Before Deputy Sherwin moves amendment No. 5, might I suggest that amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 could be taken together; Nos. 6, 7 and 8 are alternatives to Deputy Sherwin's amendment No. 5.
Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1962—Committee Stage (Resumed).
SECTION 2.
There is just one point. I have no objection, except that I was going to propose that, with amendment No. 8, we should be at liberty to discuss Nos. 12 and 20 also, because the three amendments are really part of one proposal.
Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 12 and 20—is that right?
Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 12 and 20.
I do not think we should take these together. I think we should take them one at a time.
It is agreed to take Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 12 and 20 together.
I move amendment No. 5:
In paragraph (b), line 28, to delete "four" and substitute "half-past five".
The opinion has been expressed here by some Deputies that people who do not drink are no authorities on this Bill and ought, therefore, to sit back more or less and keep quiet.
That was qualified.
I consider myself, believe it or not, a greater authority than most people here on this subject because, when it comes down to fundamentals, I am the fellow who was often drunk, who learned his lesson, and who realises how silly other people who get drunk are.
That does not arise on the amendment.
It may not arise, but I am substantiating my claim to speak with authority in this matter. I have here 27 letters containing instructions as to how I should vote on this Bill. I have letters from pioneer societies, publicans, barmen, and everyone.
And lighthouse keepers.
I represent an area which has more public houses than any other area of its size in the country. Dublin North Central includes O'Connell Street, the cattle market, the fish market, the vegetable market, the docks. In the docks, the public houses are clustered together. Summerhill is part of Dublin North Central. It is one of the most densely populated areas in the country. I suppose there are more public houses there than anywhere else in this city. There are also more fellows who "beer" in that area. I have even greater experience than that. I was in the dance game for 30 years. I know the effect drink has on people. In 99 cases out of 100, drink is the cause of all the trouble that arises. I speak as an authority.
The proposal in the Bill is that public houses should open from four o'clock until ten o'clock. These hours are opposed. It is said that six hours' opening is too long an opening on Sunday. It is too long particularly for the workers. Now Dublin must be considered by itself. It is in a special category because it can be said that we represent in Dublin one-quarter of the population of Ireland. Thousands of people who work in public houses—I mean thousands literally; there are barmen, and doormen, and all the others—want a few hours' leisure on Sunday afternoon. Getting off at two o'clock and coming back again at four o'clock gives them only two hours. All they can do in that time is have their dinner. They cannot go to a football match or attend a sports meeting.
This view has been put forward by the Grocers Assistants Organisation in Parnell Square. These people like their game. They may even like to play in a game. With these hours on Sunday they are deprived of their game. I suggest 5.30 p.m. to 10 p.m. would be the ideal from every point of view. To begin with, the pioneers would be satisfied because that would reduce the hours by one hour and a half and lessen the period in which people could drink. The workers would be satisfied because they would have a reasonable break. With three and a half hours' break, they could go home, have their dinner, go to a match, and be down in nice time for the reopening at 5.30 p.m.
The publicans themselves would like to get off on Sunday afternoon. They would like to take a drive down the country and come back in time for the 5.30 p.m. opening. Sunday afternoon is recognised as a time for sport and games. We ought to encourage athletics. If the public houses open at 4 p.m. games and sports may run the risk of being deprived of patrons. Many might not bother to go. It should be our ambition to encourage sports and athletics. If the public houses opened at 5.30, 5 o'clock would be a little early for the assistants who might want to go to some amusement, the cinema or a match. If they have to get back to work at 5 o'clock, they would have to leave the cinema before they saw the full picture. That would not be fair. They would have to leave the playing pitch before the actual finish of a match and it is the last part that is the best part, as you know, of anything. Therefore, I have worked it out as well as I could to suit everyone. In my view, 5.30 p.m. would allow those people to go to a cinema or to go to a match and to be able to get the bus and be back nicely in time to suit the people coming out of the picture houses and out of the matches.
As you know, matches are over about 5 p.m. After a walk down town, they would not have long to wait. Therefore, the people who, say, come from the country, especially for the big matches which have been referred to and which are held in the city, could get a drink or two before leaving for their trains. Six o'clock would be a bit too late. Those people would be hanging around for the best part of an hour. They might have to get their train at 6 or 6.30 p.m. This would be a bit too late. Furthermore, the cinema crowd would be out at 5.30 p.m. and they would have gone home. There would be too much of a wait until 6 o'clock. If it were 7 o'clock, people coming home from the matches would not be able to get a drink at all.
I have worked it out and I am trying to meet the Minister. In my view, 5.30 p.m. would give reasonable time to the workers playing a game or seeing a game to get back. It would give reasonable time to allow the pubs to be opened to cater for the crowds coming from the cinemas and the matches. It would reduce the period to 4½ hours and, again, it would give the workers a break rather than have them on duty for a long period.
I cannot say much more than that but I should like to say a word or two in reference to the closing at 9 or 10 p.m. Some Deputies think that the pubs should close at 9 p.m. I am against it. I am accepting the 10 p.m. closing. I do not like 9 p.m., because at 9 p.m. your night is ruined. The night is too young at 9 p.m. At the same time, you can go nowhere at 9 p.m. All amusements proper start at 8 p.m. The concert, everything you can think of, starts at 8 p.m. Therefore, there would be no point in going for public entertainment at 9 p.m. Anyway, you could not get in or the show would be partly over. Nine o'clock is not a suitable hour.
To have to come out at 9 o'clock means that you are only encouraging fellows to go off on the batter or to do something they should not do. Furthermore, most of the religious bodies commence their ceremonies at 8 p.m. and they are usually over at 9 p.m. The Rosary is over. It is not well, either, to have one crowd coming out of the church and another crowd coming out of the pub at the same time. It is too early to go home at 9 o'clock but at 10 o'clock the night is nearly over. You can walk home and be there in nice time, in reasonable time. It suits the wife; it suits everyone. Ten o'clock would be nice time. Nine o'clock is a bad time. That is my point.
I appeal to the Minister in this regard. I do not want to press my amendment. I want the Minister to consider the points. You will hear the arguments here that the pubs should be shut at 8 or 9 p.m. They are not reasonable arguments. You will get the points that they are open between 6 and 7 p.m.—but the crowds coming from the matches will not be catered for then. The Minister has the reputation of being a sticker to his guns. I know he probably will not agree to any radical amendments at all. But my amendment meets his proposal and therefore it is something which he ought to consider.
I have spoken to hundreds of barmen, to the public and to publicans. I was out in Malahide only last week. A new lounge was opened and there were about six publicans there. It was a sort of a family business. I spoke to them and I spoke to the attendants about this matter. They all agreed that what I am proposing would meet them and they would be satisfied with it. I have been in a lot of bars. I have been on the Quays. I have asked all the assistants about this matter. I know them all. As I said, I have more pubs in my area than any other member of this House.
I drank at one time and I did all the pubs. I know what I am talking about. I used to drink up to closing hours. I did not go home. There is a case made here that you are different. We are not a bit different. That is a lot of "hooey". We do not enact laws here for the majority but for a minority. Actually, we enact laws here to protect ourselves. All the laws are really enacted here to guard against the wild actions of minorities. Not everyone goes around killing his mother or father but a few do and that is why we have a penalty such as hanging. Not everyone robs or abuses females. Actually, it is a minority who do those things. It is a minority who do all the depredations. It is a minority who compel us to come in here and to pass certain legislation.
Therefore, when people say: "Oh, the Irish people are all changing" I say that that is all "my granny". Twenty per cent. of them have not changed and it is about the 20 per cent. that we are worried. It is the 20 per cent. who will hang around the pub until it closes at 2.30 p.m. They are the people we should be thinking about and let us give over this business of trying to play to the gallery that they are all grand people. Yes, 80 or 90 per cent. of them are grand people. It is the other 10 or five per cent for whom we must legislate in order to control them. They are the people who can go out and knock down people and even kill them with their motor cars.
I appeal to the Minister not to be misled. I appeal to him to make sure to fix reasonable hours. That is why I want the midday break. I know it all from experience. Here is a funny thing. The last day I drank, I drank hooch. I never drank it before. A fellow said to me: "Here, taste this." I did so and it tasted like water. I said: "That is nothing.""Have another sup," he said. I again said: "That is nothing." Then I walked out into the air and fell on my face on the street. That is what I mean.
Those people in pubs who hang on do not always stop drinking in time. It is only when they go out in the air that they get drunk. It is dangerous. The midday break would make them realise that they should not go too far. The break is good. I have experience of all those things. I do not want to be told that I do not know what I am talking about. I am not speaking for the publican. I am not speaking as one who is perhaps thinking of his own interests. I am not speaking as a member of the House who is thinking about the local vote. I am not thinking of anything local— anything — in that line. I am thinking of all the people. I am thinking of the wives of the people who drink, as well as the publicans. Little has been said about them. Let them drink. They know what they are doing but the wives are at home in their thousands worrying and complaining.
I am asking the Minister seriously to consider my amendment. It meets his proposal in the Bill. I am accepting 10 p.m. I am saying 5.30 p.m. Why I am not saying 5 p.m. is because I want the fellows to have time to go to a match and to get back. If it is 5 p.m. they will have to race and lose part of a show. Give them reasonable time. The case has been made to me that there is no business between 4 and 5 p.m. What is the use of opening them if there is no business?
We should cultivate athletic sports. We should go to fellows who would like a break and say to them: "There is a chance for you. Organise your forces. You will have a good show. The boys will have to attend. The pubs will not be open." The counterattraction of 4 p.m. would be bad. My amendment suits everyone. I am not concerned about any vested interests. I am not trying to curry favour with any one of the 27 persons who wrote to me.
I think most Deputies will feel that Deputy Sherwin has approached this matter in an effort to find a solution for what is a difficult problem, no matter what side of the House may be involved, namely, the question of opening and closing hours. We on this side of the House have approached this measure in an effort to try to arrive at a solution which will suit the majority of the people. We are convinced that the Minister's proposals in the Bill, namely, all the year round opening from 4 o'clock to 10 o'clock on a Sunday, is not the answer and does not suit everyone.
There is one matter which it is necessary for the Minister to clarify in the course of this discussion because the Minister's attitude, and the attitude of his Party, is of paramount importance. The belief is held in a number of quarters and the impression has been created by the Minister's reply on the Second Reading that so far as he and the Government are concerned, they are quite prepared to abandon the principle of uniformity which was introduced into the licensing code by the 1960 Act. The first thing it is necessary to clarify, and the Minister should do it, is whether that is a fact or not, whether the Minister's attitude is that he wants to preserve the principle of uniformity so far as closing hours are concerned, or whether his attitude is that he is not concerned one way or another and that he and the Government are prepared to abandon that policy or principle.
In our approach to this, we have assumed from the Minister's attitude on the Second Reading that he stands over the principle of uniformity and that he recommends its acceptance by the House. We feel, and I said this on Second Reading, that the principle of uniformity is an excellent one, if it works and if it is practicable, but that experience of the working of the 1960 Act certainly calls into question whether or not, taking the country as a whole, cities and rural areas, the principle of uniformity is workable. We see the advantages and we accept the advantages of having uniformity so far as the closing hour is concerned, just as Deputy Sherwin did in relation to his amendment. But we feel that the working of the 1960 Act in regard to Sunday opening in rural areas has shown that the hours which have operated up to this, that is, 5 o'clock to 9 o'clock for portion of the year and from 5 o'clock to 8 o'clock for the other portion of the year, have not been suitable and that there has been a demand, and a justifiable demand, in rural areas for a later opening than 9 o'clock, certainly in the summer months.
We feel that that demand is justified and one which must be catered for. That brings us to the problem, and it is a problem for the Minister as well as everyone else here, that later Sunday opening hours which are required and certainly are sought in country areas are not sought in the city area. I am talking now mainly about Dublin. A later opening than 9 o'clock is not regarded as necessary or desirable in the Dublin city area. If the Minister were to legislate in such a way as to have the Dublin publicans closing at 9 o'clock, and have publicans in the rural areas closing on Sundays at 10 o'clock, obviously you would immediately create for the duration of that hour's differential the danger of a bona fide trade. The experience of all Deputies was that the undesirable feature and the evil arising from the bona fide traffic were due to the closing differential.
In amendment No. 8, we are suggesting that there should be a differential as between the city and country areas, so far as opening hours are concerned, but that the differential should not exist, as far as closing hours are concerned. No matter what hours are fixed for rural opening, they are not going to suit everywhere. You have, first of all, the conflict as between larger urban areas such as the cities and country districts and you again have the further conflict as between different zones or areas in the rural areas as a whole. You have holiday resorts, many of which would regard even a 10 o'clock closing hour as being quite inadequate. You have other rural areas where a 10 o'clock closing hour might not only be sufficient but regarded by many people as being too late.
By and large, it is true to say that 10 o'clock closing in the country is necessary, is sought and is required by the people, but there is still the question of the holiday resorts, No. 1, where 10 o'clock closing is not sufficient——
May I ask the Deputy a question? Is it his intention that the proposals in amendment No. 12 and amendment No. 20 should be confined to Sunday?
No. No. 20 is confined to Sunday.
No. 12 relates to any day?
Yes.
I thought when he was linking it to No 5 and No. 7——
I want the lot discussed together. The Minister is quite right and our proposal in amendment No. 12 is not limited to Sundays. That is the proposal with regard to area exemptions for holiday resorts. The case I was making was that whatever hours are fixed for closing in rural areas, it still leaves outstanding the question of holiday resorts.
I agree with the Deputy who spoke earlier today that it would be quite wrong for us to legislate against our own interests and to do that on the plea that it was necessary to cater for tourists' interests, that we should allow tourists' interests to predominate over the interests of our own people. That would be quite wrong. But it is not only proper but necessary that we should have regard to areas in the country which either attract tourists or which are holiday resorts in the sense that they attract our own people for the holiday period. We recognise that a difficulty does exist and we feel the only reasonable way of meeting that difficulty is to empower some authority in the country—and we suggest the district court, as it was empowered before the 1960 Act—to grant exemptions from whatever hours are fixed if the justice is satisfied the area is a holiday resort and likely to attract a number of visitors.
Even that does not end the difficulties which arise. Even if you do cater generally for rural areas and cater in a particular way for holiday resorts, there is still the section of the people who are left uncatered for at a time when it is necessary to cater for them, that is, the people in the rural area on the occasion of a special event. There might be a GAA or a soccer match or a game of rugby in a town on a Sunday. It might be found—in fact, I think it has been found—that the existing hours are quite unsuitable to cater for the needs of such functions, and even the new hours submitted by us, and by the Minister in the Bill, would still be unsuitable.
Certainly we realise that if our suggestions for Sunday opening hours in rural areas—from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. during the winter and from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. during the summer—are accepted, the problem of the town or area which holds a special function must still be catered for. In that respect, our suggestion is that there is no reason in the world why the district court should not be vested with authority to grant special hours of opening to cater for such events on Sundays. We are putting forward a three-pronged proposal to the Minister which is outlined in amendments Nos. 8, 12 and 20. In amendment No. 8, we are suggesting hours of from 5 p.m. to 10 p.m. for Sunday opening in Dublin.
I believe it to be a fact that it has been represented very strongly by a number of sources that the hour of 10 p.m. might be too late in Dublin. I was interested to hear what Deputy Sherwin, an Independent Deputy, who no doubt has been in touch with his constituents in this matter, had to say on it and he believes 10 o'clock will be all right. On the other hand, it has been represented very strongly to me that the city publicans and the drinking public in Dublin would be quite satisfied with 9 p.m. However, if that were permitted it would create the differential at the wrong end and, consequently, having given the matter very careful and exhaustive consideration, our proposal is that the Dublin hours should be 5 p.m. to 10 p.m.
As far as the rural areas are concerned, we are suggesting that during the summer months—I am talking now about the season, June, July, August and September, rather than the summer time laid down by Ministerial Order —the opening hours on Sunday evenings should be 6 to 10 and that for the remainder of the year they should be 7 to 10. Those proposals are being put forward in conjunction with the other two proposals I have referred to—area exemption orders for holiday resorts and special exemptions for particular areas for particular events. I should like to recommend all three to the Minister and to the House in the belief that they will be accepted by him and the House as suitable to the country as a whole. They will not satisfy everyone—that would be quite impossible—but they will satisfy most of the people most of the time.
I would emphasise again that I regard it as very important the Minister should clear up any ambiguity which exists with respect to his own intentions. I am not suggesting the Minister deliberately intended to be ambiguous in his references but I have reason to know that his reply on the Second Reading of the Bill has created the impression that he is quite prepared to abandon the principle of uniformity. It has been suggested that that interpretation has been given to certain remarks made by the Minister on the Second Reading and that has been accepted as the true interpretation. I have read very carefully the Minister's Second Reading speech and his reply and I cannot find any justification for such an interpretation or such an impression being created, but I do invite the Minister now to state his position clearly on this.
Listening to Deputy Sherwin, I must confess that it is a long time since I heard a more confused submission. On the one hand, he expressed concern for the workers and worried also about the customers. At the same time, I find him advocating longer hours for the workers. He said that the closing of public houses at 9 p.m. did not allow either workers or customers an opportunity of going anywhere afterwards. I suggest it would be a good time for the barmen to go home and rest after a hard day's work. Deputy Sherwin was also concerned about the wives of those who consume drink. Would it be such a bad thing if those who drink were urged to go home at 9 o'clock?
But they will not. Human nature is human nature.
Deputy Sherwin has indicated that he has made a canvass of people who work in public houses and of their employers. I want it to be perfectly understood that the trade unions which represent the bar workers in Dublin have already submitted to the Minister on behalf of their members that they do not want any change in the Sunday hours of opening. I understand that the organised employers have adopted the same attitude. There is no denying that. Through the office of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, the unions met the Minister on this matter. Anyone who wants to can at any time go into any of the public houses in Dublin and ask a simple question: "What do you think of the proposed new Sunday hours," and the reply will be: "We do not want them. They are not necessary."
That is also my view and I am more than anxious that the Minister would indicate what is the case for these proposed new hours. I am talking now about Dublin and Cork and in support of the amendment put down by Deputy Casey and myself. I can well understand there is a necessity for an alteration of hours outside Dublin and Cork and we have no objection to that. In fact, we think it is a good idea. That would mean that Dublin would be left as it is and that there would be lack of uniformity. But what price uniformity? We have already found it necessary to disregard uniformity in relation to the midday closing times. I want it clearly understood that a combination of employers and trade union members in Dublin are 100 per cent. behind this. People who frequent public houses have expressed similar views to me. They regard these new hours as a bit much.
In instituting such hours, we are worsening the conditions of the employees and forcing the employers to worsen their conditions. Deputies know there is a great deal of difficulty in getting people to work in the bar trade because of the present hours of work. If we worsen that situation, we will get fewer people in future and that will be bad for all of us, both the tourists and the ordinary man in the street. We know that the bar business postulates that employees must attune themselves to the idea of working when most others are enjoying themselves, but let us not push that too far.
Let us picture the situation in unorganised, family houses. The Minister said earlier today that family houses used the hour in order to have a break. There are a number of houses where they put people to work and give no thought to a break. The only thing that forces them to do so are trade union regulations. If we had the proposed new hours—the opening at 12.30—the situation in Dublin would be something like this. A man would have to leave his home at 12 o'clock to get to his work at a quarter past and prepare to open. The premises would close at two but by the time he had cleared up and was out, it would be a quarter past. He would then go home to see his wife and family and have a meal. Barmen, too, would like to have their Sundays off, but, because of the nature of their job, they have to work. He then goes home, has a meal and must be back in the shop in order to open up again at 4 o'clock in preparation for customers.
The barman knows there will be no customers. As Deputy Sherwin said, the customers will be in the picture houses or, if it is a fine day, at football matches, up in the Park or at the seaside. I cannot understand where this idea for an opening at 4 p.m. came from. There is no public demand for it. I do not believe it was the Minister's idea. I think the Minister was badly advised in this regard. I should like an explanation as to how it came about. It has been said that people who play our national games will no longer have an opportunity of playing them. I am referring to the barmen who formed very good hurling teams in this city and played no small part in building up the national games here. Now they will be divorced from all this. For what purpose?
I have indicated already the feelings of the trade union movement. I should like to ask the Minister to give further consideration to the proposed four o'clock opening. Deputy Casey and I have put down an amendment asking that things be left as they are. In view of the Minister's conciliatory approach commencing the Committee Stage, we recognise that we cannot have it all our own way. I know the views of the different unions representing the barmen in Dublin. I do not purport to speak for people outside Dublin. The views of the barmen are: if you cannot leave the position as it is, give us a break in the afternoon in Dublin city and have the hours seven to ten.
Deputy Mullen said barmen would like to have some Sundays off. I understand that the trade union regulation is that every barman must have every alternate Sunday off at present. I understand many of these barmen sell their services back to their employers at £3 for the evening session.
Four pounds.
That demonstrates that, regardless of what hours are prescribed by the Minister, the trade unions are well able to look after the welfare of their members. The whole thing rests on whether or not the principle of uniformity will be maintained. I had correspondence with the Rev. Fr. Dargan, S.J., of the Pioneer Total Abstinence Association, in which he indicated to me that their representatives on the Intoxicating Liquor Commission signed a majority report in favour of the later opening hours in the cities because they believed if they did not go along with the proposed hours in the 1960 Bill the most objectionable feature of the licensing laws, the bona fide trade, would not be done away with.
On the Committee Stage of the 1960 Bill, I quoted this letter from Fr. Dargan at column 1017, volume 180 of the Official Report:
However, most of the main principles which we advocated were adopted in the Majority Report, and while our representative never wanted the prolonged hours advocated by other commissioners and pressed to have the hours shortened, he signed the report, taking into account the fact that unless he did so, there was a danger that another and less desirable report would be adopted as the Majority Report.
If the principle of uniformity is not to be maintained, perhaps some better provisions than those contained here may be thought up. I think it was this principle of uniformity that restored order to our drinking habits. There was no real order until the 1960 Bill was introduced. The amendment in the names of Deputies Casey and Mullen proposes the hours of 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. during the tourist season and 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. for the rest of the year in the City of Dublin and 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. for the remainder of the country. I supported Deputy Burke in 1960 in urging that there should be a half-hour differential between city and county on the ground that half an hour was such a short period that there would be no mad rush out of Dublin to the county by people looking for drink. But if there is a two hour differential at the closing end and a one hour differential at the opening end, we might again see a rush out from Dublin by people wishing to avail themselves of the extended drinking hours.
What harm would that be?
Fine Gael have been consistent in their attitude to the 1960 Bill. On the Fifth Stage of the 1960 Bill, Deputy Belton said he thought that 7 o'clock to 10 o'clock would be better than 5 o'clock to 9 o'clock. Deputy Lindsay said he thought 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. or 7.30 p.m. to 10 p.m. would be better. Deputy Sherwin said he thought that 10 o'clock was apparently the best closing hour during the summer months.
I can see Deputy O'Higgins's point in his proposal about the Sunday opening hour. What inspired the 4 o'clock proposal is very clear. I go with my family for my summer holidays to Skerries. The publicans in Skerries take the view that their profit is made on Sundays in particular. They find that after a fine morning and a damp afternoon, rather than staying out in inclement weather, people want to go into a public house at 3 o'clock or 4 o'clock. Before the 1960 Act, they were open continuously all day.
My objection to Deputy Mullen's amendment is that the differential is too great. It is getting away from the principle of uniformity. If we are to maintain the principle of uniformity, which, to my mind, the ecclesiastics of all denominations want, a provision such as this Bill is the only one we can bring in. There is nothing in this Bill which says that the public houses in Dublin must open. There is nothing to prevent them from staying closed, if it suits them. There is nothing to prevent the trade unions telling their members not to work between 4 o'clock and 6 o'clock. I understand that when a man works for four hours, he is entitled to a break of an hour.
No.
That is my information. If a man goes on duty at 4 o'clock on a Sunday, he is entitled to a break at 8 o'clock.
That does not apply, of course, to the Minister during this debate.
I do not think the Minister has had time for a cup of tea for the past two weeks. I know of a trade union house which is owned by two brothers. Their attitude is that they will work on alternate Sundays and that they will not bring in the staff until 6 p.m. They maintain there is not sufficient trade to warrant bringing in and paying the staff until 6 p.m. One of the brothers told me that if he could get agreement with all the publicans in the area that they would all stay closed, it would be much better. If the associations which are making representations to us are as strong as they say they are, there should be no trouble in enforcing such an agreement. Unfortunately I am afraid no association speaks for all the publicans, or even for a large majority of them.
Why afford anyone the opportunity?
The publican I have in mind believes that even if such an agreement were arrived at between the publicans, many of them would keep their front doors closed and their back doors open. That would mean that eventually all would open because if one man broke the agreement, he would be drawing customers away from the man who kept it.
Either we maintain uniformity or we do not. If we maintain it, we cannot satisfy the people about whom Deputy O'Higgins is concerned in amendment No. 20. We cannot cater for the holiday resorts and for the various Dublin people who go to those holiday resorts with their families in the summer. By the time the children are put to bed, and so on, it will be 9 p.m. or 10 p.m. before they can get a drink if they want one. Furthermore if the weather becomes inclement, on Sunday afternoons in particular, they will be inclined to go for alcoholic refreshment and bring the children into a public house—which they are not supposed to do. The children can look at television, eat a bag of crisps, and drink a bottle of lemonade. We have all seen that happen at the various tourist resorts——or I had better call them holiday resorts because when we speak of "tourists" here now, apparently it is misinterpreted to mean only overseas tourists, not tourists who go from Dublin to Bray but tourists who come from America and go to Killarney.
The Minister has shown some ingenuity in this subsection because if we are to maintain uniformity, I cannot see any alternative to satisfying the majority. If the public houses in the holiday resorts are kept closed during the summer months, hardship will be caused to the publicans in those areas. Whether the way Fine Gael think it should be approached is the right or the best way, I am not prepared to judge, but I believe it is the wish of all the ecclesiastical authorities that the principle of uniformity should be maintained.
If one were to take this debate seriously, apart from what has been said by Deputy Lemass, it would be difficult to understand whether we were legislating for republicans or publicans, or for some imaginary people who do not exist on this earth at all. Anyone with any commonsense knows that the public and the publicans must concede that no hours can arranged which will suit everyone. They never have been and they never will be, but I think we should strike a good average.
I want to commend the Minister on being both liberal and reasonable in his approach to the hours in the Bill. Let us go back to pre-1960 when there were no hours and when people came and went whensoever they wished without, so far as I am aware, any restriction.
The hours are being enforced now.
The people who are now so conscientious about the hours had very little to say then. I remember when the 1960 Act was first enforced, if a poor fellow went home extra early at night, his wife would send for the doctor to see what was wrong with him. That was the position. The people who are now allegedly so solicitous for the welfare of the people should have second thoughts because, as I said earlier today, the people who have pontificated most strongly on this matter and given the most advice do not drink and do not know what they are talking about.
They are the best— they are sober.
They do not know what they are talking about. One man admitted that he gave up drink because he fell after a few drinks.
I was speaking of my experiences.
The Minister has been reasonable in his approach to the hours. I want to make a suggestion to him in regard to the people who want restricted hours. As long as I remember, people have been able to go into the courts and get longer hours and exemptions. Why should the Minister not pass a Bill making a provision for people who do not want longer hours which would enable them to go into court and get shorter hours? We would then see how many would go to look for it and we would see how genuine all the talk is. No one would go in and well we know it. I expect there is nothing to prevent the Minister from providing such legislation.
I do not think the Minister has yet categorically stated that he is going to stick to uniformity of hours. Of course, if he deviates in any way from uniformity of hours as regards city and country, most of the problems will be solved, but on the other hand, if he deviates, it will create a position in which at night-time there will again be a rush from the city to the country. That should certainly be allowed for a very restricted period only.
We must consider the seaside resorts. There is no use in anyone coming in here and trying to give the impression that the people who go to the seaside are people who have returned from America, Europe or somewhere else. They are not. The vast majority of those who go to ordinary holiday resorts are our own people who are now much better off than they were a few years ago and can afford to amuse themselves. It is well that day has arrived. When they go to the seaside, they expect to be able to get refreshments at reasonable hours. Some people who come here and condemn the Minister for giving the hours would be the first to condemn him also for not providing such hours if they found themselves at the seaside perhaps on a wet day. There is no obligation on anybody to open.
The trade unionists come in here and talk glibly about the position of the workers, but they should not forget that it is not very long since they were complaining about the big number of unemployed. If the hours are to be extended, would the trade unions not consider this a very good way of providing further employment for those they allege are unemployed? I can see no harm in the extension of hours.
So far as I am concerned in my part of the country, I am more interested in the number of days than the number of hours. In the West of Ireland, most of the publicans have a six-day licence. As I did previously, I now ask the Minister to consider very carefully this aspect of the licensed business in the West of Ireland. No matter what hours the Minister introduces, some people cannot avail themselves of them on account of the six-day licence. I am not grumbling about that, but there are in the West of Ireland many who at this stage, because of family, financial or other reasons do not wish immediately to change their six-day to a seven-day licence. I ask the Minister to be broadminded enough, in view of his liberal tendency, to give a further limited extension of the time during which they may change the six-day to seven-day licences. I leave the time limit to himself.
With the introduction of the new hours, no matter what has been said on this point to the Minister he must realise that if he leaves the opportunity open for some further period, it will be a big benefit to the seven-day licensed premises also because competition will not be so keen. If the present limit is enforced, these people will have to beg, borrow or steal the money to change their licences. I ask him not to allow that to happen and to give these people a further reasonable extension.
What does the Deputy suggest?
One year.
I must first congratulate the Minister on his approach to this Bill generally and his very wise approach to the Sunday opening hours, in particular. I realise that he was faced with a very complex problem as conditions throughout the country are not uniform. What will suit the city of Dublin may not suit the small town in the country and what will suit the small town may not suit the village and what would suit the village may not suit the public house at the crossroads. I come from a rural constituency which has not many large towns but borders a little on the second city in the State and also caters in one small corner for a number of tourists.
We must be very broadminded if we want to be fair. Listening to some of the speakers here during the debate, one would think that Ireland was confined to Dublin city. We from the country are proud of Dublin as the capital of the Republic, but we ask the Dublin people to realise that they would have no Dublin and no capital, were it not for the rest of the country.
Mr. Belton
Cork?
Yes, Cork did its share definitely. It was always in the forefront of every movement for the advancement of the nation. Nobody could deny that. Somebody said there was no public demand for this. Do we not represent the public? Is public demand the demand made by some pressure group that springs up occasionally, people who go in for big scale propaganda, use all and every means to gain their ends by various systems of pressure?
The Minister has been very fair. In the rural areas which are my first concern, although I must have regard to the other areas also, there was great complaint with regard to the opening hours on Sunday under the 1960 Act. The extraordinary thing is that now you will find some who tell you how fine those hours were because somebody gave them a rub of the political brush. Let us have commonsense. We are here to legislate in the best interests of the people. To my mind, the hours arranged by the Minister are as good as any human being could devise. There is no compulsion on anybody to open his licensed premises during those hours, but if the amendment is accepted, there is compulsion to close which would be a great hardship, particularly on the rural community.
If we give special concessions to any city, what will happen? Where shall we draw the line? There are some bounds to every city or town and you will have a public house open on one side of the street from 4 o'clock to 10 o'clock and the public house on the opposite side closed for a few hours which means a general upset as regards the convenience of the public. If there were a differential for Dublin, Cork, or the other cities, everybody who could afford it would go out to the areas where there was no restriction on the sale of drink and the people who now think they will lose under the Minister's arrangement would lose far more if their customers left them and went out eight, ten or 12 miles, as the case might be. They would lose their customers because they would go out into the country and would be sure to stay there for the evening.
There is nothing to prevent publicans, who are fairly well organised in Dublin, from coming together and making their own arrangements, but what about the unorganised publicans, those out on the cross-roads, those under the shadow of a mountain, those under the McGillicuddy Reeks, where the rural people toil hard all the week and whose one and only chance of getting a drink is on Sunday? They are not as a rule given to heavy drinking. There might be a local hurling or football match, or a score of bowls, or, in fine weather, an athletics meeting, or a draghunt. Would the people attending these functions not need some refreshment?
I should like the urban people to have some realisation of what the rural people have to contend with and try to facilitate them, give them a chance; if they want a drink after their hard week, give them a chance to have it. What is the position in the ordinary creamery district, the dairying district, in particular, where the cows are milked early in the morning, where the staff may attend a local function and have to come back to milk the cows in the evening? They have not a chance of a drink either before or after milking the cows. Are they not equally as entitled to a chance to have some refreshment as the richest or the poorest person in Cork, Dublin or any other city? That is an aspect that must be considered.
That is one of the reasons why I compliment the Minister. I compliment him on his foresight, judgment and broadmindedness and I would say, regardless of what has been said to the contrary, that you could not have a better Bill under all the circumstances. I would suggest to the Minister that he should adhere firmly to it and I would ask the others to have a bit of common sense and broadmindedness and help the people who will be denied their drink, if the amendment goes through.
I find myself at a disadvantage in trying to correlate amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 12 and 20. I am mainly interested in amendment No. 7, not because it is my amendment, but because it is the amendment of a colleague of mine who is unable to be here, owing to illness. In trying to put forward my views, I think I will be able to interpret his views also. I refer to Deputy Seán Dunne. His problem is something similar to mine. It relates to the question of uniformity.
I am here by the votes of the people of the city and of the county of Waterford. I am here to try to interpret and to put before this House the views of my constituents so that the Minister, in his wisdom, can administer the law to suit them, if he thinks fit. How am I to make two parts of myself? In Waterford city, the organised publicans through their organisation and the people who work in public houses, through their labour unions, are satisfied and keen that the hours should remain as they are. Failing that, they wrote to me to make the best case I can of it by having the hours reduced to as narrow a period as possible. On the other hand, the people of Tramore, Dungarvan, Ardmore, and the rest of the constituency, say to me that they welcome the Minister's increase of hours, as I do myself, being from the urban area of Dungarvan, or being a consumer in that area. They welcome the Minister's hours and all they regret is that he has not gone further in regard to the hours of Sunday opening.
It is very difficult for me to make a case and yet hold with the Minister on uniformity, but should the Minister agree to depart from the principle of uniformity, then it would be easy to suit all the people. The duty of the Government here, or of any Government, is to meet the wishes of the people. The Minister might quite rightly say to me, and has said to me on the occasion of a deputation: "What about the consumer's point of view? How did I get that?" I have a suggestion to make to the Minister. Would he not agree that the county boroughs should get a fixed hour, as the proposers of the various amendments apparently favour, a different hour from that fixed for the rest of the country, and would he not let each corporation elect to adopt that hour or not? You would then get the views of the representatives of the county boroughs. Let Waterford or Limerick opt to go in with Dublin or Cork. That is an unusual suggestion. It would be a unique way of dealing with it but it may be worthwhile to try it because the people of Waterford county borough do not really want the "holy hour," as somebody called it, disrespectfully, I am afraid. If they do not want a 2.30—3.30 closing hour, say, on weekdays, if they want shorter hours on Sundays, and if we in the county Waterford, because of the fact that we live mainly on the tourist trade during the tourist season, want extended hours from 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. for the county borough, we should be able to opt for that. The only people who can speak on behalf of the county borough are the people elected for the city of Waterford, or the corporation.
That is only a suggestion. My colleague, Deputy Mullen, asked why did the Minister make the Sunday second opening hour 4 p.m.; why did he not leave it at 5 p.m. as at present in Dublin? I want to suggest to the Minister that there is very good reason why he should change it to 4 p.m. In local small rural areas, there are mystery trains sent in by CIE, which usually arrive about 3.30, and bring 500 people into the little town of Dungarvan that has a population of 5,000. Should it rain—and it does sometimes rain in Ireland—where will these people go unless the public houses are open? There are not even toilet facilities available for them.
The Minister is very wise in opening at 4 p.m. I regret he has not made it 3 p.m. but I realise there must be a break. A break is good between 2 or 3 or 3.30 p.m. but the Minister has made it 4 p.m. and I think he had done a very good job. Because of the fact that he is trying to get uniformity, he has to make it 4 p.m. because the public houses must be open in Dublin at 4 p.m. to cater for people attending Dalymount Park, Croke Park and the other sports functions and 10 o'clock on Sunday is quite reasonable for rural people. They are working with cattle and doing various other jobs and do not finish until half-past seven or eight o'clock. They are entitled to go into the local public house which is nothing more or worse than the local club of the urban man. They go there to talk about the events of the week and to have a drink or two.
I do not believe that longer opening hours means more drinking. Unless people are different from the type of people I know, the amount of drink they consume is limited by the amount of money they have in their pockets. I do not know any publicans who are giving it out free. The type of man who has money and who has the will to drink will find a way to drink. He can book into a hotel. He does not have to sleep in the bed he orders but he can drink all day and all night. I am talking about the ordinary man. The ordinary man needs certain hours. The Minister has done an excellent job and if I appear to be pressing him, I am only doing so for two reasons. My constituents in Waterford city want one thing and I would like to give them what they want as far as possible. I also want to give the county what they want. I believe that if it were a choice between the city and the country, I would vote for the Bill as it is, if the Minister cannot see his way to amend it. However, he should consider this matter of uniformity.
Deputy Lemass spoke about some representative of the pioneers at some commission and about the dreadful effects of the bona fide trade. What particular qualifications had that representative other than I? Was it that he was a pioneer or that he was their representative? I do not know that anybody has any special qualification because he is a pioneer or their representative. I suggest he was just a man who had a view and I do not accept the arguments about the bona fide trade. In fact since the Act was passed in 1960—and I think the Minister has admitted this—there has been an increasing death toll on the roads. The fact is that there are more cars on the road and the bona fide trade had nothing to do with the numbers killed. People can go to dancehalls and drink. There is a lot of nonsense talked about the drunken driver. The careless driver and the young driver have more on their conscience than the drunken driver. If I know the drunken driver, he usually knows he is drunk and he will drive slowly and carefully because he knows there are uniformed people looking at him. There is the exception, the man who will get into a car and who is so drunk that he is a danger to everybody. It is only right that he should be put off the road. However all the accidents which occur cannot be attributed to drunken driving. How many people, drunk and sober, have been convicted of killing people? I think you will find the balance is against the sober man.
I would suggest to the Minister, who is a very reasonable Minister, that he should examine the feasibility of some differential between the county boroughs and the rest of Ireland and then allow the county boroughs to opt in or out as they wish.
I have yet to be convinced that the Minister is a reasonable man, but, like Deputy Kyne, I have been sent here to reflect the views of my constituents. I have no objection to make to the public houses in the rural districts of the County of Waterford being opened from four o'clock in the afternoon until 10 o'clock because the people in these areas want it and the publicans want it. That is what I would be guided by. I protested a few times in the House that some Deputies are brushed aside, in fact even the Minister did it in his reply last night, as if they had not the right to their opinion and as if they were not worthy of being listened to.
I cannot hear the Deputy. His voice has gone too low.
The Deputy is never able to hear the facts. There are none so deaf as those who do not want to hear. I hope he is able to hear me now and that I shall see him coming into the lobby with me.
What difference does it make? He is going to vote for the Bill.
Yes, just as he shot the publicans down the last time. The people in the rural areas are being talked about here as if they were all in isolation like Robinson Crusoe, that when they finish their work on a Sunday evening, they are only able to stagger out to the local public house, that they have no ambition to go anywhere else. Thank goodness, I see young farmers and young farm labourers going further afield. They have the transport to do it. They will go to the local seaside place, or to the dancehall, or into the towns. I have heard country publicans making the complaint that their customers have too much transport and are going away into the towns.
As I say, I have yet to be convinced the Minister is a reasonable man. I have seen the Minister's colleagues trample on the opinions of the people of my constituency, the constituency of Waterford, on many occasions in this House. I had expected that this Minister would listen to a representative body of men such as the licensed trade in Waterford when they signed the petition which I, accompanied by my colleagues, Deputy Kyne and Deputy Ormonde, handed to him. Last night, he brushed us out of the position we were in in regard to the midday closing hour. I would hope the Minister would indicate that, as he considered an amendment from his colleagues here in Dublin regarding the midday closing hour, he will indicate to me that he will re-enact this closing time as far as Waterford is concerned when we would come to the Report Stage.
Amendment No. 7 says:
(i) if the premises are situate outside the county borough of Dublin, Cork, Limerick or Waterford, four o'clock in the afternoon or after the hour of ten o'clock in the evening,
The hours that would suit Waterford city on a Sunday night are from 7 until 10 o'clock. Some of them would like from 7 until 9 o'clock but we would settle for 7 until 10 o'clock. There are some big holiday resorts in Waterford to which a great number of our own people go, usually on Sundays. A great number of farmers, farmers' sons and daughters and farm labourers make for the coast. If they have not got the transport themselves, people are generous enough to give them a lift. A large measure of agreement has been reached in the speeches from all sides of the House and most people seem to think that 10 o'clock at night is late enough. I suggest to the Minister that he should throw the idea of uniformity overboard and that amendment No. 20 is well worthy of consideration. That is the amendment which deals with the holiday and tourist resorts and deals with inland towns which ordinarily would not be considered as holiday or tourist resorts, but which have special occasions, towns like Thurles that bring 50,000 or 60,000 people for a Munster final.
I have no doubt that the Minister will be reasonable about such occasions and that he will allow these amendments to stand. When people go out for a holiday or for an evening, 10 o'clock at night is very early to have to stop if you meet your friends and are in a public house or hotel in a seaside place. To have the whole place shut down at 10 o'clock is not good enough for the tourist trade and is not good enough for our own people who are entitled to a long evening's enjoyment. The most of them are over 21 and the idea of having to be in at 10 o'clock should not be revived for them.
Some speakers mentioned that where there is a differential in the hours, there might be a rush from one place to the other. That is all nonsense. The people will be in seaside resorts and holiday places and they might have the facility of the extra hours during the season. Deputies speak with holy horror about the bona fide trade. They speak of it as if it were a dreadful thing and as if to have it stamped out under the 1960 Act was a wonderful thing. I never saw anything wrong in it. When there were trams in Dublin, there was great enjoyment in getting on a tram and going a few miles out to where you could get an extra drink. Decent publicans had put up decent houses in these places.
How does the Deputy relate that to the amendments?
I was just commenting on what several people had said but I am grateful to you for bringing me back to the amendments. The line that sticks in my mind and that, I suppose, will be found on my heart when I die is the line that includes my own constituency of Waterford. I return again to it and I am still hoping that the Minister will give me an indication that he is prepared to meet the Waterford licensed trade and the Waterford people in this matter. If he did that, he would save himself, and me, and the House a lot of trouble. It was a very responsible move for a body of men who are in a competitive trade to come together. It is hard to get them together but they did come together, and more than 80 per cent. of the publicans of Waterford signed a petition to the Minister.
The Minister says that this is good enough for Dublin and Cork but not good enough for Waterford. The Minister said that he would have to listen to the views of the persons concerned and that there were a great number of people who wanted the retention of the midday closing in Dublin. The Minister pushed Waterford out of this altogether. I am endeavouring to point out to him that he should not do with amendment No. 7 what he did with the amendment last night. What he did last night means that Dublin and Cork stand in the Bill but that Limerick and Waterford are chopped off. I am not concerned with Dublin, Cork or Limerick but only with Waterford and I am asking the Minister not to do what he did last night. The same thing applies in this amendment as applied in last night's amendment and the Minister has another petition about this one from the licensed trade in Waterford.
The Minister told Deputy Belton today regarding amendment No. 4 that he would consider it. He said that the reason he would have to consider it was that there was a large section of the Dublin publicans who wanted it. There was also a large section in the centre of the city who did not want it. This was a case where you had division of opinion and the Minister said that he would leave it the way it was. I have yet to be convinced that the Minister is a reasonable man.
When the Minister looks at Waterford, he will have to realise that it is not the same thing as looking at Dublin. In Dublin, forces are, shall we say, divided. In the licensed trade in Waterford, over 80 per cent. want this hour. A small number do not care one way or the other. But the Minister was not prepared to consider this 80 per cent. at all; he would not look in our direction at all. I suggest to him that it is quite reasonable for him to look in our direction, remembering that such an enormous majority are in favour of this hour. I suggest to him also that he should be as consistent in his treatment of Waterford as he is in his treatment of Dublin and Cork.
Deputy Meaney said that a great many people thought we were only legislating here for Dublin and he wanted the Minister to legislate for Cork. I come along now and I suggest that he should legislate for the third county borough, Waterford. It is interesting to note that Waterford is not just the third county borough when it comes to the spending power of the population. The Taoiseach informed me last week that the largest retail sales per head of the population take place in Dublin city and county. Then, over the whole of the remainder of the country, Waterford is next. Surely people of such great potential are entitled to be listened to and considered?
I am glad that my colleague, Deputy Kyne, addressed the Minister in similar terms. I said last night that, if I could be convinced that the Minister would give way and accept this amendment, I would be satisfied; in other words, declare Cork, Limerick and Waterford were in. I do not know what more convincing the Minister can want than to be told what the situation really is by two Deputies of this House. Indeed, I am sure that, if the Deputy representing the constituency in his own Party is asked, he will agree with what I am saying now and with what Deputy Kyne said earlier in relation to these amendments.
Amendment No. 20 deals with expected incursions of large numbers of people into licensing areas for a special event. In the city of Waterford every year there is a very special event indeed and, from that point of view, I hope the Minister will see his way to accepting amendment No. 20. I refer to the festival which lasts for over three weeks. Enormous crowds come in from all parts of Ireland, from South Wales and from the English Midlands. They fill the city for three solid weeks. As far as attendance is concerned, this is the greatest festival in the country. It may not cost as much as other festivals, the outlay may not be as big, but it certainly brings in the tourists. The Minister must consider that aspect.
I mentioned people visiting holiday resorts in my constituency and in other constituencies. I want to refer now to an aspect of this matter to which the Minister should give consideration. Many of the people who own public houses in holiday resorts would not sell a dozen drinks in the week during the winter months. The great majority do all their business in the summer season. That is one reason why the Minister will have to give up this idea of uniformity. For the sake of the tourist resorts, rigid uniformity must go. The people who own these public houses have their livelihoods to earn. Standards are rising and the majority of these people, to give them their due, have advanced with the times. They should be given the opportunity of having extended hours of business during the months of June, July, August and September. In my constituency, we have many tourist resorts and holiday centres. There is Tramore, a famous and splendid seaside resort. We have Dunmore; we have Dungarvan; we have Clonea; and we have Ardmore. All these places are very busy during the season. They do very little business in the winter months. Their only chance is to make hay while the sun shines, if the sun shines at all, or irrespective of whether or not it does shine. The Minister will have to accept this amendment in the name of Deputy O'Higgins.
We are considering a number of amendments together. I have been told by the Chair—I know it is a rule of the House—that Deputies should avoid repetition. I would beg the indulgence of the Chair now to permit me to repeat myself and ask the Minister would he give an indication of a change of mind with regard to the hour in Waterford County Borough? I and the people of Waterford will be very grateful to him if he meets us in this. I had an idea last night that the Minister was, as the saying goes, coming my way. However, he did not come. Had I realised that he did not intend to come my way, I would not have allowed the debate to close so early. He met his colleagues today in an almost identical matter relating to Dublin. I appeal to him again to accord the same consideration to Waterford. There is no reason; there is no demand; I do not know who would want the Minister to do what he intends doing in this Act.
I have not very much to say about whether or not the restaurant people would have an advantage. I will give the Minister this credit. I was glad he took out Section 15—and so was the whole House. I thought he was giving us a kind of an earnest that he would be more flexible.
The Deputy——
I think he should be a bit flexible now about this.
The Deputy is very flexible. He is so flexible that I cannot overtake him.
The Chair would overtake me and is fast enough. However, the Chair has been very decent to me this afternoon and I am very grateful.
Deputy T. Lynch is not sure he is suggesting the Chair is always decent.
We are supposed to address the House through the Chair. Could I ask An Ceann Comhairle to press the Minister in this connection? I had expected that we would hear far more from the Fianna Fáil side of the House regarding these holiday resorts. However, I suppose the evening is early yet.
I have been approached in regard to this matter by both the trade union representing the men and by the trade in the city of Dublin. There is one point I want to make very definite here. Take a public house that would close in the city at 2 p.m. If a barman lives out in any of the suburban areas he will hardly have time just to get out and to get back again at 4 p.m., if he is going to go home for his mid-day meal.
I have also been approached by sports clubs run by the barmens' trade union. They have stated that it definitely will cut across their activities. They play games in the morning. Nevertheless, 12.30 p.m. is not very long in coming along. The barmen are in the difficulty that if they have to return to work at 4 p.m. it will be very hard on them. Furthermore, it is stated that it will cut across family life as far as both the workers and the owners of public houses in the city are concerned. They do not want the 4 p.m. opening in the city.
I know the Minister. I look upon him as one of the most democratic Ministers we have had for years. He has tried to meet the wishes of every section of our people. He has listened to every Deputy and has tried to be as reasonable as he can. I suppose no man has met as many deputations as the Minister has met during the Second Reading of this Bill and when the Bill was published and since the Second Reading of the Bill.
The one point we are all hinging on here is uniformity. May I suggest to the House that we have not uniformity as it is? We have the mid-day break in the city. One has only just to go outside the city boundary and he can drink during that mid-day break. I am sick of listening to all the hypocrisy over the years about the bona fide trade being responsible for all the ills in the County of Dublin.
Hear, hear!
I can assure the House that the bona fide trade was not responsible. As Deputy Kyne rightly stated here, there have been more fatal accidents due to hesitant and bad sober drivers than to drunken drivers. A man may be very anxious for a drink but he should be able to conduct himself without having to be put out of a public house. That brings me back to a point that I made here earlier. I do not like these regulations where there is a yardstick so that a man must do this, that or the other. I should like to approach the matter from the national point of view that our people have grown up, that they can be trusted to do certain things, that we are citizens and that we have not to have a yardstick to measure what we should or should not do.
The Minister tried to meet every section of the people in this Bill with the 4 to 10 p.m. opening—which my constituents in County Dublin want. Now, the city of Dublin, a good part of which I also have the honour to represent, has another problem. What this House is faced with is the fact that while there are very strong pressure groups outside, representing different sections, urging that we should have uniformity our job is not to accept a push from any pressure group outside but to do what we think is fair. We are sent here by the people to stand on our own feet and to express our views as honestly and as conscientiously as we can——
And to vote the way we think.
In a democratic Party, we decide that within the Party—the same as happens in the Deputy's good Party. That is the essence of democracy.
I want to come back again to this idea of uniformity and to the spectacle of people holding up their hands in horror in regard to renewing the bona fide traffic in the suburbs of Cork and Dublin. I do not wish to press the Minister too hard on this matter but I just want to point out to him that a big section of our people in the city of Dublin—that is, employers and employees in the trade—have come to me individually and have asked me if I could say that they would be satisfied with 5 to 9 p.m. Deputy Sherwin made a suggestion here today about 5.30 to 10 p.m. Some people even went as far as to say that a 6 p.m. opening was early enough for them in the city.
I want to point out that 4 o'clock seems to be very unpopular in the city of Dublin. I am speaking for the city of Dublin, on one hand and, on the other hand, I am all out for the concession the Minister has given the seaside resorts in County Dublin and the rural part of County Dublin of 4 to 10 p.m., which the people there want very badly.
If the Minister does not like to give the differential at the end of the evening, surely he could leave the differential at the beginning, at the opening?
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.