Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 27 Jun 1962

Vol. 196 No. 6

Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1962— Committee Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following amendment:
4. In paragraph (a), line 21, to delete all words after "hours" and substitute: "of three o'clock and four o'clock in the afternoon or".—
(Deputy M.J. O'Higgins).

This amendment relates to the time of the midday break which under the Bill will apply only to Dublin and Cork. I am suggesting that instead of the present hour's break from half-past two until half-past three there should be a break from 3 o'clock until 4 o'clock. This amendment is not being moved in any controversial way. It is put down because we believe it is a matter which should be discussed and considered by the House, having regard to the fact that the Minister's withdrawal of Section 15 of the Bill was done in an atmosphere of threatening the publicans that unless they got into the catering business in a big way within the next year or two something similar to his proposals under Section 15 of the Bill would be reintroduced.

The case has been made to us, and this is what we should like the House to consider, that those publicans who are making a serious effort to cater for meals find themselves in a difficult position because of the timing of the midday break. The person who goes in for a meal from a quarter-to-two onwards would find it very difficult to have an adequate meal or to be adequately served by the publicans before half-past two. At half-past two he would have to leave because the public house must close. Consideration should be given to that problem which exists at the moment and which will become even more widespread if the publicans have serious regard to the Minister's words in relation to going into the catering business. If the hour were changed to operate between three o'clock and four o'clock the same interruption would not apply to those who wish to have their meal in public houses. If it is thought desirable not to make any change in the timing of the hour at the moment it is certainly a matter which should come up for review again if there is any widespread increase in the number of public houses that go in for the catering business.

I am perfectly conscious of the fact that there are arguments against making a change at the present time. I know that, apart from one-man concerns, the publicans who employ staff in the cities of Dublin and Cork have become accustomed to the present pattern of things. They have their staff rota arranged so as to allow meals to be taken by the staff or time off for the staff during this closing hour and an alteration would create some problems for them. Not that I think the half-hour alteration would create any insuperable problems for the publicans but this is a matter which must be considered seriously and we should like to ascertain the views of the House on it.

Mr. Belton

I put my name to this amendment because I feel that publicans who are fulfilling the desire of the Minister as expressed in his speech on the Second Stage for the supplying of food and substantial meals to the public find that 2.30 o'clock is too early in the afternoon to close. It is quite usual for a customer to come in at 2 o'clock, or five or ten minutes past 2 o'clock and it is quite impossible for him to have consumed his meal at 2.30 when he must be put out of the place and out on the sidewalk.

I agree with the Minister when he expressed the desire that the owners of licensed premises should examine the question of supplying substantial meals to the public. I do not agree with all the speakers who said you are infringing on the rights of trade unions by abolishing or altering what is called the midday closing. I do not think there is a publican left in this city who avails of that hour for lunch time. Lunch time commences at 12.30 in all the licensed premises. If there is a big staff half of them go to lunch at 12.30 and come back at 2 o'clock when the other half go to lunch.

It would be a great help if the Minister would have the midday closing from 3 to 4 o'clock rather than from 2.30 to 3.30 o'clock, but I certainly would prefer if the Minister would consider, instead of that, leaving the midday closing as it is and permitting diners who are having a substantial meal to remain on the premises partaking of that meal with or without the serving of intoxicating liquor as the Minister and the Department may desire. I think that would completely fulfil the suggestion made by the Minister in his opening statement on this Bill.

I do not see why licensed premises serving substantial or adequate meals should not have the same facilities as a neighbouring hotel or restaurant. You have good class licensed premises in the city centre providing good substantial meals to the public and they have to put their customers out on the sidewalk at 2.30 p.m. while, right across the street or next door, and possibly selling as much or more intoxicating liquor, may be a restaurant or hotel which, because the owner has a restaurant licence, can keep its customers on the premises. The Minister would be doing a good job of work if he could embody in the Bill a provision to permit diners to remain on licensed premises during the midday closing with or without the service of intoxicating liquor.

This is not a very contentious matter but I think the midday closing should be left as it is. I do not drink but when I did drink, the boys and myself used to go to some club or other where we drank during the midday closing. My objection to this matter is that, whereas at present a man will leave the pub at 2.30 p.m. and go home and find his dinner will be hot in the oven, if you leave the midday closing later, he possibly will not go home at all and that means that his missus will be kept in and cannot go out when she wants to go out. At present the session drinkers are put out of the pub. They go home and the missus is waiting with the dinner and then out she goes.

The manner in which it is spaced at the moment also enables the worker to go home at 2.30 p.m. and he does not have to wait until 3 o'clock for his dinner. He can also get out between 7 o'clock and 8 o'clock for his tea but if you put the hour back until 4 o'clock it would be too early for him to go home for his tea at 7 o'clock. Many functions also start at 3 o'clock in the afternoon. The cinemas start their programmes about that time and everybody likes to be out of a cinema at 6 or 6.30 p.m. To do that they have to go in at 3 or 3.30 o'clock. There is not much time if a man gets home at 3.30 for him to get his dinner and let his wife out to the pictures so that she will be home in time for tea. As I see it, the hour we have at the moment is as good as any.

I have been listening to the degradation of the Irish people since the introduction of this Bill. I fail to see why the intelligence of the Irish people should be brought to such a low level as to say that because a man goes into a public-house, he degrades himself and his family and has to be hunted home out of it at 2.30 or 3.30 o'clock. What about the men who do not go into a publichouse at all? They can go into a betting office and remain there. I know what I am talking about; I have experience of both. They can go into the betting office at 11 in the morning and remain there until 5 in the evening. They can stay there with their wages in their pockets, backing winners or losers as the case may be, until they are put out.

Are we going to underestimate the intelligence of the people we represent and say that they are so degraded that we have to put the whip on them, and lock the door on them and say that they must go home at 2.30 o'clock? I do not agree that we have reached that low level where men go out and squander everything they have in their pockets. That may have been the case generations ago when we were an uneducated people, but surely, in 1962, we have reached a situation in which we look after our families first and then look after our own satisfaction?

We must accept the fact that the Minister has faced up to the position of the man who wants a drink. I congratulate the Minister on his approach. His predecessor simply did not know what the people needed. The present Minister knows what the people want. We are here to legislate for the people. Knowing both sides of the trade, I know what the people want. All this talk about men going out and spending their wages, and then coming home and wrecking their homes, is just so much hot air. That situation just does not obtain today.

There are a great many of them still. Do not worry.

One finds home wreckers in every section of the community, and drink is not the cause. The hours of trading make no difference. The general situation is that a man has a certain amount of money to spend. He wants to spend that to the best advantage. If there is a race meeting, a football match, or a hurling match on TV, he will go in and meet his friends, enjoy the amenities offered, and watch whatever programme he happens to be interested in. Any man is entitled to at least that in a free country.

I cannot understand the restrictions. A man who is engaged all morning unloading a cargo of slag, coal, or cement down at the docks will be very glad of a drink after his morning's work. He is entitled to a drink any time he needs it, whether it be Good Friday or Christmas morning. He deserves a drink. Trade unionism, and all the other "isms", are well catered for by the publican and by the employer in general.

The Minister has taken a courageous step in this matter. He has had the views of the different sections concerned. I agree with Deputy Belton that, if a man wants a meal, be it a sandwich or anything else, he is entitled to have that meal, whether it is between 2 p.m., 2.30 p.m. or 3.30 p.m. and 4 p.m. A man might finish his work at 2.15 p.m. If he wants to go in and have something then, surely he is entitled to have it. All these restrictions clearly show how out of touch some people are with the facts. I agree with the Minister there should be no restriction. The less restriction there is, the less drinking there will be.

Nearly everyone in jail is in jail because he drank. Most of them are, anyway.

I understand this amendment applies to the cities of Dublin and Cork. Having heard what Deputy Belton had to say in relation to this amendment, I am convinced it should not be passed. I do not see why the publicans in Dublin should be given any advantage over the rest of the citizens in Dublin. There was an outcry against Section 15 and it was withdrawn as a result of that outcry. It was said that if people were serving food, they should not be allowed to serve drink. Now, apparently, the publicans in Dublin want to have it both ways. The Minister urged publicans to do something about serving food in their establishments. I do not think we have yet reached the stage at which we should encourage publicans to serve food. There are a few public houses which do serve food, and serve it very well. A large number of public houses attempt to serve food, but do not serve it very well. A number of matters would need to be attended to before many of them could qualify as establishments suitable for the service of food. One very prominent public house in the city centre serves food, but affords no amenities for people to wash their hands afterwards. Unless every aspect in relation to the service and consumption of food is considered, we should not encourage the serving of food in city public houses.

I am conscious of the fact that there is no great demand for a change in the afternoon hour of closing in Dublin. I know no demand has come from the workers. I am not quite sure if there has been a unanimous demand from the employers. I think the Minister's suggestion in this connection should be accepted. As I interpret it, it means leaving the afternoon closing as it is in both Dublin and Cork city.

One would be inclined to think, listening to the debate so far, that we are a nation of morons doing nothing else but drinking. Nothing could be further from the facts. Even more remarkable is the fact that practically all the most profound speakers prefaced their remarks with the statement that they themselves do not drink. If a man does not drink, I fail to see what interest he can have in a Liquor Bill. Surely he should permit those who do drink to introduce a Bill which will meet the requirements of people who drink and not the requirements of those who have no interest at all in drink. This is just one other example of the man on the fence always being the best hurler. If a Liquor Bill is introduced based on the suggestions of the tee-totallers amongst us, God help he public and the publicans!

It is all very well to talk about the need for publicans letting their staffs off. The population of Dublin today must be in the region of 800,000. Are we to stand idly by and see hundreds of people put out on the streets for an hour, people who merely use the public houses for simple enjoyment? These people may just have had a meal. No one has raised that point so far. The normal custom is to have some sort of meal before 2.30 p.m. They may then want a drink, over which to chat with friends. It is rather extraordinary, considering how interested we profess to be in tourism, to find people anxious to close the public houses for an hour in the middle of the day. The suggestion is absurd.

I suggest the Minister should regard the requirements of the public as paramount rather than the convenience of the publicans. Public houses should be allowed to remain open. There should be no law to compel them to remain open. Any man who wants to close, let him close, if he wishes. That would be the fairest way.

With regard to food, to turn every public house into a restaurant is, I think, carrying things a bit too far. I would remind some gentlemen who are now coming forward with this idea that they were the people who opposed the idea of giving an intoxicating liquor licence to a restaurant. They are now going completely in reverse.

I do not think the question of giving food in a public house should arise at all. There are many places where food can be made available for consumption on the premises. With regard to the 2.30 to 3.30 p.m. closing, be it in Dublin, Cork, Waterford or any other place in the country, it should be possible for the public house to remain open for the benefit of the public rather than for the publican and the employees.

I think the maintenance of the midday closing is important. A number of publicans have experience of people coming into them after a wedding party or some other celebration in the morning. When these people come into the ordinary public house, they have probably had nearly enough to drink at that stage. Unless there is an opportunity for the publican to break up that group or party, it is quite likely that these people will stay on in the public house for a long period of time and the publican will then find himself in difficulties in trying to remove them. Also, on top of that, we have the question of the barmen. The barmen should have a definite break and should know the time of the break.

Rather than support the amendment we are now discussing, I should be inclined to move the midday closing forward instead of backwards half an hour. I think that from 2 to 3 p.m. would be better, if there were to be any change. Again, the Minister has shown his ability to find a happy compromise between the people who want to drink after lunch and the people who want to keep drinking——

The compromise was arrived at in the 1927 Act. I do not think the Minister was much interested in it then.

I agree. Unfortunately, there is no amendment to Section 14 of the 1927 Act which prohibits people from drinking in the diningroom of an holtel during the prohibited hours, even if they are residents of the hotel. I mentioned that point on the Second Stage. I hope we shall see some amendments in regard to it on Report Stage. Possibly I shall put one down myself.

As I was saying we have in this country a habit of what I might describe as drinking against the clock. You occasionally have the man who knocks off at 1 o'clock for his lunchtime break. He meets a friend or business associate and they decide to discuss some business problems over a drink. They go into the public house at, say, 1.10 p.m. and invariably it will be 1.40 or 1.45 p.m. when they finish two drinks. At that stage, one of them will look at the clock and say: "Let us have another couple."

Mr. Belton

The Deputy wants to bring the hour forward. You are drinking against the clock more so, then.

I agree, but you will not drink as much. On the other hand, for the man who goes home to his lunch and who may in the course of business require a drink in the afternoon then 3.30 p.m. is a reasonable hour for him to get back. He may even get back in plenty of time for 3 o'clock if he has to meet somebody and bring him to a public house for a drink.

I think that what one publican said to me in connection with drinking against the clock was very good. He said, in effect: "If I could open for two hours, with an hour break, continually all day I could do a lot of business. It is always in my last 15 minutes that I do the most business." He said that as soon as he calls out "Last drinks, gentlemen, please; we are closing in 15 minutes," everyone wants to buy a drink immediately. In my view that should be avoided. At the same time, particularly from the point of view of the lunch hour break for publicans and their employees, and also to break up parties coming from some other function who probably have enough when they go into the public house, I think this midday closing should be maintained. In my view, the hours we have at the moment are generally acceptable. To change them in any way would be a mistake and would involve changing the habits which our people have formed over the years since 1927.

As far as I can see, we are discussing a lot of hypothetical amendments as to whether we should give certain latitudes to publicans who serve meals during the midday closing. That is not the amendment we are discussing. We are discussing a specific amendment. If we confine our discussion to that, possibly we might get over it. I understand that the late Kevin O'Higgins, in introducing the 1927 Act, suggested for the first time the midday closing and, with the approval of the Dáil, it was fixed at 2.30 to 3.30 p.m.—and that has been the midday closing down through the years.

Now, this amendment suggests that we should change the time by half an hour and make the closing from 3 to 4 p.m. It is a matter for discussion merely on that specific point, whether it should be changed or otherwise. I shall give the House one reason. People coming into town for the afternoon generally get in somewhere between 2 and 3 p.m., after their lunch in the country. They want a drink when they come into town. They find the public houses closed and they remain closed until 3.30 p.m. If they get into town for a Soccer, Gaelic or Rugby match they have to go to the game without any refreshment at all. Games such as these generally start between 3 and 3.30 p.m. They cannot get any refreshment until the match is over.

I have a completely open mind on the matter but I think it is well worth considering a change from 3 to 4 p.m. Deputy Mullen is right. People just do not rush into a public house and spend the entire afternoon drinking. I agree with Deputy N. Lemass that the more restrictions we have, the more drinking we shall have or, rather, the worse the manner of drinking.

Definitely.

Deputy N. Lemass described it as "beating the clock." I have said that many times. We are discussing an ad hoc amendment. There is not much point in going over our views. I think there is something in this experiment of the hour between 3 to 4 p.m. Let it be. I know a number of people who arrive in the city and who are disappointed when they cannot get a drink between 2.30 and 3.30 p.m. What happens? They find themselves taking advantage of an hotel and get the drink there. There is no public bar in the hotel. There is an old saying that whenever you go to Mass, you always see the priest. Personally, when I want a drink, I always like to see the bottle.

And the measure.

And the measure. I am never too fond of a drink in a hotel lounge. I would rather see the bottle and see the measure, as Deputy Coughlan pointed out. What I have been saying is what happens when people arrive in town. They drift into the lounges of the hotels and the restaurants because it is an appropriate time to go there to get a drink. I think that if the break were between 3 and 4 p.m. it might prove to be a more suitable time. We might try it as an experiment and if the experiment is not successful, then on some future occasion we can revert to the hours fixed in 1927.

I must say I am totally against this midday break, judging by the arguments I have heard here to-day. I do not like the approach that our people have to be marshalled around. Times have changed since 1927. I do not like this insinuation that John Murphy or Bill Kelly will go into a public house and the midday closing hour has to be there to get them out. Surely we have changed over the years? I do not agree with that attitude at all. While I have been approached by various interested parties in Dublin, I do not know the views of the trade unions or the licensed trade as a whole. I was not going to speak on this amendment but I do object to the trend of the debate, that our people have to be marshalled and that we have not changed our attitude to drink over the years. I feel we have changed.

Take my own constituency. One finds that there is a public house in the city area observing the midday closing hour while another public house about 200 yards outside the city boundary, remains open. I do not see the difference—it is a built-up area. But I strongly object to the idea that this has to be done to curb our people in drinking. That is not the position at all today. I am not concerned whether it is 2.30 p.m. or 3 p.m. or 4 p.m. but I would like to see the midday closing abolished.

I think the speakers today have taken their cue from last night's debate on amendment No. 2. They have a wrong conception of the whole idea. We have before us this amendment in the names of Deputy O'Higgins, Deputy Belton, Deputy Byrne and Deputy O'Keeffe, to have the midday closing hour in Dublin and Cork from 3 o'clock to 4 o'clock. They are justified in putting down that amendment and I think the Minister would be justified in agreeing to it. I am going to say what appears to be an unforgivable thing. Prominent people in the licensed trade have got a prominent member, one of their number, who is a member of the Dáil to put down this amendment. That seems an unpopular thing to say, that when the publicans are being brushed aside during the debate, nobody should be concerned about them at all.

The House and the Minister must be concerned with that trade. If a small group of organised workers were upset in their industry, we would have protests here and nobody would say a word against the people endeavouring to look after their conditions. I must say I am disappointed as I thought we were starting off on the right foot last night. I am disappointed with the Minister's attitude in this Bill so far. He is not going to get this Bill as easily as I thought. This is a reasonable amendment and I hope he is not going to treat it as he treated the reasonable amendment put to him last night.

I think he is prepared to consider and reject any amendment.

Maybe he was tired after the marathon on the Official Secrets Bill and the Judges Bill but he should consider the licensed trade. As I said last night, I keep on asking myself who inspired this Bill? Who wanted this Bill? Why should we have had this Bill at all? There was no demand for it. I am not a teetotaller and I can speak with some knowledge about the inside of a public house. I do not think anybody in this House painted the picture that the Irish people were degraded and would remain in public houses drinking until they became insensible. What was said was that there would be a great number of people who would do that. It is important that we should legislate to suit a large and representative group of people like the Dublin publicans. They are big ratepayers and taxpayers and they——

And they are decent people.

They are decent people but they are not being treated decently by the Minister. Neither were the publicans in Waterford treated decently last night by the Minister.

They do not dislike me all the same.

I have a telegram in my pocket and it is not complimentary to the Minister.

Do not read it; keep it in your pocket.

The Deputy should keep it in his pocket.

I think Deputy Burke who poses as a champion of the publicans and then goes into the Lobby and tramples on their faces should keep quiet. I was glad that Deputy Lemass spoke on this and had the courage to say what was in his mind and that he was in favour of the midday closing hour. It is nice to know they are not all "yesmen" over there. If we had more of that in this House, we would be legislating for the Irish people; we would be legislating in a democratic fashion and we would not have the Minister coming in and saying: "There it is, and you can take it or leave it." I think it is the opinion of the House——

The Deputy is too serious; I shall leave the House.

It is not time for the midday closing yet.

Deputy Burke must know now that he killed a lot of his supporters who had the bona fide trade in Dublin and cut their throats——

The Deputy should relate his remarks to the amendment.

I am actually speaking to the amendment because Deputy Burke is the arch-priest, or the chief commissar, or gives them to understand that, in Dublin——

County Dublin.

I do not think they will have his picture in the Licensed Vintner again—or probably they will put a reward over it and give his fingerprints. I would say to the Minister that this is a very early stage of the Bill and we do not want to be here until Christmas. The right thing for the Minister to do would be to begin to meet the House on some of these amendments. He could not commence at a better time than on this one. I felt sure last night the Minister would concede the Waterford point and put that city on the same basis as Dublin and Cork.

There is no man on those front benches opposite to whom I would concede before Deputy T. Lynch.

It can always be done on Report Stage.

It does not seem to be particularly relevant at the moment.

Of course, it is very important.

However important, it may not be discussed on this amendment.

I am really being a very bad politician but if the Minister had given way to me on this point——

That does not interest me in the smallest way.

It interests me a lot, Sir. You have not to contest election. If the Minister goes on in this way, we will be at the chapel gates sooner than most of us think. If the Minister considers this matter carefully, he will realise that Deputy Belton did not put his name to this amendment just for fun.

I think I have been misinterpreted a bit. Amendment No. 4 proposes a change in the midday closing hour—not that it should be done away with entirely but that the time should be changed. I am inclined to agree with Deputies P. O'Donnell and P.J. Burke that the more restrictions you have, the worse type of drinking you will have. To my mind, the fewer restrictions you have, the less drunkenness there will be. If we must have a closing hour it would be better to move it back to 2 p.m. to 3 p.m.

I want to be reasonable about this amendment. I think it is something on which we all will have our views. I would not have the slightest hesitation in accepting the amendment if there was a prospect of getting general agreement on the desirable thing to do. It seems to me that all we are really concerned with here is the convenience of the Dublin and Cork publicans and their staffs. It does not seem to me that the general public will be inconvenienced one way or another. In that situation we might leave over any further discussion until the Report Stage and I shall very sincerely consider the amendment and the additional suggestions which have been made by Deputy Belton to the effect that persons should be allowed to remain on licensed premises during the prohibited period provided they are having a substantial meal.

I shall undertake to consider these two matters very seriously between now and the Report Stage and I would also like to have further discussions with the publicans concerned because my information about the situation is that the Dublin publicans are fairly well divided on this issue. I do not think Deputy M.J. O'Higgins is right when he thinks trade union difficulties are of paramount importance. My understanding of the situation is that in Dublin the larger publicans, who employ in the main trade union labour, are in favour of a total abolition of the midday closing hour, but that the smaller publicans who man their own premises are in favour of its retention because it provides them with an opportunity of having their mid-day meal and of tidying up their premises.

My own personal inclination would be to abolish the midday closing hour altogether for various reasons, some of which I gave last night, but as I do not feel that the public interest is vitally involved in this matter one way or another, I think it is one of the situations in which we should have regard to the interests and the convenience of the publicans and their staffs. We can afford in this case to have special regard to them because there is no great public interest involved either way. If that is agreeable to Deputies I would suggest the amendment be withdrawn for the moment on the understanding that I shall look into it between now and Report Stage.

The Minister will look into it without committing himself?

Yes. I shall seriously consider it together with Deputy Belton's suggestions and see whether or not we could get a unanimous recommendation from the publicans concerned in the meantime.

Will the Minister also consider the housewives?

Certainly.

Is the Minister not now concerned with the original idea in having the public houses closed for an hour—the idea of having a break in drinking?

I do not think so. As I said, I think the situation has changed since that idea was originally incorporated into the Licensing Acts.

No, since it was originally introduced in 1927. I think we can now consider abolishing this midday closing hour with an easy mind and that we can be satisfied that to do so would not have any socially undesirable consequences. That is true from what I know of Dublin and Cork. There is one aspect of this matter of which I am particularly aware. Many of the licensed premises to-day have installed television sets for the convenience and the entertainment of customers and they have at the moment a problem, particularly on Saturdays, with customers who want to stay on for the purpose of seeing a big race or some such event. These are human factors, things to which we must have regard, and if people get into the habit of staying on illegally then we are starting all over again the whole business of ignoring the law. It is much better to meet the reasonable convenience of the people than to have provisions that will only result in the commission of illegal acts.

The Minister has mentioned television and says that it is only on Saturdays that people wish to see events. That is why it is a danger. The public houses are packed to capacity on Saturdays up to the very moment of closing.

I think the Minister's approach, except in his later remarks, is reasonable. I do not want the Minister to consider this on the basis of doing away with the mid-day break in Dublin and Cork, but I am quite satisfied the Minister will consider the amendment and Deputy Belton's suggestions and on that basis we withdraw the amendment.

Would the Minister also consider Waterford in the meantime?

During Questions, Deputies might consider the other amendments dealing with opening and closing hours and later we might possibly discuss them all together and take separate decisions.

One at a time—the longer, the better.

If I smiled at Deputy Lynch a short time ago, I hope I did not make him cross. I was smiling at his persistence.

Will the Minister not give me a word of hope? Will he consider Waterford before the Report Stage?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Top
Share