I move amendment No. 2:
In page 4, line 16, to delete "half-past eleven" and substitute "half-past ten".
Committee on Finance. - Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1959—Committee Stage (Resumed).
SECTION 4.
All the amendments from No. 1 to No. 7 have been discussed and I am now putting amendment No. 2.
Question proposed: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided: Tá, 72; Níl, 12.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Belton, Jack.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Kevin.
- Booth, Lionel.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Browne, Seán.
- Calleary, Phelim A.
- Carty, Michael.
- Casey, Seán.
- Childers, Erskine.
- Clohessy, Patrick.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cotter, Edward.
- Crowley, Honor M.
- Cummins, Patrick J.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Mick.
- Desmond, Daniel.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Donegan, Batt.
- Egan, Kieran P.
- Egan, Nicholas.
- Fanning, John.
- Faulkner, Padraig.
- Flanagan, Seán.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Galvin, John.
- Gibbons, James.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Hillery, Patrick J.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kenny, Henry.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lemass, Noel T.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Loughman, Frank.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, Jack.
- MacCarthy, Seán.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Maher, Peadar.
- Millar, Anthony G.
- Moher, John W.
- Moloney, Daniel J.
- Moran, Michael.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- Murphy, William.
- Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Donnell, Patrick.
- O'Malley, Donogh.
- Ormonde, John.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Russell, George E.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Spring, Dan.
- Tierney, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Wycherley, Florence.
Níl
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, Denis.
- Lindsay, Patrick.
- Lynch, Thaddeus.
- Manley, Timothy.
- Norton, William.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Sullivan, Denis J.
- Ryan, Richie.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman: Níl: Deputies O'Sullivan and Kyne.
Question declared carried.
On that decision, amendments Nos. 3 and 17 fall.
Amendment No. 3 falls if question No. 2 is carried but Question No. 2 has been negatived.
It was a proposal that the words proposed to be deleted stand. The words are carried.
This matter was the subject of discussion between the Chair and I understand the Minister and representatives of the Opposition. I have here the paper which was prepared and it is noted by the central office as follows: "In respect of amendment No. 3, it falls if the question on amendment No. 2 is carried."
The Question on No. 2 was that the words proposed to be deleted stand and that was carried.
Very well. I am informed that unless amendment No. 2 is voted as carried by the House there is to be a separate decision on amendment No. 3.
The House has decided that the words proposed to be deleted stand. I cannot put that to the House again.
I do not know, a Cheann Comhairle, whether you are aware that during your absence there was considerable difficulty on procedure in regard to the amendments. Consultations were held between the central office, the Minister and myself with a desire to facilitate procedure. Certain procedure was worked out as a result of which I have an Order Paper here with notes by the central office. I am advised that there would be a division on amendment No. 1 which would govern certain other matters. I am advised that there would be a division on amendment No. 2 which would govern certain other matters and that amendment No. 3, unless amendment No. 2 was carried, would be put. I submit that amendment No. 3 should now be put.
The question on amendment No. 2 was: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand." That question was carried. The House has decided on that. The question cannot be put again.
I think that is a separate point. The amendment was defeated. If amendment No. 2 had been carried then amendment No. 3 would fall. However, as amendment No. 2 was negatived, amendment No. 3 falls for decision by the House.
The understanding was that Deputies who had a preference as between 10.30 p.m., 11 p.m. and 11.30 p.m. would be able to express their views in the Division Lobby on these amendments.
Here is the note.
Clearly, if the House decides that the words proposed to be deleted should stand——
If the Deputy is pressing for a division, and provided the Chair agrees, we have no objection. All these amendments have been fully discussed, as I am sure the Deputy will admit. If it is only a question of whether or not there should be a division, I have no objection to the division.
I agree with the Minister that we agreed to discuss these in a group. We are now in the process of dividing them up. In all the circumstances, I think we ought to be allowed to divide on amendment No. 3.
The decision of the House was that the time "11.30 p.m." should stand. Clearly, I cannot put any amendment to the House now. There is a decision by the House. If the Deputy is in a difficulty, he has the Report Stage.
I am not in any difficulty. The amendment does not stand in my name at all. I am simply here trying to carry out an agreement which, after consultation, I entered into with the Ceann Comhairle to help him in disposing of a number of very complicated amendments. I have here in my hand an Order Paper noted on behalf, so far as I am aware, of the Ceann Comhairle, indicating how the divisions are to be taken. I certainly was left under the impression that certain consequences would follow from the decisions on amendments Nos. 1 and 2, that there would then be a decision on No. 3 and that various other amendments would be governed by the decisions taken as we went along. It was clearly indicated that amendment No. 3 would be accorded a separate division. I do not know if Deputy Russell was consulted in this matter. The amendment stands in his name. That is what I was informed and I think we ought to be able to divide upon it now. Is there any procedural method whereby, by agreement, we can divide?
I do not see any way by which we can do so.
Then I suggest, Sir, that we put the amendment down for Report Stage, if that would be acceptable to Deputy Russell.
I am rather at sea about this whole procedure. I was not consulted, although the amendment stands in my name. It does seem right and reasonable that the House should have an opportunity of deciding whether or not they want the closing hour amended to 11 o'clock. I am aware that there is a large body of opinion, I might say on both sides of the House, that would favour that amendment as a reasonable compromise. The Minister himself indicated two or three weeks ago that he would consult his colleagues in the Government with a view to accepting my amendment. Of course, if the Minister accepted the amendment now, it would overcome all these difficulties. I suggest that it is a very important amendment and one that would carry a good deal of support and that certainly should be put to the House, if the Minister does not see his way to accept it. In the interests of unanimity, and in the interests of the Bill as a whole, I would urge the Minister to accept it even at this stage because it would help the carrying out of the intentions of the Bill if he did so.
According to the Chair's ruling, the Minister cannot accept it. If he can accept it, we can divide upon it.
What the Chair is ruling is that the House decided "that the words proposed to be deleted stand." The words were "half past eleven". The Chair cannot ignore the decision of the House on that matter on another motion.
On a point of order, can the House not go into recommittal for the purpose and solve the problem in that way quite simply?
No.
Can it not be recommitted for that amendment?
On Report Stage.
By agreement, now?
No.
The procedure by which a question is put in the form in which it has been put, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand" is one which encourages anybody who wants to make any change in the Bill to vote against the motion. By a big majority, the House has voted in favour of the Bill as it is. That does not preclude the possibility of an alternative proposal being submitted to the House on Report Stage. It would seem to me to be asking the House to stultify itself now, the House having decided to retain the Bill as it is, to ask the House to make any change in the Bill prior to Report Stage.
Permit me to disagree with the Taoiseach's intepretation of what has just happened. In my view, and I respectfully submit it to you, what has happened is that the House has voted half-past eleven as against half-past ten.
No—voted to leave the Bill as it is against any change.
No.
No, as against half-past ten.
Half-past eleven in the absolute.
I do not agree.
Is not it obvious that if the vote was against any possible change, it would be completely misunderstood? What the House wanted to do—and there are means under Standing Orders by which we can do what we want, if we agree,—was to select each hour and give a decision in respect of each hour and I suggest that the Taoiseach can permit the House to do that quite simply under Standing Orders by moving re-committal for that one amendment.
A Cheann Comhairle, I put it to you that you are the sole and ultimate judge of order here. You have given a decision.
It took the Tánaiste a long time to learn that.
You have given your decision. If you create a precedent now whereby the House is called upon immediately to reverse that decision, I submit that you are creating a precedent which will lead to the utmost disorder because no question can then ever be decided without somebody having second thoughts about it.
Nonsense.
I do not think there is any need for acrimony or dissension about this matter. It has all arisen from the fact that the number of amendments on the paper created procedural difficulty. The Ceann Comhairle, as I understand it, consulted Deputies with a view to getting a procedure that would simplify the resolution of the complicated questions to be settled. We have tried to meet the Minister, although he did not seem to think so last night, by discussing all these together and then taking divisions without separate subsequent discussions. That is what we are now doing. There has been some misunderstanding and I see the difficulty for all concerned. I suggest to Deputy Russell —and I am as much concerned in this amendment as he is—that we should leave it over to Report Stage. Will the Government come this far to meet us— and I do not think it is going to result in any great difficulty for anybody— will the Government recommit this amendment on Report Stage?
I think so.
Yes, we can do that.
The Government will recommit this amendment on Report Stage.
May I suggest that it is not a matter for me to decide that?
No, but the Deputy will agree to the proposal I am making.
Yes, but will it be accepted on Report Stage?
No; it will be recommitted and discussed on Report Stage.
Discussed.
I think you might have explained what was likely to happen after amendment No. 2 was voted on with the result that there has been.
This procedure——
That was not the procedure last night.
This procedure has been adopted in many cases where there are complicated amendments.
I have no doubt, but that was not the procedure adopted last night.
It all depends on the type of amendment before the House.
Is not everybody saved if this amendment is carried over to Report Stage and the Government agree to recommit it? We are then in precisely the same position as we would be now if we were in a position to divide on it and I advise Deputy Russell to accept that.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 17 fall.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In page 4, line 18, to delete "eleven" and substitute "ten".
On amendment No. 4, the question now is: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The next following one deals with "half past ten" and to prevent the same situation arising I suggest that the Chair might put the question, "That in page 4, line 18, the word ‘ten' be inserted instead of ‘eleven'" and let us vote on that and, if that is defeated, then the next amendment will be put.
The procedure of putting the motion in the form "That the words in the Bill stand" is the one that is most advantageous to those who want to change the Bill. Anybody who wants to make any changes votes against that motion.
There may be a misunderstanding. I have in my hands proposals made on behalf of the Ceann Comhairle for the simplification of the procedure. I believe I consulted everybody who was concerned. I agreed with those proposals in so far as they sought simplification of procedure. I do not suppose that is irrevocable. I agreed with those procedural steps to simplify procedure. I think the Labour Party was consulted in this regard. I am certain they were consulted.
No.
One of the arrangements was that when Amendment No. 4 came to be put to the House, the motion should be in the form "that the words proposed to be deleted stand" and if that motion were carried, amendment No. 5 would fall. At that stage the "la" was not in existence. I was dealing only with the green paper of amendments. The agreement was that it should be put in that form. If that was carried, amendment No. 5 would fall. I think that was put to the Labour Party.
No. This was not discussed with the Labour Party at all.
This is the procedure that is being adopted in this House. I am putting the amendment now.
Question put "That the words proposed to be deleted stand":
The Committee divided: Tá, 74
4: Níl, 4.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Belton, Jack.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Kevin.
- Booth, Lionel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Browne, Seán.
- Calleary, Phelim A.
- Carroll, James.
- Carty, Michael.
- Casey, Seán.
- Childers, Erskine.
- Clohessy, Patrick.
- Cotter, Edward.
- Crowley, Honor M.
- Cummins, Patrick J.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Mick.
- Desmond, Daniel.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Loughman, Frank.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch Jack.
- MacCarthy, Seán.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- McQuillan, John.
- Maher, Peadar.
- Millar, Anthony G.
- Moher, John W.
- Moloney, Daniel J.
- Moran, Michael.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Donegan, Batt.
- Egan, Kieran P.
- Egan, Nicholas.
- Fanning, John.
- Faulkner, Padraig.
- Flanagan, Seán.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Galvin, John.
- Gibbons, James.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Hillery, Patrick J.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Johnston, Henry M.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Kenny, Henry.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lemass, Noel T.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- Murphy, William.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Malley, Donogh.
- Ormonde, John.
- Russell, George E.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Sheldon, William A.W.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Spring, Dan.
- Tierney, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Wycherley, Florence.
Níl
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, Denis.
- Lindsay, Patrick.
- MacEoin, Seán.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman; Níl: Deputies Larkin and Kyne.
Question declared carried.
Amendments 5 and 18 fall. Amendments 6 and 7 have already fallen.
Could you remind us as to how many amendments have been actually dealt with in the discussion? I know we have discussed amendments 1 to 7.
Yes, and on amendment 1, 1a and 1b amendments 6 and 7 fell.
Now the discussion is reopened. I take it No. 8 is open for discussion.
That is Deputy Russell's amendment. Amendments 8 and 16 may be taken together.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 4, to delete from and including "if" in line 20 down to and including "or" in line 23.
As the law stands there is a closing hour between 2.30 and 3.30 p.m. in the four county boroughs. I can speak with intimate knowledge only of the position in Limerick. The position in Dublin, Cork and Waterford may be different but in Limerick a large proportion of the licensed vintners are also grocers and carry on a considerable business in this section of their trade. At present, particularly on Fridays and Saturdays, the publicans in Limerick may, between 2.30 and 3.30 p.m. serve customers coming in from the country areas to do marketing and shopping in Limerick. If and when this measure is enacted they will be prohibited from serving anybody between 2.30 and 3.30 p.m. irrespective of whence they come.
These restrictions will not apply outside the county boroughs and it will be possible in places as large as Galway, Sligo, Clonmel and, I think, Dún Laoghaire and other large urban centres to serve customers between these hours. I appreciate that the Minister makes provision in his amendment to allow customers to be served with non-intoxicating liquids or goods during these prohibited hours but this would be a cause of more confusion than assistance. Therefore in accordance with the general principle which appears to permeate this Bill of effecting a degree of rationalisation throughout the State between the urban and rural areas, there should be no restriction on the sale of drink between the opening hour in the morning and the closing hour at night.
During the earlier discussion on this Bill Deputy Dillon advocated that the ideal thing would be to have a certain number of hours for drinking whether it be up to 11 or 12 at night and that there would be no restriction. The effect of that in time would be that people would not take advantage of these longer hours. I think it is correct to state that where you have restrictions the tendency is to break those restrictions, and the sweetest drink is the one just before or after hours. In prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquor between 2.30 and 3.30 p.m. in the four county boroughs the Minister is in effect encouraging the person who likes a drink within the prohibited hours. This Bill provides an opportunity to rationalise the procedure so as to allow the public, be they tourist or local, to take an alcoholic drink between the hours of 10.30 in the morning and 11 or 11.30 at night. I do not believe it would be abused. Instances were given here of centres where there are virtually no restrictions, where you can drink 24 hours a day, and the records show there are fewer instances of excessive drinking there than in the areas where restrictions apply.
As I say, I am associated with the position in Limerick and I know that the Limerick traders, of whom, I understand, over 50 per cent. engage in other business besides the sale of intoxicating liquor, will suffer a severe loss if the new proposals come into force.
For the same reasons as Deputy Russell, I seek the abolition of this closing between 2.30 and 3.30 p.m. It very seriously affects Limerick city. Limerick city is a market city and it has fairs, auction marts and so forth, and there are a considerable number of traders to whom the 2.30 p.m. to 3.30 p.m. closing hour has been a source of irritation. I might say that a violation of the law has taken place because a man may have one part of his shop for the sale of groceries and provisions and another part for a bar and he has to clear the entire premises of people if he has not already made provision for the division of the bar from the grocery part of his premises.
The Minister should consider abolishing this closing hour seeing that so much latitude is being afforded in the Bill to the drinking public. It is unfair that it should operate in the four county boroughs. I cannot speak for Dublin or Cork—it may suit them. I think a good percentage of the traders in Dublin are wholly engaged in the sale of intoxicating liquor, whereas in Limerick approximately 50 per cent. engage in mixed business. The licensed traders in Limerick hold strong views on this point. They feel that its abolition would help the smooth running of their business. From experience, on market days, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays, when we have fairs, auctions and marts, this hour has caused these traders some inconvenience and I ask the Minister to consider its abolition in Limerick.
A situation has arisen in Cork where a number of traders serve a snack meal during that hour and I wonder if the new regulations will interfere with that or prevent them from carrying on that trade which they have developed.
In Dublin city, the majority of the houses are trade union houses and if we do away with this hour's closing, it will necessitate practically every publican seeking additional staff. I do not know whether from the publican's point of view that is a bad thing; from another point of view, it might be a good thing. Certain publicans have assured me that occasionally, after weddings and such functions, people may come in with a few drinks on them and it is a good opportunity to clear the house at that time when the law says they must close. They feel generally that this hour is economically suitable for the publican and at the same time, helps to enable the house to be run more efficiently.
This feature of the licensing laws was introduced as far back as 1927. It has been regarded by almost all shades of opinion as being one of the most valuable features of the licensing laws inasmuch as it brought about a break in drinking. Without this closing, certain individuals—I do not suggest that everybody indulges in it—could go into these licensed premises in the early morning and continue drinking without cessation.
I cannot see any merit at all in the suggestion made by Deputy Russell in this respect, because he must be fully aware, as I am, that this has operated for over 30 years in Limerick. It is something that is now so well established that I doubt very much if any business people are concerned about the matter at all. We must realise that it is only for one hour and that it gives a break to the publicans and to their assistants, as well as to the ordinary public. I cannot see any great inconvenience being caused either to the publican or to his customers in the closing of the premises for one hour and I would not be prepared to accept an amendment that would bring about an abolition of the closing for one hour which is provided for in the licensing laws. It would be a retrograde step and one that would not commend itself, I think, to the vast majority in the House or to the vast majority of people outside.
I should like to oppose the amendment. I do so on the specific ground that this closing hour during the afternoon has two effects: one, it means that during that hour there is a cessation of drinking in public houses and people cannot go in in the morning and stay there all day; and secondly, it makes it possible for the publican with staff to fix reasonable working hours and conditions for them and allows him to have a change of staff, if necessary. Another point is that in the case of the family publican who may not have staff it provides an opportunity of having a midday break. Surely such people are entitled to a break as well as everybody else.
If this amendment were accepted by the Minister—and I am glad to see that he is not prepared to accept it—it would mean that in cases where no staff are employed, or very little staff, the circumstances of the people would be materially worsened. For these reasons, I feel that the amendment has no merit whatsoever and should not be supported.
I have very little to say about this amendment except that I agree with Deputy MacCarthy in his suggestion that the modern trend in licensed houses is to serve food. Many people consider that a 2.30 to 3.30 p.m. closing hour is slightly too early and I would agree with that because many people go to lunch around 2 o'clock. These traders in the city and in populated areas who at the moment are serving snacks and meals will agree with me that the closing hour would be slightly too early at 2.30.
I agree with the Minister that the purpose of this closing hour, when it was brought in in 1927, was to prevent the all-day sitter staying in the pub. If that is its purpose, I do not think the timing of it really matters much so long as it is there. This hour was very acceptable to the licensed trade pre-war because they availed of it to allow their staffs to go home to lunch, but, in 1939, when war broke out and when the Gas Company and the E.S.B. had to curtail their services, staffs were permitted to go off earlier for lunch so that they could avail of "the glimmer." That system has been carried on still and the licensed trade no longer avail of the 2.30 p.m.-3.30 p.m. period for staff lunches. If the closed period were postponed until 3.30 p.m. I should feel inclined to suggest that another half-hour could be added to the closing period and that the public houses should close from 3.30 p.m. to 5 p.m.
I agree with what Deputy Russell and Deputy Carew said in relation to this in Limerick where there are licensed houses doing mixed trading. On market days and fair days—not so much fair days in Limerick, I agree—the business of these people would be greatly affected by closing for such an unusual hour as 2.30 p.m.-3.30 p.m. In England, where they observe strict licensing laws, it is possible to go into a licensed house during the closed period and buy goods other than intoxicating liquor. On Second Reading, it was suggested that the doors of licensed houses should be opened rather than closed at such times. I suggest that where mixed trading is carried on, doors should be left wide open and if the licensee is caught serving intoxicating liquor during the closed period, heavy penalties should be imposed on him but he should be enabled to carry on his ordinary business such as drapery, grocery or selling soft goods. I agree with the suggestion that the closing period is most acceptable to the public and to the trade but the Minister should consider having the closed period a little later in the day.
I do not think there is any great principle involved in this amendment but I am personally against closing from 2.30 p.m. to 3.30 p.m. chiefly because I think the Garda will not be able to enforce it. We all know that as it applies now, it is not enforced. Very many people in Cork, and perhaps in Dublin as well, are quite unaware that the law now states that public houses must be closed from half-past two to half-past three. I do not think the Minister is being very realistic when he suggests that on occasions where you have big gatherings in Cork city, say, that it will be possible to close from half-past two to half-past three. Take the days during the annual Summer Show in Cork. Thousands of people pour into the city and between 2.30 p.m. and 3.30 p.m., immediately after lunch, is the time when the visiting farmers like to chat with the labourers whom they meet and in the ordinary way they go to a public house for a drink. It cannot be seriously suggested that the Garda can be expected to raid public houses between 2.30 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. on occasions like that. There would be very serious difficulties in endeavouring to enforce the law at such times.
Similarly in the case of workers such as dockers who get a break, not at any particular hour, but when a cargo is unloaded or at some stage of the unloading, to have a drink, is it suggested that arrangements which are working in the docks—in Cork, at any rate—can no longer be continued, and that if, in the normal course, their break comes between 2.30 and 3.30 p.m., these men doing heavy manual work will not be able to enjoy the facilities now available to them to have a drink before resuming work? Many other people employed on the railway and in the Post Office and similar jobs very often end their day's work at 1.30 p.m., 2 p.m., 2.30 p.m. or 3 p.m., having started early in the morning. I think they are entitled to the facility of having a drink on the way home. Many of them do not come out again for the night. Because of that, I think there is no justification for the suggested closing in the county boroughs and I am in favour of the amendment.
Could I ask for a word of clarification? Does this section not mean that if you have a mixed business, grocery, hardware, bar and drapery, during this hour, you may not serve drink in the bar department of your premises but you are entitled to carry on your general business of grocery, drapery, or boots or whatever commodity you are selling on the premises? Certainly, so far as rural Ireland is concerned, although the opening hour in the morning may be fixed at 10 or 10.30, you would open your general business premises and sell drapery or soft goods—as Deputy Belton described them—but you may not sell anything out of the bar until the real opening hour comes. Does the same rule not apply in a general business where there is a bar department? It is not suggested that a firm like Clerys, if it had a bar department, would have to close its doors in the middle of the day to conform with this? They would simply be precluded from opening the bar—is that not so?
I appreciate the difference in the position between Dublin and the provinces and I shall refrain from any remarks regarding the provinces but in regard to the city of Dublin and its environs—apart from the submission of Deputy Belton who, as an interested party, should know more about this than I do—it has been stated to me by many publicans and licensed vintners that they would welcome closing from 2.30 p.m. to 4.30 p.m. In support of that, a person who goes into the average licensed premises in Dublin between 3.30 p.m. and 4.30 p.m. certainly never has to wait very long to be served. Because of business and other reasons, few have any great need to go to a public house at that time. I suggest that so far as Dublin city and county are concerned, there should be no change.
It does not apply to the county.
I understand that. The same case has been made in relation to those who operate in the rural districts where they carry on a double trade, and therefore the argument is not relevant to the Dublin licensed premises. I do not think that the Pioneers or the drinking public generally would welcome any change in respect of the closing between 2.30 p.m. and 3.30 p.m.
In view of what has been said, would the Minister consider confining this hour to the county borough of Dublin and excluding Cork, Waterford and Limerick?
When the Deputy has considered what I have to say, he may change his mind on the matter. This matter was carefully considered back in 1927 when it was first introduced. It was held then, and has been held since, to be a very worthy proposition and is officially regarded as desirable in the county boroughs. Nothing has occurred since to suggest it has not proved its worth. In the Report of the reconstituted Intoxicating Liquor Commission, 1929, it is stated in regard to this point:—
After careful consideration we are fully satisfied that no case has been made for the abolition of the closing period between 2.30 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. in the afternoons on weekdays in County Boroughs. Although our sittings were open to the public, no one came forward save interested parties to complain of any inconvenience caused thereby, and we are satisfied that the object for which we made our original recommendation when the Commission sat in 1925, namely, the prevention of excessive drinking by persons who remain in public houses for long periods, has been substantially obtained.
The Minister will agree that many people ignored that Commission at that time?
That has been the general experience of the Garda and others concerned with the problem since. It is true that this period of closing is completely dead as far as the shop is concerned. You cannot keep open for the sale of, shall we say, groceries at the same time as the sale of liquor. Where a joint business is being carried on, they must close completely for that hour. I think that was largely the reason why this law was not generally extended throughout the country, because so many shops in the country towns and rural areas carry on a mixed business.
A point made by Deputy Russell and others which requires an answer is the suggestion that licensing facilities should be available on the occasion of markets, fairs, cattle marts or anything of that nature. The answer to that is that under the existing law it is open to the people concerned to apply to the courts for a special exemption in such cases.
Is that not abolished under the Schedule?
No. The position under the law, which is being re-enacted here, is that a general exemption order can apply to any hour of the day or night, except between 1 a.m. and 2 a.m. Therefore, in special cases, such as the case I mentioned last night of fishermen arriving home outside the ordinary licensing laws, the courts have power to make special provision. My answer to the mover of the amendment is that if there is a particular case in Limerick city, the case of public houses beside a cattle market or something like that, if that exists in Limerick or any other county borough, the people concerned can come to the courts and if they have a justifiable case, the power is there for the courts to deal with them.
In all these circumstances, I do not see the necessity for an amendment such as this. In order to try to preserve some uniformity, such as we have set out to do, what applies in one county borough should apply in the other county boroughs. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. In view of the existing provision at law, I see no reasonable case made for amending this law which has been undoubtedly accepted and is now, and has been for a very long number of years, well established. The official view still is that it is a good thing in the county boroughs, where you have a large number of industrial workers, to have this break during which they must go and have a meal.
We are led to believe that when the public houses are closed from 2.30 p.m. to 3.30 p.m. the men who have been in them take no drink. That is not a fact. The clubs are open during that hour and all the fellows we should like to see going home and having their dinner retire to the clubs instead. I should like to know from the Minister if the law applies to clubs. If we are to have uniformity, let it apply to the clubs also. I do not take a drink but I did at one time. During that hour I just left the public house with my pals and retired to the club. The club was usually full and you did not have to be a member of the club, either. This is a point the Minister should bear in mind.
Many people in business in a small way, people such as travellers and those who work in their own time, if they are fond of a drink, tend to have a day's session of drinking. It was to curtail this business of a session, to induce people to go home to their dinner when they might sober up, that the hour's break was introduced. But as I say, thousands of people, when they are in the mood, meet their pals, retire from the public house to the club at 2.30 and come back to the public house again at 3.30. I agree with the closing hour from 2.30 to 3.30 because I think we should try to break people off this session habit.
I should like to support Deputy Sherwin in his remarks about clubs. One of the very strong recommendations made by the Intoxicating Liquor Commission was that clubs should be on the same basis as public houses. In paragraph 23 of their report, they state:
The 1925 Commission recommended that the hours of sale in clubs should be kept the same as in public houses and we see no reason to depart from that recommendation.
That recommendation has not been put into effect since the 1925 Act. I have an amendment later on in which I endeavour to secure the same treatment for public houses and clubs, so far as inspection is concerned. I can assure the Minister that the majority of the Commission felt very strongly on the question of distinction as between clubs and public houses, and there is no reason whatsoever why special privileges should be granted to certain elements of the community who formed themselves into clubs mainly for the purpose of drinking. In no circumstances should that be tolerated.
There is another amendment to be introduced which seeks to ensure that an ordinary member of the Garda Síochána will be entitled to carry out an inspection of clubs, in the same way as is done at the moment in respect of public houses, and if that is adopted, I do not see why the same hours should not apply. At this stage, I strongly urge the Minister to ensure that clubs will close for the period concerned.
I believe the hours should be from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. but I do not suppose that at this stage there is much hope of getting the Minister to alter the Bill. I agree with Deputy Belton that from 2.30 to 3.30 is a little too early and I think it would be more suitable all round if the break were from 3 p.m. onwards. I should like to know if the Minister has finally decided in his own mind on 2.30 to 3.30 or is he prepared to give further consideration to altering that to 3 p.m. or 3.30 p.m.
As a rural Deputy, I want to give a neutral view on this point. I think the Minister for Lands has answered all the arguments in that the court has special powers to grant exemptions in justifiable cases. I do not think it is right for a Deputy from Dublin to suggest that 3.30 to 5.30 should be the closing hours. Surely all tradesmen in Dublin finish work at 5 o'clock and how would they get a drink at 5.30? A Cork Deputy suggested that the dockers have a break at 2.30, but I think the dockers in Cork resume work at 2 o'clock. Surely they do not get a break at 2.30? If a referendum were held on this matter I think the hours proposed here of 2.30 to 3.30 would be accepted by a large majority.
I thought the Deputy would be rather shy in mentioning referendums.
Referenda.
The fact that certain legislation was introduced in 1927 and has been in existence for more than 30 years is not a completely convincing argument that we should not look at it now, because, in effect, we are having a look at all the licensing laws passed over the past 30 odd years. We have decided that certain changes are desirable and the effect of this new Bill is to make such changes as the Minister and the Dáil may think fit. If it is so desirable to have a closing hour between 2.30 and 3.30 in the county boroughs of Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford, why does the same argument not apply to centres like Galway, Sligo, Dún Laoghaire and elsewhere? If there is a danger of excessive drinking during this hour, does the same danger not apply to those other urban centres, or are the people in them to be taken as of a weaker calibre than their counterparts in other urban centres?
When these laws were introduced in 1927, the price of drink was substantially lower than it is today, and I doubt if any of us now know of the fervent drinker who is prepared to go into a publichouse at opening time, and spend the whole day in it unless he is thrown out during the closing hour. That position may have existed 30 odd years ago, but as far as I know it does not exist today. There is, of course, a problem in regard to the question of trade union labour and I agree with the point made by Deputy Lemass that that may involve the question of staffs, but other business houses can stay open. To my knowledge, with certain few exceptions, all other business houses open between the hours of 2.30 to 3.30 for general business and seem to be able to make the necessary arrangements with their staffs.
In his interjection a few minutes ago, the Minister rather gave the impression that this amendment was put down thoughtlessly, without any consideration for the interested parties. I should like to assure him on behalf of Deputy Carew and myself that we certainly did not put it down without consultation with the licensing trade in Limerick, and it was their feeling, after reading and studying the Bill, that there were certain disparities in it. If I understand the position correctly, a special exemption is for a special occasion, and the argument put forward on this matter in Limerick was that there are occasions like weekly markets on certain days of the week, and I assume these would not be regarded as special occasions.
The Minister for Lands referred to the fact that sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander in four county boroughs but I do not see why the sauce should be confined to those four county boroughs. Surely if the sauce is good for the goose in four county boroughs, it should be good for the geese outside those four county boroughs; otherwise, they will be segregated as a special breed apart from the rest.
One question which the Minister might answer some time is that covered in the point made by Deputy Dillon. Can mixed trading houses keep their doors open during the split hour, for the sale of goods and non-intoxicating liquors? It might be a help to have an answer to that question.
On the further point made by Deputy Russell in connection with his amendment, he refers to a comparison between the licensed houses covered in the Bill and other businesses in the city areas. I wonder has he forgotten that in regard to other businesses in urban areas, they close their doors at 5.30 or 6 o'clock in the evening, and to make a comparison between them and public houses is hardly relevant. This proposal to continue the closing hours is of great value to the staffs and to those who employ them. Possibly it is also of value to the publicans whose businesses are small and who do not have staffs.
Comment was made by another Deputy as to the hardship falling on workers who happen to be doing shift work if the closing hour of 2.30 to 3.30 is applied. The general position of workers on shift work is that they change shifts at fairly regular hours. Twelve o'clock is normal for one type of shift. Another shift is the 2 o'clock change-over; another type may be 4 o'clock in the afternoon. Workers proceeding to work or leaving off work at these regular and recognised negotiated shift-hours have an opportunity of getting some little refreshment, if they so desire, before going to work or on leaving off work.
The Minister for Lands referred to exemptions. We know that in the dock areas there are numbers of workers employed and applications for exemptions in these areas have always been granted. Some of us might think that Justices are a little too facile in granting such applications; such applications, are, of course, granted on the merits. That particular type of worker then is not affected. Deputy McQuillan's suggestion to extend the closing to 5 o'clock appears to me to run completely counter to the point of view expressed that these houses should provide some opportunity for refreshment where tourists are concerned. It would be in the afternoon, after 3 o'clock, that these people would normally require some kind of refreshment.
I should like to stress again that closing at these hours is of great value to the general public, to the staffs employed and even in the case of the family business. I join with the Minister in the view that it would be a retrograde step for the House to accept Deputy Russell's amendment.
Is it possible for the Minister to clarify the points raised?
I said when the Deputy was out that, where there is this mixed trade, no other trading can be carried on by that business during the closed hour. The premises must be completely closed. I am speaking now of the county boroughs.
Is that a change in the law?
No. They are open in the country but in the county boroughs, as I understand it, they are completely closed even though mixed trading is carried on.
They can open under the Minister's amendment for off-licence business, can they not?
No.
The Minister's amendment provides for making a purchase of a bottle of wine or a bottle of spirits.
I should like to be clear as to whether or not this represents a change in the law? As of to-day, under existing law, can a mixed trading house remain open in the city of Dublin if there is a bar on the premises?
No.
I think the Minister will agree with me that in the country there are certain hours of the day when the bar must be closed but general business can be carried on.
That is so but, as far as the county boroughs are concerned, midday closing really means closed. That is the existing law.
But a person living three miles outside the borough can come in and get a drink.
As far as I am informed, no. Possibly the Deputy is thinking of bona fide traffic.
That could be the practice without being the law.
The alleged object of this legislation is to provide a licensing code which will be enforced. I recoil with peculiar horror from enacting legislation here which we, the legislators, do not ourselves fully understand. I am not familiar with the differences referred to by Deputy Corry, Deputy Russell and other Deputies who have spoken on this matter, because they relate to county boroughs. I gather that the impression amongst these Deputies from county boroughs is that the law at present allows a mixed trading house to open for trading other than licensed trading during the closed hour. Deputy Russell believes that even during the closed hour a person, who hitherto was known as a bona fide traveller, can get a drink during the closed hour. Now the Minister tells us that this section does nothing but re-enact the existing law. I think we should be as clear as crystal on this matter. If this section does nothing but re-enact the existing law, that is one thing. If we are changing the law, we are entitled to be told very explicitly by the Minister what the change is.
We are changing the law only to the extent that bona fide privileges will be abolished. If premises were licensed as bona fide premises, naturally they would be entitled to remain open. While a grocer and publican combined can at the moment sell groceries between 9 a.m. and 10.30 p.m., which is the opening hour for the licensed trade, he cannot sell groceries during the closed hour. If he were allowed to do so now we would be negativing what we are trying to do here and also the practice established since 1927. We would be permitting the all-round-the-clock drinker to remain on the premises. That was the practice that the 1927 Act was aimed to stop.
I believe the hour of 2.30 p.m. to 3.30 p.m. was specially devised after a considerable amount of cogitation. The idea was to permit a worker to get a drink during the recognised lunch-time. Instead of prohibiting him from that facility during 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. it was decided to close between 2.30 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. That hour may seem peculiar to some people, but that was the purpose behind the provision at the, time it was enacted. It would be a decidedly retrograde step to go back now on something that has produced such valuable results over the years. I cannot see much force in the argument adduced by Deputy Russell. This particular law has operated in Limerick for 30 years. It was recommended by the Commission and its re-enactment here seems to be a step in the right direction.
What I think is in the mind of a number of Deputies, because a number of them have referred to the fact, is that even during this hour, people were able to get drink. I do not know whether that is true. I hope it is not, but if there were any truth in it at all, it simply means that there is a fear now that when this Bill becomes an Act, the law will be rigidly enforced and that custom, if it was a custom, will be carried on no longer.
That is not the purpose of my amendment.
The Minister is missing the point here. I agree with him about the closing hour but I think we have inadvertently done more than we need to do. In the process of abolishing the bona fide trade, we have overlooked the fact that in the county boroughs like Limerick—and I am picking this up only from what the Minister told me—where there was a mixed house, a shoe shop and a public house attached—the Minister for Justice would be amazed at the number of such establishments there are in the county boroughs: a draper's shop with bar attached or a grocer's shop with a bar attached—it is now no longer open to that mixed shop to let its country customer in during the hour; and instead of simply closing the door, what we are doing now is closing the shop. Anyone trading in rural Ireland will tell you that you have a drapery customer and that customer deals as to 90 per cent. of his requirements with you, but if that customer comes in from the country on the bus —in a surprising number of country areas, the bus comes in about 2 o'clock and returns about 3.30—she will rush around to do the shopping. That is the general thing you will see any market day in Clonmel, Nenagh, Tipperary or Cork. We are now closing shops during the very hour when a great many of these mixed shops do the bulk of their trade.
In the county boroughs.
I assume that in a county borough like Limerick or Waterford, conditions are very similar to Clonmel. You do get a number of country customers coming in the middle of the day on the bus and they go home on the bus. Heretofore, as I understand the situation, they could go to their draper or grocer or boot factor and even if he had a bar, if they came from the country, they would be let in to get their requirements and be sent on their way. Now the door is locked and they cannot get in for anything, so they will be driven into another drapery shop. Anybody with any experience of rural trade will realise what that means in rural Ireland. Nobody is astonished in Dublin to see a customer calling to four or five shops before she is suited, but in rural Ireland it amounts to a tacit declaration of war to go into a rival business establishment. You raise your eyebrows if you see your regular customer in a rival's establishment.
This is a matter of very great significance. What I am afraid of is that, without realising it, we are legislating to make it impossible for a mixed trader's regular customers to deal with him for anything between 2.30 and 3.30, and I do not think that is what we mean to do. What we mean to do is to enforce the law of non-trading in the licensed trade in every licensed house, whether it is a mixed house or not, but we do not want to forbid a draper from selling drapery, the boot shop from selling boots or the grocer from selling groceries, to his customers during that hour.
Anybody who knows rural Ireland will appreciate that the application of this law is a good thing in the city and I would support the Minister in his view that it ought to be maintained, but once we have abolished the bona fide trade—and we were right to abolish it—have we considered the full implications of the enforcement of this hour on mixed traders in county boroughs outside Dublin? I am not sure of the position in Cork.
What about the position in Dún Laoghaire?
I do not know but I do not imagine the problem would apply so acutely there. The specific problem I have in mind is the mixed trading shop in a city like Limerick or Waterford. Inadvertently, we may do them very serious injury which we do not intend to do, and we ought to be able to find a way of avoiding that. We do allow a mixed trading house to sell other merchandise in the rural parts of Ireland during certain closing hours for licensed trade and they are required to keep the bar closed. I know how difficult it is to introduce an arrangement of that kind into a county borough like Limerick or Waterford. You must think of a man trying to live, and if the bulk of his country customers are coming in on the bus between 2.30 and 3 p.m. and going home with their parcels at 3.30 p.m. on the bus, you ought to consider carefully if you are wronging him.
The Deputy, I think, is starting on a wrong assumption created through a misunderstanding. Whatever the practice may have been in Limerick or Galway, as Deputy Cosgrave suggested, the law was that the closing hour of 2.30 to 3.30 p.m. was a completely closed hour even in a mixed business for all purposes except bona fide drinkers, so that the man in the county borough with a licensed premises and a mixed business had to close his door and could not sell either the half lb. of tea or the pint of stout to anybody within a radius of three miles. That was the position and that was the law. Here that is being continued with the only consequential result of the removal of the bona fide man's rights. The bona fide man is out now, too, during this hour.
Is that not operating to prevent the country customer coming into Limerick, of which the Minister is well aware, because he comes into Castlebar as well as to Limerick? Does it prevent him going into the premises at all during that hour?
The position is that if the country customer has to go in the closing hour, he can have his drink on the way in, if he is so anxious about it.
He cannot get into the shop in Limerick. It is now closed, because we have abolished the bona fide trade. Heretofore, he could get in because he got in as a bona fide and could get everything from drink to groceries, drapery or anything else. There was nothing illegal about it. But now when we abolish the bona fide trade, we are not only closing the mixed trading house to the residents of the city—and they do not frequent it during this hour—but to the country customers who come in on the bus and plan to go home with their parcels on the bus after an hour's or two hours' delay in the city. They are now precluded from getting in at all to the premises. We are doing that inadvertently.
If the Deputy will look at subsection (2) of Section 4, he will see that, under paragraphs (a) and (b), all the facilities any person would require in respect of ordering any type of goods he desires to have can be secured through the medium of the telephone, telegraph, letter or any other such method. I suggest that that covers the point which the Deputy may have in mind, that the trader cannot do his business. He can, if he desires, accept any order coming over the phone or by message and deliver it.
Perhaps the Minister would ask the Minister for Lands sitting beside him how many orders he thinks would be given to a shop in Castlebar over the telephone?
This does not apply to Castlebar.
This does not apply to rural areas at all. The gentleman coming in from outside can do all the business he wishes to do with his own local trader or he can get a drink at the beginning of his journey, if he wishes.
Then his journey would not be necessary.
I cannot see the point that one solitary hour will make all the difference, having regard to all the hours available to a man to drink. I cannot see how it will affect any individual. Surely we have not reached the stage where we must have continuous drinking.
I am not arguing that any man ought to be allowed to have a drink at all. What I am arguing is that he ought to be allowed to have access to a shop. Leave the men out of it altogether. It is the woman I am thinking of who comes into town to buy a shirt or a singlet or a pair of socks or a pair of insoles. She comes in to the draper's shop where she deals and, as the law stands at present, she finds the shop door closed. She knocks on the door and is asked "Who is there?" She replies "I am from Croom" and the shop door is opened to her. That woman never thought of a drink but she bought her shirt or her singlet or her pair of insoles and went out of the shop as dry as she came into it, got on her bus and went home.
That was the advantage a mixed trader enjoyed in a town like Limerick but now we have abolished the right of that woman to come in. Now she cannot get into that shop at all and she goes to the draper next door; she buys the singlet, the shin or the insoles and, to the horror of the draper with whom she has been dealing, he discovers that she goes into the house next door the next time she comes into town perhaps because she likes the assistant there better than the one who has been serving her in his house. It is access to the mixed house that is involved in this matter. It is a matter of trying to solve an administrative restriction that I think has arisen without any of us being really aware of it. I am not accusing the Minister of being an irresponsible enemy of the mixed trader. I am drawing his attention to what is happening.
Major de Valera
It seems to me that Deputy Dillon has clouded his own case by the use of too many words. At the moment the position is that we have a provision by which a shop which is doing a mixed trade in drink and other goods, we will say drapery, is open in its entirety to the bona fide traveller. That is the present position. Therefore, at the moment, when a woman comes in from the country to one of these shops she can ignore the fact that it is also a licensed premises and she can walk into the shop which is automatically open to her.
The difficulty which seems to have arisen is that we are completely closing the bona fide trade and, when this alteration is made in the law, it will mean the closing of all premises for all purposes. That is Deputy Dillon's point. In other words, what is necessary here, and I am going further than Deputy Dillon, is a positive amendment to the effect that for general purposes the house can continue to be open but for the sale of drink it cannot open during that hour. Is that not what we want to provide for?
We have two Ministers on the front bench and if they can agree to that it is all right.
Major de Valera
I am only suggesting that the concrete way to deal with this is that the section as it stands is acceptable. What is required is an additional section enabling the other business, which has nothing to do with drink, to continue. We want an addition to the section providing that where some other business is carried on at the moment nothing in this section will operate to prevent the opening of the premises for that purpose and, at the same time, providing for the implemenation of the law regarding drink.
If the Minister nods assent to that, all our difficulties are over.
Major de Valera
I should like to add one word to that. I think that there is a misunderstanding in the suggestion that the one hour does not matter. As far as the people who come into town in buses are concerned it does matter. Deputy Dillon has pointed out that the whole schedule of such people is covered by the buses, by the hours at which they arrive in the town and by the hours at which they leave. I would make the reasonable suggestion that an amendment or a proviso would meet this point and I submit to the Minister that the point should be met.
I hold that Deputy Dillon has been arguing this point rather with his tongue in his cheek. He realises very well that the effect of his suggestion is to give a legal defence to a man who wants to drink during the hour so that he can continue to drink to his heart's content. He has it as an excuse, when the Gardaí come in to inspect the premises, that he has come in to buy a shirt or a pair of insoles. There is a sensible way for the licensee to deal with the matter. All he has to do is to erect a partition or something like it dividing the bar from the rest of the mixed business.
At the moment that partition is there in many houses and where it is not it could be put up at very little expense. There is no merit in the argument that any hardship will be created for anybody in the county boroughs by this section. All we are doing is saying that this hour which was a closing for all purposes, except for bona fide drinkers in the county boroughs until now, as a result of the disappearance of the bona fide trade will be a complete closing. I do not know what the Deputy's experience is but I know a number of towns in the west of Ireland where the practice appears to be more and more, particularly in the larger premises, to close down at lunch hour, in the different types of businesses and not in the pubs alone. That, I assume, is dictated by staff and similar considerations.
I cannot see the picture which Deputy Dillon paints of people in mixed businesses losing by virtue of the fact that their premises are closed during this hour. For the past 30 years in Limerick or in any county borough, the lady who wanted to buy insoles had to go to the trouble of hammering at the door to get into the mixed premises, because, under the law as it exists at present, that door was closed. If she were prepared to hammer at the outside door to get in during the hour because she was so taken with the insoles exposed for sale by Pat Brown or whoever he may be, I think she would be prepared to wait there until the hour of 3.30 until the premises were open for general business.
To amend this, in my view, would be absurd from a logical point of view. It may be argued logically that there may be a case for doing away with this altogether. That is one argument I could understand, but not the idea of providing what I call an excuse for being on a licensed premises, that having purchased an insole, to use Deputy Dillon's illustration, if a Garda comes in and finds me getting a drink wrongfully, I can produce my insole and say: "This is my purpose in being on the premises."
I agree with the Minister that it should be applicable to all or not at all. If there are merits in it, I cannot see why it is right to apply it in the city of Limerick or Waterford and not in Dún Laoghaire. There is the question of trading. The Minister for Lands will appreciate that in Limerick and places like Waterford, a number of the publicans are of the first generation and their relatives trade with them, or relatives are employed by the public houses. There is that association.
Amendment No. 16 is consequential and the decision on this amendment will also cover Amendment No. 16. I am putting the question——
On a point of order.
The Deputy may not make a point of order while the Chair is putting the question.
I thought the Minister would inform us whether or not this section applies to clubs.
We shall be dealing with that point later.
The Deputy should not interrupt the Chair when putting the question.
Amendment declared lost.
That covers what other amendment?
Amendment No. 16.
Amendment No. 9 is not moved. That gives us the right to put it down on the Report Stage.
Amendment No. 9 not moved.
I move Amendment No. 10:—
In page 4, lines 25 and 26, to delete "one o'clock" and substitute "half-past twelve o'clock" and to delete "three o'clock" and substitute "two o'clock".
We are agreeing to substitute 12.30 for 1 o'clock and 2 o'clock for 3 o'clock. We are doing that to meet the various points of view put forward, which suggested that these hours were more suitable to meet the public needs than those suggested in the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 are alternative amendments and if No. 10 is agreed, Nos. 11 and 12 may not be moved.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 not moved.
I move Amendment No. 13:—
In page 4, line 26, to delete "five" and substitute "seven".
The purpose of this amendment is to try to find more suitable hours than those suggested for the second opening on Sunday. The suggested hours are far more ridiculous than the existing hours of 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. The existing hours were considered to interfere with tea time, or meal times, but the suggested hours of 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. for Sunday opening are utterly ridiculous when the Minister realises that in the city of Dublin, or in any licensed house that gives employment, 50 per cent. of the staff are at work. I am sure every Deputy will agree with me when I suggest it is absolutely inhuman to expect a member of a staff to have his tea before he comes back to work at 5 p.m., and equally inhuman to expect him to wait until 9.30 p.m. or 10 p.m. before having his evening meal when he gets home from work. Considering that the employer has only 50 per cent. of his staff working on Sunday, where will he get staff or relief for the men who will require to go to their meals during that trading period?
I visualise certain objections to the alternatives suggested in this amendment. Let us consider the traders who trade in the vicinity of major sporting venues. In the city of Dublin, there are licensed traders in the vicinity of Croke Park, or Dalymount Park, who feel they are legitimately required to open their house at 5 p.m. on Sundays. The same problem arises in Limerick, Cork, Galway and Thurles. I suggest that in such cases it might be possible to grant a special exemption order. I do not think any abuses have arisen where special exemption orders have been granted before opening time. Abuses have arisen only where they were granted after closing time.
Another aspect is that the mainstay of the licensed trade, the ordinary working-man, is used to a pint or two each night, six nights a week. He avails of the last hour's trading which at the moment is from 9.30 to 10.30 in summer or from 9 to 10 in winter. Under the proposal in this Bill, those facilities will not be given to the ordinary customer on a Sunday night. In other words, certain facilities are given to him on six nights a week but he is deprived of them on Sundays.
I suggest that, instead of 5 to 9, 7 to 10 or even 8 to 10 would be more acceptable to the trade in general and far more acceptable to the consumer. The hours suggested at the moment are giving us five and a half hours' trading on Sunday as against the three and a half hours' trading we have at the moment. As a person interested in the trade, I am not suggesting that the existing hours of trading should be increased. I am suggesting that more suitable hours of trading should be made available to the public.
I think that the most suitable hours of trading on Sundays would be 12.30 to 2 p.m. for the first opening, which have been agreed, and, for the second opening, 7 to 10 p.m., as I have suggested in this amendment. I think the employer, the worker and the consumer would be more satisfied if those hours were applied.
We must consider the people working at the business, the employee and the employer. If trading is not carried out between 2 to 7 p.m. it enables the employee or the employer to take part in any sport he wishes, to go to see a football or a hurling match, to stay at home with his wife and family, to bring them to the seaside or to go to the pictures.
The suggested closing period in this Bill of from 2 to 5 p.m. does not give a man time for anything. It is completely and utterly a ridiculous closing period. The Minister should give really serious consideration to the suggestion that the second opening period should be from 7 to 10 p.m.
Really, amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 15 hang together. Deputy Belton raises the general question of the opening hours in the afternoon on Sundays and on St. Patrick's Day. I have an amendment here in the same terms as an amendment proposed by Deputies Norton and Larkin substituting, in effect, the hour of seven all the year round as a closing hour instead of 8 or 9 in the Summer as suggested in the Bill. That case was made to me by a group of trade union representatives who discussed this matter with me.
The case they made carried great weight with me. They said that many of their members are married men and that their circumstances are very similar to those of a married publican who employs nobody at all but runs the house himself. Take a married man with a young family. He has a long working day every day of the week. Then comes Sunday or St. Patrick's Day. This Bill proposes that he should work on the Sunday morning, get his lunch and then be back to work in the evening from 5 until 8 o'clock in winter or 9 o'clock in summer.
They put it to me that that is really a proposal that he should never see his family at all because in any well-conducted house young children are in bed by 9 o'clock and a man is at least entitled to a Sunday or a holiday such as St. Patrick's Day when he would be able to get home and have some time in his family circle. I feel there is a lot of force in that case.
While I think it is desirable and necessary that people engaged in the retail distributive trade should cater reasonably for their customers I feel that if people are free to get drink up to 7 o'clock on a Sunday night or on St. Patrick's Day night they are doing all right. If we abolish all closing hours, for which I think a strong case can be made, then it is up to the individual publicans themselves, the trade unions and the employees of the publicans to make what arrangements they like with no statutory hours fixed at all.
It is then a matter for the trade unions to champion the case of their men with the employers and to settle satisfactory hours. Where, by statute, we are fixing opening hours, for reasons into which we have already gone, to become virtually obligatory on all publicans, considering the intensely competitive nature of the trade, I think that to compel even the individual publican but more so the employee, for instance the young married man, to work until 9 o'clock in the evening on Sundays and holidays is excessive more especially when we bear in mind that what we are prescribing here are not the working hours but the opening hours.
When you finish in a bar at 9 o'clock at night you cannot simply close the door and go home. There is a good deal of consequential work which must be done and which means that the bar will not be vacated until about 9.40 p.m. so that the employee does not get home until 10 o'clock at the earliest. I think that is excessive. There is a strong case, on humanitarian grounds, for providing that the hour in the evening should be changed to 7 all the year round, thus allowing those working in this trade to have some family life of their own.
Let us not in this House become too detached from the ordinary domestic problems of our neighbours. People who have to earn their living are entitled to some consideration outside the strictly economic aspect of their life. There is such a thing as a domestic life. While it is no part of the duty of this Oireachtas to regulate that, we certainly ought to try to take precautions to ensure that our legislation will not operate virtually to obliterate them.
On a point of information. Are we now discussing that amendment and also taking note of the fact that amendments Nos. 14 and 15——
Yes. Amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 15 deal with the hours of trading in the evenings, on St. Patrick's Day and Sundays.
In any case, I give the Minister an undertaking that that is all I am going to say.
And what about area exemption orders?
I was about to suggest that the debate could also cover the amendment to amendment No. 57, in the name of Deputy O'Donnell, dealing with area exemption orders, if the House agrees.
Hold your horses, now.
In view of the difficulty we already had this morning when it came to deciding on some amendments, I submit that this amendment deals only with the opening hours, whereas the other amendments deal specifically with another aspect of the matter, the closing hours. I submit on that matter that the House might be permitted to discuss this amendment and the others separately.
I have since confirmed that this arrangement made with the central office before Christmas was discussed formally with the Labour Party and with myself. I refused to consent to it except subject to the agreement of the Labour Party and that agreement was procured at that time. The agreement provided that No. 15 on the Green Paper would fall if the motion, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand" were carried on amendment No. 14.
That is correct.
Therefore, in the light of this agreement, I felt entitled to refer to the text of No. 15 before I was told it had been knocked out on a decision taken on No. 14. I think it is reasonable to discuss Nos. 13, 14 and 15 but we have been notified that if the motion, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand" is carried in respect of amendment No. 14, amendment No. 15 falls.
Nos. 13, 14 and 15 together, then.
I think that is fair.
If that is how you rule, we must accept your ruling. I do not know to what extent Deputy Dillon's statement is correct. As far as I am concerned, my name is down to an amendment and I was not made aware of any arrangement or agreement as to how it should be dealt with. I do not, of course, challenge the accuracy of Deputy Dillon's recollection as to what arrangement he has made, but, in view of the fact that it was announced, I think on the very first day this Bill came before the House, that the Labour Party had decided to have a free vote on the matter, it is inconceivable that any arrangement has been made with the Labour Party in the absence of consultation with those who have amendments down.
However, the difficulty we are in, of course, in dealing with this matter is that in amendment No. 13 there is a proposal to have later opening hours on a Sunday and, in amendment No. 14, a proposal to have later closing hours, whereas in amendment No. 15, in the names of Deputy Dillon, Deputy Norton and myself, there is a proposal to have earlier closing hours, in complete contradiction to the other two amendments. Consequently, we find great difficulty in accepting the procedure as being the best in the circumstances.
However, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle has ruled that they should be discussed together and that in certain circumstances, when the motion is moved and put, if No. 14 is defeated, No. 15 also goes. That is depriving the movers of amendment No. 15 of the right to have a decision taken on an important aspect of this matter.
In the amendment in the name of Deputy Belton, it is proposed that the opening hour provided in the Bill, five o'clock, be changed to seven o'clock. Personally, I suppose the best way to deal with opening hours on Sundays, having regard to all the circumstances, would be to have only one opening session, namely, the earlier opening session and to let the day be recognised as the day it is, a day of rest. However, that amendment was knocked down but Deputy Belton is proposing that the opening hour be seven o'clock on Sunday evening. This proposal would be generally repugnant to those who are compelled to earn their livelihood working in a public house as members of the staff or, in a great measure, to those who have to earn their livelihood by running public houses. It means that on this one day of the week, reasonable relaxation and reasonable enjoyment, in the company of their families, would be prejudiced and curtailed.
Deputy Belton makes an argument in favour of the seven o'clock opening hour, that it would be a hardship on staff to start work at 5 o'clock and to continue until 8 or 9 p.m. I agree that such hours would impose severe hardship on staffs and would mean difficulties, embarrassment and inconvenience for their families but the position would not be quite so bad if the hours were changed from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. or 9 p.m. to from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m., that at 7 p.m. the public houses would close, the owners could get a meal and have a few hours with their families before retiring to bed and in the case of the staff, the assistants could complete their normal duty of cleaning up and seeing that the premises were ready for the following morning and the porters could complete their work in the cellar and could leave their places of employment, under the best circumstances possible, by 7.30 and in the worst circumstances by about 8 p.m., which would mean that they would have some time for themselves on a Sunday evening. Those without domestic responsibilities and who were not married would have an opportunity of having the evenings to themselves. Those who were married would have an opportunity of spending the evening with their families. This would apply equally in the case where there was no staff.
In amendment No. 14, Deputy Belton, having proposed to shove back the opening hours to 7 o'clock in the evening, then proposes to extend the closing hours from 9 o'clock until 10 o'clock. The mover of this amendment appears to be more interested in having the public houses open for an increased sale of liquor than in the public or of the staffs in those houses or anywhere else.
I do not know whether this House could accept as a reasonable suggestion that public houses should be opened every Sunday evening until 10 o'clock. Down the years, a lot has been said on all sides of the House about the value of family life and the value of the Irish way of life. I am beginning to think that was completely meaningless if at this stage it is proposed to open the public houses until 10 o'clock on a Sunday evening.
I always subscribed to the view—I subscribe to it today—that people are entitled to normal relaxation and to normal refreshment, if they feel like indulging in any form of liquid refreshment. I subscribe very strongly to the view that workers are entitled to rest. They are entitled to know that there is a reasonable closing hour, a reasonable hour for finishing work and that they can then have their own enjoyment and enjoy the society of their friends and families.
By the carrying of certain decisions in this House, we have, in fact, extended the hours of drinking until late at night on six days of the week. We have the situation that the Minister proposes: "To extend those hours also on Sunday." If the Minister is satisfied to grant those hours until 9 o'clock, Deputy Belton wants to extend them even further. On this matter I would submit that the hours mentioned in the amendment in my name, from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m., are reasonable hours for a Sunday evening. That two hour period affords those who wish to take a drink an opportunity of doing so. It will also afford the people employed in the sale and the service of drink to the public some break—possibly not as long as I would personally wish—on a Sunday afternoon, and, what is very important, indeed, to me, a complete break on Sunday evening after the public houses close at 7 o'clock.
Why should we in this House take the view, in the absence of any substantial demand, that these hours should be enforced on publicans and on those who work in public houses? It is easy enough to say as Deputy Dillon said. He said that one way to solve the problem was to have no fixed hours or statutory hours and then competition would regulate the matter, but here, again, we are dealing not just with the question of the supply of goods in a case where a person goes into a shop for the purpose of buying a length of tweed or purchasing cigarettes or matches. He generally knows, when he goes in, what he wants to buy. In most cases, he comes out with what he goes in for.
We are dealing with a product which of its very nature very often means that the person who goes in in the first place to have a bottle of stout by the time he comes out, has indulged in a wide variety of liquors. In many cases, the person has gone in merely to buy one or two bottles of stout or, perhaps, a half glass of whiskey, a drop of sherry or whatever it is. That is his intention but in a very large percentage of cases, he does not leave when he has had that bottle of stout.
We are dealing with a product which has this effect. If you go into a drapery shop at 5.25—the matter of drapery was referred to so often in the discussion this morning that I cannot help referring to it—to purchase a pair of socks or a pair of insoles and the assistant says: "We are closing up now; would you mind placing your order quickly?", you would take the pair of socks, pay for them and leave because the shop is closing. You never, in any circumstances, feel that it is your duty to remonstrate with the assistant and say: "Look, you have no right to put me out now." We recognise the assistants' rights. They have a life to lead and if the closing hours are 5.30 or 6.30, the general public accept that and buy their goods.
In the case of the public house, if there are no statutory hours for opening, I am afraid the publican or his employee will be faced with an objection by the customer if asked to leave the premises, if such customer had reached a certain degree of intoxication. I do not say it would occur in all cases. By and large our people are reasonable and amenable. However, in the absence of statutory closing hours, I am afraid the percentage of cases in which difficulties would arise would increase substantially. Therefore, in order to have some reasonable approach to this question of drinking hours it has been accepted generally that statutory hours are desirable, and in certain areas for many years there have been certain statutory hours in respect of the consumption of liquor on Sundays. In other areas, of course, the consumption of liquor on Sunday was not possible.
In considering the Bill before us and the specific proposals made, we must have regard to the interests of the people who have to operate the conditions laid down by this House. The conditions as proposed by the Minister in respect of Sunday evening opening hours are conditions which, in my opinion and in the expressed opinion of the trade union organisation who represent that body of workers in the licensing trade will create difficulty and hardship for those people and not only for them but difficulty, hardship and inconvenience for their families.
I do not know whether the Minister wants to make any specific case justifying the extension of Sunday evening hours. My objection to the proposal to extend the hours to 9 p.m. is basically that it interferes with the family life of those employed in this trade. There is also the general objection as to the effect of these late hours on the general public, the ordinary citizen and his family. Is there no pastime or form of relaxation in which the Irish people can engage on a Sunday evening other than drinking? Surely when later drinking hours have been accepted for the other days of the week, they are sufficient for those who wish to drink without extending the hours on Sunday evening.
I said on another section of the Bill that in recent years there has been less drunkenness in our cities and towns and in the rural areas. If people wish to have a drink nobody wants to deprive them of normal pleasure in that regard. I should like to ask the Minister to indicate in the course of discussion on these amendments whether the opening of public houses from 5 o'clock until 9 o'clock on a Sunday evening will contribute to the continued reduction in drunkenness. I do not think we should pay too much attention to what happens in other countries, to what happens in Britain, Australia, France or anywhere else. We should have regard to the developments at home over the years and should express our views as to whether we believe it is a good thing for the country to reach a position where the abuse of intoxicating liquor is gradually lessening all the time.
We in this House are not entitled to take any credit for that desirable development. As various Deputies have indicated at different times in the course of the discussion on this Bill and possibly will again before the discussion concludes, over the years the law governing the use of intoxicating liquor was more honoured in the breach than in the observance. However, I think we can accept that in recent years young people in their 'teens and early twenties are, contrary to the opinion held by many people, applying themselves to their interests with less and less reliance on the stimulus of intoxicating liquor. More of our people are abstaining from drink in their early years and many more are drinking in very moderate quantities. I should like to know whether the Minister thinks that this is desirable or whether he thinks there should be encouragement to induce the young people to drink to excess.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.