This amendment proposes that we make a variation in the hours of trading as between a county borough, a county, and other areas. If it is now proposed to place the licensing regulations and licensing laws on a basis of general equality I would like to say that I could not support such a variation as is proposed. I do not see any merit whatsoever in suggesting that, if a closing hour is fixed in one area, a person can then cross a county borough for an extra half hour's drinking. I do not think there is any basis for that if it is contended that the average person has only a certain amount of money to spend on liquor. If that is true, the average person in County Dublin would not have more money to justify an extra half hour's drinking, and neither would the average person in County Cork have more money to spend than those in the urban area.
Aside from that, why should the people engaged in making their living in this trade have additional hardships placed upon them just because they happen to live on one side or other of a local government boundary? Account has to be taken of those engaged in selling liquor, either as employees or as members of a family-run house. Under present circumstances they are not by any means idle. The employee works an average day that is spread over 12 hours, with a break for lunch, and on the average that is very much longer than is claimed by the representatives of the farming community in this House for their constituents.
Nobody could convince me that a substantial proportion of those engaged in agriculture, who are in a position to employ labour, average a working day spread over 12 hours all around the year. In certain months of the year they do have a difficult job but when there is no harvesting, and no Spring sowing, are they compelled to earn their livelihood by staying in their places of employment until 10 or 10.30. at night, and then have to make their way home a distance of three, four or five miles? Of course they are not. I do not think it would be out of place for me to say to representatives of the people in rural areas: "Spare a little thought for the families of people running public houses in the country."
We in the city do not think it at all wrong that ordinary shops close at 5.30 or 6 o'clock, that furniture stores close at 6.30 and that the average closing hour for chemists is around 7 o'clock. We believe that, as human beings, the people running these establishments are entitled to a life of their own, and to relax with their families occasionally. We know there are employments which, of necessity, cause difficulty to those employed in them but surely that necessity cannot devolve from a desire by some people to do their drinking one hour later on a week day evening?
The minority report says that one of the effects of an extension of the hours was considered to be a disruption of family life but maybe the Deputies in this House, and those people outside it who seek an extension of the hours. would not consider it a disruption of family life if, first of all, the people drinking, secondly, the people employed in providing the drink for them and, thirdly, those employed in other services, as a mass are compelled to return to their homes on an average an hour or an hour and a half later than formerly. Would that not disrupt family life? I submit it would and frankly I feel the Minister must feel embarrassed having had to sit here through the Second Stage and again on this Stage to listen to the excuses for elected representatives conniving at open breaches of the law of the land down the years.
Deputy McQuillan suggested it would be a good thing if the public houses in Dublin were open until 11 p.m. or 11.30 p.m. so that the people coming from the picture houses could go in for a few drinks instead of going home as they do at present. From that approach, I take it the Deputy would also suggest it would be a good thing if those employed in the public transport services were asked if they would be prepared to work until a later hour in the night to get these people home? All for what? To cater for a demand, the existence of which nobody has proved by evidence in this House.
I can understand the Minister's difficulty. He feels he could not have gone to his Party and said: "Look. This total disregard for the law has been connived at by everybody, but this bona fide traffic is now reaching such a point that I feel I have no alternative but to ask your support in doing away with it.” I do not think he would get his Party to support him on that clear issue. He is having difficulty trying to balance that outlook with the recommendations of the majority report. Even that report is qualified under five different headings. Deputy McGilligan told us this morning that his information was that a week before that majority report was adopted, another decision was reached by the Commission but that it was reversed a week later. It is on this we are asked to agree to extend the hours.
I should like the Minister sometime during the Committee Stage to indicate whether he agrees with the suggestion that his proposal will not mean increased expenditure in public houses; in other words, if this proposal were carried, that the same amount of money would be spent in public houses as is spent with the existing hours. If that is correct, what is the need for later hours? I do not drink and I cannot speak for those who do, but I am entitled to make my observations based on discussions I have had with people who do drink. Where a number of people are having a drink together it is difficult for one of them to be the first to say: "I am off home." There appears to be a fear of some loss of social or personal prestige if four or five people are having a drink and one of them says: "I have to go home." But the danger to the personal ego is avoided under present circumstances because the owner of the public house or his representative announces at a certain time: "Time, gentlemen, please." Therefore, the boys can all go out of the public house holding their heads erect. None of them has to say: "I am getting a bit low in funds. You will have to excuse me." None of them has to say: "I told the wife I would be home a bit early tonight." None of them has to say: "I have to go because the has are ill." No the proprietor or the barman says: "Time, gentlemen, please," and then they march out.
I have heard it said by people who like to take a drink that at times the most welcome words they can hear are the words: "Time, gentlemen, please." The Minister should bear that in mind. I understand it is considered not quite the thing for anybody in this country to go in and have a drink on his own. If he sees a friend, he has to stand him a drink. If he sees two friends, he has to stand both of them drinks, even though he can ill afford it and even though he may be drinking not on his own money but on the money that should go to his home to keep his wife and family.
I am not talking about the situation in the rural areas where, it has been made plain by rural Deputies, respect for the law does not exist—in this respect, anyway. I am speaking of the areas where bona fide houses operate. Many of them have been operated on proper lines. Never theless, the exodus from these places at 12 o'clock at night has resulted in death and injury to people going about their ordinary business. That only refers to a limited number of places because there are only a limited number of bona fide places outside the Dublin area. The Minister hopes to have the hours extended to 11.30 p.m. If that is done, the area around every public house in this county borough will become as dangerous as the area around the bona fide houses at present.
I shall not refer to the side effects on family life, but I would ask the Minister to bear in mind that we are proud of the fact that drunkenness in this country, particularly among the young people, has been receding. The young men and women of this country, given a reasonable chance, given opportunities of reasonable incomes, of having a home and reasonable expectation of employment and relaxation, are turning less and less to what was once the only consolation of thousands in this country —the bottle. Are we deliberately, as a legislative Assembly, under the proposals of the Minister, to go now into reverse? I shall conclude by saying that it is my firm conviction that it would be in the interests of everybody and would cause hardship to nobody if the present opening hours of 10 p.m. and 10.30 p.m. were retained.