the Minister must be commended but I would ask him to seek uniformity. He completely ignores the problem of the 6-day licensee, of whom there are 1,400 in this country. He is bringing uniformity into the licensing laws for the other 10,000. I should say that he has not actually considered the six-day licensees, to judge by his speech but he chooses to ignore the existence of the 1,400 6-day licensees.

Mr. Traynor

The Commission recommended against them, you know.

Mr. Carty

I am quite aware of that. I would also thank Deputy McQuillan for complimenting one set of these licensees in the town of Ballinasloe who were represented by counsel at the Commission and whose views were heard on the question of Sunday opening. The Minister has blatantly ignored the existence of the 6-day licensees. I am not going into the different aspects of it for, as Deputy Esmonde said, we have been bombarded with literature. I speak of the problem as I know it.

People frequent a licensed premises because it is their "local". If that "local" happens to be a 6-day premises, they will go there for six days of the week. Under the Bill, that premises will be closed on Sunday and the customer who enjoyed his "local" for six days of the week will be driven by this law into another premises on Sunday.

What happens? It is the thin end of the wedge. It is a way of diverting trade from the 6-day licensee. It is a way of putting his customers into some other publichouse. If they form the habit of going to another publichouse on Sunday, in the course of time, they will say: "I cannot get into Johnny's place on a Sunday but I can go into another man's publichouse. He is a nice fellow and I will give him my custom from now on." The business of the 6-day licensee will diminish and in the course of time, he can write finis to his publichouse trade. I think that is grossly unfair.

The problem exists in my constituency, especially in Ballinasloe, and strong representations have been made to me to speak here on behalf of those publicans. I know that the problem presents certain difficulties to the Minister. These six-day licensees are looking for a privilege they did not enjoy heretofore, even with the existing bona fide trade but they are prepared to pay for it. They do not want anything for nothing. Surely the Minister or his advisers can devise some means of allowing these people to open on Sunday?

I know that I shall be given the stock answer—that if they can secure a seven-day licence and extinguish it, they can have it transferred to their own public house, but seven-day licences in my part of the country are not too easily got. As a result of this legislation, they will be very dear if they come on the market. I would suggest to the Minister that he should try to find a solution of this problem and grant those people what they want. As I say, they do not expect to get it for nothing.

I am pleased to see that the Minister has allowed restricted opening on St. Patrick's Day. It was long overdue. He is entirely justified in introducing it. The outlook of the public on drinking has changed radically for the better down through the years. In any event, drinking is too dear nowadays to let down your hair on St. Patrick's Day. The only places where Patrick's Day is traditionally celebrated are New York City and other parts of the world, certainly not in Ireland. Successive Governments have made sure that the people will not drown the shamrock here or, if they do, that they will have to pay for the privilege.

The Minister made very pertinent remarks about the enforcement of the licensing laws, and quite rightly so. He stated that he does not propose to alter the penalties provided for under previous legislation and he has seen fit to leave a certain discretion to the courts in this matter.

Most publichouses are well conducted. The majority of publicans insist, in their own interests, that customers behave themselves and that people under the influence of drink are not served but are politely told to be about their business. That is right; that is at it should be; but I think the Minister should know that in certain towns hooliganism at night after the publichouses close is not at all uncommon. The Garda authorities should be made to stamp out that type of conduct. Many people, young and old, who want a night's rest, are wakened by the noise of young hooligans when they come out of publichouses well tanked up.

Mr. McQuillan

Is it not generally the case that they are coming out from dances?

Mr. Carty

Some of them come out from publichouses also.

Mr. McQuillan

They come from dance halls.

Mr. Carty

I would not know about that but I would ask the Minister to instruct the Garda to put a stop to that. It is far too common in many towns in my constituency. The publicans themselves have taken steps to put an end to it by not letting these people into their publichouses again.

I welcome the Bill. It is a realistic approach to the problem it proposes to solve. The members of the Commission who gave their time and energy to interviewing witnesses and hearing all sides of the case are to be complimented on the excellent reports, especially the majority report. They are to be complimented and so is the Minister on his courage in adopting the main recommendations with regard to the abolition of the bona fide trade and the extension of the hours of opening and embodying them in this Bill.

Mr. Sherwin

I do not drink but I used to drink and I had experience of bona fide drinking. I did it in the States, in the speak-easies. It is a long time since I drank but I know both sides of the case. To me, the question of drink is a very important, serious and controversial matter.

Recently I read a life of Kevin O'Higgins in which there was a quotation from him, when the 1924 Bill was before the House, to the effect that he found this business worse to deal with than the Civil War. He put it in this way, that the publicans were harder to beat than the Republicans. I can understand that, because it is a very controversial business. There are the vested interests of the publicans and those engaged in the bona fide traffic, the drinkers, the man who is satisfied with a few beers and the man who likes to make a session of it, and the night club. There are many aspects that are not even touched on in the Bill.

I know both sides. I hate beer. I hate the look of it or the thought of it because I believe it is the cause of half of all evil. I believe it is the cause of most of the assaults that we read about. People come out drunk and want a fight, whereas, if they were sober, they would not. Drink is the cause of most accidents. Men think they can control a car when, in fact, they are unable to do so. A man who is coming home drunk may think he is all right but he is swaying from left to right. He may get home but he has no control.

Drink is responsible for a lot of crime. As far as I can see, young fellows start to drink at 15 and 16 years of age. If they were not employed, they would be tempted to steal in order to get the money for drink.

Drinking is something that you must try to control. You cannot just prohibit it, as was done in the States. Worse evils were created because the control was taken from the authorities and put in the hands of gangsters. Whether it is an evil or not, drink is something people want. Wine, women and song are the spice of life. To a great many people, drinking is the spice of life. They can go to the publichouse and they can be T.D.s and Ministers there every night of the week, they take themselves so seriously, and enjoy it. There is no great harm in it in the case of many people. People who work hard and who drink are sober the next day and can do their job. It is a dangerous pastime for people who live by their wits, who have a session every day. They are the people who do bona fide drinking. They have the money. Half of them are mental.

That is the problem and the Minister has the job of facing up to it and of trying to control it as best he can. It is suggested that this matter should be left to a free vote of the House. I do not accept that. It is like a battle. You cannot leave the direction of a battle to the various officers. The general may hold a council of war but it is the general who decides what to do; it is his responsibility. That applies also to the Minister. I might hate drink but others want drink. It would be a peculiar situation to have people of such divergent views deciding an important issue of this sort. This is the responsibility of the Minister and he will be held responsible. It is up to us to express our views and let him decide.

There are a few small matters. What we have to say will be food for thought for the Minister. I believe the Minister is right in opening the publichouses at 1 o'clock. It is said that the last Mass in the country is 12 noon. In the town, the last Mass is at 12.30 and in some places there is a very late Mass. If the publichouse were to open at 12.30, there might be people dashing from the publichouse to the Church. It would not look well. If the publichouses were open in the country at 12.30 and in the city at 1 o'clock, you might have people going out to the country to get a quick one, to be in first. It is best that the publichouses should open at 1 o'clock. It will encourage people in the country who come out from Mass at 12.30, to go home and get their dinner. In towns, they may go home at 12.30 in the knowledge that they have an hour in which to drink afterwards. One o'clock is the best time. It will eliminate a dash from church to publichouse and will give a reasonable chance to people to go home and get a dinner. If the publichouses opened at 12.30, some people would not leave them until 3 o'clock, at which time the dinner would be over at home and the family would have gone out and perhaps the parent or husband who had been in the publichouse until 3 o'clock would have no dinner at all. The times suggested give a reasonable chance to men to go home to their dinner, even if they go to late Mass.

There is only one small point I want to challenge, that is, the opening until 11.30 p.m. in summer. It has been put to me that if you open the pub until 11.30 p.m. in the summer it will be difficult for a lot of people to get a bus home. The last bus for Finglas leaves Eden Quay at 11.25 p.m. If people are drinking in the pubs until 11.30 p.m. they will have to walk home or get a taxi. The same applies in many cases as far as buses are concerned. Therefore there is a danger that many people will be rushing home at midnight and at one o'clock in the morning. That is the danger of the 11.30 p.m. closing hour. I appreciate the change from 10.30 p.m.

My only recreation is to go now and then to the cinema. I do not care a great deal for it but my wife likes it. We have to leave the cinema before seeing the complete programme in order to get a drink before 10.30 p.m. That applies to thousands of persons. There is a huge cinema audience. Every cinema is packed every night. When all these people come out at 10.30 p.m. they cannot get a drink. The extra time which is about to be given will now permit them to get a drink. They cannot have the drink before entering the cinema because there is always a queue. You cannot have it both ways. If you want to get into the pictures you must go immediately after tea. I find that if I am down after seven o'clock I am stuck there until 9 o'clock. That applies to everybody. If you want to go to the cinema or if your wife wants you to take her to the cinema, you must get there a bit early. If you do not manage to get in until 8 o'clock and you want to see the big picture it means that if the husband or the wife wants a drink the door is shut by the time they leave the cinema.

An extension of the opening time enables a person to have a drink and yet leaves him in nice time to catch a bus to get home. If the pubs remain open until 11.30 p.m. a great many will miss the bus and that will cause trouble at home and everybody will be in bed. The right time, summer and winter, is 11 p.m. Even the publicans themselves will complain. Their employees will not be out of the pubs until 11.45 p.m. and they will have trouble in trying to get home. Here you have objections from the publicans, you have objections from those employed by the publicans and you have objections from wives whose husbands will miss the bus and arrive home at midnight or later and cause a bit of a scene when everybody is in bed. Therefore, the right time, summer and winter, is 11 o'clock.

The big cinema audience can have time for one or two drinks and everybody will be satisfied. The bus service will suit everybody. I am speaking from experience. I still go into a pub for a bottle of stone beer. I have left the pictures on numerous occasions without having seen the whole of the big picture just in order to rush into the pub at 10.15 p.m. It is important from the point of view of the tourist trade that there should be reasonable opportunities for drinking.

Before I became a Deputy I was in the dance game all my life. I have some knowledge of what people want. Tourists and visitors have often come to me and said: "This is a dead hole." You must give tourists a reasonable opportunity to get a drink. When people go abroad they want to be merry and to enjoy themselves. This is the time to talk about all that.

I want to refer to the 6-day licences. The Minister should have uniformity throughout. You will encourage the 6-day licensees to sell beer off the premises or to let in a few on the quiet after Mass. It was always done and can still be done. I know it. It is hard to blame the people. As has been pointed out, they have competitors who have 7-day licences and their clients will leave their local and go to a competitor. I know the danger of that.

I was in the dance business and we were always at war. On certain nights I had a big crowd and on certain nights I had a small crowd. I always knew why. Some opponent would have a big crowd on the night I would have a small crowd. We got to know the business. Sometimes when I got a big crowd, at the expense of someone who was not on, I might dish out half-price tickets. In other words, I would collar the other fellow's crowd. I took advantage of his not being on that night. That is the point.

If the customers of the six-day licensees go elsewhere the fellow with the seven-day licence can establish competitions for £5, and so on, on certain nights. He can work on the other fellow's crowd. It will not be fair. There should be uniformity throughout. Otherwise you will have a drink handed out on the sly and you will have fellows behind the blind after Mass. It always happens but do not encourage it now.

There are about 20 night clubs in this city and probably there are night clubs in every urban area. Night clubs are common on the Continent. People with plenty of money go there and tourists in particular always want a night club. They want a good time. There is nothing evil about a night club. There might be but, if it is regulated, I do not see how such would be the case. The people who go to these night clubs stay out until two or three o'clock in the morning and take drink. That is common on the Continent.

We have night clubs here but they have only a wine licence. According to the Commission of Inquiry the wine licence is granted by the Revenue Commissioners but there is no mention of hours. The hours are my concern now. Every week in the year it is there in the newspapers to be read that so-and-so was charged with selling drink after hours. It goes on. You can fine them as often as you like but it will go on and that is a problem for the Minister. They should get an extension of the wine licence so that they can sell wine, because there is a trade for it. I am not personally interested in this matter. I hate wine. However, it is a problem of which I am aware.

It is not the ordinary worker who goes into those night clubs so the Minister need not worry. They charge fancy prices there and a cover charge. They charge maybe 10/- for a 2/- glass of wine. Only people who have plenty of money, or the tourist, can afford to go into these places in search of a good time. The night clubs exist. So far, the Minister has not been able to put them out of operation and I assume he will not be able to do so. They will take the rap and continue as before. Why does the Minister not try to control the problem? Why does he not say that there is a demand among certain people for night clubs and that we will give them a wine licence until 2 o'clock in the morning? If he does not consider it, he is continuing to allow the possibility of an illegal sale of drink after hours. This is a matter about which so far he has not and probably will not be able to do anything, although it is illegal. They sell more than wine; they sell strong spirit with the tea. The prosecutions are there but the fines do not close them up. That problem is there to be dealt with.

I referred recently to the question of methylated spirits. This is something which may be common only to certain areas. It certainly affects my area. In a certain street there, all round the lanes, there are men and women stretched out every day from methylated spirits. The Minister can inspect this area for himself. I would ask that something be done about it, that it be made impossible for these people to get methylated spirits. It may be that in this neighbourhood, they are able to get the methylated spirits but there are other areas in which the same thing happens. This stuff can knock them over for sixpence and it is a problem the Minister should face. I should also like the Minister to bear in mind the danger of extending the hours to 11.30 in the summer.

Padraig Ó Facthna

Ní laghad duine ná barúil. Sin seanfhocail agus léiríonn na barúla a nochtadh ar an mBille seo comh fíor is atá an sean-fhocail úd. Is beag Teachaí atá ar aon aigne i dtaobh gach poinnte ins an Bille. Ni bheadh aoinne ag súil go mbeimid go léir ar aon aigne in a thaobh. Pé scéal é, taisbeanann sé comh deacair agus a bhí sé do Aire ar bith Bille mar so a thabhairt isteach san Dáil agus tá moladh mór ag dul don Aire seo as ucht an Bille so a thabhairt isteach. Rinne an Coimisiún obair mhór agus tá an Bille seo leagtha amach ar an tuarascáil a chuir an Coimisiún san os comhair an Aire.

We are in general agreement that the present licensing laws are unsatisfactory and that some type of legislation was necessary to take the place of the present laws. These laws have been flouted from one end of the country to the other and the cavalier treatment of the licensing laws has not only a detrimental effect on the enforcement of the law in general but there are general abuses that stem from them.

When the Minister was planning this Bill he had to try taking every aspect into consideration to evolve what I might call a practical Bill, a Bill which would give us laws which could be enforced, laws which would enable us as far as is humanly possible to control the licensing business. Extremes had to be avoided. We are aware of the disastrous effects of complete prohibition in America. Similarly in countries where the closing hour is very early the results were bad so far as the incidence of drunkenness is concerned. On the other hand, the Minister had to decide what would be considered a reasonable closing hour. Cognisance had to be taken of the various views of the many bodies who were interested in the licensing laws and a decision had to be reached. It was inevitable that in reaching a decision certain hardships would be imposed and certain interests adversely affected. While that is unfortunate we must accept it as something which in the long run will be for the common good.

The Commission sat for a considerable time studying the various aspects of the licensing laws. They submitted a report and the Bill which the Minister has submitted to the Dáil is by and large based on this report, and I think it will be generally acceptable throughout the country. Licensing laws are for obvious reasons difficult to enforce. The present laws were not enforced. We realise, now, from our experience, that it is not sufficient to instruct the Gardaí to enforce the law, that we must have a certain degree of co-operation between the Garda authorities, the publican and the publican's customers.

The big problem, as I see it, that faced the Minister was not in fixing a particular hour for closing, as such, but in fixing an hour at which he could get this co-operation and which at the same time would be consistent with the public good. It has been said here on a number of occasions that there was not a popular demand for these late closing hours. The obvious reason is that these hours were in operation under the bona fide law, under an exemption Order and where people were on the premises illegally.

Deputies have to approach this according to the dictates of their consciences, and if I believed that the change in the closing hours would cause more drunkenness or lead to excessive drinking I would have to oppose the Bill. However, having studied this matter seriously I feel that the later closing hour could reduce the amount of drink consumed and will certainly reduce the incidence of drunkenness. These are some of my reasons. If you take the rural area where the farmer or farm worker works late in the summer-time and arrives in his local public house after 10 o'clock it is straining human nature a bit to expect him to leave at 10.30 p.m. At 10.35 p.m. he is illegally on the premises, and if the Garda were to come at that time the penalties would be the same as if he were caught at one o'clock in the morning. For that reason the psychological effect is that once he passes the legal hours he is inclined to remain on the licensed premises until a very late hour.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 5 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 25th November, 1959.