I should like to remind the House that we are discussing, not merely amendment No. 1 but, on the suggestion offered by the Chair, amendments from 1 to 7, inclusive, 1a on the Order Paper, and the two others attached to Section 5. I mention that because the whole of the discussion has turned on the first amendment that Deputy Cosgrave proposed. Of course, with his amendment No. 1 we must also read his amendment No. 6, in which he desires to retain for the county boroughs the present hours if we accept the other hours for the places which are not the county boroughs.
It is noticeable that the last speaker considered that there was convincing evidence for that retention of the present hours in the county boroughs. I refer to pages 34 and 35 of the Report which is part of the Minority Report to which Deputy Corry's name is attached. They say, after expressing regret that after the arduous task that the Commission set itself, a substantial number of the Commission find themselves in disagreement on the question of extending hours in the county boroughs of Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford:
The Provisional United Trade Union Movement, representing 300,000 workers, submitted a memorandum in favour of 10 p.m. closing. After hearing the evidence of employers, workers, temperance organisations and consumers we——
that is, including Deputy Corry.
——reached the conclusion that there was no general demand for longer hours in the county boroughs, although we are prepared to recommend the removal of the present distinction between Summer and Winter and to suggest 10.30 p.m. closing all the year round.
That is a very valuable phrase, referring to the 300,000 workers and also that after the evidence of employers, workers, temperance organisations and consumers had been considered the Deputy, with a lot of others, was in favour of not extending the present closing hours in the county boroughs. There are amendments amongst the lot we are discussing which ask for the retention of the present hours. Amendments No. 2 and No. 4, if taken together, would keep the present hours for the whole country.
There has been a good deal of sham, of course, in this debate already. We have been referred by the Minister, in a strong, vigorous way, to what the Commission had reported. I do not know if it will be contradicted but I am informed that the Commission one week reported in favour of keeping the present hours and within seven days reported as they have reported; that the Commission by a majority at one point, when they came to voting at the end, were in favour of the retention of the present hours and then changed within eight days and brought in the recommendation we have here.
I read page 11 with a certain amount of amusement when I feel, as I believe I am correctly informed, that the Commission were on a razor edge with regard to what the recommendation would be with regard to the general trading hours. I am speaking, of course, of the weekday. I look at page 11 of the Report. They say:
As to the closing hours, it was argued by licensed trade representatives and the trade employees' representatives that the present hours in Dublin were adequate; but this argument was more than countered...
What is the evidence that countered that?
—by the evidence of the exodus to the bona-fide houses after closing time, the admission that there was an amount of hurried drinking in the last half-hour and that there were difficulties in clearing the public-houses when closing time came.
Then they propose 11.30. There will be the same amount of hurried drinking just prior to 11.30 and it will still be very difficult to get the public-houses closed even when the closing hours are extended to 11.30.
When I hear these general comments with regard to the exodus to the bona fide areas, I ask myself what evidence was there as to the number of people who join in that exodus to the bona fide areas, I should like also to get some discrimination. There are those who simply, as Deputy Dillon has said, will go further the longer the hours are permitted; there are some people, as is well known, who do not enjoy a drink unless taken with some taint of illegality about it and there are certainly a number of people who do not enjoy a drink unless taken well into the late hours of the night.
I cannot believe that that argument is seriously put forward in opposition to the evidence that was definitely overwhelming as far as the trade representatives and the trade employees' representatives were concerned that they do not want any extension of the present drinking hours. I am told to weigh in the balance the recommendation of a Commission who voted one week for retention of the present hours and the next week voted for the hours in this part of the Report.
The document goes on to say:
We had convincing evidence from all over the country that the present hours fail to meet actual needs in rural areas.
They have said earlier, in connection with the bona fide traffic, that they think that there is no case for the retention of the bona fide provisions; that they no longer serve the purpose for which they were intended. They say that they are satisfied that it is preferable to increase general hours rather than to retain a system which makes law enforcement difficult, tends to encourage excessive drinking, is responsible for disorder and increases the dangers of the roads. Am I to read these points together and to say that there is what they mean by “convincing evidence that the present hours fail to meet actual needs in rural areas”?
The one thing the Commission do not say is anything with regard to the curtailment of hours. They do not make the case that the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Brennan, and some others have made here today that, in fact, the reality of the situation is that by allowing public-houses to remain open only to 11.30 in the rural areas that is cutting down drinking facilities by half an hour.
It must be remembered, of course, that before the Act of 1943 drinking had gone on the whole night and it was supposed to be a very severe curtailment of drinking facilities as far as the bona fide traffic was concerned that bona fide drinking was allowed only from 6 in the morning until midnight. I did not on that occasion hear much comment about the cutting down of the rights, so to speak, to drink right through the morning, noon and night. We are told that that curtailment has not brought about respect for the law and the great argument in this House at the moment is that by abolishing bona fide traffic and having extended hours to 11.30 we are to get such public appreciation of the new situation that it will be easy to enforce the law and that the law will be enforced.
Very solemn comments made by the Commissioner and the Chief Superintendent, quoted on pages 5 and 6 of this Report, ought to be borne in mind. I do not propose to read the whole of them but they have said that it is impossible to secure observance of any law, unless the majority of the citizens are anxious to see it enforced. They have said:
It is very doubtful whether this can be said of the Licensing Acts.
They say that no social obloquy is attached to being found in a public-house after hours and nobody feels any stain on his character if so discovered. They then say that penalties are often quite inadequate, that is, the penalties imposed by the court, as a deterrent, and that public representatives have frequently not alone advocated amendment of the law but suggested that enforcement of the law should be relaxed. They continue that this is unsatisfactory from the angle of the Garda:
Evasion of the Licensing Acts by people from all walks of life, inadequate penalties for offences and statements by public representatives tend to bring the Licensing Acts into contempt.
They add:
And contempt for one law may breed general contempt for the law.
On page 6 they continue:
As the public generally do not seem anxious to see the Licensing Acts strictly enforced, the Garda Síochána in most places are expected to exercise what is called ‘discretion' in enforcing the law.
They say that that means that the local sergeant is expected to ‘legislate' for local exemptions to suit the needs of the area and they contend, as one would agree, that it is most unfair to have people in the position of sergeants and Guards, subordinate officials, left to determine the degree to which the Licensing Acts should be enforced, that it is bad for the morale of the force that they should be discouraged from securing observance of the law.
Finally, they say:—
"expecting sergeants and Guards, who are on a low salary scale, to exercise ‘discretion' in the enforcement of a law which affects the profits of thousands of licence holders means exposing those men to the temptation of corruption."
All that is going to be changed now by curtailing drinking hours, according to the argument put up, from midnight to half-past eleven, by cutting down facilities for drinking, not allowing drinking after a certain hour.
By doing this, we are told there will be no more temptation and no discretion will have to be left to the local sergeant. For the future, everybody will approve of the licensing laws and, I suppose, people of all walks of life will regard it as something bringing social obloquy on them if they are found in a public house—where they used go up to midnight—at 25 minutes to twelve; they will realise they are bringing disgrace on themselves and on their families.
It is suggested that the whole law will be raised from the contempt into which it has fallen. This is certainly asking for a mental revolution in the outlook of the people. I do not believe that will happen or that there will be rigid enforcement of the new law. I do not believe the people will be so easily brought from their present mistaken view—I did not realise it was so widespread until I heard the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Brennan, speaking—unless there is some extraordinary change of attitude. I do not think that will be brought about, and until that comes about, you will have the same situation reproduced over and over again.
The Minister has talked about fines and endorsements. I may have mistaken the amendments that are down, but I see no amendments except those that are in some degree relaxing the matter of endorsements. If I am wrong I should like to be corrected. I think there is nothing in this legislation to make the endorsement, fine or penalty any more adequate to the crime than before. I see only one thing —that there is a minimum fine of £1 and that is the whole foundation for the new code of law. We are to have a minimum fine of £1 on people found on licensed premises after hours. But will they be found on licensed premises after hours? Will the local sergeant do as he has done up to now and use his discretion or is he, in the future, to abandon that discretion and prosecute everybody found on the premises at 11.30 p.m. I doubt it very much. I should like to know what Deputies from rural Ireland think about that. But that is the new proposal—that there is to be this change and that this bona fide traffic will be abolished.
I am not sure that it would not have been better to approach this bona fide business from a different angle and put, say, a longer distance limit on the legal bona fide trade, and if necessary, even curtail the hours a bit more, and have them, say, to midnight or some other period. To 6 a.m. is of course of no great significance, no great matter to those who are engaged in drinking in this way. That might be a better way to meet the position in drinking in this way. That might be a better way to meet the position than by abolishing bona fide drinking, and to have in the rural areas curtailment of drinking hours. But that is the argument being used—the main argument produced in this House.
Personally, I am in favour of amendments 2 and 4 which would keep the present hours. I have seen as far as my post is concerned—and it is not confined to temperance advocates but includes citizens in the ordinary walks of life—that the people who are not attached to temperance societies in any way or to any groups that would urge matters from a different point of view, ask the question to which I have not yet seen any real answer: who asks for this change in legislaion? Certainly, so far as Dublin city and county borough are concerned, nobody wants it. There is a very big volume of opinion against it in the trade itself, the employees and the people who are not connected in any way with licensing matters. I think it cannot be denied that the great force of opinion expressed in literature and newspapers has been against this idea of extending the hours to 11.30 p.m. Personally, I am in favour of the present hours. I see no reason for the extension.
One other matter I might mention as a small point. I think it is closing hours that one must attend to in this debate but opening hours must also be attended to. Certainly, any provision which has a period—I am all the time omitting the split hour— longer than 12 hours will, I understand, cause certain trouble in the labour world. It would either mean that employees would have to be taken on, which is not likely, or it will mean attempts to enforce longer hours. The Commission say that there is only a limited trade before noon and that the 10.30 a.m. opening would suffice to meet reasonable requirements. So far as I am concerned I think whatever is the closing hour, I would measure back 12 hours from that, and that is how I would deal with the opening hour.
