Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 25 Feb 1960

Vol. 179 No. 6

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

SECTION 4.

Debate resumed on the following amendment:

In page 4, line 13, before "on" to insert "if the premises are not situate in a county borough".— Deputies Cosgrave and Ryan.

Mr. W. Murphy

I am speaking on this Bill as a rural Deputy having no interest other than the interest of the rural population and the rural publican. Last week, other Deputies in speaking here represented themselves as rural Deputies. It may seem strange that I as a rural Deputy have different ideas of the rural publican from those people who represented the rural publican as one whose whole idea was to break the law any time and every time he could. They even stated that at any hour of the night you could knock at his door and get a drink. I have spent my life in Clare and I can assure the House that those are not the facts.

I admit there are perhaps a few cases of publicans who, due to force of circumstances, due to the depressed state of business in our towns and villages to-day, had to break the law now and again in order to meet commitments which they had to meet as publicans. Who has been treated worse than the publican over the years in every Bill that has been passed through this House? He has to live under the law whether he likes it or not. He is supposed to open at a certain time and close at a certain time.

When we make these references to the rural publican breaking the law, we are not being fair to the Garda. As far as I know, the Garda do their duty without fear or favour. It is not right for any Deputy by a statement made in the House to bring before the higher officers of the Garda Síochána what one might call a complaint in regard to the way the Garda are carrying out their duties in relation to public houses. I do not think that is right. What we should be discussing here is not what has happened under previous legislation. We are trying to help the Minister to select an hour which will suit both the rural and the city trade. The Minister has my sympathy because that is a very difficult matter to decide.

I do not intend to suggest an hour because from listening to the statement of the Minister today, I believe the hour has already been decided. I may be wrong but that is the impression the Minister left on my mind. However, in selecting that hour, I hope there will be no differentiation between the city publican will enjoy the same facilities as the city publican and the city people. Whatever hour is decided upon, I hope it will be one which will give the publican a fair chance of abiding by the law and a fair chance of providing for himself and his family a decent standard of living, something to which they are entitled.

Mr. Belton

I should like to congratulate the Minister on having the courage to introduce an Intoxicating Liquor Bill because I do not care to what Party the Minister may belong, it takes a man of great courage to introduce such a Bill. I remember years ago an ex-Minister for Justice mentioning to me that any man who decided to introduce an Intoxicating Liquor Bill would bring a hornet's nest around his head and would deserve the congratulations of every side of the House on its introduction.

This Bill is parochial and has created great controversy among all sections of the people and all sections of the trade. In the Bill, it is suggested that during the months of June, July, August and September, the closing hour should be 11.30 p.m., and during the other months, the closing hour should be 10.30 p.m. I have no really fixed opinions as to whether these closing hours are correct or not, but if there is a case for 11.30 p.m. for those four summer months, the month of May should also be included. Every rural Deputy who is claiming that the rural people are working in the fields until 9.30 p.m. and 10 o'clock and that they require time to get refreshments knows there are longer hours of daylight in the month of May than in the months of July, August and September. There is a great case to be made for 11.30 p.m. closing during the month of May.

I do not hold with those rural Deputies who say rural people work until 9.30 at night, that they work from a quarter to five in the morning, as Deputy Corry said. They do not work from a quarter to five in the morning. There are a few people whose jobs require them to work continuously from that time. The only time the farmer works from 4.45 a.m. is when he decides to go to a fair. Deputy Palmer has just indicated to me that he is milking his cows at that time. Can any farmer Deputy tell me that he out milking his cows at a quarter to five in the morning?

Mr. Palmer

He is.

Mr. Belton

He is not. He is out milking the cows about 7 a.m. The people are completely divided on the merits of this Bill. Even the members of this House and the members of the various political Parties are divided. The members of the licensed trade are divided as to the merits of the Bill and the employees themselves are divided as to the most suitable hours of trading.

It was suggested by somebody that it would be time enough for licensed houses to open at 11 a.m. I suppose there is a great case to be made for that. I do not know of any publican who has customers waiting to come into his premises at 10 a.m. or 10.30 a.m. There are other considerations. The staff have to clean up the premises from the day before. The place has to be restocked. Bottling has to be done. If the opening hour of the licensed house is not until 11 a.m. or 11.30 a.m., time must be found during the day to do all the work that is done behind the scenes.

Deputy Dillon's suggestion should seriously be considered. It was that instead of closing public house doors at closing time at night, they should be opened and the onus of getting out of the premises placed on the customer and not on the publican. When you consider that the publican has to rattle glasses, to keep shouting "Time", and to plead with his customers to get out, you will appreciate that it is really most degrading for him. If the doors were opened and a policeman on duty outside saw fit to walk into the premises, he should be encouraged to do so and penalise any customer who, after a reasonable time, failed to vacate them.

It has been suggested in some circles that a new type of penalty should be imposed on publicans in matters such as this. No matter how long the customer remains on the premises in such circumstances, the publican should not be concerned, provided he is not caught serving a drink. If he is caught serving a drink, then impose a penalty such as a day's suspension or two days' suspension of licence as the justice thinks fit, but there should be no such thing as an endorsement of licence. Those penalties would ultimately be more severe than any type of reprimand that could be meted out in a district court.

Deputy Corish—he did not give it as his own opinion—mentioned that there is a viewpoint in this country that it might be the right thing if we had no closing hours but a 24-hours' trade. He quoted France as an example. I would point out that there is a greater incidence of juvenile alcoholism in France than in any country in the world.

Mr. Corish

I did not advocate it —on the contrary.

Mr. Belton

I know; I said the Deputy mentioned that there was a certain viewpoint in this country. There is a licensing Bill going through the House of Keys in the Isle of Man. An admirable suggestion is made there. I understand it concerns Sunday trading hours in the Isle of Man where there are no trading hours at the moment. The suggestion is that a trial period of 12 months should be given when such a controversial Bill is introduced.

Some members of the public or members of the Oireachtas might suggest: "You have a trial period because the Minister is in a position to introduce another Bill in a year or two, if this Bill does not seem workable." I recall what a previous Minister for Justice, Deputy G. Boland, said after he had introduced the 1942 Licensing Bill. I think that, 12 months after the enactment of that Bill, he said he was sorry he had not gone further. In other words, he had regrets that he did not go further with the Bill of 1942. Eighteen years had to elapse before a new Bill was introduced. If there were a trial period of a year or two in order to see how the provisions of this Bill would work out, there would be an obligation on the Minister to review the whole position within that specified year and I think it would help in the introduction of a Bill as controversial as this.

Some Deputies have suggested that there should be a later opening than 11.30 p.m.—say, to midnight. In the city of Dublin, many city centre publicans applied for and were granted special exemption orders for the period of the Spring Show, the Horse Show and An Tostal. You could play football in the pubs after 11 p.m. It was expected that the extension of hours would attract many customers. I believe sincerely that it failed to serve the purpose for which the licence was granted. That is the greatest case that can be made against late trading hours.

The question of late trading hours and their influence on dangerous driving, driving accidents, and so on, is something that has been dragged up and down byways and back lanes and everywhere else. Figures were given recently showing that deaths and accidents in Northern Ireland over the past 12 months were 5,000 and in Éire, 4,000. In the past 12 months, one might say we have had open trading in the Twenty-Six Counties. There was most restricted trading in the Six Counties, most restricted, I suggest, as far as the ordinary licensed houses were concerned, but almost unrestricted underground and shebeen trading—and that is where the difference comes in.

Will the unrestricted trading and the shebeen trading which I believe is going on to a great extent in this country be curtailed under this Bill, and will those people who carry on that type of trade be subject to the same police supervision as the public houses are subject to at the moment? I believe that the suggested closing hours—11.30 p.m. or 11 p.m.—should apply to every type of house that is entitled to serve liquor, be it a pub, hotel, restaurant, or any such premises.

The days have long since passed— and successive Ministers for Justice must be in agreement with me when they see fit to introduce an Intoxicating Liquor Bill like this—when a drink was required to enable a person to travel and apparently that is the reason why we feel we should make provision for a person sitting down for a meal to have a drink.

If 11.30 p.m. is considered sufficiently late for a licensed house to trade, I suggest to the Minister that 11.30 p.m. is late enough for every other place. Deputy Ryan and Deputy Lindsay deplored the possibility of customers trooping out from public houses in the city of Dublin and hanging out of the late buses going home. I think they are just playing on their imagination when they suggest such a thing. The people who will be drinking at 11.30 p.m., if this Bill is passed, will be drinking locally. The few people who will be drinking in the centre of the city at that time of night, and live in the suburbs, will be people with their own transport. It is wrong to suggest or even to imply that 20, 30 or 40 per cent. of the people who come from the public houses in the centre of the city on any week evening are under the influence of drink. The percentage of people who leave the city pubs at night under the influence of drink is very small indeed. One Deputy even got up and congratulated the Irish people on the fact that they were not alcoholics.

On this amendment, I have nothing further to add, other than to make a special plea to the Minister to consider including the month of May or, which would make it more definite, to include rather than the four summer months as mentioned in the section, that period which is known as "new time." I would also ask the Minister to use his good offices with the Department of Local Government in suggesting that in view of the hardship that will be inflicted on those publicans who are to lose as a result of the abolition of the bona fide trade, their valuation, which affects their licence fees and their rates, should come under very favourable consideration. Some of these houses have been purchased, renovated and reconstructed at great expense and they have a colossal burden of taxation placed on them. It is safe to say that 60 to 70 per cent. of their trade will be wiped out as a result of this Bill.

Mr. Maher

Naturally when a legislative measure like this comes before the House for discussion, Deputies will inevitably examine it from the point of view of how it will affect the constituency which they represent, whether it is a rural or an urban constituency. Deputy Cosgrave, in speaking to the amendment which he has put down, said that his constituency was partly rural and partly urban. In my opinion, he argued very convincingly for an extension of the closing hour in rural areas and more or less for a retention of the present hour in the built-up or urban area. I find myself in a somewhat similar position in so far as I have some experience—being associated with the sale of drink in the city—from the publican's point of view and I represent a rural constituency.

I think that there is some merit in the contention that an extension should be made in the rural areas, but as far as Dublin city is concerned, at any rate, and as far as my personal view goes, I think the present closing hours of 10 p.m. in winter and 10.30 p.m. in the summer are quite adequate to meet the ordinary demands of the public. But since there appears to be a need to wind up what is known as the bona fide traffic, it is absolutely essential that whatever emerges from this debate, we should stick to the principle of uniformity. I feel if the Dáil decided to depart from that principle we would inevitably reproduce most of the inadequacies that we have known from the bona fide trade.

I feel the spirit of the proposal would be defeated if there was only a slight difference between city and rural areas. To some extent, a half hour might not make a tremendous difference. There would not be a stampede from the city to the suburban districts, but nevertheless the risk is there and if there should be any road accidents or any ill-consequences as a result of departing from uniformity, there would be a hue and cry from the public and general condemnation of the measure this House introduced because of the departure from the principle of uniformity.

I have no hesitation in saying that uniformity should be adhered to in the strictest sense of the term. Having said that, and although I have said that the present time is quite suitable in the Dublin area, I recognise that, in justice, we must to some extent meet the circumstances of people whose livelihoods will be impaired to an extent by doing away with the bona fide traffic. There are people in the suburbs of this city who have invested huge capital sums and physical effort into building up their business and I should be long sorry to be a member of this House when it legislated to do away with their livelihoods completely.

I feel that to meet the situation, the Dáil would be wise in extending the hours by, say, one half hour. You would adequately meet the needs of the rural areas if the general closing hour were 11 p.m. If there is need for an extension, it is certainly in the summer time when the sun is high in the sky and it is broad daylight at 10.30 p.m. or 11 p.m. People in rural areas are inclined to stay at their work and they look for recreation and refreshment only when the light begins to close in and you would not want to deprive these people of the normal recreation of having a drink. I think an extension of a half an hour would be quite in order and justifiable. I would say that 11 p.m. all over the country in summer time and 10.30 p.m. in winter time would meet the normal drinking requirements of the consuming public. These hours certainly would meet and satisfy the requirements of people engaged in the trade.

The Minister, on a number of occasions during the debate, directed the attention of Deputies to the provisions and safeguards under the Shop Acts whereby assistants will not be called upon to work longer than a 48 hour week and six hours over-time and to the fact that the extension of the hours will not involve them in any additional work. That is all very well from the assistants' point of view. Undoubtedly, it will lead to the recruitment of additional staff with a consequential increase in the price of drink.

You must have your house adequately staffed if your doors are open. In order to fulfil the requirements of the Shop Acts, I think the law will compel many publicans at any rate to recruit additional staff. That will inevitably lead to an increase in the price of drink while the assistants will not be involved in any extra work. I am afraid, if the hours are extended to 10.30 p.m., we shall see an increase in the price of drink. Certainly the people in the city houses working up to 11.30 p.m. will have to clean up the place and do whatever little tidying up that is necessary and get transport home. I think that is going to constitute a very serious problem for them. I certainly think that 11.30 p.m. must lead to some disruption in the home.

I am associated with the business to some extent. I represent a rural constituency and I feel I can look at this problem through rational rather than parochial glasses. I am convinced that 11 p.m. in the summer time and 10.30 p.m. in the winter time would be the most suitable hours to meet the normal drinking requirements of the public. It has been said that publicans will not be compelled to remain open if they choose, that they are quite within their rights to close at whatever time they decide to do so. That seems a reasonable argument to advance but if a number of organised publicans in the city areas decide that they will close, as they have been doing at 10.30 that will lead to abuses. The outcome might be the growing up round the city centre area of "speakeasies". Whatever the outcome may be, I am convinced that the fines should be much more severe than they have been, in order to promote a healthy respect for the law. The person found drinking after hours should be penalised at least to the same extent as the publican who is involved in a breach of the licensing laws.

Whilst Deputy Dillon's suggestion merits serious consideration, I do not think it is practicable. The suggestion is that one could switch off the lights, come out from behind the counter and remind the customers of the risks they are running by remaining on. It would be a very simple solution to the problem if it could be dealt with in that way. I do not think it is altogether as simple as that. The atmosphere in a public house, as a rule, does not lend itself to the kind of simple reminder where you say that the customer is transgressing the law and will be responsible if the police happen to come along.

I do not think there is anything further I want to say beyond repeating that, when the Minister and the Government come to make a final decision in this matter, they should very seriously consider fixing the hours at 10.30 p.m. in the winter months all over the country and 11 p.m. in the summer months and that they should certainly not depart from the principle of uniformity.

Mr. Coburn

The views put forward by Deputy Maher are my views also. When I heard him urge the Minister that the hours of closing should be 10.30 p.m. in the winter and 11 p.m. in the summer, I could not help thinking it was a pity the Minister decided that the Fianna Fáil Party would vote as a Party en bloc and not be allowed to express, or at least to record, their viewpoint by voting for a particular hour of closing, because I feel there are many other Fianna Fáil Deputies in the House who might possibly hold similar views to those expressed by Deputy Maher.

Everybody agrees that there is a dire need for more effective control of this liquor business. It is a very controversial issue. So controversial is it that it has taken a number of years for the Commission to report. The Report is now before the House for discussion. Many views have been expressed in regard to the hour of closing but no matter what hour we determine for the closing of public houses, in my opinion it will come to nought unless the people generally, those who frequent public houses excessively, become reorientated in their attitude to this whole business of drinking.

I am convinced that no amount of legislation will prevent excessive drinking. That is a question for each individual. If this Bill passes, as it appears it will, what will be the effects of the hours of closing? The barmen, the assistants, who work in public houses at present have a fairly long day as it is. If we pass a measure causing them to have a longer working day, I think it will be bad. It will have a spiral effect, a vicious circle effect, for in so far as those barmen will press for higher wages the publican, if he can lawfully do so, will increase the price of his drink.

Another bad effect that will result from extending the hours of closing will relate to the traffic on the roads, especially at night time. I think it is mostly at night time that serious accidents occur. If we are to extend the closing hours it will mean that more people will be travelling on the roads later at night in their cars. Some of them will be very much under the influence of drink. Others will have a little drink but I think it is accepted as correct that a person does not need to be intoxicated or to have an excessive amount of drink taken to render him incapable of reacting quickly and properly to an emergency when driving a motor car. A very small amount of drink would render him incapable of proper reaction. The two effects I have mentioned, one relating to a longer working day for the barmen and bar assistants and the other with its tendency to create greater hazards on the road at night at a late hour, pale into insignificance when we visualise the deleterious effect increased facilities for drinking could have on home life itself. Are there not enough broken homes in the country without adding to their number?

I am not attempting to moralise on this subject. I am just expressing viewpoints as they occur to me and I am speaking as I think I should. In my opinion, there are enough facilities for drinking at present. People who wish to drink have the whole long day in which to do so and the Minister would be doing a very bad day's work if he extended the facilities.

It has been suggested that there should be a differential in the hours of closing as between rural areas and urban districts, cities and towns. I can sympathise with the viewpoint expressed in that regard because I agree that rural workers, especially in the summer months, work pretty late. Sometimes they do not finish until 8 or 9 o'clock in the evening and they have not the same opportunity of frequenting a public house and availing of drinking facilities as their urban brothers have.

However, there is a great danger that if a differential were brought into being, it would revive the bona fide trade because the urban dweller who drinks could go out to the rural areas at 8 or 8.30 at night and stay there until the public houses closed. That would have a twin-edged effect. It would mean that the bona fide trade would be re-established and also that the urban public houses would suffer financially from lack of trade and custom because their regular customers could go into the rural areas for an extra half hour or hour's drinking.

I am of the opinion that there should be a common closing hour of 10.30 p.m. in the winter and of 11 p.m. in the three or four summer months. That would provide ample opportunities for all reasonable persons who wanted to drink. The views of the various unions affected by this measure and the views of the publicans, the Pioneer Association and of the public generally have been expressed in no uncertain manner, and I think I am right in saying that the consensus of opinion appears to weigh favourably towards retaining, or at least not increasing, the present opening hours.

Mention has been made of a plebiscite and it has been suggested that the Minister should put a question on the ballot papers for the local government elections this year to let the people express their views on this very controversial matter. I do not agree that there should be a plebiscite because the members of this House have been elected to represent the people.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear!

Mr. Coburn

The people put them here and I presume the people have confidence in them to run the country as best they can. I think this House is the sole authority in matters of that kind, subject to ratification, endorsement or rejection in the successive elections.

One thing which, to a great extent, would reduce the frequency of infringements of the licensing laws would be to impose very heavy fines on both publican and customer, whenever infringements are discovered and proven. There are faults on both sides, on the publican's side and on the customer's side. Of course, some publicans are conscientious and obey the letter of the law, but there are others who are unscrupulous. Likewise, we find unscrupulous people who drink, as well as good conscientious people and, as a strict deterrent and a measure of the sincerity of the Minister's desire to improve the position, I believe he should seriously consider heavy fines. I understand that we are prevented from referring to the Sunday hours on this section so I shall refrain from making any reference to that point until the proper time.

Mr. Fanning

As a rural Deputy, I wish to make a few remarks on this Bill. Deputy Corburn said there was disunity on this side of the House with regard to the opening hours, but if he goes back over the debates, he will find the same applies on that side. I heard several Deputies over there advocate a closing hour of 11.30 p.m.

Mr. Coburn

Leave it to a free vote.

Mr. Fanning

As regards a free vote, we shall all make up our minds and do what we think is best. On the suggestion that there should be closing at 11 p.m. in the towns and at 11.30 p.m. in the rural areas, I do not think that people will travel a distance of seven or eight miles, and back again, for an extra half-hour's drinking. Deputy Ryan, speaking about the city and late hours, said that people would miss their buses and have sick heads the following morning, but they need not go back to a publichouse for a cure. They can go into a chemist's shop and get a cure, but in many small villages we do not have chemists' shops. We do not need them in the country areas because very few people who drink in the local villages have sick heads. The man who comes into a village will not go home drunk. I often did it myself and accompanied other gentlemen home from a village and very few of them get drunk. They come into a village pub to have a chat, a game of cards or rings, and very few of them are drunk when they go home.

Deputy Ryan has spoken of people going home drunk late at night in Dublin and getting up in the morning with sore heads. I do not believe that is true. If they should have to walk a half a mile or a mile, it is a pretty good cure for a sore head the following morning. Reference has also been made to drinking at dances. I know cases where a public house is closed at 10 p.m. and the people in it go to a dance hall a couple of hundred yards away and drink until 3 o'clock in the morning. I have seen plenty of court cases as a result of that.

We have all been circularised by the Pioneer Total Abstinence Association. We all know that they are doing good work but they are trying to put it down the throats of Deputies that we are voting for later hours and excessive drinking. That is not the case. If the law is to be enforced, and it should be enforced, it will cut out a lot of excessive drinking. People found in public houses should be fined as heavily or more heavily than the publican. I know that once those people get in, the publican finds it very hard to get them out again and that is the cause of a lot of trouble.

It has been said that in the country areas they do not get up too early in the morning. Perhaps some people do not but some farmers are on the roads at 5.30 a.m. delivering milk. Those of us who come here to the Dáil know that the first thing we hear in the mornings is the milkmen and the busmen going to their jobs. I do not think we shall do any harm by extending the closing time to 11.30 p.m. in the country areas. I have heard all the rural Deputies give that opinion. I think these people who are trying to influence us should take a reasonable view of this matter and forget about trying to force us to vote one way or the other.

There was a suggestion made here that May should be included in the four months of summer and I think there is a case to be made for that. New time comes into operation in the month of April and I would support the suggestion that May be included in the summer months. We welcome this Bill and I think the Minister has made a good case for it. Deputy Maher may not like the proposed 11.30 p.m. closing but we shall suit ourselves and vote according to our consciences.

Captain Giles

I hope the Government have not made up their minds as regards the hours proposed in this Bill. It they have, it is the end of it, but I hope they will be agreeable and that in the end, we shall get an agreed Bill. I think that on a matter of national importance, and this is a matter of national importance, we should get agreement. The fixing of the hours for the closing of public houses is of major importance.

This country, for a number of years, had a bad name for people who drank too much or who were not able to hold their drink. However, money values have changed and that change has had the result that we do not see many drunken people now. Of course, there may be a minority of people in this country, as there are in every other country, who drink more than they should, but the majority of people want to see the law enforced. I hope that when the Bill is passed, the law will be enforced in justice to everybody.

The principal matter we want to uphold is the preservation of family life. Any of us who come from country areas know to what extent family life has been destroyed by people drinking in public houses after closing time and spending the money that belongs to their wives and children. We find misery in many homes because a man or a boy stays out late in a public house and spends more money than he should. That happened because the law was too lax. In bringing in a law like this, we should regard it as permanent legislation. I do not like measures being brought in here and then changed every other year. In the case of the licensing laws, there should be no need for much change from one year to another. We should take an example from the North of Ireland. We claim to be a more Christian people than they are and yet we find that they have 10 o'clock closing the whole year round and that the law is strictly enforced. Is there any reason why we cannot do the same thing here?

I think a closing hour of 11.30 p.m. is too late. We must cater for the Irish people first and you will find that if you enforce your own laws, you will get respect for them from the foreigner. We should make Irish laws for the Irish people and make the stranger abide by those laws. A closing hour of 10.30 p.m. the whole year round would be reasonable. If a man leaves a public house at that hour, it will take him another hour to get home and by the time he is in bed, it will be 12 o'clock. This nation needs more production and you will not get more production if you have the people staying up until after the midnight hour and waking up with sore heads.

These are the things that should be considered. When you bring in a Bill to deal with a matter like this, it should be a good Bill and one that will meet the wishes of the majority of the people. A very large number of people are concerned about this Bill. No matter where you go, the first question you are asked is: "What way are you going to vote on this question of hours?" It is not a case of the Pioneers trying to shove this matter down our throats. It is the talk of fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters all over the country.

This country, being a Christian country, ought to have Christian laws and the first thing to be considered is family life. If you have late drinking hours, you are making family life very hard. I know many good homes which are in misery because of a lounger of a father or a son who holds on to the weekly wage instead of giving it to his family. The result is that the children are almost hungry. They are sad, too, because they see their mother unable to buy the necessaries of life. You have this big lounger having a royal time of it because we allow late drinking hours.

I believe 10.30 p.m. is late enough. It is time for anybody to be in bed. We think 10.30 very late when we come out of here at night and we see the streets almost empty. The Government should think twice before trying to force through a Bill with the late hour of 11.30 p.m. They are just trying to imitate the stranger, whereas they should be considering the ordinary people of Ireland. They should be trying to bring back our people to Christian habits.

There was a time when our people had a bad name for drinking. When drink was cheap, we made proper fools of ourselves. If drink were cheap in the morning, our people would make proper fools of themselves again. It is not that we are "goody-goodies" today; it is simply that drink is dear and money scarce. A sober Ireland will always be a free Ireland and, therefore, we should adopt reasonable drinking hours. You will get the blessings of everybody— the wives, the children, the clergymen —if you are manly enough to stand for what is right.

The Government should be honest with the country and should re-establish the noble traditions of the Irish race. We should have a sober Ireland of which we can be proud and which will observe decent licensing laws. But when the law has to be enforced, it should be enforced. We do not want the position we had for the past five or six years when you could walk out the front door of a public house and go in by the back door—when the Guard leaving the barracks may be told by the publican on the phone: "I will be ready in five minutes. The boys have gone out." If we have decent laws, they should be observed. We are sick and tired of all that went on. The law was not being enforced because it was as crooked and as rotten as it could be. If we do not amend the law now, we are not worth our salt.

We should be able to get agreement on the hours in this measure. We should be able to show the country that we can get agreement on something. If we got that agreement, I believe the country would accept it. But there are about 100 different points of view. The publicans have their point of view; so have the city Deputies; and so have the people down the country. But we should cater for the majority. There will always be a small minority out to break the law and have a royal time. But we should cater for those worth catering for: the children who are the fathers and mothers of tomorrow, and the old parents at home waiting for a drunken son to come home, perhaps to kick up a row, and knock down the dresser if there is not a good plate of meat set in front of him. We should cater for the simple Irish people who want to live decent lives. The Government should fix an hour that will be reasonable, and 10.30 p.m. would be reasonable the whole year around. Enforce that and you will have the blessings of the whole country.

Mr. Blowick

I want to say at the outset that I am very pleased that the old bona fide system is to be abolished under this Bill. That is definitely a step in the right direction. Since the improvement in transport facilities over the past 20 or 30 years, that provision has become completely obsolete. In addition, it had been badly abused.

On the amendment before the House concerning closing hours, I am completely opposed to the hours mentioned in the Bill. I stand over the fact that the old hours were quite ample and that everybody was satisfied with them. Deputy Fanning stands over the hours proposed in the Bill, which propose to give until 11.30 p.m. in the three summer months and 11 p.m. for the rest of the year. He also stands over the differential between the hours in the city and town areas as against the rural areas.

The first thing I want to say is that I would be in favour of uniformity. We will steer into the very same trouble as we have had in regard to enforcement and into the same abuses, if we have different hours. We should have the same for one as for the other. This is not a huge, scattered empire like the United States or Russia which would require different regulations as between one area and another. It would not impose any hardship to have the same regulations in town and country.

I cannot understand why the proposal to increase the hours of drinking is made. No representations were made to me on the possibility of increasing the hours, but I am absolutely deluged with representations from many people and many organisations to retain the present hours and not to support an increase. I should like the Minister, when replying, to tell us what representations were made to him and what were the grounds for increasing the hours. Deputy Giles mentioned the fact that quite a lot of damage was done in the past by over-drinking in this country. We are all too painfully aware of that. Serious damage was done in the past, and I believe is still being done in an odd case.

Many publicans have put this case to me, and I shall try to quote the words of a particular publican as well as I can remember them. He said to me: "A publican's life is a martyr's life. We have to stand all day long during the opening hours listening to people talking about their own business, and sometimes talking the greatest nonsense possible, while having a bottle of stout or a pint." The case he put to me was that the publican at least wants the privacy of his home after 10.30 p.m.—or 10 p.m., if he can get it. His house, according to statute, must be completely open up to that hour. This publican put it to me that the publicans themselves want some little privacy, just as their customers do in their own homes. That is one aspect of the matter to which the Government ought to pay attention in this Bill.

Before I conclude, I want to protest against the reference made today by a Fianna Fáil Deputy to pressure groups exercising pressure on Deputies in connection with the Bill. I presume the reference was to the Pioneer Association. The Pioneers are a very numerous body in this country.

Mr. Moran

In fairness to the Deputy, he did not specify.

Mr. Blowick

He did not specify, but I do not know of any other group he can be referring to. I take it that it was the Pioneers he was referring to.

Mr. Moran

Everybody who has an interest in this Bill can be a pressure group.

Mr. Blowick

Any resolutions I received from any of the Pioneer branches in the country were merely expressions of their opinions, and surely they are entitled to have them? The Pioneers have done excellent work in this country. I hope they spread and flourish, and I do not say that because I am one myself. They have saved numerous youngsters from the life of a rake, which was such a common feature of life here in the past.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 5 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 2nd March, 1960.