Vol. 180 No. 7
Since the 25th February, when progress was reported, the following further amendment. No. 1 B, has been tabled by Deputy Palmer:
In page 4, line 15, before "June" to insert "May".
This amendment is appropriate for discussion in conjunction with the group of amendments at present under consideration. We shall discuss that amendment in conjunction with the other amendments.
Agreed.
Before I speak, I understand that Deputy Blowick reported progress when this matter was being debated previously. Am I in order in speaking now or does Deputy Blowick wish to speak?
I had not concluded on the last occasion when dealing with the question of closing hours. Without any acrimony, the case I put to the Minister is that it seems the whole body of opinion throughout the country, with the exception of the Minister and members of the Government apparently, is directly opposed to the proposal in the Bill. When the bulk of opinion is directly opposed to it, I think the Minister is unwise in pushing it. Apparently the trade themselves are not in favour of it. Not a single representation has been made to me or to any other Deputy I know of in favour of the Minister's proposal. The Minister would be wise to leave the hours exactly as they are. I do not want to introduce any note of bitterness but one must take notice of public opinion, especially when the public take the trouble of bringing their opposition to this measure to the notice of Deputies.
Some Deputy described certain sections of the people as pressure groups and so on. On second thoughts I decided to pass that over. In my opinion, it was an ignorant and uninformed remark and it certainly was not fair comment on the matter. The Minister would be wise to yield to public opinion on this occasion. The Minister has not made a case for it himself. Nobody I heard made a case for it. Definitely there is no demand for it up and down the country, either by the licensed trade themselves or their customers. Everyone is satisfied with the present hours and the Minister would be wise in meeting the public demand.
One of the very purposes of this House is to make laws that suit the people. Only a foreign Government in occupation of the country would deliberately try and impose their will in complete violation of the wishes of the people. The reason the Minister himself has been sent here is to do the things the people want. Definitely some reform of the licensing laws was necessary. In the section of the Bill with which we are dealing the Minister is outraging public opinion. He is taking a foolish step, a step that has not been asked for by any section of the people concerned. While I would be very sorry to introduce anything like bitterness, politics and so on, the Minister would be wise, I think, to meet the wishes of the people.
I know that one of the Minister's answers will be that the Commission set up to inquire into the matter has recommended this proposal. Might I respectfully submit two points on that? First, while they may have had reasons at the time, about three years have elapsed since the Commission met and made their recommendations. The second is that no matter what the Commission recommended at that time public opinion is now very emphatic on the point that the Minister's proposals are not the correct ones.
I rise in support of the amendment I have tabled on this Bill. In plain words, it proposes that the closing hour be 11.30 in Dublin county and the rural areas. I am proposing that because it is and has been the general custom in the country for people who want a late evening's drinking to avail of the facilities of the 12 o'clock midnight closing hour. I have been impressed very much by the case made by Deputy Blowick. This seems to be a most unpopular Bill. It seems to please nobody. The alteration in the hours appears to threaten and upset the trade. The total abstinence associations have written thousands of letters to their Deputies complaining that they dislike the Bill. Church leaders have spoken out against the proposed alterations contained in the Bill. It has been opposed very vigorously by a substantial number of the publicans and is also opposed by the staffs working in these licensed premises. In addition to all those interests, the general public, who are interested in the facilities available under the licensing laws, are also not satisfied with the proposals in the Bill.
I consider that these proposals will not improve the existing arrangement. That is the very point made by Deputy Blowick. Generally speaking, the existing arrangement in regard to the closing hours of licensed premises has worked well and has proved to be satisfactory. Of course, there will be cranks who will speak long and loud in support of one attitude or another in relation to the closing hours, but we must take the outlook of the average man. No responsible body in Ireland has asked for this Bill in its present form. There has been no public outcry against the licensing laws as we know them at present. Compare the example we have of the outcry of the public clamouring for a revision of our road traffic laws. We have not that kind of clamour or outcry in respect of the licensing laws.
Some people are critical of the existing licensing laws because they are not enforced in the same way everywhere. There are reasons for that and they were revealed in a statement made by a very prominent person some months ago. However, the fact remains that the law is there and can be enforced and, if it is enforced as it stands, I believe the general public will have no reason to complain.
Who wants this Bill as it stands? I cannot think of anyone. In his statement, the Minister indicated that he had an open mind on the matter and that he would be guided by the views expressed here in the House. I do not think he has heard any expression of satisfaction from the members of the Dáil who have spoken. We remember the abuses which resulted from prohibition in the United States, and the bootlegging which followed, caused by those who wanted to indulge in intoxicating liquor when they were deprived from having that amenity.
It was said by some of the interested organisations that this Bill proposes to give longer drinking hours. If it does propose to give longer drinking hours at the same time it seems to interfere with the traditional trading hours, and there will be an upset in the trade if the new arrangement of hours affects those. I am suggesting to the Minister that it is well within his powers to shelve this Bill now. It is not the first time a Bill was introduced in this House, debated, and dropped. For instance, there was the Valuations Bill, around 1945, and after a considerable amount of argument and debate that Bill was shelved and we have not heard about it since.
These amendments deal with hours of closing on weekdays only. All we are discussing are hours of closing.
The case I am making in favour of my amendment is to show what I consider will be the consequences of the proposals contained in the Bill. I think I am right in discussing the contents of the Bill in relation to my amendment.
The House has agreed to discuss a number of amendments which deal with opening and closing hours on weekdays only.
In making the case in favour of an 11.30 p.m. closing hour I am asking the Minister to consider, having regard to the case that has been made by so many Deputies, whether in fact he should drop this Bill and then the question of hours will not arise. My proposing 11.30 p.m. was done on the assumption that the Minister will insist on putting through some kind of a licensing Bill. The traditional closing hour for many licensed premises outside Dublin City is 12 midnight, and this Bill proposes to put an end to the midnight closing.
It is not 12 o'clock. They are open to 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning.
I am not aware of places like that.
This Bill, I think, is trying to close them at 11.30 p.m.
I understand from the existing laws that the closing time is 12 o'clock. The premises which had the right to remain open until then will now find themselves in the position of being obliged to close at a much earlier hour but, if we look at the traditional closing hours in the city, they have been 10 p.m. in the winter and 10.30 p.m. in summer. I consider that a minor amendment of the existing laws would meet our modern needs, and I do not believe that this Bill will change the taste and habits of our people, and if the closing hour is changed, we must consider what the consequences will be.
The question of compensation has not been mentioned in the Bill. It proposes to put a number of people out of business, people who were engaged in trading up to 12 midnight. Then-premises were purchased at high cost, and costly alterations and improved amenities were provided in them. They were purchased on the basis of certified trading figures, the turnover figures between 10 p.m. and 12 midnight. They were the figures that mattered when such premises were changing hands. They are mostly situated in remote areas and they cannot expect to do any kind of early evening trading. There must be some population in the vicinity of licensed premises if it is to do substantial trade in the early hours of the evening and these premises I speak of will now find themselves on the same basis as City premises.
In other words, there will be a uniformity in the closing hours for licensed premises in these remote areas, where there is no local population, and for licensed premises in the city, and the premises in the remote areas cannot expect to do any kind of trade when the city premises are open at the same time. They cater for the person who wants to enjoy a drink later in the evening, for instance, for private social parties. They could avail of the amenities and the organised management of such premises which would not be available in shebeens or clubs to which people would be obliged to go if there is uniformity in the closing hour. These people I speak of can at present get a reliable drink in areas outside the city, but in the ordinary way, in a club or private dwelling house, they will not have drink served in an orderly way in which it can be diluted with the traditional minerals. You can have the example of the person who likes ginger ale to dilute his drink and it is not available. He has to take club lemon or club orange in that spirit, but in the well-organised premises they can have their drink properly served up to them.
This Bill is intended to stop late evening trading at premises which cater for this aspect of public enioyment. It is proposed that they will be closed at least one hour earlier than they had been closing but this one hour will represent approximately half of the traders' turnover and if they have to stop here in Dublin City and County—I am speaking of them mostly because the rural areas are able to speak for themselves—you will have a position where we shall have the carefree gaiety of Dublin city and county, the gaiety associated with this city and enjoyed by visitors and residents, destroyed.
You may have Dublin city by the change of these hours turned into a disreputable night club city. It is a very happy city as it is. The proposed hours will drive people into back rooms, sheds and various places, to bottle parties and the rest, where they can have drink instead of in an ordinary regular well-managed licensed premises. You will have them drinking in badly lighted smoke-filled dens of iniquity. That is the kind of life that you can expect in a city which is suddenly to have taken from it the kind of carefree gaiety associated with Dublin city and county, not alone in the minds of people in this country but also in the minds of people visiting the city. In fact the amenities available in the matter of the licensing hours are commented on very favourably by people who come here on holidays.
I consider that we should not fiddle with the hours characteristic of the evening life of Dublin City and County. The present arrangement caters for persons wishing to enjoy this late evening drinking. There is very little difference between it and the city closing hour but it does make all the difference to the social life of the people who enjoy these amenities. It is better to have this facility made available to them through well-controlled and well-managed services such as are provided by these very luxurious licensed premises right around Dublin city.
It is possible that illicit trading may result from the shortage of hours caused by the reduction proposed in this Bill. If we are to have illicit trading, we shall have the improper drinking arrangements which I mention —the bottle parties and the tragedies that follow them. I might mention in relation to this proposal that it will be equally difficult to enforce any laws provided in this new Bill as it has been to enforce the existing laws. You will always have the position where it will be difficult to enforce the laws but that is the very reason penalties are imposed if they are broken.
We have a situation which is not catered for here—the matter of closing time. Heavy penalties should be imposed on customers who refuse to leave licensed premises at closing time. It must be agreed that the customer who refuses to leave at closing time is just as guilty as the publican who encourages him to stay. Indeed, I do not know of any publicans who encourage their customers to stay after the closing hour. It is usually that they are persuaded because of their friendly attitude to the customers to allow them to stay on. I think there is a duty on customers who go into licensed premises to get out of them at closing time instead of putting the publican in the position that he almost has to use force to get them out. The present hours are reasonable. Why should we make closing time earlier? Surely it cannot be contended that 12 o'clock is a very late hour? We have the example of bottle parties carried on into the small hours of the morning and these are the parties that usually result in casualties.
I am proposing in this amendment, to meet the Minister to some extent, that 11.30 be the closing time. People have their radio programmes and television programmes going up to 11.30; the clubs have plenty of visitors. Listening to radio and television is part of the social life, which the people enjoy but, as I say, the closing time for these public services is 11.30. There is the other aspect of this closing time; I suppose I am entitled to mention it at this stage. It is proposed to give licences for dances up to 3 a.m. and reputable traders are to be deprived of their midnight closing time. They have a staff to employ, they have business premises to keep up and they have taxes to pay. These dances which are run only occasionally compared with licensed premises which must be run as a business regularly, are to be licensed until 3 a.m. It seems to be most unfair to the traders who are to be prevented from remaining open until midnight.
In support of the hours which I have mentioned I should like to quote a letter circulated by the Irish Country Vintners Association. I think the attitude of the trade to this matter is shown very clearly. It has been considered by the licensed traders of all Ireland, and as I say they reached a decision. The letter concerned, unfortunately, is undated. However it was circulated.
Does this deal with the hours of opening and closing?
It does. This letter is from T.S. O'Dwyer, Honorary Secretary, Irish Country Vintners Association, Collinstown, Killucan, County Dublin. It reads:
"Dear Deputy—A general meeting was held in Dublin on January 12th attended by town and country traders from the Twenty-Six County areas outside the county boroughs. The following motions were passed:
(1) It was unanimously agreed to form the Irish County Vintners Association in the Twenty-Six Counties, outside the County Boroughs.
(2) While a great many publicans believed that 12 o'clock midnight was the most suitable hour all the year round, all associations and traders present unanimously agreed that there should be no earlier closing than 11.30 p.m. all the year round.
(3) As life in the various counties and rural districts is completely different to those in the city, it was unanimously agreed that there should be a later opening for the areas outside the County Boroughs. We feel, as the traditional closing hour is 12 midnight, any earlier closing will result in shebeens, drinking in crowded homes and private cars.
(4) In their official report of the recent Intoxicating Liquor Commission, all the commissioners (21) after hearing exhaustive evidence unanimously decided that the areas outside the County Boroughs should have 11.30 p.m. closing hours on weekdays all the year round.
I am,
Yours sincerely,
(Sgd.) T.S. O'Dwyer,
Hon. Secretary.
That letter is relevant because it deals with the areas to which I propose this amendment to apply, namely, Dublin County and the rural areas generally.
Another situation can arise if this change of hours is implemented. People who have been accustomed to visiting certain premises will be obliged to change their ways and go to other premises. Is it fair to interfere with the private lives of such people by forcing them away from one premises to another? This proposal of uniformity of hours was recommended on one occasion by a narrow majority of the Intoxicating Liquor Commission. That majority was secured because of some misunderstanding. It had the effect, in fact, of reversing a previous majority decision in favour of the differential which exists. Those traders who will be affected feel very badly about this proposal. They believe that the manner in which that narrow majority was secured should be fully and fairly investigated, especially in view of the earlier majority decision in favour of the differential.
These new hours will inevitably lead to abuses in relation to illicit drinking and to all the tragedies that follow from such drinking. It must be admitted that there is a high moral standard in regard to drinking in this country and that is due mainly to our well-managed and well-organised licensed premises. The same cannot be said with regard to private bottle parties, clubs and shebeens. It has been suggested that late evening drinking has caused road accidents. If one examines the statistics one will find that in the majority of accidents there was no question of any drink of any kind. In Northern Ireland there is an earlier closing hour than we have here. Out of a population of 1,000,000 there were 5,000 accidents in one year. In the same year, out of a population of close on 3,000,000 we had only 4,000 accidents. It is quite obvious that the advantage lies on the side of the Republic as compared with Northern Ireland. Again, the time at which most accidents occur is between 6 o'clock and 9 o'clock in the evening. That would not seem to bear out the argument that drink is an important single cause of accidents.
Some time ago a very significant statement was made by a prominent clergyman. He alleged that the Guards have been instructed not to enforce the licensing laws in certain areas; he said that if the Guards dare to enforce the laws they are threatened by the local T.D.s that they will have them transferred to some other area. There would seem to be some ground for these remarks.
Why does the Deputy say there seems be some?
Deputy Corry says there is.
It does not matter what Deputy Corry says. What has Deputy Rooney to say about it?
Deputy Corry said he threatened a man that he would have him transferred.
That is codology. What has Deputy Rooney to say about it?
I make the point that the existing laws are excellent if they are enforced and if the Gardaí charged with responsibility for enforcing them are permitted to carry out that work and are not interfered with in the course of their duties.
Is the Deputy alleging that they are being interfered with or have been interfered with in the course of their duties?
I am quoting from a statement reported in the newspapers. I believe it is an important statement and I believe that it was a statement supported by facts and fully justified.
What facts?
I think I should intervene at this stage to say that I have already denied in this House a statement made on similar lines by another Deputy. Of course, I had to restrict that denial to the period in which I have been in the Department of Justice. I think, however, that the fact that I made the statement, and made it very definitely, ought to reassure the House, and we should not have a Deputy now getting up and making the same allegation again tonight.
The Minister assures the House that no such instructions were given to the Garda authorities.
I will accept the Minister's statement, but I do not think he gave that denial since publicity was given to this matter within the last month or so.
He most certainly did.
I do not think so.
On that point, I shall be glad to deny a statement that was made here in relation to two men who are now dead, and I intend to do that later on.
The Deputy should not be throwing allegations around like this. He should come out in the open. If he has something to say, let him say it. I will not accept a statement, no matter how important the person who makes it, unless it is founded on fact.
I shall accept it until it is proved wrong.
That is unutterably stupid.
There are plenty of modern methods for testing people regarding the influence of drink without any pain or discomfort. Advantage should be taken of these methods.
The Deputy is getting away from the matter under discussion which is the hours of trading on licensed premises on weekdays. Driving tests and other tests are not relevant.
I have already mentioned that the licensed traders and their staffs are well satisfied with the existing hours. I would like to mention also that people were invited to give evidence before the Commission over the radio and through the newspapers. Despite all these encouragements to members of the public only six members of the general public volunteered to give evidence. That proves that the public in general are not dissatisfied with the existing licensing laws. For that reason I am urging the Minister, if he is not prepared to accept the amendments, to so amend the Bill himself that it will leave the existing closing hours as they are.
It has been stated in evidence by the Gardaí in relation to this matter that licensed premises in County Dublin are well conducted and are closed on time. The Gardaí should know because it is their responsibility to enforce the existing licensing laws. We have had a statement in evidence from Deputy Commissioner Quinn in which he indicated that not one fatal accident took place in the last three years which could be attributed to the existing closing hours.
Accidents and statements relating to them cannot be gone into in detail.
I was only associating these points with the question of closing. Efforts were made to create in the public mind the impression that late drinking was the cause of a large number of accidents. That argument has won sympathy from people who do not know the facts. I am putting up these facts to show that there is no proper basis for that argument and that whatever case can be made for earlier closing it cannot be made on the basis of road accidents.
I shall conclude on that point. I think that the proposals in the Bill are unreasonable, unjust and unfair to a number of reputable traders who will be put out of business if the hours proposed are adhered to and even if they are reduced below the time of 11.30 p.m. which I have mentioned in this amendment.
I do not intend to intervene at any great length in this matter but I think the Government would be wise if they made the closing hour 11 p.m. all round. They have done it for eight months of the year and if they made it 11 p.m. all the year round I think it would be very satisfactory.
My main reason for getting up is to repudiate a ghoulish attack which has been made on two dead men by a Deputy in this House. The statement was made that a Garda Sergeant was transferred from County Dublin for doing his duty. That is not a fact. The fact is that a complaint was made about the manner in which that barracks was run. The late Commissioner of the Garda fully investigated that complaint and told me himself that he had no option but to send that sergeant away from the station he was in. I do not know what evidence was given but the inquiry was an ordinary disciplinary inquiry held by the Commissioner and I was assured by that Commissioner, the late Mr. Kinnane, that he had no option but to send that sergeant to the country.
The Deputy who made that statement said that it was my late colleague, Deputy Fogarty, who was responsible for that. He was not. The Commissioner would never listen to any Deputy who was trying to shift a man for doing his duty. It has not happened in the time of the present Minister for Justice. I was Minister for Justice for 12 years and it did not happen in my time either. The same Deputy made the statement that the present Assistant Commissioner, Mr. Quinn, would prove what he said. He would do no such thing. He must be well aware of the facts and is probably better aware of them than I am. I got up to refute that ghoulish attack on two honourable men who are no longer alive.
Has this any relation to closing hours?
It is on a point of explanation.
As Deputy Boland was given permission to make an explanation I assume that other Deputies will also be allowed to make explanations.
This is the ghoul that attacked two dead men.
Everybody knows that Sergeant McDaid was transferred for doing his duty.
You are good for nothing.
You will be Parliamentary Secretary some day if you conduct yourself.
I will tell the truth and I will not come out in a mealy-mouthed fashion like Deputy Rooney did.
Deputy Palmer on the amendment.
We shall deal with him in our own time.
I found it necessary to put forward an amendment to insert in line 15 of the Bill, before the word "June", the word "May", and that that should apply to the rural areas as a whole. We are trying to extend the tourist trade. We have been trying to entice people to this country before the three months of June, July and August. The rules in regard to closing hours could be applied to the five months May, June, July, August and September. You could leave it at summer time, that is, the tourist season. That would serve not only tourists but the ordinary people in the county boroughs or rural areas, towns, villages, and so on. I am sure that the Minister will have no objection to that because it is a matter of only an extra month. It will suit everybody and I understand that it is agreeable to all who are interested in this Bill.
In regard to the closing hours, I speak only for myself. Nobody has brought any pressure to bear on me to agree with the closing hours provided in the Bill or to suggest any other hours. I consider that the closing hours as they were were quite suitable. From 10 a.m. until 10.30 p.m. should be quite long enough for anybody to get whatever drink he or she wants. Some of the statements made in the House would suggest that we are a nation of people who want long periods in which to drink. I do not think tourists come here to soak themselves in drink. They have quite sufficient facilities in their hotels or wherever they stay for drinking.
I shall not go into detail. I am expressing my own personal view. I have heard people discussing this matter. They were not publicans. I do not go out for a drink late at night unless, perhaps, I meet a friend. I prefer to treat people in my own house. Some people have a habit of drinking late at night and after closing hours. They should not be facilitated. I am very glad that under this Bill, once the public houses are closed, they will not be reopened until the proper time the following morning.
I agree also that the bona fide trade should come to an end. That may affect certain people in the suburbs of Dublin. They should have been able to foresee, when they set up in such a trade, that a time would come when the trade would cease. That is a problem they must deal with in their own way. From what I have heard of the bona fide houses in the vicinity of this city I have no doubt that they have made a good profit during their period of operation to compensate them for any ill effects they may suffer by this Bill.
I suggest that during the period of summer time, the five months I have named, the closing hour should be 11 p.m. I am opposed to 11.30 closing. In order to go half-way with the Minister, I would suggest 10.30 and 11. I think Deputy G. Boland made the same suggestion. The Minister said that he was open to suggestions if agreement could be reached. Personally, I believe that that is as far as we should go and I think that would be the view of publicans and various other people. My own personal view is that the hours should remain as they were. I recommend acceptance of my amendment, to include the five months of summer time.
The debate, which has been going on for a long time, merely proves the truth of the old Latin tag: quot homines, tot sententiæ. There are as many opinions about this Bill and even about the sections as there are people in the country but still we must come to some firm conclusion.
I would prefer Deputy Palmer's speech to Deputy Rooney's speech in which Deputy Rooney referred to a resolution passed by the Irish County Vintners Association during the course of which they recommended that the closing hour in the country should be 12 midnight. It must be said that these people represent a considerable body of opinion. I am not saying for the moment whether I agree with what they say or not. I am merely pointing out that they cannot be regarded as an unrepresentative body. There has been considerable representation also from the Pioneer Total Abstinence Association. If Deputy Palmer did not receive copies of resolutions from various branches of that Association, I cannot say the same thing. I received not less than eight of them from various branches of the Association in County Mayo.
What I said was that there was no pressure brought to bear on me. I read those, and that is all.
I replied to those letters and, arising from my replies, I was in correspondence with the Director-General of the Association. The case made by the Association is that the Bill provides for longer hours and increased drinking facilities.
It does not.
It has been said before but I feel it only right to say again that so far as my constituency and county are concerned, that is not the case. I should like to add that, in my opinion, based, first, on my own observation, secondly, on my discussions with publicans, thirdly, on discussions with wholesalers who supply them and, fourthly, on discussions with representatives of the ordinary public, that there is considerably less drinking being done to-day in the West of Ireland than at any time previously. There is less drunkenness and fewer cases of excessive drinking in the country, as a whole and in the part which I know well, than at any time before.
I do not believe that the new hours as laid down in the Bill, or whatever hours we eventually agree on will affect that downward trend in any way. It has always been my personal belief that, if opening and closing hours were abolished altogether and publicans were told they could open any time they thought they might be able to make a profit, there would be still less drunkenness and still fewer cases of excessive drinking than now. I believe a time will come when such a law will be passed for everybody's benefit.
The figures over the last few years might not appear to bear me out but it should be remembered that there has been a very big increase in tourism in this country since the war. It is clear from our revenue that the number of tourists is rapidly increasing. As a result, the amount of drink which is being consumed by tourists and which, of course, is included in the returns of the amount of drink consumed as a whole is covering up the fact that there is less drinking being done by the Irish themselves.
I do not think that the mere fact that we are now proposing to "extend" the hours in the evening means that we are giving twelve and a half hours instead of twelve hours for drinking. Is it suggested that people go into a publichouse at 10 in the morning and stay there until they are pitched out at 10.30 in the evening? What kind of nonsense is that? If you go to any publichouse in a small rural town at 11 in the morning or at 3 or 4 in the afternoon how many people will you see there? If there are people there are they not buying cigarettes or matches or something else? Certainly in the West of Ireland in the summer months from May until about the end of September they will drink after their day's work. Having cleaned up they do not arrive into town until 9.30, 10 or sometimes 10.30 in the evening, and it is whatever length of time between then and the closing hour we fix that they will have for enjoying a drink. I fully appreciate that these conditions do not apply in Dublin or in any other city or borough.
There is a bigger population in Dublin.
That is the reason why there is such great difficulty in trying to frame proposals that will suit Dublin and Cork and at the same time suit the western seaboard. It is virtually impossible, and if we accept that the principle of uniformity is a good one—and it has been accepted by all Parties though not by every member of the House and certainly not without reservation—we must reconcile ourselves to the fact that both the people in the country areas and the people of Dublin will have to do without some of the proposals they would like to have seen in their ideal liquor Bill. I do not believe there is any such thing and I do not believe that any hours we now decide upon will be satisfactory to everybody or to every association. All we can do is to attempt to strike a happy medium. Being a countryman, I should like to see the hour fixed at 11.30 p.m. all the year round which I consider a happy medium, certainly as far as the country areas are concerned. I am backed up in that by the representatives from the Twenty-Six Counties outside the boroughs and by the experience of everybody who knows anything about conditions in rural Ireland.
Another argument which may be legitimately used against those who regard long opening hours as an incentive to drunkenness is the experience of other countries who have very curtailed hours and who have what, to our way of thinking, would be regarded as unnatural laws as, for instance, Australia where in some States the closing hour is 6 p.m. My Australian friends will not, I hope object if I refer to what they themselves call the 5 o'clock swill, or object if I say that the Australians are well known to be hearty and able drinkers. They admit that themselves but I merely quote them as an example to show that legislative attempts to curtail the hours to an extent which does not meet with the wishes of the majority of the people are bound to fail. Therefore, if we are to succeed at all, we must try to fix hours which will meet with the approval of as many people as possible.
I also believe—I have to look away from the Chair at the moment—that some publichouses should not be allowed to open at all unless they conform to certain minimum requirements regarding sanitation, and so forth.
I am afraid the Chair cannot look away at the moment.
I appreciate that it is not strictly relevant. All I can say about it is that the opening hours I would have on weekdays for certain types of publichouses would be nil unless and until they achieve a certain standard of cleanliness and other things.
I said at the beginning that I did not wish to hold up the House on a debate that has already meandered and later that I did not wish to repeat a lot of what has already been said. In conclusion I think it ill becomes any Deputy to agree with a person who casts obloquy on Ministers or Members of the House, more particularly when there is no basis in fact for the statements made.
The matter is not relevant to the amendment before the House. Deputy Rooney mentioned it in passing and the Chair gave an opportunity to the former Minister for Justice, Deputy Gerald Boland, to comment on it. I hope the matter is closed because it does not arise on the amendment.
I was entitled to say what I said, Sir, and I object to Deputy S. Flanagan——
It had no relevance to the amendment. It has already been discussed and disposed of.
I should like to support Deputy Palmer's amendment which is to extend the late opening during the months of June, July and August for the period of Summer Time. In introducing the Bill the Minister differentiates between what we may describe as summer months and the rest of the year because it is provided in the Bill that public-houses shall remain open during these three months until 11.30 and until 11 o'clock during the rest of the year. I think the Minister should go a bit farther. We are endeavouring to extend the tourist season and I assume that the reason for differentiating between summer time and the rest of the year is because we have a number of tourists in the summer. For instance, the month of September is a month which attracts a considerable number of fishermen to this country——
Is September not already included?
No. June, July and August.
It is June, July, August and September.
I apologise. I think May is the month that is meant. Nobody knows better than the Minister and Deputy Flanagan that we attract many tourists for May-fly fishing and also in April we have a number of tourists here because, except on rare occasions we have the festive season of Easter in April, and very often it coincides with the period of Summer Time. If the Minister extends the 11.30 hour for the period to Summer Time he would facilitate visitors to the country.
On a point of order, might I ask the Chair to request Deputy O'Donnell to refer to Deputy Seán Flanagan lest there might be any confusion?
I am referring to the last speaker. The opposition to the late closing hours was that people had enough to drink from 10 in the morning until 10 at night but people do not go into public houses at 10 o'clock and stay until 10 at night. I am not referring to the city of Dublin because I know nothing about it; I am referring to rural Ireland. If Deputies on both sides of the House agree that Dublin should have earlier closing hours, well and good. In rural Ireland 11.30 is early enough and I am prepared to accept that hour.
We are inclined to forget that the major seaside resorts are on the southwest, west and north-west coasts, with the exception of Bray, Wicklow, Arklow and a few places like that. We must remember we are 25 minutes behind Greenwich mean time. In other words, we have at least a half-hour more daylight in the west. As Deputy Palmer pointed out, I think, visitors do not come here to drink. They come to fish, play golf, see the scenery, and go on hikes and they do not come back to their hotels until dusk. They are entitled to, and they want to have a drink then. I think 11.30 is very reasonable and I appeal to the Minister, so far as rural Ireland is concerned, not to give way on this matter. He should stick to 11.30 and I ask him to extend it for the period of Summer Time and I suggest that it should be no earlier than 11 o'clock for the winter. I cannot speak for the city and if city Deputies on all sides of the House suggest that public-houses should close a half-an-hour earlier than in rural Ireland, I would agree— it is a matter for them.
They can close when they like.
That could be an answer. That is why we have this Bill. All over the country they are closing when they like and it is only in order to get respect for the law that the Minister wisely introduced this measure. We secured no respect whatever for the licensing laws. Instead of extending hours, in my opinion this Bill is curtailing them. It will create some respect. I know that the decent publicans of the country are anxious to close at a reasonable hour and 11.30 is reasonable, in my opinion, whereas 10 or 10.30 is not. Publicans do not want to remain open until 12 or 1 a.m. We must think also of the unfortunate farm-labourer who during the Spring or the Summer is working every minute of daylight and he must have some refreshment——
Farm-labourers cannot afford to buy drink with the wages they are getting.
I was about to say they cannot afford it every night but they can afford it on certain nights when they go to the local public house. I think it was Deputy Corry who said it was their club. They go on certain nights for two, three or four pints— whatever they can afford—but they cannot go until daylight is gone. There are no trade union hours so far as farm labourers are concerned and God controls their hours of work.
That is not supposed to be the position.
That is the trouble; some officials think that they can fix hours which do not coincide with the hours nature prescribes for farm work but the farm labourer is the first to appreciate that if needs be, he must work until 11 o'clock if he is to suit his employer and if he can help his employer he will do that. He will stay until 11 o'clock because the majority of labourers are decent men who know when their employers are in "a jam" and want to help.
It is for these people I am appealing. Give them an opportunity to get some refreshment just as others do when finished work. In Dublin a professional man leaves his office at 5 o'clock, say, and goes in for three or four drinks before the evening meal. The unfortunate man in rural Ireland has no such opportunity until he gets home and gets washed and brushed. It is probably 10 or 10.30 by the time he gets to the public house and the amount he drinks is controlled by the amount of cash in his pocket. If he has only 10/- to spend it is immaterial when he spends it so long as he is permitted to get in, but I am afraid if he is forced to take away a naggin or so in his hip pocket and probably drink it on the road, it is there that the damage is done.
I strongly support the amendment to include the month of May for late closing hours. In doing that I think we would be doing a considerable amount of good for the tourist industry.
It seems to me that Deputy Palmer's amendment seeks to increase drinking hours. I begin to wonder if we have lost the ability to reason or to count when we get Deputy after Deputy solemnly telling us that the present proposals do not provide for longer drinking hours. I am afraid Deputies are making those remarks with their tongues in their cheeks. If the present legal drinking hours were properly enforced they would not make that type of remark. The statement that the proposals do not call for longer drinking hours must be viewed in the light of the state of affairs which has been admitted by every Deputy, including Deputy O'Donnell, to exist, namely, that the licensing laws have not been enforced or observed.
Deputy O'Donnell was good enough to state he does not have any particular knowledge of the position in Dublin city and that he was speaking for the rural areas. Deputy Séan Flanagan also dealt with this matter from the point of view of the rural citizen. For many years the situation has existed here in which we had different hours for the licensed trade in the city and county borough areas and the rural areas. To a great extent it is because of that fact that contempt of the law has been shown on all sides. That has been contributed to not only by those paid to enforce the law but by those who solemnly legislate in Leinster House. I do not think there is any case for allowing licensed premises in the country and in the small towns to remain open until a later hour than those in the cities. The case for opposing the proposed extension of the hours is as valid in the rural areas as in the cities because it is based on this simple proposition: are we to have no real regard for the interests of the community as a whole and are we to have no real regard for the position of those who attend to the alleged pleasures of the people who want to drink?
Deputy O'Donnell spoke about tourists. Thousands of tourists go no further than the east coast. They all do not go fishing. They all do not go to the West. Many come to Dublin and the east coast resorts only. Many of them are members of Irish families coming back here on holiday. I do not think anyone has ever established that the reason they come here is because they want a drink.
That is an incidental.
If it is accepted as incidental that they may take a drink when they get here, no great case can be made for altering the law of the land merely on the basis of some incidental happening, yet that appears to be what we are doing. Deputies from rural areas have been weeping salt tears about farm labourers. Deputy O'Donnell talked about a man's ability to drink being dependent on his ability to pay for the drink he consumed. He suggested that at the end of the week a farm labourer might have 10/- or thereabouts to spend on drink. Can any Deputy explain to me in simple language how a farm labourer with any family responsibilities could have 10/- for drink out of their present miserable wage of about £4 per week?
I am afraid the city Deputy does not understand rural life.
I am afraid the city Deputy does not understand rural life, but the city Deputy can count. The city Deputy can subtract 10/- from £4 and get £3 10.0. One wonders how far that would take any family to-day.
This amendment proposes to extend the hours to 11.30 p.m. or 12 midnight. Deputy Flanagan, I think, made some mention of the Pioneer Total Abstinence Association. I am not a member of that Association, but I do not happen to drink. Many Deputies here, both those who do not drink as well as those who do, appreciate the part this Association has played in bringing about less drinking amongst the youth of Ireland. Its example and influence has been felt throughout the length and breadth of the country, both in the cities and small towns as well as in the rural areas. An increasing number of Irish boys and girls are either members of that Association or are following its example and advice by refraining from undue indulgence in liquor.
I do not know if the Deputies in the House will agree with me that that is a good thing. I think it is and, as long as I think it is good, and if Deputies agree with me that this development over the years is a welcome one for the benefit of the Irish nation, I believe we in this House should not lightly do anything which would undo that good work which has been going on, quietly and persistently, over the years.
Deputy Seán Flanagan tells us that there is less drinking in the West of Ireland. Of course, there is less drinking in the West of Ireland because there are less people there now.
Hear, hear! That is the idea.
Aside from the other effects stemming from those who support the Pioneer Association and other bodies, there is the physical fact that the West of Ireland has been losing its population year by year, and obviously there should be less drinking except, of course, from the point of view of drinking indulged in by tourists. People who come to visit this country treasure more than anything else the spirit of hospitality, the spirit of friendliness, that they meet with in our cities and towns. I do not mean by hospitality the connotation usually applied to that word. One can be very hospitable to a guest without offering him liquor.
The Deputy seems to be getting away from the amendment which deals with closing hours on weekdays.
I am dealing with the position of tourists who may be here during weekdays. The point was made that tourists were an inducement, a basis, and a good sound reason why the amendment should be approved by the House but, on that point, I want to say that I do not believe extending drinking hours will attract any substantial number of tourists. Even if there were a case made for treating tourists as a special case I still feel it would not be of any great advantage to the country to extend the hours of drinking in order to attract a greater number of them.
The effect of the proposal to increase the opening hours on weekdays to a large extent would dislocate ordinary family life in the City of Dublin, in Cork, and in my opinion, throughout the country. I would suggest to Deputies participating in this debate that there is someone other than the drinker, someone other than the person who sells drinks, who must be considered. At an earlier stage reference was made to the burden and hardship caused to those engaged in supplying drink, and when I refer to that aspect of the matter I am not only thinking of the people employed in licensed establishments. Their problem, of course, would be serious enough because an extension of the present hours, on the lines suggested in the amendment, would mean that the workers concerned would not be able to leave their places of employment for at least anything from half an hour to an hour after the hour mentioned in the amendment. In places where they are served by public transport that service would have ended before they were able to leave their work and they would have to use other means of getting home to their families.
I would also like to say a word about the family publican, the person running a business on his own, and the effects of longer opening hours on his family. Surely he is entitled to have some rest and recreation as well as everybody else? Surely people like him must not be condemned to remain at the beck and call of their customers to a very late hour at night? The suggestion has been made that it would be a good thing if the public houses remained open all the time, but I wonder would Deputies think it very nice if a decision were made that this House would sit day and night? I think we would be very much annoyed about it, and to suggest that there should be no hours and that the matter would then resolve itself does not make sense. Surely we have passed the stage that, just because somebody wishes to enjoy himself, other people must be very seriously inconvenienced? If there were no hours surely the ordinary living habits and family domestic arrangements of many people engaged in the trade would be upset?
Deputy O'Donnell told us about the farm labourer having to work until a late hour at night. As far as I can see, as an ordinary city Deputy, year by year changes are taking place in the agricultural industry. Year by year there has been a slow increase in the use of mechanised implements used in agriculture and, year by year farm labourers, and even the farmers themselves, are gradually reaching the point where their continuance in the old traditional way of dealing with agricultural problems will no longer permit the industry itself to function. Even on many of the richer farms today the farm labourer, to a certain extent, can be classed as a semi-skilled worker operating various types of mechanical and electrical appliances, and even to a person who only occasionally visits rural areas it is apparent that the incidence of farm labourers, not only being required, but having employment available to them in the evenings throughout the year, is very slight indeed.
Even in the harvest when in many cases the work is done by contract and the farm labourers may not be involved, it is only during this short period of the year that these farmers are affected. The only thing that emerges from this proposal is a suggestion that drinking hours should be longer. I agree with Deputy Seán Flanagan that the people do not necessarily drink during all the hours that publichouses are open, that the average citizen does not go in at 10 o'clock in the morning and stay until 10 o'clock at night. Possibly Deputies here will agree with me that in the city of Dublin the bulk of the tourists who come here may have a drink in the morning but most of them try to go to the seaside and if they have a drink or two in the evening they are quite satisfied.
The proposal to have longer drinking hours on weekdays does entail drinking at a later hour and because it has been suggested that this hour of 11, 11.30, or even 12 o'clock, does entail that, the proposal will in my estimation cause serious hardship on those concerned with the supplying of liquor to the public, and to their families. It will also affect the position of the ordinary citizen who takes a drink. I have adverted before to the fact that the existing hours as they apply and are applied in the city of Dublin do have the merit that the drinker in winter time knows that the public house closes at 10 o'clock and knows that in summer time it closes at 10.30 and when the proprietor or the assistant says it is time to go, in the majority of the cases people are happy to finish their drinks and wend their way home.
Does the Deputy not agree that 10 o'clock in the summertime is only 8-30 by the sun?
The only thing I would agree with is that I have not seen any evidence or demand for the extension of the hours. I should like to conclude by saying that we agree entirely that the people engaged in the business for the purpose of making a livelihood have a case to make. They have made representations but, having listened to their representations, we have the responsibility to express our view as to whether or not it is a good thing to extend the present hours on weekdays. In expressing that point of view, regard should be had by everyone concerned to the various aspects of the matters I have mentioned: (a) whether there has been any concerted or strong demand for an extension of the hours on weekdays, (b) whether or not it is correct that such an extension would cause hardship to those employed in the trade or to the family publican and (c) whether the extension of the hours will have an adverse affect on the ordinary family life of citizens both in the city and the rural areas.
Most people in this country are fairly reasonable and amenable to suggestions and advice, but should the hours of drinking be extended as suggested, there would be in my opinion an immediate demand that additional hours should be worked by other categories of workers. In the city areas particularly there would be an immediate demand on those engaged in public transport, upon many of those employed in picture houses and an immediate demand on those at present employed in restaurants where no liquor is sold and who normally can close their doors around 10.30 at night having satisfied their last customer—a demand that these places should remain open longer. If we are to introduce a system in which the public houses in both city and rural areas are to open until 11 or 11.30, I feel that there will be an immediate demand that other services should also be extended so we are dealing not only with the question of those directly concerned in this Bill; we are dealing with a very large section of the community and it seems to me that, in the absence of incontrovertible proof that there is any necessity or demand for these extended hours, this House should refuse to grant them.
I want to just make one final point. A suggestion was made by Deputy Seán Flanagan that if there were no restrictions on hours there would be less drinking; in other words, that if a publican were entitled to have his lounge bar, his private bar or snug open day and night there would be less drinking. I submit to the House that the position of a person engaged in the supply of liquor whether as a publican, an assistant or an hotel proprietor, is very different from the position of those engaged in many other sections of the distributive trade. In the case of other trades, if a shopkeeper wants to close his shop, at least he could in any case close that shop. If he was a shopkeeper, who had dealt with his customers in a courteous and polite way the people would probably arrange to come earlier or on the following day.
Can you, on the other hand, imagine the situation where at 11, 11.30 or 12 o'clock at night a public house is full, there is no legal obligation on the publican to close, and he says to the customers, some of whom maybe would have a deal more than was good for them: "Look boys, I am fed up. I am going to close down and go out"? I wonder what would the result be? I think he would be a very brave publican, because he would not even have the protection of saying: "I have to close; I am compelled by law to close." He would have to deal with these people on the basis that he wanted to close. If that situation is repeated ad infinitum in the city and rural areas I am afraid we will have no police force large enough to deal with the position.
This proposal of overall longer hours is merely a face saver. The bona fide traffic had to be dealt with. Instead of facing the issue on that basis, the Minister has provided for an extension of drinking hours on week-days. Though most people have been guilty of flouting the law so far as drinking is concerned, the general public would have much more respect for this Parliament if we decided, at the instance of the Minister, to put an end to the bona fide traffic, and leave it at that.
Listening to this debate one would think that the Coalition Government had not found it necessary to set up a Commission to regulate the sale of intoxicating liquor and bring about some uniformity in the trade. One would think equally that the present Government, having received the report of that Commission, which sat for nearly a year, had taken no cognisance of the recommendations made, recommendations based on the evidence given by interested parties. That Commission was a responsible and representative Commission. Certain recommendations were made, and those recommendations are the concern of both sides of this House; and, as a result of those recommendations, the Government have submitted a measure for the consideration of this House.
It can be generally accepted that outside of the city of Dublin the proposals suggested here are generally acceptable, with perhaps minor amendments. Dublin is the cause of all the contention. Our other cities are such that one hour's travel brings one out into the rural areas. There is no difference whatever between the city centre and the county area and no good reason can, therefore, be advanced for a differential as between the two. Dublin, however, is a big city with a large population. If Dublin wants a differential as between city and county, why not give it to them, but only to an extent to which it will not clash with the interests of the country as a whole? At present there is a differential. At present licensed houses do not open in Dublin until 1.30 p.m. on Sunday. In the country licensed premises open at 1 p.m. There is a differential at the moment. Why not continue the differential? If Dublin wants to be individualistic why not deal with affairs in Dublin in accordance with the wishes of Dublin representatives?
Deputy Larkin talked about the country areas and the advent of machinery. Has he ever gone out and seen that machinery working into the late hours of the night to save the harvest? Hours in country districts are exceptional so far as work is concerned. Whether or not the farmer has machinery, the work has to be done; the crops have to be sown and saved. The licensed trade in the country is mainly a family business. The family works to accommodate their customers and not so that the customers will have longer hours for drinking, or anything like that. The argument that the hours are exceptional does not hold because people can now drink until 12 o'clock at night if they travel 3 miles from their domiciles under the bona fide licensed trade.
People are entitled to be members of temperance organisations or any societies they like. These bodies are admirable in their own way. One of the attractions which this country has to offer to tourists and others is not just the hospitality and friendliness of the people and their way of life; one of the greatest attractions is the freedom which exists in this part of the country. Laws should be devised in accordance with the requirements of the people, and their wishes.
The proposal is to make the hour 11.30 p.m. for four months of the year and the suggestion is that that should be extended to the summer months. Now 11.30 p.m. is really only 10 o'clock by the sun. There is full daylight. Why not let the people work or relax during those daylight hours and afterwards meet together for the purpose of exchanging views, discussing fairs, prices, and the hundred and one other things in which they are interested? The more freedom people have the less cause there will be for complaint. People naturally obey laws if the laws are reasonable. If we accept the provisions in the Bill, giving Dublin a differential, if Dublin wants a differential, and giving uniformity over the rest of the country, we will, I think, be doing what the people want.
The Minister emphasised two underlying principles when he introduced this Bill: (1) the abolition of the bona fide trade; and (2) uniformity in closing hours. I understood those principles were accepted unanimously. Tonight, there appears to be a tendency to drift away from those principles and to introduce extraneous matters. We are all anxious about the tourist industry. No tourist comes in here merely for the purpose of drinking. All tourists are anxious to fall in with our customs just as our people are anxious not to offend when they go abroad. Extending the hours during which people can drink will not entice tourists in here.
The word "drunkenness" has been used here. I have never liked that word. I would resent anybody accusing our people of having a tendency towards "drunkenness". I am very jealous of our good name. We should be very careful that that word is not bandied about unduly.
The fact that this Bill is here shows the necessity for controls in this country and our aims should be to see that these controls would be as effective as possible and at the same time that they would be the least irksome. A good deal has been said about disrespect for the law. It has been said that that disrespect has arisen out of the bona fide trade, out of the fact that a person can go three miles out into the country and drink all he wants while the person living next door to a public house dare not go in to it. That fact has made it impossible for Gardaí to enforce the law and it has made the people look on the law as a farce.
I am entirely with the Minister when he says that the bona fide traffic should be abolished. That traffic has given rise to abuses and these abuses are growing and will continue to grow with the advent of the motor car. What is wrong with having uniformity of closing hours? We should remember that in the Six Counties the closing hours on weekdays is 9 o'clock and there is no opening on Sundays. We talk about closer integration between the Six Counties and ourselves and I think we should be prepared to make some sacrifice here in order to conform to conditions there.
I am not advocating that we should close at 9 o'clock, but I say that the hour of 10.30 p.m. is late enough and that it should be the closing hour for the whole year round. There is not a licensed trader in rural Ireland today who would not gladly forego the extension which he is allowed on week-days to open on Sundays. Opening for a limited time, from 12.30 p.m. to 2 o'clock, and for a short time in the evening, would do away with a great many abuses. Drink becomes a habit, and if the people are to be curtailed in their drinking hours now, they will soon conform to the habit of earlier hours and will become accustomed to them.
The Minister at first said that he was not accepting these amendments and then he said that he had a certain sympathy with Deputy Russell's amendment. Later he said that he would not agree to any of the amendments. I have listened to the whole debate and I must say, with all due respect to the Minister, that a much more forceful case has been made for the amendments than was made for the Bill itself. The Minister said that all the old arguments had been trotted out and that nothing new had been said. The old arguments were trotted out because they are irrefutable, because they still have force and because there is no argument against them. They still hold good. The Minister's defence is that the Bill embodies the recommendations of the Liquor Commission, but we must remember that the Commission itself had divided views and that two members of the Commission signed the majority report against their own better judgment in the interests of compromise.
It is natural that there should be diverse views in this House. I appreciate the fact that our Leader told us that we were free to debate the Bill and to vote on it as we wished in accordance with our views and experience. That was an admirable permission to be given to us; it is a pity that it was not given all around so that we could get a true assessment of the views of this House and of the conviction of members with regard to the closing hours.
Deputy Burke said that I was a Puritan in this matter. It is nonsense to talk of Puritanism in regard to a trade that can carry on from 10.30 in the morning to 10.30 at night. I do not know what Deputy Burke meant because I have no personal interest in this matter at all. Mention has been made here of pressure groups and we all got letters from different organisations but nobody approached me about this Bill. I did get two letters from local Pioneer Associations after I had spoken on the Second Stage of the Bill but they did not affect me in any way.
If there are pressure groups operating here and if Deputies are being approached, I think it wrong that that should happen. The day that this House gives way to pressure groups is the day that democracy will fail in this Parliament. We should approach this matter according to our own convictions and our own experience in the matter. Life is changing very much in this country and certain conditions exist today that did not exist years ago. It is our youth about whom we are most anxious, particularly those who may have to go abroad. If they go abroad, having developed drinking habits here, it can be a disaster for them and a stain on the fair name of our country.
Deputy Corish mentioned the tendency there is for all our activities to drag on late into the night and I agree wholeheartedly on that. That fact is obvious having regard to the hours at which this House sits. I often wonder why it is that this House does not sit at 10.30 a.m. and work on for reasonable hours. At that time men's minds would be much fresher. There is the tendency that all our social activities drag on later and later into the night. If we are to have later opening hours, we shall find our social engagements going on longer and later to the detriment of our people. Anybody who has to sit up for late hours knows that his efficiency is impaired the following morning. We all know that from personal experience.
In Great Britain all dances are over at 12 o'clock and I cannot see why our people could not develop the habit of holding their dances earlier and finishing them at a reasonable hour. That would be all for the good of our social life and for the good of our young people. If you are to have extended hours, you will have to consider the young people going to dances at night. They will go into licenced premises and what condition they will be in when they reach the dance hall I hate to think. I dread what would happen.
Nobody has anything to fear from this Bill. I have asked people in Cork and its environs who take a few drinks each night and they all tell me that the hours are far too long and that 10.30 p.m. should be the latest hour for closing on weekdays throughout the year. I was very edified on hearing that. Even those who drink late at night maintain that the hours are too long, that if the temptation did not exist they would not drink late into the night and spend their substance which is needed in the home.
I suppose there will be a Traffic Control Bill introduced in the near future. There will probably be references to drink on the occasion of that Bill. To my knowledge and to the knowledge of Deputies from the south of Ireland, there were three cases of manslaughter in the courts there recently and in all three cases there was very glaring evidence that drink was involved.
It must be remembered that conditions here changed considerably in the last 30 years. What obtained 30 years ago would not do at all now because of the increased travelling facilities. Therefore, there should be insistence on respect for the licensing laws and the controls should be as effective as possible. That may cause a little annoyance for a short time but the amendments, if accepted, will prove very useful and effective and will redound to the credit of our people and our country.
I do not believe that so many groups have ever been concerned about any Bill as are concerned about this Bill. There have been Bills of vital national importance in connection with which I tried to get the views of my constituents and interested persons. I had to go out and look for them and in many cases the persons concerned did not know that legislation was going through the House. This Bill is being treated as of great national importance. I do not accept that view but I do accept the view that the licensing laws require amendment. At the outset, my view was that it was not the duty of the State to lay down the hours, that that was a matter to be worked out between the employers and trade unions. If that were the case in Dublin and there were no restrictions as to hours the trade unions would lay down proper conditions for the workers and very few publicans would find it profitable to remain open after 11 p.m.
There is also the problem of shift workers. There is a world tendency towards shift work and working around the clock. With the advent of free trade in Europe, shift work may become an essential feature of life in this country.
Take the case of a bus driver who leaves his bus in Donnybrook after his last journey and feels like a drink. The State says he cannot have one because his bus is not garaged before 11 p.m., that if he wants a drink he must take it before he garages his bus or take one home with him. If people drank for the sake of drinking, drinking should be abolished, but the majority of people drink for the sake of the social intercourse that goes with it.
I thought at first that the next best thing was uniformity. As I see it, the rural areas were anxious to remain open until 12 as they are doing now and the workers in the city public houses were saying that 10.30 p.m. would do. A compromise was reached on 11.30, as recommended by the Commission.
For the summer months.
Yes, for the four months of summer, and 11 o'clock in winter. I believe that a half-hour differential would not bring about the abuses that have been mentioned with regard to the bona fide system. The city has grown beyond the bona fide areas. Some people who transferred from the city come back to their old public house in the city where they meet their friends. The fact that there is only a half-hour differential may lead them to take their drinks locally, which would be a good thing. They could go out half an hour later, which might suit them better. They could go to the local picture house and they could have a drink locally, and so on. If there were a half-hour differential I cannot see people in some of the public houses in the streets off O'Connell Street getting into their cars and charging out to Templeogue, Goatstown or Coolock for the sake of ten minutes extra drinking time. That would be absolutely ridiculous.
Some people engaged in the bona fide trade have told me that the big rush is not when the city houses close; that Saturday night is their big night; that people start coming out about 9 o'clock; that there is no mad rush out such has has been described here. People just say, “Saturday is our night out. We will go out to Goatstown or somewhere like that and have a few drinks and come home at 11, 11.30 or maybe 12”. Most of the bona fide houses around Dublin have been extremely well done up and have excellent amenities. Some of them serve very fine meals. Even if there were uniformity, many of these houses would still get a lot of trade because they are very attractive places. At the same time, a compromise which would satisfy the workers in Dublin, the publicans and the rural people, of 11 in the city all the year around and 11.30 in the country all the year round, would be acceptable to everybody.
I realise that the State is responsible for the welfare of the people. My first view was that I did not think that this was a matter for the State to regulate. I was very much in a minority in holding that view. There was a long series of letters in the papers pointing out that there was more alchoholism on the Continent, where there is unrestricted opening. My answer to that is that you may have more alcoholism where the children drink wine instead of milk but it is very seldom that one finds a drunken man and, if one does meet one, you may bet your life he is a tourist.
Some of them would fall down if they were sober.
Possibly. My own view is that a man may drink a couple of pints of stout but as soon as the barman says, five minutes before closing, that the next should be the last one, the man says that he could never rush a pint, that he will have a small whiskey and he will have two or three or as many as are in the round. If people do get drunk in public houses it is invariably in the last ten minutes. That is why I thought that if a man could go into a public house and drink all night the factor that would decide his hours would be the money in his pocket. That is not to be the case.
I take it that Sunday hours are not being discussed now but only the weekday hours. I had a letter from the Reverend S.J. Dargan of the Pioneer Total Abstinence Association of the Sacred Heart, dated March, 1960. I had a letter on 2nd February, in which he made a mistake. He sent me a corrected letter. If it were the first letter I would say he would agree with the extended hours. However, in the third paragraph of his corrected letter he points out that their representative on the Commission used all the influence he could, and he goes on to say:
However, most of the main principles which we advocated were adopted in the Majority Report, and while our representative never wanted the prolonged hours advocated by other commissioners and pressed to have the hours shortened, he signed the report, taking into account the fact that unless he did so, there was danger that another and a less desirable report would be adopted as the Majority Report.
In other words, I believe that the Pioneer Total Abstinence Association has achieved everything it sought at the outset. The closing hour is a little bit later than they had in mind but their views are incorporated in the majority report to a greater extent than are the views of other people represented on the Commission. At the same time it is quite obvious from the paragraph I have read that the main concern of the Pioneer Total Abstinence Association was to abolish the bona fide system as we know it to-day. I have not had the opportunity of finding out what their views are regarding the half-hour differential. I think Deputy P.J. Burke suggested it earlier on in the debate. Having thought about it I believe it would be a very good thing. The amendment in the name of Deputy Rooney refers to rural areas. It does not specify half an hour differential but that is the line along which I am thinking at the moment.
It is probable that figures relating to accidents have already been given. The Deputy who spoke previously referred to the closing hour in Northern Ireland as being 9 p.m.; I believe that sometimes it is 10 p.m. In Northern Ireland there were 5,000 people killed or injured on the roads last year. While the closing hours in the Republic are 11 p.m. in the city and 12 midnight outside the city, there were 4,500 people killed or injured, notwithstanding the fact that we have a much greater population. That, of course, defeats the argument that the bona fide traffic is causing a road hazard. In the Republic in the last ten years ending December 31st last, 2,653 persons were killed in road accidents and in the last year alone in Britain 6,520 persons were killed in road accidents. The position in London is that you can drink legally for 24 hours in the day, depending on where you are.
That brings us back to the question of shift workers and other people in particular occupations. Some consideration should be given to people in areas such as Ringsend where there are bakeries and several factories where employees work in shifts. There is also the bus depot, and so on. Some facilities should be afforded to such people leaving off work to assemble and chat about their day's work and have a drink before they go home probably to their breakfast and then bed. The State says they may not have these facilities which are enjoyed by people working in ordinary jobs. The shift worker and the man who works at night is probably doing more in the national interest than the man in the 8 to 6 job. It is certainly a strain on his family and an upset to his household affairs, and it is a great pity something cannot be done to provide facilities in this regard.
I was looking over the history of the licensing laws of this country. The 1836 Intoxicating Liquor Bill provided that public houses must close at 9 p.m. on Sunday until 9 a.m. on Monday. That was amended in 1860 to read "from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m." The 1872 Act laid down that public houses must close on Sundays, Good Friday, Christmas Day before 12.30 p.m. and between 2.30 and 6 p.m. and at 10 p.m. and on all other days before 6 p.m. and after 11 p.m. There was a small variation in hours and a judge had certain discretionary powers in regard to licensing and could permit some houses to remain open until 12 midnight if a good case was shown for that, provided such houses opened one hour later than their competitors.
Here again we see that the difference between the rural community and the city community was prevalent 100 years ago, and this difference, to my mind, still exists. I believe the half-hour differential would meet the majority view.
A great number of views have been expressed on this Bill. I did not refer to holiday resorts at all. I myself like to go to a North County Dublin seaside resort. Having a wife and children, I like to go there in July because it is bright in the evenings up to 9 or 10 o'clock. It is difficult to get the children to bed before that time and by the time my wife is ready to accompany me to the "local" to have a drink it is usually 11 p.m. It is now provided that even in these holiday resorts you must be out of the public house by 11.30. It was 12 o'clock heretofore. A great many Dublin people go to Portmarnock, Malahide, Skerries, Rush and other places for their holidays. It is their only luxury, the one thing to which they look forward from year to year.
They are faced with the same situation—by the time they can get out to have a drink it is 11 or 10.30. I would like the Minister to consider these matters before the Report Stage. I agree with the view that we must try to do away with the bona fide trade as it exists at present but at the same time I do not believe the small differential would renew any of the abuses of the past and therefore I would earnestly ask the Minister to consider the question before the Report Stage and perhaps an amendment could be agreed upon.
I have already expressed my opposition to the extended hours provided for in the Bill on the Second Stage. I see no point in repeating Second Stage speeches as I am afraid so many Deputies appear to be doing. One can repeat the arguments against the proposals under discussion ad nauseam. I am intervening now to inquire if the Minister has caused any inquiries to be made as to the possible effect of these extended hours on the cost of living, in particular on the prices of beer and spirits. Organised workers in the licensed trade in Dublin—and they are very highly organised—have made it very clear that they are not prepared to operate the extended hours without increased pay. Indeed it is expected that it will be necessary for the ordinary medium or large-sized public house to employ extra staff to operate these hours.
The point of stout, which is the stable or national drink, at present costs 1/6d. which is quite a high price. I anticipate that as a result of these proposals the price of the pint of stout will very probably be raised within a year or a year and a half to 1/8d. or 1/9d. I think there is no doubt that the price of a bottle of stout in the Dublin area will be raised to 1/- or 1/1d. This is a very serious aspect of the matter which the Minister should consider very carefully.
There is absolutely no demand from the Dublin public for opening hours in the summer until 11.30 at night. I was very pleased to hear the last speaker, Deputy Lemass, and Deputy MacCarthy who spoke previously, suggest that Dublin is entitled to the half-hour differential and that the Minister can, in fact, give effect to his intention of doing away with the bona fide trade by keeping the public houses in Dublin open until 11 p.m. and leaving the 11.30 p.m. closing hour in the rest of the country. I would urge him to do that if he can see his way to do so.
I think the Bill falls down on the imposition of uniform hours on Dublin City and the country. By no stretch of imagination can one draw any parallel between conditions and requirements in Dublin City and in isolated rural areas like West Cork, Kerry and the West of Ireland, where a very fair case can be made for extended hours.
Mention has been made to-night of tourists. Many, including myself, have already expressed our views on that point. I fail to see why we should be expected to prostitute ourselves for the benefit of the tourist. The tourists who would come to us for drink could scarcely be very many and we would be better off without them. Before the Bill leaves the House I trust that the Minister will see his way to drop the proposal providing for the 11.30 p.m. closing in Dublin in the summer.
We must bear in mind why we must now spend time on this legislation. It is because of the pressure groups in Dublin who influenced previous legislation. It is because of the differentials that were allowed then in favour of Dublin and other cities that we have the flagrant disregard for the licensing laws throughout the country. I have heard a lot of "tripe" from Dublin Deputies. We were told about shifts, that the unfortunate men have to work after hours and late at night and that the buses will not wait for them, but there are about 100 public houses just outside the limit open every night until 12 o'clock. They have workers employed and I never heard an argument from anyone about how those workers get home, but we have complaints from the pressure groups in the cities.
I am amazed at Deputy Manley's attitude on early hours. Surely the Deputy remembers the words of the national poet:
The best of all ways to lengthen our days
Is to steal a few hours from the night, my dear.
If we are to have laws respected in this country we must remember that there has been no law so far as the licensed trade is concerned for the past 20 years. The legislation passed here was so rotten that nobody would or could respect it. The results of that were given here by Deputy General MacEoin when he was Minister for Justice, when he told us what the position was in rural Ireland in regard to enforcement of the law. We had that position then and we have it still; the law is completely ignored. I have examined this matter as closely as I could. There is a law in the country governing Summer Time; are we now to have a differential in that? The law in regard to Summer Time treats as Summer Time the period from April to October. Why not fix our legislation for the same period instead of two or three or four months, introducing another differential? If we are to have Summer Time let us have it in accordance with the recognised Summer Time and not have a summer time brought in for this particular piece of legislation.
That is how I look at the amendment framed by Deputy Palmer. I think it is a very wise one. We spent a lot of time going into this matter in the Intoxicating Liquor Commission and we were as reasonable as we could be. The main object was to secure uniformity of hours. If this House had any sense it could have solved practically this whole problem 12 years ago. As Deputy Manley said, all that was looked for at that time was the couple of hours enjoyed by the "buckshee"bona fide fellow travelling out the three miles. That is what this House refused 12 years ago.
Deputy Larkin talked about the difficulty in regard to the employees in the trade. This House got an opportunity of closing the doors of these licensed premises from Saturday night to Monday morning on the occasion of the second Bill I brought in here, but they trotted around the Lobby and voted against that too. They wanted to keep on the differential of the city man being open while the country boy was compelled to close. That was one of the biggest insults ever offered to the rural community. It would be a good job if somebody took Deputy Larkin down the country and let him see the hours which the rural community have to work. I guarantee that if he went down tonight, despite all the mechanisation he would still find plenty of fields in which there are tractors with their lamps lighting endeavouring to make up for the period of the wet weather. Those people have their rights as well as the Dublin people. I have yet to learn that the Republic is confined to Dublin city alone, but that is what is looks like here. The rural community have put up with this injustice for too long. To the credit of the Garda, when they saw the injustice being perpetrated on the rural community, they would not fall in with it.
I do not know what to say about the suggestion in regard to differentiation. The definite purpose for which the Commission was set up was to get uniformity of hours, and I think we should adhere to uniformity of hours now. We have too much of this slipping in something for Dublin. Honestly speaking, I do not think even the Dublin people want it. If there is any objection in Dublin City to opening after 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock, there is nothing to stop their organisations coming together and agreeing between themselves that they will close at 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock. Let them do that but do not let them enforce their hours on the rest of the country. We have no intention of putting up with it. We have put up with it long enough. It took 12 years to convert this Dáil to what is ordinary common sense. I do not think a position exists now in which any pressure groups can exercise pressure on the rural representatives in this House to have the whole situation changed once more and the differential again introduced in regard to hours.
I should like to support what Deputy Lemass said in regard to shifts. This particularly concerns us in Cobh. Some allowance should be made where men have to go to work at 8 o'clock at night and do not come out until early in the morning. Such men, particularly those engaged in laborious work, men handling pig iron and standing over furnaces from 8 o'clock until 3 in the morning, should have some opportunity of taking a drink without breaking the law. Some regulation should be made in their own areas under which that could be given to them. I can see that the pressure groups are working as hard as ever. I note that though they succeeded with their pressure 12 years ago, they were significantly silent when there was a proposal to close the Dublin city public houses on Sundays.
The great pity about this Bill is that the entire House has not approached it in the same spirit as the Fine Gael Party. Our Party are leaving it to the judgment, intelligence and commonsense of its members because they realise that a matter of this kind is one on which it is hardly possible to get all round agreement. On the question of the hours of closing on weekdays of licensed premises, I have yet to hear from the Minister for Justice, from any Deputy or from any interest outside the House any reasonable grounds for an extension of drinking hours. I want to oppose bitterly, strenuously and determinedly anything in this section which will give an extension of drinking hours either in the city or the country.
I am glad to see the bona fide trade is about to end. I have no sympathy whatever to offer to those interests who are asking members of this House to make the case that they have expended large sums in modernising their premises and making them attractive so that people may be able to drink in them until a late hour. Those people have already made sufficiently large sums of money out of the sins of unfortunate people without deserving any consideration from Deputies. Who goes in to drink in the bona fide houses? Is it the labouring men of the city or the country? Is it the working class people? It is the well-to-do people in their high-powered cars, displaying their jewellery and fur coats and probably drinking with other men's wives and vice versa. The welfare of the entire community, and particularly that of the younger people, should be our primary concern and not that of any vested interest.
I would like to ask whether any Member of the House can give a genuine reason as to why there should be longer drinking hours, or why the present hours should be extended by one second, much less an hour or an hour and a half. The Minister for Justice tells the House, and indeed many Deputies, like the last speaker, brazenly admitted that a law passed by Dáil Éireann cannot be enforced in the country by the Garda Síochána. There has been an admission from Deputy Corry a few moments ago that the Garda know that the laws are wrong and for that reason they are not going to enforce them. I would like to hear from the Minister for Justice if that is the position and whether the Garda can take it upon themselves to determine whether laws should or should not be carried out in any particular area, and whether it is to be left to their own discretion to put the laws into effect given to them by this House to administer.
It is not true to say that the Garda are closing their eyes to the breaking of laws by licensed premises. In my own constituency in the village of Shinrone there is a particular Garda officer watching his wristlet watch to see if he can catch a public house open five minutes past closing time, and reports of proceedings in the local district court can verify that. I agree, however, that in other districts probably the Garda may have no reason to be quite so alert as they have in certain areas but, before going any further, I would like to ask the Minister for Justice to deal with this matter of the enforcement of the laws by the Garda. To give the excuse that the licensing laws cannot be carried out effectively is all trash because, if we were to accept that as a fact, there are other laws just as unpopular which could not be enforced.
The income tax laws are being carried out and enforced and they are no more popular than the licensing laws. The dog licensing law is enforced, though probably it too is not received with acclamation. The School Attendance Act may not be popular with some sections of the community but nevertheless the law in that respect must be enforced. People may not be clamouring to pay wireless licence fees but, nevertheless, the law says they must be paid and they are paid but here we have a particular law covering licensed premises, in which it has been admitted by the responsible Minister that in present circumstances it is not possible for the Garda to enforce it. That is a horrid and disgraceful admission and it is a sign of weakness in any State for any admission of that kind to be made.
There was a lot of talk about tourists and to some Deputies they seem to be the main concern in pleading for longer drinking hours. The tourist industry is probably our best and most important after agriculture, but I do not know the tourist who comes into the country for the purpose of spending late nights and early mornings in public houses. Tourists come here from Northern Ireland where the public houses close at 9 o'clock, sometimes 10 o'clock, and where there is no opening at all on Sundays. That is the law of the Orangemen's Government and the Unionists' Government. Tourists come from England where the licensed premises are closed much earlier than here. Tourists also come from the United States where one-fifth of the States, by option, are dry.
During the great Olympic Games in Australia when sportsmen from all over the world arrived in Melbourne there was no such thing as an extension of the drinking hours. There public houses close at 6 o'clock sharp and they were not concerned to provide an extension of the hours during the Olympic Games. Indeed, in the greater part of Australia licensed premises are closed at 6 p.m. Australia closes them at 6 p.m., Northern Ireland at 9 p.m., Great Britain from 9 to 10 p.m., but that will not do the Irish. We want 11 p.m. or 11.30 closing and I would like to know from the responsible Minister what case has been put up that has satisfied him because, to tell us that the Garda cannot enforce the law, is weakness on the part of any Government, and a Government that has to admit that is unfit to administer any law passed by this House.
I wonder did the Minister for Justice satisfy himself as to the views of the Hierarchy and the Irish Bishops on the question of drinking hours because I feel there are Deputies in the Fianna Fáil Party who, if they were given the opportunity of a free vote, would do as Deputies are doing on this side of the House and deal with this question in accordance with their own consciences and common sense, and that there are many Deputies in the House who may be considerably influenced by other reasons, though not by the fact that the Garda cannot do their duty, and not by the fact that maybe some tourists come here who want to enjoy late drinking. Tourists come here to enjoy Irish hospitality, to fish and to shoot, and we can offer them the world's best in lake views and mountain scenery, and thank God that He did bless us with such wonderful attractions for tourists. I am sorry the picture is being painted that they only come here to drink late and I feel that is no case whatever for an extension of the drinking hours.
I was about to refer to the fact that the Irish Bishops who are gravely concerned about the extension of drinking hours——
This is a Second Reading speech.
It deals with the hours.
We are discussing hours of opening and closing on weekdays. I feel that the speech we are listening to is a Second Reading speech.
I think the Deputy is referring to the extension of drinking hours.
We are discussing only the opening and closing hours recommended in the Bill. Now we are being told what the Bishops said and what I said, and so on. To my mind the Deputy is not dealing with hours.
I think it is relevant to refer to the extension of drinking hours in this context.
On a point of order, there are at least five amendments, one of which is for longer hours and some for shorter hours. Therefore, I submit that the Deputy is in order.
I am ruling that the Deputy is in order.
All the amendments are dealing with closing hours between 10 o'clock and 11.30 p.m. on week-days.
It is an extension of the hours, as against the proposal of the Minister.
I was about to deal with the fact that reference has been made to this question by the Irish Bishops, and I feel it is no harm to place on record that in the statement issued on 23rd June, 1959, by their Lordships, the following text will be found:
The abolition of bona fide trading if carried out, may be beneficial, but the benefits accruing from the change must be very seriously diminished by the recommendation to extend the opening hours all over the country on week-days from 9.30 a.m. to 11 p.m. (with a break of one hour, 2.30 p.m. 3.30 p.m. in County Boroughs only) and on Sundays from 12.30 p.m. to 2 p.m. and from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m.
It cannot escape the attention of any responsible person that a relaxation of the law must seriously affect our people, more especially the youth of both sexes.
Increased facilities for obtaining intoxicating liquor by the extension of the general opening hours will inevitably lead to a greater extension of alcoholism which in modern conditions has most serious moral and social effects in the increase of delinquency and in widespread danger to life on the roads.
It is noteworthy that representatives of both the licensed trade and of the trade employees did not favour an extension of the hour for closing.
The Irish Bishops express that opinion and before I make further reference to it, lest anybody in this House might say that to quote from the Bishops on this matter is making the issue very much one-sided, I would like to quote from a communication from the Dublin Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland which says the Temperance Agent and Temperance Council wish to register the strongest possible protest on the proposed legislation, particularly that dealing with the extension of drinking hours. So here we have the Irish Bishops expressing an opinion that it is a danger particularly to the young people of this country that the temptation should be there for them to drink any later than the hours at present in force.
I would like to know if Deputies prefer to play up to a few miserable votes in their constituencies or whether they are prepared to swim with the popular tide and stand over the teaching of the Catholic Bishops as Catholics in a Catholic Parliament. That is what has been forgotten in this case. But we can go on to say that one of those Bishops, His Lordship the Bishop of Galway, is reported in the Irish Independent of February 22, 1960, as having referred to longer drinking hours. He said that some people spoke as if the only effect of longer drinking hours was to enable holiday-makers to enjoy themselves with a harmless, if not always tuneful sing-song, but longer hours would mean longer drinking, and the traffic in drink was not like a fish and chip business where a man stopped when he had taken enough. It had been said that the existing regulations were not enforced because they had not the backing of public opinion but there were other laws concerning taxation and finance which were enforced with greater rigour, and enormous fines were imposed without any regard to public opinion. That is a statement made by the Bishop of Galway. Here we have men responsible for guidance in matters of this kind and their advice being ignored completely by the legislation which is at present coming forward in this House on which Deputies are anxious to get into the Division Lobbies and vote, legislation which will not be in the best interests of the young people of this country.
The Bishop of Galway goes on to say in the same statement that the existing licensing laws were not enforced, nominal fines were imposed and names concealed because the Guards received instructions not to enforce the laws. He continued that because the Guards did their duty they were reported by T.D.s to higher authorities and the authorities took some notice of these reports. I think that statement with particular reference to the licensing laws, should not be allowed to pass without some comment in this House.
It does not arise on the amendment.
If the licensing laws cannot be enforced at present, how can they be enforced by extending them? The question has been raised here by an admission of failure on the part of the Guards to enforce the licensing laws and close public houses at the time specified by the laws passed by this House. It has been admitted here by an Irish Bishop that where the Guards close public houses at the correct time, complaints are made to T.D.s with detrimental results to the Guards who do their duty. I want to make it clear that no Fine Gael T.D. participates in activities of that kind. It may be a matter for a certain amount of laughter from the Fianna Fáil benches. It is quite true, and I agree with the sentiments expressed by the Bishop of Galway, that there have been numerous cases, despite what Deputy Boland said, where there has been an effort by the Guards to enforce the laws and, because there was, they found themselves at the back of beyond.
I think the Bishop was in the United States at that time. What date is it?
The 22nd February, 1960. I fail to understand why an effort is being made to ignore, and trounce upon the expressed opinions of the people whose duty it is to give guidance and advice on legislation of this kind. I cannot understand for one moment why, particularly on these opening hours, that the recommendations to which I have referred have not been given more consideration and acted upon.
The Deputy has referred to that point on four occasions. Repetition is disorderly.
I should like to ask for a clear statement from the Minister for Justice as to why he ignored in the legislation the recommendation of the Bishops; why the Government as a body ignore that recommendation; and what weight they gave to that recommendation of the 23rd June, 1959. I feel that a Deputy ought to have the common courage and pluck, and that is why I raised the matter, to ask for an explanation as to why the Bishops' recommendations have been ignored. I shall leave it at that.
I am glad the Deputy is leaving it at that. He has repeated it several times.
I wonder if I may make reference to the fact that there have been statements here to the effect that there were pressure groups at work in this regard. I do not know what movement has been referred to as pressure groups but, as far as I am concerned, there have been no pressure groups at work. If communications have been addressed to Deputies by the Pioneer Total Abstinence Association, it was an expression of opinion on the part of that Association and was sent for the guidance and information of Deputies. I feel that where an Association of such dimensions was prepared to give advice and guidance to Deputies they should at least receive an expression of thanks and not be the object of bitter criticism for offering their advice on a matter of this kind.
Deputy Noel Lemass made reference to fatal accidents. No matter what case Deputy Lemass may make, the Minister for Justice can have the information at his disposal that quite a number of fatal accidents have occurred because, as Deputy Lemass pointed out here, if a person is going to get drunk—and he used that expression—late at night in a public house, it takes place during the last 10 minutes. What will stop them drinking during the last 10 minutes under this new proposal? There is ample evidence available that in the last ten minutes the customer, instead of taking his bottle of stout or glass of ale, switches, as Deputy Lemass pointed out, and takes, to use his own words, "two or three small whiskies".
How does that arise on an amendment which deals with opening and closing hours on week-days? The type of drink consumed does not arise.
Deputy Lemass stated that during the last ten minutes the customer switches over because he feels he will get down the two or three small whiskies with greater ease and speed than he would the bottle of stout or the glass of ale. If he consumes three small whiskies in that ten minutes I respectfully suggest he leaves the public house in an unfit condition to drive a motor car and he is the type of man who, in many cases, slaughters other unfortunate users of the road. I would suggest that where a publican gives drink in the last ten minutes to a person already under the influence of drink——
That does not arise. The House, as I have already pointed out to Deputy Flanagan, is discussing the question of opening and closing hours on week-days. The type of drink consumed does not arise on the amendment under discussion.
I agree. I shall not develop the matter further. I was merely endeavouring to reply to the case put forward by Deputy Lemass as to the dangers inherent in the last ten minutes. I respectfully suggest that if these dangers exist at the present time——
I would ask the Deputy to get back to the amendments now. The question of the type of drink consumed is not before the House.
I am strongly opposed to this extension. I wish it to be placed on record as an expression of my opinion that the hours of drinking on weekdays are sufficiently long at present and there should be no extension of any kind, an extension which can only have the result of putting our young people in temptation and inducing them to spend their time and their money consuming intoxicating liquor until late hours in the night. That is most undesirable and I hope the House in its wisdom and after calm consideration of all the facts will be prepared to take the advice that has already been offered in this regard by the greatest possible authority in the country, namely, the Hierarchy. Their advice should be taken. It is advice to which more consideration ought to be given than has been given so far in this Bill.
Possibly Deputy O.J. Flanagan might take some of the advice he has tendered to the House from the Hierarchy and try it on some of his own colleagues. Are these the people the Deputy suggests have come in here to swim on the popular tide, men like his colleagues, Deputy O'Donnell and Deputy Palmer? Are these the people he holds up here and suggests come in here to court popular favour when they advocate extended hours?
On a point of order, lest I might be misrepresented in the Report, as I am undoubtedly misrepresented by the Minister, I made it quite clear that on this section, as on other sections, people must be guided by their own consciences on matters of that kind, unlike the Fianna Fáil Party.
That is no point of order.
If Deputy O.J. Flanagan holds himself out as the interpreter of the Bishops, I suggest he might direct his interpretation to some of his colleagues who have expressed themselves as having different views on this matter.
This Bill—this has been repeated ad nauseam—has been brought in here as a result of the report of an independent Commission which not alone examined the matter in all its aspects but also heard a large body of evidence in relation to the matter, including evidence on the hours that are now in issue. It is idle to talk about members of the Commission holding divergent views on this issue. The fact is that a majority of the Commission came to a certain conclusion.
Apart from the recent report upon which this Bill is based, it might be both wise and profitable for some Deputies to have a look at some of the obiter dicta contained in the 1925 Report—the report of a commission which sat in 1925 to consider our licensing laws. It would be wise to keep some of the matters which arose then in mind as set out by that Commission in regard to the objectives we should aim at in legislation of this character. On page 2, paragraph 3 of the 1925 Report it is stated:—
In the first place we desire emphatically to point out that temperance legislation has succeeded in the past only so far as the willingness of the community involved has permitted it to succeed. The essential functions of the law are to preserve order, maintain justice, and protect the community. It is not the function of the law to make people good. Whenever it tries to do so without general public support it fails.
This Commission also mentioned something else.
What has that to do with the hours?
That particular quotation has nothing to do with the hours, but the Minister is probably coming to them.
It has nothing to do with the hours.
I assure you, Sir, that I propose to make this very relevant to the hours set out in this Bill inasmuch as they are the hours, I believe, which are most likely to command general public support. On that proposition, unless we get a measure from this House which will command general public support the law will not be enforceable.
It has been alleged by the protagonists of restricted hours that extended hours will lead to greater drunkenness. At page 3 the 1925 Commission reported:—
The right to interfere with the drunkard is the right to interfere with a public nuisance, but this right does not entitle the law to prohibit or unduly restrict the satisfaction of a natural and legitimate appetite by reasonable and moderate men who do not abuse their rights. The ideal to be aimed at therefore seems to us to be a system of law which will secure good order and remove the abuses connected with the consumption of an article, the use of which may be voluntarily abandoned, but cannot be forceably suppressed. It is, moreover, abundantly clear from all human and legislative experience that there are limits to the compulsory suppression of drinking, and that when carried beyond those limits it defeats its own object by tending to promote more injurious forms of excess as well as evasion of the law by common consent. These are the principles which have guided us in our proceedings and underlie the recommendations of this Report. In short, we are satisfied that it is necessary to enforce reasonable restrictions on the trade in intoxicating liquor and that these restrictions must be based upon consideration for the necessities of public order, public health and public safety.
I think, that we have proved what that Commission stated in its report. I was in this House when the former licensing legislation went through. On that occasion, too, there was much talk of a free vote of the House and there was a free vote allowed on many amendments to that legislation. The result was that instead of the Bill which was introduced and which would have been workable had it emerged as it was introduced, we had different views expressed by different Deputies and we ended up with legislation which was neither fish, flesh nor good red herring. That legislation has proved to be entirely unenforceable, and I think that is known to every Deputy who represents a rural area.
I have said that in my view that on this occasion we should be very careful and that we should endeavour, in so far as we can, to put a workable Bill on the Statute Book. Deputy Palmer's amendment is not, to my mind, of very grave importance to rural Ireland. There is the view, I know, that we should strive to have summer time, as the country people call it, extended further in this Bill. There is a distinction in the existing laws between closing time during summer time and during the rest of the year. At the moment closing time is 10.30 p.m. in summer time and 10 p.m. for the rest of the year.
Summer time lasts from the third Sunday in April to the first Sunday in October although I am told that it begins earlier this year because the third Sunday in April is Easter Sunday. We came to the conclusion that the distinction between summer time and winter time was not the correct one to make. Deputy Palmer would like to have these hours in existence for the month of May and he made the case on behalf of rural Ireland on that issue. Taking one thing with the other, I think that there is not the same necessity for the extended time in the month of May that there is the following months.
If we could get from the House as much agreement as possible on this matter and if we could get some kind of uniform hours I think we would make some progress. I think it is demonstrably true that the people who sat on this Commission representing the Total Abstinence Association accepted the Majority Report of the Commission for the reason that they felt that in our circumstances it was the most likely one to be enforceable and accepted by all our people. I am quite sure that they also had in mind that earlier closing hours would not be acceptable and that they would lead to other abuses, the abuses which we all know are taking place. It was for the purpose of getting a workable measure that these men subscribed to the majority view of the Commission. It was not because they liked it but because being reasonable men they felt it to be the most workable solution and the most reasonable one in all our circumstances.
Some of the Deputies on the opposite benches have been extolling the view that it would be a good thing for the Government to have a free vote on this issue. I take the opposite view and I take it very seriously. I am sorry that the Opposition groups have decided not to take a majority decision representing the majority view of each Party. I think that our work as far as this Bill is concerned would be much easier if they had followed the usual practice. I would like to point out to Deputies how difficult it is for the Government and for anyone listening to the debate to get what might be described as a common denominator of the majority view of this House.
If we take the amendments which have been tabled and which we are now discussing we have Deputy Cosgrave in his proposals asking that the closing hours in the country should be 11.30 p.m. from June to September and 11 p.m. from October to May. For the city he asks that the hours should be 11 p.m. from June to September and 10.30 p.m. from October to May. Deputy Ryan of the same Party tables an amendment expressing the view that in the country the hours should be 11.30 p.m. from May to September and 11 p.m. from October to May but in the city he wants 11 o'clock from June to September and 10.30 p.m. from October to May. Deputy Manley, again from the same Party, has an amendment that the closing hours should be 10.30 p.m. all the year round. Deputy Rooney, also from Fine Gael, advocates 11.30 p.m. in the country throughout the whole year and he wants 11.30 p.m. in the city from June to September and 11 p.m. from October to May.
If we take the other Parties, we have Deputy Norton of the Labour Party whose view is that closing hours should be 10.30 p.m. all the year round while Deputy Larkin wants 10.30 p.m. in rural areas from June to September and 10 o'clock from October to May. Deputy Russell, an Independent Deputy, has an amendment for 11 p.m. all the year round.
That is the most sensible amendment of the lot.
In that amendment he seems to be supported by the Leader of the Opposition. With this whole conglomeration of hours and all these diverse views it would appear that there are no two people on the Opposition benches who hold the same view. That is why I say it would certainly be more helpful to the Government if the majority view of the Deputies in these different Parties were expressed. It is quite obvious that we cannot have a licensing Bill providing for all the different views that I have read out here. One would want to schedule and provide a special licensing law for practically every public house in the country.
Having listened to the various views expressed by Deputies in the House, and views expressed outside the House, I feel strongly that the hours set out in the Bill are the hours that would command the greatest support generally. I do not believe that one half-hour will make any great difference in rural Ireland but, keeping in mind our experience and the habits of our people, particularly in rural Ireland—like other Deputies I do not profess to know the problems in Dublin city or the habits of the people there—I am of the opinion that the hours set out in the Bill are those most likely to command general support throughout the country.
If we do not have that general support, it is useless to pass a licensing law. One cannot hope, by writing legislation in this House that, in the main, is unacceptable to the people to enforce it unless one is prepared to put a civic guard outside every public house in rural Ireland.
A Deputy asked for some information as to whether facilities were being provided for people engaged in special trades, late workers, and so on. That law is a very old law in our code and has been availed of mainly by fishermen in certain ports. That is provided for in this Bill and will be continued under this Bill. I call it a general exemption order for these special purposes. I do not know what the technical expression for it may be.
Special exemption orders.
That will be continued under this legislation and I assume that, as formerly, the court will have power, where the local circumstances arise, to give special facilities for late night workers or fishermen who come in there at night. That has been the position in Deputy O'Donnell's constituency, in Killybegs, and in my own constituency, in Achill Island.
Taking all the various and conflicting views expressed by Deputies, mainly from the opposite side, I cannot see any hope of getting agreement on a measure here. Taking one thing with another, the summer period and the hours laid down in the Bill as it is, I think we could debate this for the next two years here and, judging by the views I have heard expressed, we could not get anything more acceptable than what is in the Bill.
I would say on behalf of the Government that whatever has been said on this Bill will be considered between now and Report Stage but, from the diversity of views expressed here, it appears to me that the Minister would have no option now but to insist on the hours set forth in the Bill. The Minister and the Government will have an opportunity of considering the suggested differentials but, in the main, I can see no option but to ask the House to reject this multiplicity of diverse amendments that have been tabled on the question of hours.
Amendment No. 1——
Can you give us a direction? If a Deputy wants to vote for amendment No. 3, how does he go about it? I understand that if amendment No. 2 is carried, No. 3 falls.
The House has been discussing amendment No. 1 in the names of Deputies Cosgrave, Ryan and Rooney and, together with No. 1, Nos. 2 to 7, inclusive, No. 1a and No. 1b, Nos. 17 and 18. All these deal with the opening hours on weekdays, excluding the closed hour in county boroughs, and the House agreed to discuss them together.
And, if necessary, to take separate divisions.
Exactly. If this particular amendment is negatived, amendments Nos. 1a, 6 and 7 fall.
Can the Chair tell us now what the particular amendment is?
It proposes the existing hours in the county borough— that they should be retained.
On that decision, amendments 1a, 6 and 7 fall.
I formally move amendment No. 1b:—
In page 4, line 15, before "June" to insert "May".
Would the Minister be able to say if this Bill will be taken first thing in the morning?
I understand that after taking two minor Estimates it will be again proceeded with.
