Any Bill introduced in this House on the subject of licensing legislation in my experience, extending over thirty years in the House, has produced very deep cleavages of opinion, has shown marked divergencies of view and sometimes has produced pretty contentious legislation. I remember in 1926 or 1927 the Intoxicating Liquor Bill produced quite considerable demonstrations of anger and heat both inside and outside the House. With the effluxion of time, the battle has become less strenuous but even the discussion on this Bill has revealed certain definite cleavages of opinion as to the best method of tackling the problem. That there is a problem to be tackled I do not think anybody will question. Our legislation in some respects is out of date. The circumstances of our times have changed rapidly with the result that some aspects of our social legislation are not only outdated but indeed do violence to intelligent thinking as to what should constitute intelligent licensing legislation.
The bona fide trade is an outstanding example of that. It originated in the days when there were no motor cars and no bicycles. It assumed a weary traveller on foot, or on some horse not renowned for speed, passing through the country in the course of his business and stopping at a wayside inn to have a drink. But even then the underlying law said he was to be in the course of his travels and moving on. But of course in recent years with the advent of the motor car and the motor cycle the problem of the bona fide trade has undergone a complete change. Nowadays people decide where is the nearest bona fide house. They can usually get to one within three or five minutes in fast cars which are used at night on relatively clear roads. They do not intend to go on but deliberately intend to go there, have a drink and, unlike the wayfarer of old, they have no other business. When they have consumed sufficient or when closing time arrives they just reverse the car and go back to the spot from which they started.
In fact, the bona fide trade is carried on for those who have the privilege of spending a late night provided they live either three or five miles from the public house which they select for their custom on that occasion. Bona fide trade and the use of the term has no meaning in connection with the houses undertaking that kind of business. As I said, these houses are now used for the venturesome and the thirsty, in order to quench their thirst in the speediest possible time and they have no significance either in our social life or licensing regulations. I do not blame the people who run these houses. By and large, they are an estimable collection of people, and I have no complaint whatever about them. I think they have a pretty tough job trying to handle people, many of whom arrive at these places having given some of their custom elsewhere before they arrive. I imagine it is just that curious cupidity in human beings that induces many people to go to those places late at night when, on reflection next morning, they would probably decide it would have been much better if they had gone home and not gone for this near midnight drive to the local bona fide house.
The owners of these houses cannot in any way be reprimanded for the business they have carried on. It has been a legal business. So far as one can see, the houses have been kept in very good condition. In fact, very substantial sums of money have been spent in improving the amenities in these houses in order to make them more attractive to those who are likely to be customers. Therefore, if we are thinking of abolishing the bona fide business, it ought not to be done merely because a feeling of derogation has enveloped the owners. The case for the abolition is not because of the status of the owners, which I think is unquestioned and is high, but because the type of trade carried on no longer has any real meaning, especially in relation to the circumstances under which that type of trade was originally devised. Therefore, I think that there would be general agreement with the viewpoint that in the circumstances of today there is no longer need to maintain this bona fide trade or the special privileges associated with it. I think that the problem can be dealt with otherwise and the Bill does that in a certain manner, to which I shall make reference later.
I come now to the Sunday opening. I am rather afraid that there was a lot of loose thinking when the hours of Sunday opening, 1 to 3 and 5 to 8 in the winter and 5 to 9 in the summer, were decided on. Dublin city is one example. It is undesirable that you should have licensed premises open while religious services are in progress. That ought to be avoided if at all possible. But, if you open public houses in Dublin, or in the country for that matter, from 1 to 3 o'clock, there is a fair chance, a pretty good chance, that a number of folk will go into these public houses at 1 o'clock and not come out until 3 o'clock. I think that is a fair assumption.
Is that a thought that appeals to the members of this House? Is that something that is desirable, or something we ought to combat? After all, the desire of a man who goes into a public house, to spend the hours between 1 and 3 o'clock in it on a Sunday, should be surely to get his lunch but, if he goes into the public house because the argument there is attractive, the beverage is attractive and the company magnetic, what happens his wife and children? His lunch has to be kept for him. If he does not come in until 3.30 p.m. it is destroyed, and his wife and children are frustrated in what they intended to do on Sunday evening. If he has spent two hours in a public house and then eats his dinner, that gentleman's inclination is to go to bed for the evening and not take out his wife and children. I say that that is a fair probability and I ask is that something to be encouraged? I do not think it is.
Sunday opening hours, which are calculated to play so much havoc with the domestic arrangements of the family, are something we ought not to encourage in this House and, if I have to choose between giving a man facilities for drinking between 1 and 3 o'clock on a Sunday, and trying to help his wife and children to get their meal over so that the domestic arrangements may run to a reasonable schedule, I am on the side of the wife and children because I do not think the man who spends two hours in a public house on a Sunday is the best person to do the reasoning. I think the wife who wants him home for lunch about 1.30 p.m. is nearer the target of intelligence than the fellow who stays in a public house from 1.30 p.m. until 2 p.m., and forgets how to count after 2 o'clock. Therefore, I think what we ought to do is shorten the opening hours on a Sunday.
Quite frankly, I think that an opening of one hour on Sunday from 12.30 to 1.30 p.m. is enough. Sunday is not the last day of the human race. The man who wants a drink on Sunday has had an opportunity of drinking until 10.30 p.m. on Saturday night, and again has the opportunity for drinking on Sunday evening, and for the whole of the following week. I think an hour's opening is sufficient, though I do not believe I would object violently if it were extended from 12.30 to 2 p.m., though I prefer 12.30 to 1.30 p.m. as calculated to get a husband home to his lunch in good time to take his wife and children out, or to participate in the normal routine of an Irish family on Sundays.
The proposed evening hours are from 5 to 8 p.m. in the winter, and from 5 to 9 p.m. in the summer. That means that in winter time you will have a five hours' opening for drinking on Sundays and in the summer time six hours' opening. Remember this is the day when the ordinary man is free and he has these six hours to drink, or five as the case may be, and it is the time of the week when he has some money in his pocket. Does the House think it desirable to provide six hours' drinking facilities on a Sunday for a person who has some money, which will disappear very quickly, if the opportunity is provided over the week-end festivity? He has longer for drinking on a Sunday than he has on a weekday because on weekdays he will be working until 6 o'clock; he will get home between 6.30 and 7 p.m., have a meal, and from 7.30 to 10 o'clock is free to do his drinking. On Sunday, with no work to do and no restraint on him to earn his living, he will have five or six hours' drinking if he so wishes.
I think the Sunday opening hours from 5 to 9 p.m. are bad because if a person travels some distance to have a drink between 1.30 and 3 o'clock he may leave the public house about ten past three, join in a discussion outside, waste the time until 4 o'clock, and then say that it is not worth while going home and having to come back again for the night session. Very likely he will hang about, discussing any matter that passes the time until 5 o'clock, and he is likely to go back again for the night session from 5 to 8, or from 5 to 9 o'clock.
Imagine the impact on a household when the husband and breadwinner is being afforded these facilities while the wife and children know he is free only on Sunday to share their company and take them away for some little relaxation. I think therefore it is a mistake to have opening from 1 to 3 o'clock. The most I would argue for is an hour from 12.30 to 1.30, perhaps to 2 o'clock, though I would prefer 12.30 to 1.30 p.m. I say that the three or four hours' drinking sessions on Sunday evenings cannot be defended, unless it is claimed that the wife and children of the fellow who has a few pounds or a few shillings at the week-end do not count. To contemplate Sunday opening of five to six hours in 1959 is against all prudence and all modern thought. The Minister should examine this matter again.
I should like to cater for the fellow who travels to a football match which finishes at 5 o'clock, so that he might get a drink before he goes home, but frankly I would give him a short session to make sure he does go home. Apart from that, I think it would be good enough if you did not open the public house until 8 o'clock on Sunday evening, until perhaps 9.30 or 10 o'clock at the very most. Five o'clock to 9 o'clock is far too long and I think the Minister should reexamine this question. We are providing facilities which are not wanted and for which there is no real demand.
On the question of Sunday opening, I have always felt that the man in the country had as much right to certain facilities under the licensing code as the man in Dublin. Up to now the man in the country has been treated as a second-class citizen and, though this Bill provides some remedies, I think the remedies are far too liberal. Nevertheless, I do believe that the man in the country is entitled to Sunday opening but with hours in which prudence is much more evident than in the hours suggested by this Bill.
The present position regarding Sunday opening in rural areas is, of course, a vicious business. I know that in my own constituency on a Sunday people walk or cycle three or five miles to the next stop, to get a drink where they are bona fide, and on their way they pass people from the next town coming to the one they have left in order to get a drink. Does anybody know anything more crazy than that? The present position is absurd. I believe there should be Sunday opening in the country so that the man in the country will be treated equally and in no way more unfairly than the man who lives in one of the four boroughs which have Sunday facilities.
I turn now to week-day opening. The present opening hours are from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. in winter and from 10.30 a.m. to 10.30 p.m. in summer. This Bill proposes to have winter opening from 10.30 a.m. to 11 p.m. and from 10.30 a.m. to 11.30 p.m. in summer. I should like to know who is asking for these opening hours. I live in this city. I move around the country to a very considerable extent. I have never been asked by anybody to sympathise with him on the injustice of the present opening and closing hours. I know of nobody who has demanded these proposed new hours. I see statements in the Press from the trade unions opposing it. I get circular letters from the licensed traders saying they are opposed to it. I know of nobody who wants to have a publichouse open until 11.30 p.m. in order to satisfy his appalling thirst.
Has any responsible body asked for this opening until 10.30 and 11.30 p.m.? If so, they ought to be identified. I have met no single person who has asked for this late opening. I do not know of any organisation which has asked for it. If people have asked for it, then they ought to be pushed out into the open so that the public may know who it is that asks for an opening until 11.30 p.m. I know this is a recommendation of the Commission. I think the Commission did not know what they were doing when they suggested an opening until 11.30 p.m. In this city, transport closes down round about 11 o'clock at night. It is proposed in this to keep publichouses open until 11.30 p.m. I do not know what purpose will be served except that everybody will consume the maximum amount of liquor. Is it seriously suggested that anybody in this city or in the rural areas cannot have his normal liquor needs satisfied by 10.30 p.m. or 10 p.m. at night?
The only argument in its favour that I have heard is the suggestion that late opening will attract tourists. Anybody who offers that argument is presuming on the stupidity of those to whom he advances it. Has anybody ever set out for a holiday abroad and, before departing, looked up the licensing laws of the country he proposed to visit to find out until what hour he could drink at night? The argument is absurd. People do not visit a country for the purpose of drinking or for the purpose of being able to stay in a licensed premises as late as they like at night. Other considerations influence the tourist. So far as the tourist is concerned, he will enjoy his holiday better if he consumes whatever he needs about 10 p.m. and retires early so that he can resume his spirituous activities the following morning, if he feels so inclined.
I know of no case to support an 11.30 p.m. closing. If there is any case it is a case perhaps for a slightly later closing hour in certain rural areas where men work on the bogs so long as daylight lasts. Very often they are a long distance in from the main road and, if they have been saving turf up to 9 o'clock or 10 o'clock on a summer's evening, it is not unreasonable that they should get a drink at 10.30, 10.45 or even 11 o'clock. Where, however, people live in areas surrounded by publichouses I see no case whatever for an extension of the opening hours. Any increase in the hours will only make serious inroads on the normal family routine. It is not desirable that people should leave publichouses at half-eleven at night. That will not promote domestic happiness. It is not desirable that such people should be turned out into the street at 11.30 at night to make their way home any way they can, particularly in a city like this where the night traffic is not at times of the most edifying character.
I suggest the Minister ought to have second thoughts about late week-day opening. I see no reason for it in the city or in the larger towns. The only argument I can find in its favour is in the case of the man who works late on the bog and who might naturally like a drink before he retires. He is the only person who excites my sympathy in this matter. The man who finishes work at 6 o'clock or 7 o'clock can get a drink until 10 o'clock; there is no case whatever for him.
I regard this Bill as similar in character to the curate's egg—good in parts, and bad in parts. It is good in so far as it eliminates the bona fide trade. It is good from the standpoint that it brings urban and rural areas into alignment. It is bad from the point of view of Sunday opening hours, which are far too generous and are unwanted by the prudent. There is no case for later opening on week nights. The Bill should be substantially amended. Because of the virtue in portions of the Bill, I propose to vote for it, with the reservation that I shall vote for amendments on the Committee Stage which underline my outlook.
