As I said before I reported progress, the demand from the people of Ireland, from the seaside resorts and from the Deputies representing these areas was for the hours of 4 to 10 o'clock. The Minister brought in this amending Bill in order to meet the wishes of the people as a democratic Minister should. He had already met quite a number of organisations representing the licensed trade. He listened to their grievances and their suggestions and tried to formulate a Bill which would be acceptable to all sides of the House. In doing that, the Minister took on a very hard task because it is impossible to please every section of our people. However, in his democratic way, he wanted to hear the views of every section as he said on the Second Reading of the Bill. While representing County Dublin, I also represent a section of the city of Dublin where there are about 15,000 voters. In that area, the representatives of the licensed trade and the representatives of the union approached me with a view to having this Bill amended. In 1960, uniformity was the watchword. I tried to resist it as much as possible.
Committee on Finance. - Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1962— Committee Stage (Resumed).
Mr. O'Donnell
But the Deputy voted for it.
Mr. Donnellan
He had to.
We are having a very gentlemanly and courteous discussion.
Mr. O'Donnell
It is no harm to get the truth.
What Deputy Donnellan said is true. I put my views before the House. Being a member of a very democratic Party, I could express my views.
Mr. O'Donnell
But not vote.
You could not expect the Deputy to vote against the Government.
The big point is: will he vote for it this time or not?
I can assure the Deputy I shall do the very same thing as I did before. I shall be guided by the democratic voting of my own Party when we have our meeting, just as the Deputy will be.
Deputy O'Higgins might be very worried about some of his troops.
I am interested in finding out the attitude of the Deputy's Party to the question of uniformity this time. I invited the Minister to let me know whether he is insisting on the policy of uniformity this time. I think the Deputy was going to deal with that question.
No; I am expressing my own personal views now.
The Deputy mentioned what the Minister said on Second Reading. I thought he was going to deal with——
Perhaps we could hear Deputy Burke.
He told me he could not hear me earlier.
When Deputy Lynch was speaking, we could not hear him. I was anxious to hear his contribution but he spoke so slowly——
Reasonably and calmly.
He kept repeating "Waterford" all the time.
Just as the Deputy has been repeating "unions" and "publicans" 35 times, telling us the great friend he is of theirs.
Could we hear Deputy Burke?
It is nice to know that I have a few friends in the Opposition who are anxious to help me with the debate. In 1960 the cure for all ills was uniformity. Now one part of my constituency wants 4 o'clock to 10 o'clock and more if they could get it, plus exemptions in seaside resorts. Then I am told in another part of the constituency that the hours are too long, that 4 o'clock is too early and 10 o'clock is too late. I have great sympathy with the Minister who has to deal with the various demands from the city of Dublin constituency. However, I shall be grateful to the Minister if he will consider the wishes of the majority of the people of the city of Dublin, that is, the barmen's union and the union of the licensed trade. They feel that 4 o'clock in the afternoon is too early. I would back Deputy Sherwin in his suggestion that the opening be 5 o'clock or 5.30 and leave County Dublin and the rest of Ireland with the 4 to 10 o'clock opening which they want.
This suggestion of people rushing out of the city to have a drink when the public houses are closed in the city is all eyewash. I have been living in Dublin 40 years and I have proved that is all "cod". We were told that every accident that ever happened was caused by fellows rushing out of the city to the bona fide houses. That is not true because the percentage of people who left Dublin even at the height of the bona fide trade was very small but it was big enough to give a living to people living in the isolated and non-populous areas of County Dublin. The city of Dublin public houses do not want to open at 4 o'clock. It would upset the trade unions; it would upset the young people who play games and, it would upset family life.
I feel that the Minister should have another look at it. I am sorry to be embarrassing one of the most loyal colleagues I have in the House but we are a very democratic Party and we are allowed to express our opinions openly. However, here we are faced with the position that the traders do not want it and the unions do not want it and for that reason the only thing I can do is to support Deputy Sherwin's amendment. The Minister has gone a great distance to meet everybody. I am very grateful to him for what he did when I led a big deputation to him from all over Ireland to ask him to remove Section 15 from the Bill. There was not a single Fine Gael man in that deputation. They were all Fianna Fáil and I want to pay a tribute to the Minister for his action in that matter.
We prevented Forte from getting a licence for every one of his restaurants in Dublin.
Tempora mutantur nos et mutamur in illis. It shows you what a democratic Minister we have. He wants to meet the wishes of the publicans of Ireland and I had the honour of leading that deputation to him when he took Section 15 out of the Bill. He said that if it was the wish of the trade, he was prepared to meet them.
At whose request was it put in?
I am only dealing with facts.
You had a right to bring the bona fide men to him when he was cutting their throats.
In that matter the Minister met my request and that of my colleagues on this side of the House. I am now asking him personally in this matter, but I do not like to be pushing an old friend too far.
I was afraid you were going to say that you did not like to push an open door.
When the Minister took that section out of the Bill, he did a very good job and we are very grateful to him. I would like to thank him on behalf of my old friends the publicans of County Dublin.
Would you explain why he put it in? That would be much more interesting. We all know why he took it out.
I explained that fully on the Second Reading.
I would rather hear Deputy Burke's explanation.
It was really wonderful.
It was.
It was really wonderful to see that we in Fianna Fáil had such a democratic Minister when he heard the views of the people of all Ireland.
This matter does not arise.
I am not going to delay the House much further. I have made my points and I would be glad if the Minister would consider this particular point on the Report Stage. He should not be pressured by any pressure group.
Except the one led by you.
That was a democratic assembly and it was a great honour to me to lead the publicans from all over Ireland to meet the Minister.
Why do you not lead the bona fide men somewhere?
I have dealt with the bona fide men already.
Indeed you have. You have cut their throats.
If the Minister could see his way to amend that section and give rural Ireland what they want and give the city people what they want, he will go down in history.
Like Rudolph the rednosed reindeer.
As the greatest Minister of our time. When Deputy Lynch was speaking, nobody knew what he was saying but I am able to get up and say a few words anyway. Would the Minister consider this point on Report Stage? If he does, he will satisfy a number of people in the city of Dublin and my old friends in county Dublin by allowing them to open from 4 to 10 o'clock. I represent the two areas and when you speak with two voices, you have to be fair to both sides.
Rural Dublin wants from 4 to 10 o'clock.
The Deputy has referred to these points more than once.
I would have been very brief, Sir, but for the interruptions from the other side of the House. I represent county Dublin and I also represent a portion of the city of Dublin and I am expressing the views of the people who sent me here from that part of the city. I wish to say to the Minister——
What side are you speaking for now?
Deputy Sweetman is a man for whom I have great regard as a parliamentarian. While I do not like his politics, as an individual, he is a very nice fellow. Deputy Sweetman did not hear me making the case for the two sections I represent. One section wants 4 to 10 o'clock. The other section wants——
The other section does not want that.
Mr. Donnellan
Two opposites.
That is right, two opposites, and I want to know on which side of the fence Deputy Burke is coming down. On which side of the fence will Deputy Burke sit?
He can have both.
Deputy Sweetman was not here when I was making the case and he is now asking the same question over and over again. I have explained the position. I suggest to the Minister now that it would be better for him to meet the wishes——
Mr. Donnellan
Of both sides.
Of both sections.
Mr. Donnellan
Hear, hear. Good man!
——of the city of Dublin and the city of Cork and of the remainder of rural Ireland. The people of rural Ireland are very grateful to the Minister for the concessions he has given in this Bill. The Minister has tried to do everything he could to meet the situation. Finally, I appeal to him once more to meet the wishes, if at all possible, of the city of Dublin and the city of Cork and of the people in rural Ireland. I believe uniformity will meet the wishes of all sections. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the Minister for his courteous reception of the deputations which approached him and the efforts he made to meet the wishes expressed by the various interested parties.
And for the way in which he put in the things they do not like.
There is only one matter I should like to raise in connection with Section 12.
Does the Deputy mean amendment No. 12?
It is the amendment tabled by the Minister.
We have not come to Section 12 yet. We are discussing amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 12 and 20.
Amendment No. 12 is not a ministerial amendment. It is an amendment tabled by Deputy M.J. O'Higgins.
I think the Deputy is dealing with amendment No. 21.
To Section 12, yes.
We have not come to that yet.
I am sorry. I understood we were discussing them all together. I will reserve my remarks until the appropriate time.
Mr. Ryan
This Bill was circulated by the Minister in the only few days of summer that we have experienced over the past year. Because of that, I was prepared to excuse it as a bout of summer madness on the part of the Minister and the Government, since, to suggest for one moment that Dáil Éireann should pass a Bill which would have the direct effect of increasing the price of the workingman's drink in Dublin at a time when the price of liquor has increased tremendously over the past few years, is an indication, I think, of a certain amount of mental disorder.
If we adopt the hours the Minister says we should accept, we will deliberately increase the price of stout, beer, lager, whiskey, gin, and every other drink normally consumed in Dublin public houses. Fine Gael are not prepared to do that. If the Government had not begun to tinker with the liquor laws two years ago, and again now, the price of a bottle of stout would be about 3d. cheaper than it is, or than it will be if this Bill goes through. The price of the pint, by reason of the gyrations of this Fianna Fáil Government, is about 5d. dearer than it need be.
Fianna Fáil may say that the effect of increasing the price is to reduce consumption and they are not, therefore, to be condemned. But consumption trends have been increasing rather than falling and, if that be so, then people are spending a great deal more on drink. I do not think it is fair that the people of Dublin who, in the main, do not want the hours the Minister is now forcing upon them, just as they did not want the hours forced upon them in 1959, should have to pay these increased prices in order to provide excessive drinking facilities for a limited portion of the year in some parts of the country.
I am getting a bit tired of having our habits and our behaviour, in play and in work, dictated by what the foreigner would like to have here while he is boozing for two or three weeks out of the 52. It is about time we legislated here for our own people and for the manner in which reasonable people behave from one end of the year to the other. In order to achieve a reasonable arrangement for the Irish people there is certainly no need to compel public houses in seaside resorts to open for the long hours the Minister is making available to them when, for eight months of the year, they have little other company but the spray of the waves. To base a line of defence on the argument that the hours are not obligatory but simply permissive is to adopt, of course, a very weak line of defence because, so long as one licence holder avails of the hours the law may give him, or her, then all licensed holders must open if they are not to see their trade going to their rivals. I believe the Minister has made the worst of all possible bad jobs in the proposals he is now asking the House to accept.
I have often wondered why a man of such undoubted experience and charm as Deputy P.J. Burke was not made a Minister of State many years ago. The great moment of truth arrived tonight when we realised that it is his incapacity to take a decision, or to come down on one side or the other, which rendered him unsuitable for ministerial office. Decisions have to be taken. The Minister has taken them and he has, of course, taken the wrong decisions. The Fine Gael amendments endeavour to achieve a degree of compromise which I believe the Minister should seriously consider. Two years ago, this House indicated support for a degree of uniformity— certainly for the abolition of the bona fide trade. Deputy P.J. Burke preached for the maintenance of the bona fide trade and did the most effective thing he could to kill it by voting against it. It does not seem to have affected his capacity to please everybody but at the same time in fact he has pleased nobody. What we did very quickly forget is that the bona fide trade, as we knew it, would never have been the prosperous thing it was if it respected the law. However, its success and prosperity depended entirely upon breaches of the law.
The Deputy is getting away from the amendments.
Mr. Ryan
No, Sir; I have not drifted. If we again adopt an arrangement such as we had before, it can only prove prosperous to any section of the community if the law is broken. The alternative is to have an enforcement of the law which would be almost impracticable and which certainly would be too costly. An effort has to be made, then, to have a degree of uniformity or opening hours which would not lead to the exodus to which we had become accustomed from large centres of population to public houses on the fringe of cities which had longer hours.
The Fine Gael amendment to this Bill would provide a uniform closing hour between the city and rural public houses on Sundays. Therefore, I think it is worthy of acceptance because it does to some extent meet the objections which consumers and publicans alike have in Dublin to the proposed hours. Dublin does not want six hours of continuous drinking from 4 o'clock in the afternoon until 10 o'clock at night all the year round on Sundays. I defy any member of the Fianna Fáil Party, representing a Dublin constituency, to say that he is convinced the people of Dublin want those hours. I do not believe they do.
Many of us believe three hours would be sufficient and that the best are from 7 to 10 p.m. Against that, it was argued in some centres which had sport fixtures and a large number of people congregating for football matches, and so on, that you require facilities from 5 p.m. or thereabouts. Therefore, the Fine Gael amendment is admittedly a compromise. I believe this is a reasonable compromise of conflicting interests. If Deputy Burke had been able to achieve the same compromise between those pulling him in different directions——
He advocated exactly the same thing, in principle.
Mr. Ryan
It is extremely difficult to take anything from what Deputy Burke said. If he is advocating the same thing, I trust he will join us in the Division lobby when he gets an opportunity to do so.
I said "in principle".
Mr. Ryan
I trust we shall not have a repetition of his performance in 1959 of preaching one thing and doing another thing. I think it is a pity that the Minister has sought to extend to 11.30 p.m. the summer hours. At present, since the last Act, the 11.30 p.m. opening operates only during the months from June to September. If there should be any desire for drinking until 11.30 p.m. I thought it was to facilitate those people whom we are all supposed to consider, the tourists. There are very few tourists around this country in March, April, May or in October. Therefore, I think it is unnecessary to extend the drinking hours from 11 p.m. until 11.30 p.m. for the full period of the artificial summer time which we have—and that is what the Minister is proposing.
I know that the Minister personally is not opposed to late night drinking and I have no doubt the extension may personally facilitate him: that is common knowledge. I do not think, again, that the ordinary people of Dublin should be compelled to pay increased prices in order to provide a facility which only a small minority demands. Even at present, with the 11.30 p.m. opening since the beginning of June, it is quite normal thing to see people begin to leave premises shortly after 11 p.m. or even earlier. It is not uncommon to find the houses half empty before 11.30 p.m.
Is that not desirable?
Mr. Ryan
It is. However, it is undesirable that those who are prepared to keep reasonable hours for drinking should have to pay to keep these premises open. I am very concerned about the artificial increases in the prices of the workingman's drink in Dublin which this legislation will cause, just as the last Act caused two years ago.
I have discussed the position from the consumers' point of view, which is very important and a point of view which the Minister cannot ignore, although his predecessor seemed to think it was unimportant if the price of the workingman's drink in Dublin became excessive. However, the public houses in Dublin would not be run if there were not available a pool of labour. That is, fortunately, well organised trade union labour.
The Minister in the course of his speech on the Second Reading argued that those who are in the publican's business had to accept that they were in the catering business and had to accommodate themselves accordingly to the demands of their consumers. It is a fair argument, to a degree. However, if we apply it as the Minister would wish to apply it, we find that in Dublin the consumers do not want the hours which the Minister wants to force upon them. Yet those who run this catering business are being compelled, because the Minister says they must, to operate hours which their own consumers do not want. The result is, of course, that the employees of publicans will very rightly demand increased wages and improved conditions. If they are to be asked to work for an extra half hour for a long period of the year, if they are to be asked to work for six hours on Sundays, and thus lose altogether opportunities of being with their families or friends on Sundays, they will demand a considerable improvement in their income and that can only be paid for by the consumers.
I cannot see in what way the existing price structure in the Dublin public houses can carry the extra charge which will lie on all public houses because of the hours the Minister is forcing upon the public houses in Dublin. That being so, there are only three things the publican can do. He can try to carry on his business with a smaller staff or with non-union staff or he can pass on the price to the consumer. There have been indications in Dublin in recent years that some publicans at least are anxious to find a way of relieving their labour costs by changing the nature of the business and by changing their staffs. I think that would be bad.
If the public house business in Dublin or in any large centre in this country were to fall into the hands of disorganised, competing groups without any standards of employment and of pay, I believe the whole licensed trade would suffer and we would end up in chaos and that it is the consumer in the end who would be at the loss. That being so, I would ask the Minister seriously to reconsider the imposition of unwanted hours which he has inflicted upon this city.
If the Deputy wants me seriously to consider any suggestions he may make, I should be very grateful if he would not make insulting personal remarks about me.
Hear, hear!
Mr. Ryan
I am not aware of what the Minister is referring to. If the Minister wants to become personal, the Deputy can become very personal.
It was not the Minister who became personal.
Mr. Ryan
The Minister is accusing me of making insulting personal remarks. I must have touched some very raw part of his conscience. Unfortunately for the Minister, I cannot be controller of his conscience or his habits.
The Deputy can control his own tongue.
Mr. Ryan
I can speak for the people of Dublin and many of them think if there is to be a rule of law, it is about time the Government realised that the rule of law must be observed by the Government and the members of the Government and that there is an obligation on them to observe the law in all respects and at all times, day and night. If the members opposite are in a provocative frame of mind, they might get more than they bargained for.
Go ahead.
Mr. Ryan
I have no intention of conducting this debate as some Deputies opposite might wish it to be conducted, in the manner of a barroom. If they wish to interrupt a contribution by a Deputy who is endeavouring to persuade the Minister who stubbornly insists on imposing hours that Dublin does not want, then they will pay the price for it. The Fine Gael Party made it clear when the last Bill was going through the House and during the general election campaign that they were anxious for a review of the licensing laws in order to provide the facilities which tourist resorts wanted. The amendment put down in the name of Deputy Michael O'Higgins achieved these things without imposing upon large centres of population which have not the same problem, the hours which the Minister is imposing on them.
Fine Gael amendments provide that if publicans in any area can establish a reasonable need for special drinking facilities, these facilities can be given for the occasion and at the time a case is made for them. That surely is what our liquor laws should achieve —so much and no more. In order to facilitate a small number of people for a short period of the year, you do not have to discommode the whole community for the remainder of the year. That is what the Minister is doing. He is discommoding, on the one hand, the employees and the employers in the licensed trade to a degree that is not necessary, and on the other hand he is going to increase substantially the cost structure of the whole licensing trade. The amendments which Fine Gael have put down deserve consideration and if the Minister is unable to consider the merits and the proposals simply because he takes personal exception to some people who may support them, then he is showing himself completely unsuited to the office which he holds.
I do not think I need dwell any further on the matter. I could say a great deal more but I have put the main arguments in favour of not imposing these six hours of continuous drinking on Sundays. There are many other arguments. The opposition to the variation in hours arises at the termination of trading periods and not at the beginning. As the Fine Gael amendment suggests, if public houses in Dublin remain open for an hour later than those in other places, they are not going to have a large influx of people to avail of that hour. As I said on the last occasion, I believe that if there were a variation of only half an hour between the night closing time in Dublin and other parts of the country, it would not lead to any large exodus such as we had during the time of the old bona fide trade. The Minister should seriously consider it.
If the public houses in the rest of the country closed at 11.30, I should like to see them closing in Dublin at 11 o'clock, and if it is to be at 11 o'clock during the other times of the year in the country, I should like to see a closing hour of 10.30 in Dublin. That half hour in Dublin is vital so far as the consumers are concerned, as public transport ceases at 11.30. It is important also to employees of licensed premises because they can get away in time to get home before midnight. As things are at present, there are many employees of licensed premises who during the summer months do not arrive home until 1 a.m. or 2 a.m. because they have to work until public transport has gone off the streets. If the Minister, without feeling personally involved, would consider the remarks from this side of the House, we might get a much better measure than the Bill he has put before us.
I have addressed the House four times on this Stage of the Bill and if I am to believe everything I heard from Deputy Burke, it looks as if I was addressing my remarks, through you, Sir, to the wrong person when I addressed the Minister. It appears that my exhortations to the Minister last night and today were useless. They should have been made to Deputy Burke and I could have got him to lead a deputation to the Minister and the Minister would probably have met me on the amendment I had down earlier. With reference to amendment No. 7, I would again exhort the Minister not to forget to leave Waterford in.
The Minister on amendment No. 3 said that he had to be guided by a demand and he was reported in the national newspapers as saying he had a strong demand from Waterford. As I reminded him on a previous occasion, when I handed him a petition signed by more than 80 per cent. of the licensed trade in Waterford, they should get these hours mentioned here
if the premises are situate in the county borough of Dublin, Cork, Limerick or Waterford and during the months of June, July and August and September six o'clock in the afternoon or after the hour of ten o'clock in the evening, and during any other month seven o'clock in the afternoon and ten o'clock in the evening.
As I said earlier, I have no argument to make about the hours 4 o'clock to 10 o'clock in rural areas. They are welcomed in the rural areas. My constituents in the rural areas in Waterford and the members of the licensed trade all want those hours. The licensed trade in the city want the hours I have mentioned and which are provided for in the amendment. It is very easy to get away from the suggestion that we should have uniformity in this respect, but I would urge the Minister to look again at this and not make an exception of Waterford.
After Deputy Ryan's contribution, I am a little less inclined to be reasonable than I was.
I did not hear Deputy Ryan's contribution, but surely we do not have to humour the Minister. I said last night we would approach this Bill in a calm manner. I have not gone outside that, despite the provocation from the benches behind the Minister and for which I do not blame him. I would point out to him, though, that many of his staunch supporters, in a telegram to me today, expressed themselves as aghast at his conduct in this matter. As I said earlier, it would be good politics for me to taunt him on this— it would, as Deputy P.J. Burke said, be only democracy at work. Surely it is only right to give way to pressure from people in an area who are, after all, entitled to their rights as citizens of the Republic?
To get back to where we were before the Minister's interruption, I am at a loss to know where the demand is for the provisions the Minister has put into this section. I have asked the Minister five or six times to reconsider this matter, and I can assure him he will be asked again, away from this House. I have been asked by people who are not licensees, people who like to take a drink, why the Minister is so adamant and why he proposes opening hours on Sunday afternoons from 4 to 10 o'clock. It has been bandied about here that licensees are a pressure group. I can answer that by saying that this Sunday afternoon opening period was the result of the pressure group represented by members of golf clubs who do not care what happens away from their clubs so long as they can drink in their clubs up to 10 p.m.
I would again return to something which has been lost in the tide of Dublin protestations—the question of seaside resorts. In this connection, I deliberately do not use the word "tourist"—I am endeavouring to cater for our own people, let them be from inland towns or trippers who go to the seaside on Sunday afternoons. I disagree with the people who say that the proposed 4 to 10 o'clock opening is ample to cover such resorts during the season. I would exhort the Minister to take cognisance of the amendment No. 20 in the name of Deputy M.J. O'Higgins. Outside the seaside resorts, there are the big inland towns such as Thurles where you might have a Munster GAA final on a Sunday afternoon with an influx of from 50,000 to 60,000 people. Special concessions should be written into the Bill for extensions for such functions. When it comes to my constituency, I always fear Fianna Fáil Ministers. The way in which my constituency was treated by the Minister for Transport and Power——
I am afraid that does not arise.
I am only drawing the Minister's attention to it and I hope he is not being guided by the behaviour of other Fianna Fáil Ministers towards my constituency. It has taken great punishment in a very short time from Fianna Fáil Ministers. If the Minister were prepared to say that he would reconsider this matter of Waterford, he would only be falling in line with the exhortation of Deputy P. J. Burke when he appealed to the Minister's democratic instincts.
I opened the discussion on this section and the person who opens a discussion is always at a disadvantage. I know from experience that certain very wise people wait until the discussion is nearly over so that they can misrepresent earlier speakers without the risk of their being misrepresented themselves. I have no reason to change my mind because it now seems there is general agreement that the Sunday evening closing hour should be 10 p.m. The least that can be said on this is that there is agreement to compromise. There is, however, a rather violent conflict of views in respect of the opening time. There appear to be three viewpoints—in respect of Dublin city, the seaside resorts and the rural areas. We have to decide what is the best arrangement for those three areas. One quarter of the population of the country is concentrated in Dublin and that cannot be ignored. There is no point in saying: "We are always talking about Dublin." It is the capital city with a population of 700,000.
Reference was made to the two points of view held by Deputy Burke. He is entitled to have two points of view. What some Deputies do not understand is that Deputy Burke is a TD representing County Dublin, which includes the seaside resorts of Balbriggan, Rush, Skerries and Malahide, but he is also a councillor in Dublin Corporation representing the same area as I do, O'Connell Street. What would be good for O'Connell Street would not be good for Malahide and Skerries.
What about Belmullet?
Deputy P.J. Burke was justified in asking for special consideration for the seaside resorts and, at the same time, asking that something be done for Dublin city, where six hours in the afternoon are not wanted. Deputy P.J. Burke was, therefore, correct in having two points of view.
Mr. Donnellan
But he did not say which of them he wanted.
It does not matter. He has responsibilities to both areas. It would not do for him to shout "4 p.m. to 10 p.m. everywhere". The people in O'Connell Street would say "That is not our view." Deputy P. J. Burke is entitled to say "All right" and look for some other hours for Dublin city.
The Minister's problem is to decide what the opening hours should be. Some have expressed the view that it should be from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. I accept that that would be satisfactory from the trade union point of view but that it would not be acceptable to the Minister. Therefore, I shall deal only with proposals the Minister is prepared to meet. I shall deal with the question of whether the opening hour should be 4 p.m., 5 p.m. or 5.30 p.m. Deputy P.J. Burke said the people of Dublin do not want the hours of 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. Deputy Ryan said so and I say so, too. The Minister will have to recognise that fact. Then we are left with the question of whether the opening hours should be 5 p.m. or 5.30 p.m. Deputy O'Higgins advocated 5 p.m. and I advocate 5.30 p.m. The Dublin publicans do not wish to lose the huge trade of 17,000 or 18,000 visitors from the country, which they would lose if they opened only at 7 p.m. My point in favour of the 5.30 opening is this. We must consider the right of the thousands of workers involved to have a session off. Take the family publican, the fellow who has to be always there, at what time does he get off? If the licensed premises closed at 2 o'clock and opened at 5.30, he would have a reasonable time to go to a match, run out to the seaside or go to the cinema. But if he has to open again at 5 o'clock, he cannot very well go to a match or the cinema and be back in time. He would miss the principal parts of the cinema shows or matches, which are not over until after 5 o'clock. He would have to get an aeroplane back.
That half-hour is vital. It gives thousands of workers, and even the publicans themselves, a chance of going somewhere and being able to get back without having heart failure. It is also time enough for the fellow coming out of a match or picture house to have a drink or two. The opening hour of 5 p.m. would not suit the fellow who wants an evening off. I leave to the Minister the question of to what extent there should be a differential between city and seaside. I am not concerned with you people in the country. I am talking about the opening hour of 5.30 p.m. in Dublin only. The Minister should recognise there is general opposition to a six-hour opening in Dublin. That comes from Deputy P.J. Burke who "knocks about" the public houses and knows the position. I do not mean any offence by that. He is an active man and he "knocks around" if only for a chat. He knows the feeling of the people and he represents the Party here. He said he would be agreeable to the hours I have in my amendment.
I think we are a lot of sanctimonious hypocrites. Every person standing up here to speak opens by saying "I do not drink" or "I am a reformed gentleman". Let me go on record as saying here and now that I speak for the man who takes a drink, as I do myself. Let me try and give the Minister the point of view of the man who takes a drink. I am not speaking from the point of view of the publicans or of the employees. I am speaking from the customers' point of view. I should like to remind Deputy Sherwin that the customer does not rush into the public house every minute of every hour it is open. He goes for the half-hour or hour that suits him. Sometimes it may be late in the night when he is free to go. The longer he is able to spend in it, the less likelihood there is of his getting drunk. The strictest policeman we have is a man's own pocket. Your pocket governs the amount of money you will spend in the public house.
What has that got to do with what I said?
Nothing whatever. The longer you have to spend it, the less effect it is going to have on you. It stands to reason. Deputy Lemass, I think, talked about rush drinking. You have rush drinking only when it comes near closing time. The sooner you realise that, the better. I am afraid I am not in a position to deal as I would like to with amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8, because they deal with the cities of Dublin and Cork. Thanks be to heaven, during my sojourns in the city of Dublin I have never found difficulty in getting a drink any time I wanted it and, please God, it will continue that way.
If the Minister would bear with me I would deal with the other two amendments, amendments Nos. 12 and 20. I have heard several people congratulate the Minister on the introduction of this Bill. I wonder, if his predecessor had listened to the speeches from this side of the House, would there be any necessity for this Bill? None whatever. When that Bill was first introduced in 1959 and became law in 1960, we were told it would be the last of the Intoxicating Liquor Acts. We made appeals to the Minister and, mind you, all the appeals did not come from this side of the House. Some came from the Fianna Fáil benches. I remember Deputies from my own county supporting my point of view that we were doing a considerable amount of damage to the tourist industry by the hours which we were inserting in the 1960 Act. Remember we have lost thousands of pounds as a result of that Act.
We are now trying to mend our hands and I think that is a good thing. I remember saying on one occasion dealing with this Bill that we down in the south—I was referring to the 26 Counties—were known and famed for our liberalism, whereas in the six north-eastern counties they were known and famed for their conservatism. Things have changed. We have now become the conservatives and the Six Counties have become the liberals. One may walk into a hotel or even a public house in any tourist resort in the Six Counties on a Sunday and have a drink at any reasonable hour, but down here we have become more conservative with the result that the law is strictly enforced.
As I say, as they are the only ones I know anything about, I support amendments Nos. 12 and 20. Amendment No. 12 deals with what we might describe as the holiday period from 1st June to 30th September. As the law stands at the moment, from 1st June to 30th September on Sunday evenings, the public houses close at 9 o'clock and on week nights, they close at 11.30 p.m. I cannot take very much exception to the 11.30 p.m. closing. I think it is a reasonable hour except on very special occasions. Those special occasions are covered by amendment No. 20.
Amendment No. 12 is designed to give a certain discretion to the district justices during that period from 1st June to 30th September, which is the peak period for the tourist industry. In my county at the moment, it is not dark until about 12.25 a.m. or 12.30 a.m. As a matter of fact, there are parts of my county where we have only approximately two and half hours of twilight. We depend mostly on the Six Counties for our tourists. Very often they come across for week-ends or, very often again, they are day trippers by car. That is a contradiction in terms but they are day trippers who come over in their own cars.
Since the passing of the 1960 Act, they have to finish their golf, their fishing, or whatever is their pastime or leisure early because if they want an intoxicating drink, they must get into a public house before 9 o'clock. When they come out at 9 o'clock, there is nothing for them but to get back across the Border. Prior to this—let us admit it and face up to it—the Garda shut their eyes to breaches of the licensing laws, and after their golf or fishing, the tourists adjourned to some hotel or public house where—I would not say they consumed large quantities of drink — they had a singsong and drank at their leisure, the Nelson eye having been turned towards that particular resort for the time being.
That is what we are seeking in amendment No. 12. We are asking the Minister to accept the amendment giving discretion to a district justice, if he is satisfied that a particular locality is a holiday resort. We do not say a seaside resort but a holiday resort. We know Killarney is a holiday resort, not a seaside, and there are others such as Lisdoonvarna—I think people go there mostly for the water. There are number of other holiday resorts—and each of us could think of them in our own constituencies—where we will have an influx of visitors during the period 1st June to 30th September. We do not ask the Minister to give these resorts extended hours on Sunday nights. All we say is: "Look, we will leave it to the man who knows best, the district justice who resides in the locality and who should know whether they are genuine holiday resorts or otherwise. If he is satisfied that an application is genuine, having heard the Garda, he may give extended hours to those holiday resorts."
We have Fahan, Buncrana, Portnablagh, Downings, Bundoran and all the various other seaside resorts in my county and I know the financial advantage it would be to the people of that county if visitors could remain for those three or four extra hours on Sunday evenings. I do not think there would be any abuse if the Minister gave that discretion to the justices. I do not believe there would be. As I say, the justice must be satisfied that it is a genuine holiday resort. That is something that was done in the 1927 Act, the 1943 Act and abolished in the 1960 Act.
I appeal to the Minister to consider this matter. We have not put down this amendment for political reasons. I know that opposite me there are Deputies who genuinely hold the same views as we do on this amendment to grant exemptions to holiday resorts during the summer period only.
Amendment No. 20 deals with area exemption orders for certain days and days only. If the Minister gives Sunday hours of from 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. or 5 p.m. to 10 p.m. or whatever it might be, there may be a Sunday in the constituency of any one of us on which there is a football match, or a pattern as it is called in the south and a feis as we call it in the north, or a fleadh ceoil, which are now becoming very popular and common. There can be an exceptional day in any locality with a hurling match, a football match, an athletics meeting, or possibly a cock fight.
The Deputy is not overlooking Section 8 which is already in the Bill?
I am not overlooking Section 8. It is there but we are asking for this area exemption order for a town on a particular occasion.
I do not know if it is a popular practice in the south but in my part of the country soccer or Gaelic tournaments are sometimes run throughout the summer based on one town. Nobody knows in advance how many Sundays they will run. It may be three or four or five or six. On occasions such as that, we ask the Minister to allow the justice, having heard the Garda superintendent and the publicans or their representatives, to grant exemptions for those Sundays. I cannot visualise the exemptions being later than 10 o'clock—they may be. I am thinking of the influx if, say, a special train arrives at two o'clock and the match begins at three and the people want some refreshments. We had an example in Swinford, County Mayo, where there was a fleadh ceoil——
The same thing happened in Gorey.
——and 43 publicans were prosecuted for opening during prohibited hours. If they had not opened, these visitors to the town had no place else to go. I believe 30,000 people arrived in Gorey last Sunday——
And they did not close at all.
I think they were very wise, but that is what is bringing the law into disgrace and ruining the licensing Acts.
Section 8 gives——
The fleadh ceoil is already covered by Section 8. It is there specifically for that purpose.
That is only once a year.
You have only one a year.
I am talking of football matches in a locality. In the town of Buncrana, there is a soccer tournament where the prize is £1,000——
£1,250.
That will be running every Sunday from about the month of May to the end of August.
Was it played under lights at night?
No, during the day.
Would 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. not be sufficient for them?
I do not think so. Some of these people come from Derry and from other cross-Border towns. Some teams actually travel from Dublin. It is to facilitate these people that we ask the Minister to accept this amendment. He goes a long distance with us. He gives it to us once a year.
One period not exceeding eight days.
But the days must be consecutive. What is there is of advantage to institutions such as Puck Fair or Listowel Races. I am asking the Minister to place other towns in the same position as Listowel.
Around the clock?
Yes, for Sundays.
For every Sunday?
No. The amendment says where the justice is satisfied that by reason of the expected incursion of a large number of persons. That is nothing new; that is taken out of the 1927 Act and all we ask the Minister to do is to put it in again.
Under the 1927 Act, exemptions were given for every Sunday in the summer.
I do not think that should be done.
That is what happened and would happen.
No. If the Minister accepts amendment No. 12, which deals with the tourist period from 1st June to 30th September, then any area which procures an exemption under it will have no necessity during those months to seek exemptions under Section 20. Can one imagine the towns to which I have referred, such as Bundoran and Buncrana and other seaside resorts, expecting an incursion of a large number of persons except in the period from 1st June to 30th September? I cannot.
Under the 1927 Act, a district justice gave an area exemption order because people went for a walk in a particular direction on a Sunday afternoon.
I never knew that to occur.
It happened.
Mr. O'Donnell
That is the exception. Let us not take the exception. The Minister has gone a long way towards eliminating that now because he has appointed a President of the District Court who tries to come to some agreement with his colleagues as to when such orders should be granted.
It is a hard job.
I agree, but that will do much to eliminate the abuses to which the Minister referred. I have been attending, as have Deputy Cunningham and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach and even the Minister for Local Government, meetings of hoteliers and publicans and I have attended meetings of the people who frequent these places and they have asked us to put down the amendment. We gave them an assurance before the last general election, each one of us, that we would endeavour to amend the law. We are now trying to carry out that assurance. I appeal to the Minister not to take this as something political with which we are trying to score but to accept it in the interests of the tourist industry and the drinking man and so encourage people to stay with us a little longer on Sundays during the summer.
Listening to the debate on these amendments, I have the utmost sympathy with the Minister. I do not know if he can get a consensus of opinion from the House as a result which will enable him to come to a firm decision on the matter, but what I recognise in the discussion is an intolerance of the views expressed by the other fellow. From some remarks made it would seem that one should own a publichouse or be a veteran drinker to be qualified to speak on this legislation, but if one does not drink or drinks but moderately, according to many people in the House, he should not take part in this discussion. I think that is a wrong view. One might as well say that unless one is in receipt of a social welfare benefit one should not take part in a debate on social welfare or a debate on industry unless one participates in industry. I want to express my views on some of these amendments and I do not care who likes them.
I shall be glad to get them.
I do not think they will have any effect on the Minister but I want to put what I say on record because I have pretty confirmed views, views with which many of my colleagues in my own Party do not agree. I would say the majority do not agree with them. I believe that people like Deputy O'Donnell and some members of my Party should be campaigning in this House to have the public houses open 24 hours a day. That is the strain in which they are talking, even though they may not mean it in that way. They do not seem to want restrictions of any kind, whilst, on the other hand, they have accepted the principle that we must have fixed hours. Therefore, I believe the opinion of every Deputy should be respected when he talks about the hours during which he believes public houses should be open.
I am not intolerant of people who drink and often mix with them and encourage them to drink but frankly I think that 11.30 p.m. is too late to have public houses open. If 11.30 p.m. is late enough and suits many Deputies or suits the Minister, why not 12 midnight? What is the difference between 11.30 p.m. and 12 midnight, and what is the difference between midnight and 12.30 or 1 a.m.? There does not seem to be anything sacred about any hour, as far as some Deputies are concerned.
Once we accept the principle that the Government and the Dáil have the right to fix hours, we should aim at something which we believe is acceptable to all the people. The views of people who wear the Pioneer badge in this House have been to some extent sneered at because they do not seem to have any interest in drink. I do not think that should be so. They have a point of view. Whether people drink or not, they have an interest—not a vested interest—in the drinking habits of the people.
I do not know anything about the Taoiseach's drinking habits. I do not know whether he drinks or not—I have no idea whether he does or not.
He does.
He is the most important man in this House as far as his rank goes and he expressed the opinion that there was too much drinking in the country. I think it is stupid to say that if we lengthen the hours, we will not have more drinking. Of course we will. It is ridiculous to think otherwise.
If, as I say, we accept the principle that we should control drinking to the extent that we control the hours, all of us should try to fix the hours in accordance with the traditions of the people. I said on Second Reading, and now repeat, that I believe that Sunday should be treated differently from the other six days of the week. I honestly believe that. The proposals in this Bill will allow—if that is the right expression—those who want to drink something like seven and a half hours. Frankly, I think seven and a half hours is too long to have the public houses open on a Sunday. In the normal course of events, on a week day, a man who wants to go to a public house to drink, when one remembers that he finishes work at 6 p.m. and is not ready to go out again until about 7 p.m. or 7.30 p.m., has but three or four hours in which to drink. I put it to the Minister: does he believe that we should give facilities to the extent of allowing—and that is the right word in this case—twice as long for drinking on Sunday as on a week day?
Many people may sneer at that sort of comment. I do not want to attempt to preach to people or to tell them how they should run their lives; but, to the extent that we are controlling drinking hours at all, we have the right, and I think we have the responsibility, to ensure that there will be moderate drinking on Sundays. Frankly, I believe there will not be if we extend the hours.
Deputies have spoken of how the Guards turned the Nelson eye prior to the 1960 Act. Many of us have been at seaside resorts in this country and have witnessed scandalous behaviour on the part of people who took too much drink. That will happen again, I am firmly convinced, under this legislation which will allow them to drink in the afternoon from 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. I do not think it is good enough.
From 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. is only one extra hour.
And 9 p.m. to 10 p.m.
I thought you were referring to the afternoon.
That is two hours. Many of the arguments are made in the name of tourism. I do not say the Minister has made these arguments. Deputy O'Donnell made them. Again at the risk of repeating what I said last night, I may say that we commit too many sins in the name of tourism. We are not doing too badly in tourism. The tourist figures have gone up rapidly year after year. I cannot claim that my part of the country is the best tourist area but it has its quota—a pretty good quota—especially because Rosslare is one of the main ports of entry and I suppose we have many more seaside resorts than most other maritime counties.
I have not heard complaints from tourists about inability to get drink. I knock around with as regular a crowd as anybody within my own Party and within my own circle of friends in Wexford. There was not anybody who suggested to me that there should be extra hours of drinking on Sundays. I could not say that in a plainer or more forthright fashion. There was not anybody in Wexford town or county who ever suggested to me in the past two years that the hours for drinking on Sunday were too short. The only complaint made was, believe it or not, that the hours were too long and that they would be satisfied with opening hours say from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. or from 6 p.m. to 9.30 p.m. or 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. That is the time the Irish people want to drink.
If we are to be in any way different, we should be prepared to have our own set hours for drinking in this country, especially on Sundays, hours that are peculiar to the Irish people, and not be jealous of the drinking hours in the Six Counties if, as they were described, they are more liberal than the hours here, and not be jealous of the fact that on the Continent one can get a drink at any hour and in practically any place, public house, café, snack bar.
I think the Minister is making a grave mistake in extending the hours, especially on Sundays. I believe also the point of view of the trade union members who are engaged in this business should be listened to. Deputy Mullen, who has a particular knowledge of the interests of the trade unionists of the city of Dublin, has put forward their point of view. It has been said of course by others that if they are in the trade, they are being paid and that irrespective of what the hours may be, they should be prepared to work. They have a point of view and they should be considered. They are considered in other legislation and they should be considered in regard to this relatively unimportant matter of drinking. I do not think it is good enough that we should condemn them, so to speak, to have to work at such awkward periods on Sundays. They have contributed quite an amount, not only to the business life but to the sporting life of this city. The Dublin barman is renowned for his support of all type of sport. Now he is to be put into the position that he will have to forego the pleasure of attending Dalymount, Lansdowne Road or Croke Park.
He would not go to Lansdowne Road on a Sunday.
I do not know much about Rugby in the city but I do know about Santry and Croke Park. I do not think there would be much difference if the hours were changed to say, 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. Any time there is a big match in Croke Park I venture to say the spectators are not out until 5.30 p.m. and by the time they get to a public house, it is certainly 6 p.m. or very near it.
You can see them in any public house at Summerhill at five o'clock.
There is too much importance attached to drinking. Deputies here asked if a crowd of day trippers go down to Tramore, Rosslare or Bray on a Sunday and it starts to rain: What are they to do? Where are they to go? The public house is not open, as if the public house were a Mecca for these people on whom it rained. I do not suggest they should all flock into the churches, but if there is no public house open in the place, their day is ruined.
Very often, it is the only place with a toilet.
I do not think many of us would go into the toilets in some of the public houses. There is far too much importance being attached to this whole matter of drink and our drinking habits. I concede that the Minister is trying to make improvements. I concede that there was nothing political in the motives of the former Minister for Justice. He wanted to obviate what he believed was an abuse in regard to drinking after hours.
Because people were dissatisfied and showed their dissatisfaction in certain areas in the last general election the Minister wants to tidy up the legislation. Again I give him credit for trying to do the right thing but I am merely making this appeal—and it seems to be an appeal in the wilderness —for the curtailment of drinking, especially on a Sunday. The interests of trade unionists may be important. The interests of the man who owns a public house may be important and the interests of the consumer may be important but our Irish traditions and our Irish way of life are much more important and if we are to cater for the people who must get into a public house if it rains, who must get a drink after a football match, who must have the same facilities as they would have on the Continent, then it is a bad day for us. While I disagreed all along with the opening of public houses on a Sunday, I would suggest that, if they must be open, they should be open at some reasonable hour as has been proposed, from six or seven until ten o'clock on a Sunday night.
The Minister is not doing it deliberately but this measure will be responsible for the breaking up of many homes. There are some people who, if they get into a public house at four o'clock on a Sunday afternoon, will not be shifted until 10 o'clock. This idea that they will spend only what they have set out for drink that day is nonsense. There are people all over the country who would beg, borrow or steal in order to drink until 10 o'clock and the wives and children—and I do not want to exaggerate—will suffer in that process. Sunday should be a day apart. Again, let me remind the Minister that even though the Sunday opening hours will be shorter than for the week-day, there will be twice as much time available on a Sunday for the ordinary working man to drink than on other days of the week.
I know Deputy Corish has very definite views on the whole drinking position. Some years ago, Deputy Corish was one of the few Deputies who had the courage of his convictions here. When this House decided that only people in certain parts of the country inside the "Pale" were to be allowed to take a drink on Sunday, Deputy Corish voted with the majority against the opening of any rural public houses except for the gentlemen who travel.
Were the back doors not open?
After that, I brought in a Bill here to suit everybody, namely, to close all public houses on a Sunday, to close the city public house as well as the country public house and the self-same tribe that voted here in favour of closing the door of the countryman on a Sunday voted to keep the city man's door open. Let us be clear on this: there were no licensing laws for 30 or 40 years before the last licensing Bill was brought in. The question is now whether we are to legislate for Dublin and Cork, the two cities again, or for the country at large. The publicans of Dublin have put up the prices so high now that they can afford to open for only a couple of hours and then make a profit to keep them going, and public houses are selling for £20,000 and higher. That will show what they are worth. Any man who can afford to pay £20,000 to £40,000 for licensed premises could afford to pay extra staff to cover the extra hours. There is a lot of talk about trade unionists. I was talking to Cork city people coming up in the train about three weeks ago and they were saying: "We are good trade unionists." I said: "Very well; a good trade unionist at present is looking for a five-day week. We will give them a five-day week and close the premises altogether on Saturday and Sunday." That should satisfy them. They will be good trade unionists then. I do not know whether the public houses will sell as well on that basis.
This Dáil appointed a commission to go into all this. That commission brought in its findings and on those findings the last Bill was based. There was the difficulty of ordinary country people who had to feed their cattle and milk them on Sunday morning and go down to 11 o'clock or 11.30 Mass in the local church. When they came out after their morning's work and walked past the public house, they dare not look at it but a city person who drove up in his car would have the door open for him. That was the position for long enough in this country. It has taken long enough for the rural people to become alive to what has gone on.
Up to the time I came into this House, there was a fair observance of the law. The law was fairly well observed at that time; but from that time, the observance of the law deteriorated from day to day and from month to month until there was no closing of any public house anywhere except by the trade union people in the city. I have complaints from the rural areas in connection with all this. I have complaints of people going to a funeral in the country on a Sunday where you have 200 or 300 mourners trying to get a drink after a funeral and they have to go away without having a chat with their neighbours.
That was the condition of affairs here and when I wanted to remedy that in this House, I was told by Deputy MacEoin, who was Minister for Justice at the time, to leave it to him and that he would fix it. He did not fix it and it was eight years before it was fixed. The Guards for whom Deputy MacEoin was responsible did not enforce the law as far as any licensed premises were concerned and the law became a joke. There are funerals in rural areas on a Sunday and the people attending them have no opportunity of getting a drink. There is still a problem in the country districts because no matter what trade union regulations there are, the cow must be milked morning and evening. The usual time for the farmer to finish up is about 7 o'clock in the evening and then he goes and has a drink. Now he has until 10 o'clock to have it and I hope that in a couple of years it will be 12 o'clock.
Hear, hear!
I believe that if there were no closing hour and no licensing laws, there would not be one more gallon of drink sold.
Hear, hear!
I have seen them on Sundays when the old law was in force rushing to get out of Mass and making for the public house and having three pints in five minutes. Then they would go home to milk the cows and would fall around the stalls. I have seen the same individuals march out of the chapel on a Church holiday and march past the public house with their heads in the air and not go in at all. I think the Minister is doing the right thing.
Is that in Cork?
We have no poteen or shebeens down there.
If you had, you would not be able to milk.
Have you any brandy from the lighthouse keepers?
The moment the 19th July comes along, the Deputy will make for Kilkee and there will be no hours at all down there. There is no good in pretending here that the Minister will please everybody. He will not. I headed a deputation from Cork county to the Minister. Two of them were in favour of closing at 10 o'clock and the remainder were in favour of closing at 9 o'clock. How could any Minister please an organisation like that? After all, there is nothing in the Bill to compel any one of these city people to remain open, if they do not want to. The law is there. They can open, if they wish to open and close, if they wish to close. All they have to do to keep their licence is to open one day in the 12 months. They have plenty of time to close if they want to and surely they can get agreement amongst themselves and close at 9 o'clock, if they want to do so. There is nothing to stop them.
Why do not you close up for a while?
I know there would be no hope of the Minister pleasing that crowd of topers over there. You would want to have a 26 hour day for them and even then you would not satisfy them. I think we have wasted enough time on this. I speak here as one who believes in Sunday opening for the whole country. I endeavoured to get that through and I would like now to congratulate my converts to Sunday opening. Sometimes I go to the Library and have a look at the division lists and it is worth while to see all the "goody-goody" boys who though the country boys should not have a drink on a Sunday and that they would go mad if they did now voting so that the city boys can get a drink on Sundays.
Since the last Bill was brought in here, the Guards have had a very difficult task and I should like to congratulate them on the way they carried it out. They had a difficult task in enforcing a licensing law where none had been enforced for 20 or 30 years. They did a good job and I think we can now go a little further in this matter to meet the needs of the people. That is all we are doing in this Bill.
Mr. Belton
In regard to amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8, I should like to point out that there are three sections of the people to be satisfied. There are the publicans, the employees and the consumers. Having listened to the various speakers, I am now quite satisfied that they are not fully conversant with the position in the city of Dublin. I cannot speak for the city of Cork but, one city being somewhat similar to another, I would suggest that the same position obtains there. The licensed trade in Dublin, both employees and employers, are anxious to have a 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. opening for the second period. I can state, without fear of contradiction, that 75 per cent. of the consumers would also prefer these hours.
Now, if these are the opening hours for the second session on Sunday, I am quite satisfied that the Government will have to induce a differential. This country, being the type of country it is, with the varied types of holiday resorts, fishing, scenic and seaside, and remembering the calling of the bulk of our rural workers, farmers and farm labourers, I believe there will have to be a differential to satisfy the majority of the people in the rural areas. I suggest that such a differential should be before opening hours. To my knowledge there has never been an abuse of opening before the normal opening hours. Abuses occur after normal closing hours.
With regard to employees in licensed premises, I want to point out to the Minister that, under trade union regulations, employees cannot go to their tea on Sunday until, at the earliest, six o'clock. They are entitled to an hour and a half for their tea. That means that only half the Sunday staff will be working from six to nine o'clock, making it practically impossible for any house to carry on reasonable trading and fulfil the requirements of the customers. The four o'clock to ten o'clock opening in my opinion, and I can safely say in the opinion of the majority of the publicans in this city, and in the opinion of practically all the employees, and of 75 per cent. of the consumers, is not suitable; seven o'clock to ten o'clock would be more suitable hours.
I appreciate they have a problem in the rural areas. I also appreciate that a problem can be created with the seven o'clock to ten o'clock opening in the city of Dublin and the city of Cork. But the problem that arises arises, at the very most, on half a dozen to eight occasions in the year. It arises in the Croke Park area in connection with the All-Ireland semi-finals and finals in Gaelic football, the Leinster final, on four occasions where hurling is concerned. It also arises in connection with the soccer final in Dalymount Park. They are the only occasions to my knowledge on which an area or special exemption order would be required. I suggest to the Minister that he makes provision in this Bill to make these facilities available to the licensed trade and to the public when they are required, having accepted the seven o'clock to ten o'clock opening for the second period on Sunday. Such a provision would be well received in both Dublin city and Cork city.
I want to point out to various speakers here that the hours operating in England at the moment on Sunday are twelve-thirty to two o'clock and seven to ten o'clock in the evening. Those hours are most acceptable in a country where they have a far bigger tourist trade than we have here. In Scotland—I admit I am wrong in making these comparisons—the public houses do not open at all on Sunday. I should like to point out to the House that Section 15, which, I am glad to say, was withdrawn by the Minister, was a section in a Fianna Fáil Bill. Deputy Burke said he headed a deputation to the Minister and, through his good offices and the offices of Fianna Fáil Deputies, this section was withdrawn. But this section was introduced by Fianna Fáil and surely it was up to Fianna Fáil to withdraw it. May I point out that the bona fide trade was abolished by the efforts of Fianna Fáil in the 1942 and 1960 Intoxicating Liquor Bill?
We have been discussing here a licensing Bill introduced, it seems to me, for the benefit of the city of Dublin. Before the 1960 Act was passed, we were accustomed to the "back door" and the "front door" and, as often as not, the local sergeant or the local garda told us where to go. It was not a bad arrangement because those who transgressed seriously were faced with the full penalty of the law; the local sergeant or the local garda knew all about it. There was really nothing wrong in that arrangement. There were no brawls. There was no over-drinking. There were no greatly extended hours, and so on.
Rural Ireland should be our first consideration if we want to keep the people in rural Ireland. I want to give these people better facilities than the people in Grafton Street. I want the worker after his hard day's work, piking hay, saving hay, drawing hay, threshing, milking his cows on a Sunday afternoon, to be able to get a drink. When it is seven o'clock for the man in Grafton Street, it is only six o'clock for the farmer and his worker. Surely these men are entitled, after their hard day's work, to go to the nearest pub to have a drink, and not merely to have a drink but also to have a talk with farmer friends, neighbours and others? The "local" is the parliament of the countryman. There he can discuss the mart last week, what the white-faced bull calf or heifer made, what the three year old bullock fetched, or what the creamery manager will deduct from the gallon of milk, or give back with the penny on the cigarettes and tobacco, to pay the £3,500 salary of the secretary to An Bord Bainne. But the farmer must work all day. He must attend to the cows in the morning. Good Friday and Christmas Day included. Then, in the month of July, when milk is plentiful, he has to look after his cows and he has to save his hay.
We are hearing all about Dublin since the debate started. As far as I am concerned, I would not give you a thraneen for Dublin. Dublin is well able to look after itself. I am thinking of the small publican in the small village and in the small town. By an act of Providence or good grace, he will get a hurling match maybe three times a year on a Sunday, or a sports meeting or a gymkhana organised for the local parish building fund or whatever it may be.
Surely to heavens that man is entitled, as a publican, to make the best use of the people who come in? They are tourists as far as he is concerned, although they might only come from the next parish. They are coming in to spend a £ and he is entitled to get the benefit of that £. In the city of Limerick we have Munster finals or Munster Championships. We have trains arriving in the city of Limerick at 10.30 in the morning right up to the time of the sporting event. We had an arrangement locally whereby a publican could take the latch off his door. They came in the front and back doors at 11.30 in the morning. What was wrong with it? We were saving hay. The hay had to be saved. You go to the town of Puck. You all know Puck, I hope. Puck Fair goes on for three days and three nights. But, when the third night is over, the rate collector is around the following morning and the rate collector gets his rates that morning for the 12 months.
From the publican, not from the drinker.
He gets it from the publican who is the biggest ratepayer in the village of Puck. I shall take you on to Killarney or Galway. There are three days' racing in Killarney and two days' racing in Galway. The public houses are open all night. That is all right. They are coming from all over Ireland into Galway, and why not? Why should the publican in Galway not take advantage of it?
However, whether it be Puck, Killarney, Listowel or elsewhere, why should the publican not take advantage of it? Nobody has been murdered or killed. We hear all this talk about restriction. We—Irishmen in 1962— have to be educated; we have to toe the line; we have to keep the law, according to what Deputy Sherwin said.
The jails are full, anyway.
We cannot control ourselves, according to Deputy Sherwin. It is a pity he has not been locked up yet.
There were 100,000 people in court last year.
The man who owns his public house has a stake in this State. I speak from experience both inside and outside the counter at all times of the day and night——
Night.
I am not professing to be a Pioneer or any other associate. I have no time for the Pioneers, as I will call them. I want to see money in circulation. I want to plan it. I want to see people pleased. When anybody goes on his holidays and takes his wife to the seaside—the Ceann Comhairle knows this as well as I do—we see the licensing laws torn to smithereens as we saw the 1960 Act torn below in a town in the Ceann Comhairle's own county.
A man and his wife went down for a week or a fortnight or a month or for as long as it pleased him for his holidays. His children are out playing on the beach until maybe 9 o'clock. Then they have to be put to bed and it is 10 o'clock. Let me say what I know. You go down the street and you look for a drink and the public houses are closed at 10 o'clock. You have put your family to bed. It is 10 o'clock. You take your wife down the street with you, which is normal. Thanks be to God, we have come to the stage in 1962 where a man and his wife will go into a hotel or public house and have a drink. We had not that in the 1927 Act, you know. That was not there then but it is there now, thank God. A man and his wife are admitted into a public house or into an hotel. What had we with the 1960 Act? We went into an hotel last summer. The place was as full as this is, or fuller, and the Guards came and knocked at the door.
And no quorum.
I am not calling for a quorum. We went in and the Guards came to the door. They were allowed in but before the Guards were allowed in all tables were cleared; all trays were numbered from 1 to whatever it was. The bar was pulled down. The piano was going and somebody was singing a song. The Guards came in. We were on the premises. We were entitled to be on the premises. We were not residents but we were entitled to be on the premises.
This is the stupidity of the 1960 Act because, as I said last night, the man who introduced it was not threatened with what the whole thing meant—and that is what this man is trying to rectify and let us give him credit for that. The trays were cleared off the tables. The Guard and the Sergeant came in. They looked around and asked us: "What are you doing here?" The answer would be: "I am singing a song." The minute they went out, all the trays came out again. That was the 1960 Act and let any man stand up and tell me that I am not describing it as it happened. That is the stupidity of what was introduced here in 1960.
Now let us move along and let us consider what the people want and let us think of the people of Ireland, particularly of rural Ireland where we want to keep our people and where we want to give them more facilities than Grafton Street or O'Connell Street or wherever Deputy Sherwin comes from, where all the public houses are.
I represent one-quarter of the people of Dublin, anyway. Do not forget that. You come up to us for a job.
Anyone who sends you in here should get his head examined.
What about you? You are going wild there yourself.
Deputy Sherwin said he represented the people who did not vote.
Democracy, of course.
We can be humorous. We can be all that but we shall do our business anyway. As a result of the 1960 Act, here is what we have. In other areas, you had the business of the clock, the fellows who had to get out and the boys and the girls who had to get out at 9 o'clock. What happened? "Give me a half dozen Babychams. Give me a dozen lager. Give me this. Give me that." Into the bag it went, then into the back of the car and down the beach. And then, what are we challenged with? We are challenged with the beach parties—and you know what happens at beach parties.
Tell us.
In your youth, I hope. It has all gone out of the Deputy's head, I suppose. Unfortunately, however, we had these beach parties. The next morning the young local lads would go down and collect their bottles. They would receive 4d. each for empty cider flagons. There was twopence on the empty stout bottles and something else on the Baby Power bottle. They were collecting these and getting cash for them the next morning from the publicans. All that was done on the beach at night time and nobody can get up and tell me I am not telling the truth because I know it is the truth.
I want to be fair about this Bill. I want to congratulate the Minister for taking his courage in his hands, which was more than his predecessors did because I have gone to many Ministers to try, as chairman of the Limerick licensed trade, to get things amended. I congratulate the Minister on not allowing himself to be bulldozed or goaded by any section of the community. What do the people want? Do a man and his wife want to drink at the seaside on Sunday nights? Does a man who travels 15 or 20 miles to a hurling match which is over at five o'clock and finds himself in a village or town not want a drink after the match? We came to Dublin for All-Ireland Finals and you could drink in Dublin up to seven o'clock or eight o'clock. We stayed in Dublin and drank until closing time and went home half drunk. Under the old law, that did not happen. We left Dublin as quickly as we could and we knew that we could get into a local public house at any time of the night or day and that if we did not find one, then, the local sergeant would tell us where to go, which was a good thing. I have spoken for rural Ireland. I have spoken against Dublin where the licensing laws are concerned. I have spoken on behalf of the working man and the man who has some money to spend on Saturday or Sunday.
However, we are faced with another difficulty in the 1960 Act because in rural Ireland we have the mixed trader. I have seen, and I am sure all the other Deputies have seen, local publicans who sold newspapers, or the pound of tea or the stone of sugar and that man could not open after Mass. I saw these people at seaside resorts standing outside their own doors selling newspapers, selling the Irish Press—not so many of them fortunately —and the Irish Independent and the other newspapers and they could not allow a person on their premises to buy a newspaper. That was the stupidity of the 1960 Act. We are faced with another difficulty which I want the Minister to consider seriously —this relinquishing of two licences to create one. Through an historical movement, over which we had no control in 1962, Ireland was over-licensed.
Is the Deputy not going beyond the scope of the amendments?
I shall leave that matter; we can raise it some other time.
Dáil Éireann in its wisdom has decided to discuss all these amendments together and possibly that has resulted in the amendments not getting the detailed examination one would expect on a Committee Stage. I should like to raise a few points about them. The first is that the Minister and the Government seem determined to legislate on the basis of complete and absolute uniformity. Everything has to be sacrificed in the interests of uniformity and there cannot be exceptions for anybody anywhere. That perhaps is typical of Fianna Fáil. They want to show their power. It is a bit of the big stick and the heel in the neck. There is no such thing as resilience, no such thing as having somebody who can make changes like the district justice. The Minister is to be the arbiter and if we do not like his decision, then we can "lump it".
I believe it is quite impossible to satisfy everybody on the basis of a Bill which is completely uniform all over the country, a Bill which has no exceptions. We on this side of the House have put down amendments which tend to disturb that principle of uniformity. For instance, we have put down an amendment to insert a new section before Section 9 providing for area exemptions. I want to tell the Minister that he is going to close up the small seaside resorts of Carlingford, to the north, and from that right down through Blackrock—where the Minister for Local Government opened the new swimming pool today, a job which cost about £50,000——
Did you have a swim?
Yes, we had a swim but the Minister did not. He will also close Annagassan and Baltray— but it has a golf club and may survive —and Bettystown and then down to some of the bigger resorts like Skerries which may survive. These people live just for Sundays in the summer. In the course of my business, on most days I go to the village of Annagassan and on the way home to luncheon, I can go in and have a bottle of stout. That has often been the only bottle of stout served during a winter day and perhaps no more than two dozen bottles would be served until the following day. These are the places where the countryman, for whom Deputy Coughlan was speaking, may be on holidays or perhaps he cannot afford a holiday and goes there on a Sunday with his wife and family. He may be a middle-aged man who is not interested in having a swim. He may have his wife and perhaps neighbours with him or perhaps he has his children with him and he leaves them on the beach and walks up to have a bottle of stout. This man will be going home to milk his cows, to look after his cattle and to do more work about the time the public houses are opening. One might say it was only a few hours and that in fact it was not a grave interference——
Going home at four o'clock?
If the Minister wants to catch me out on an hour, he can. My suggestion is that the public houses are closed down on a Sunday afternoon according to this Bill and I say that if the present hours are amended, there should be an exemption for a seaside resort. That is all I am saying and the Minister need not try to confuse me.
Is four o'clock not soon enough to open?
No. This man has perhaps brought his luncheon with him, has come after a morning's work and brought his wife and children with him to the seaside and wants a bottle of stout. When people are not going to football matches, that is what they do in rural Ireland. Perhaps he has travelled 20 miles to Bettystown or to Laytown or to Annagassan or to Carlingford or any of these small seaside resorts which, mark you, are not the sort with which the Minister is too well acquainted——
I know them well.
They are the not too fashionable resorts—and I do not intend any barb at the Minister—the ones to which the ordinary people come, where there are no first-class hotels but where there are boarding houses and good middle-class hotels and public houses. These people want the full day on Sunday but under this Bill—and I believe it is synonymous with a lot of Fianna Fáil legislation down through the years—there is no exemption.
We should go into the amendments in more detail than perhaps we have been doing. Because of the fact that these amendments are being taken together, all that has been said so far has been on the lines of Second Reading speeches. Amendment No. 20 caters for special events and Deputy Coughlan is quite right in saying that these special events warrant opening throughout the day. For instance, when they go up Croagh Patrick——
That is catered for.
The Minister may wave his hand airily and say it is catered for, but we are not all Fianna Fáil people who——
It is catered for.
We want to legislate for the four groups of people mentioned by Deputy Belton. I have made my plea for the seaside resorts and I shall make further pleas for other sections as the Bill goes through. However, I am sorry to say that what will obviously happen is that the Minister will try to steamroll the Bill through unamended, except for his own amendments. He is not adopting here the resilient give and take attitude which is necessary on a measure of this sort. No Government will rise or fall on this. Of course, the Minister has had his moments of embarrassment. Being a young Minister, he has brought in a Bill from which he has had to remove a whole section. That is a sign of weakness, of inability——
The Deputy's leader does not think so. He complimented me on it.
The Minister should not try to invent any red herrings. I want facts and I believe that taking out a whole section from the Bill is a sign of weakness, inability——
Deputy Dillon thinks exactly the opposite.
The Minister can say that.
He said it.
If the Minister would address himself to it and produce for me an argument that it is not a sign of those things, I would be far more pleased than with his attempt to get the red herring going.
I always thought the Deputy was a good Party man.
The Minister is not fooling anybody. This is a Bill on which he should accept reasonable, constructive suggestions from all sections of the House. Deputy Kenny from Mayo, Deputy Coughlan from Limerick, and Deputy Belton could all make contributions which would ensure that the best possible measure would be enacted. What we are getting steamrolled through the House is a Bill from which the Minister has had to withdraw one whole section because there was complete opposition throughout the country to that section. It was a section which would obliterate the whole concept of the licensing laws in this country. Having had to remove that section, the Minister now feels he was pressed too far. He feels in fact that the public houses should provide meals—that if he cannot turn the restaurants into public houses, he should turn the public houses into restaurants.
However, that is departing slightly from the amendment. I have made my plea for the small seaside resorts the Minister says he knows so well. He does not know them as well as I do because I have lived in them. He is going to kill them because, as he knows, they have got only two days a week for three months of the year and if he now subtracts one day from them, he will put the final nail in their coffin.
In my brief contribution, I want to make my position perfectly clear. I am opposed to the amendments as I am to the advances proposed in the Bill itself. I also come from a seaside resort but my remarks will not be influenced by how it will affect me or any particular constituency but how I must face up to this problem in general. Much reference has been made to the seaside resorts. I always believed, still do and always shall, that the greatest benefit people can gain by going to the seaside, assuming they have fine weather, is that they can enjoy the advantage of leaving a city or a big town and enjoying the fresh Atlantic breezes. I cannot understand why we must plead for the publicans in seaside resorts, why we must sympathise with their problems during bad weather; nor can I understand why we must plead for the people who go to seaside resorts as to how they are to spend their time in the event of a day turning out wet.
We have been told time and again by some people who are in favour of the Bill and the amendments that we must move with the times, that we must become tourist-minded, that we must realise the importance of social life throughout the country. In connection with the tourist resorts, I am tying my remarks to the views expressed and the observations made by me over the years. If we are to approach this matter on the extent to which we can provide hours of drinking at these resorts, then we are not dealing with the people who may come here from abroad. We are considering our own people and that is the kernel of the problem. Are we to be bound by the necessity to provide for the future or by how this may affect us at election time? Are we speaking our minds on what we think the amenities should be for public houses at seaside resorts?
I believe the hours are long enough as it is. Pleas have been made for the working people in rural areas and it has been said that some of them finish late at night. I know the people in rural areas and I know that the amount of pocket money available to most of them would not keep them long in public houses. It would not take them long to spend it on a few pints. Time and again, I have seen men standing outside public house doors, making no attempt to go in until the barmaid came to close the door for the night. That is the time the local man with a few shillings in his pocket would put his foot to the door, jam it and slip in. If we are to be so considerate in this Bill as to extend the hours of opening during weekdays and Sundays, we will still find the same trick in the rural areas—the men with the few bob in their pockets waiting until the door is being closed and then taking a chance.
I must say the Gardaí down our way are not as benevolent as those mentioned by Deputy Coughlan. In my area, the Gardaí have always seen that when closing time came the public houses shut down. I repeat that it is my opinion there is no case for extensions of the hours. I feel bound to say that, because it is no use believing a thing without acting accordingly. When we hear of the unfortunate publicans depending on the proceeds of a few months of the summer in seaside resorts or in any other centre in connection with events like Puck Fair, we must also remember that we have to take the people as a whole and when we do that, we must be aware that all sections of the population are governed by economic conditions.
I do not think it is my duty to say that I want to see more money put into the pockets of the publicans by extending the hours. I have nothing against these people. I am not speaking as a member of any association against drinking. I often say that the man who can take a drink and enjoy it is a lucky man. But we have a moral obligation, which may be forgotten when we consider this only from the point of view of its political effects, a moral obligation particularly to the young people. We are told that if we close the public houses at certain hours, the trend is for these people to buy drink and take it off in cars. Even if we extended the hours until midnight, they would still take drink from the public houses with them into their cars.
Therefore, I could not be in favour of any amendment or section in the Bill providing for extension of the drinking hours. I believe social life is essential for our country, but may God grant that we will never reach the stage of saying that social life in Ireland must be governed by the amount of alcoholic drink offered to our young people. I believe that if less alcoholic drink were available to them, they would enjoy life even more than at present.
This discussion has engendered a certain amount of heat and a certain amount of derision for people who take drink, but if people did not take drink, the revenue officers and the Government would be in a pretty mess. In introducing a Bill of this kind, the Minister should take cognisance of the fact that the majority of people take a drink and contribute to the revenue of the State. This Bill when it becomes law, will lay down the hours of opening and closing, but it is the availability of money which will dictate the amount that will be spent on drink. I know from my own experience and from that of friends that people are now restricting their hours of attendance at public houses. They go in now only during the last hour or hour and a half or, perhaps, two hours. It all depends on the amount of money they have to spend.
Their hours of drinking are restricted because of the increase in the price of drink. People who previously took four pints or "half ones" or gin now take only three. In my own home town of Castlebar and various other towns, they come to the public houses now only for the last hour, whereas previously they came for the last two hours. If the hours are extended under this Bill and the employees are granted an increase through their trade unions, you will again have an increased price for drink. If so, that increase will be passed on to the customers, who will have to further restrict their hours of drinking. In rural areas such as Kiltimagh, Claremorris and Ballyhaunis, people are coming in later than previously. They do not come in to fill themselves up with drink. They come in for social contacts and for a chat.
In the seaside resorts it is a different matter. The Minister has tried to provide for the seaside resorts by incorporating in the Bill the hours of 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. I do not know whether it would not have been better to have an exemption for the seaside resorts or to have the hours of 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. The publicans in the rural areas of Mayo do not want the hours of 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. They will be open from 12.30 p.m. to 2 p.m. They then will have their lunch and they must be on the job again from 4 p.m. until 10 p.m. It may be contended that they need not open. But if one man does not open, his neighbour across the street will open. If the hours of 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. become law, we will be making the rural publicans slaves to their trade. If there is a seaside resorts six miles away, there will be a move away from the towns on Sundays and the publicans in the towns will be deprived of business. That is one point I wanted to make.
There is another point I want to emphasise. I have gone through the Bill to find out if a certain specific occasion is covered about which representations have been made to me and probably to the Minister. I refer to the pilgrimage to Croagh Patrick. I examined every section of the Bill and I have found that no provision is made for that occasion. It is not covered, so far as I can see.
The licensing trade in Westport are looking for consideration. A trek of pilgrims comes into Westport from 3 o'clock on Saturday until at least 2 o'clock on Sunday morning. I understand that under the 1960 Act, you cannot open from 1 o'clock to 2 o'clock. That is absolutely cancelled out. These people know their own business and there is a multitude of 30,000 or 40,000 coming into the town during the night. There are only about five hotels in Westport and they cannot cater for that number of people. The only people who can cater for this crowd of pilgrims are the licensed trade. They serve refreshments, liquor, sandwiches and things like that. On the last occasion, they had to close and that led to chaos in the town.
I suppose they made representations to the Minister and to other Deputies in the constituency for a concession on this specific occasion from 3 p.m. on Saturday to 2 a.m. on Sunday and from 8 a.m. to the normal hours on the following Sunday. Under the 1960 Act, Killorglin got a concession. Killorglin is a pagan festival, the original pagan festival of Puck Fair.
The people of Kerry do not think that.
I am not saying it is an orgy, but it is a different thing altogether. The pilgrimage to Croagh Patrick is traditional.
So is Puck Fair.
A town with a population of 3,500 cannot possibly cater for 40,000 or 50,000 people. A section should be introduced into the Bill to cater for this traditional pilgrimage in Westport and the surrounding areas. I am certain that the other Deputies in the Constituency will support me in saying that. I do not know if the Minister has looked into the matter but it must be looked into. If not, what happened before will happen again. The publicans are losing and the catering establishments in the town are losing. The pilgrims have an ardous trek of seven or eight miles up a mountain and down again. If the advertisements are true, they can give you back what you have lost in endurance in these marathons. These pilgrims should be given a certain amount of consideration and if possible, a specific section should be introduced to cover this occasion and a few more such events which are not covered in the Bill.
I should like to make a few points with regard to some of the things that were said during the course of this discussion. It has been stated today that the rate of pay of a barman who works on his Sunday off in a city public house is £4 a day. Another Deputy said it was £3. That is absolutely incorrect. A barman's rate for working on his Sunday off is £2 12s. 6d. A supervisor gets £3 for working on his Sunday off.
Listening to the debate, I felt that it is a great pity that some people should continue to strive for uniformity because it is fairly obvious now that every person who has spoken cannot be satisfied. Indeed, if the Bill went through as worded at present it would be seen that there is no uniformity in it in certain ways. I have in mind the differential in relation to the midday closing hour as it applies in Cork, Dublin and the rest of the country. I have in mind also the provision in the Bill to give the public houses in rural Ireland an opportunity to open earlier on some Sundays than the public houses in Dublin and Cork. That is another indication that there is no uniformity.
I would not take it on myself to advocate that Dublin should be treated as a separate entity. Some people have given the impression that anyone who mentioned Dublin was concerned only about Dublin. That is absolutely incorrect. It is right and proper to say that people in Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford have different habits brought about by their surroundings. It can be safely said that in many parts of rural Ireland the people have no other form of recreation than to go to the local public house, which is their club. That being so, there is, if you like, a case for 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. opening on Sundays in those districts. At the same time, it cannot be said that that is the situation in Dublin where there are many amenities available.
We advocate in our amendment that Dublin and Cork should be left as they are and there is a great case for the amendment particularly if you take the proprietors into consideration. They do not want a change in Dublin. The people who work in those establishments do not want a change and I am satisfied the consumers do not want a change.
The Minister has indicated that he is prepared to listen to all reasonable suggestions. I noticed last evening that arrangements were made to have an amendment withdrawn for consideration, and the view was expressed that it could be put down again, on Report Stage. I wonder could the same thing be done in this case? In the case of Dublin, could it be arranged that Dublin Deputies would set about assessing the position? Could they arrange, perhaps, to draft a petition to which the proprietors, employees and consumers could subscribe?
It is very important to bear in mind that if the hours are changed in Dublin, either for Sundays or weekdays, it will undoubtedly result in an increase in wages, the consequence of which will be an increase in the price of drink. When the 1960 Act was brought in and altered the hours of trading, barmen in Dublin received a 30/- a week increase for working longer hours. Again, there will be an attempt to make some arrangement of a similar kind but the difficulty will be far greater this time because we have not got staff available to meet the needs of the situation.
On Sundays at the moment, only half the staff are on duty as the other half are entitled to every second Sunday off. There is a dearth of bar staff in Dublin at present and if we increase the hours of work, we shall be turning away a number who are working at the moment and sending them out of the business. That merits serious consideration. Even if the new regulations came into effect and it was left to a free-for-all between representatives of the workers and the bar-owners in Dublin and Cork to argue this out, it could easily result in a serious dispute. That would not be to our credit after all the time we have spent talking about intoxicating liquor.
I feel I should comment on this suggestion that the public houses in Dublin should open until 11.30 on weekdays. I intend to speak later on at the appropriate time on the effect of that on workers. In regard to its effect on people working in public houses, we must remember that bus services in Dublin cease at 11.30 p.m. If arrangements were made for the public houses to close at 11.30 p.m. a big number of people, no doubt, would have to walk home from their employment.
Week-day closing hours do not arise on these amendments which deal, in the main, with the second period of opening on Sundays.
I would not have raised the matter if other speakers had not been allowed to discuss it.
May I point out that Fine Gael amendment No. 12 deals with weekday opening?
It deals with general exemptions but not specifically on weekdays.
It refers to every day in the week.
I understood it dealt with applications for exemption with which the Deputy is not dealing.
How many amendments are we discussing?
Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 12 and 20.
Do they not cover the whole matter? Surely Deputy Mullen is not out of order now?
That is my opinion.
I suggest your opinion is wrong.
I want to make it absolutely clear that I am not in any way challenging the ruling of the Chair as to what is in order. I merely want to make it clear to the House, in case of any misapprehension, that Fine Gael amendment No. 12 is to allow the opening of public houses for 24 hours a day every day of the week.
I do not want to interrupt the Chair or Deputy Mullen. I merely want to say that it is unnecessary for the Minister to clarify our amendment which is quite clear already but I think the House would at some stage welcome the Minister's intervention in this discussion to let us know what the Government's mind is on this matter.
That is quite clear. It is in the Bill.
I presume from the ruling of the Chair that I shall be afforded an opportunity of commenting on weekday hours later on.
Is it not correct that the Minister has suggested that the amendments before the House include a proposal for 24 hours a day opening? Surely the Deputy cannot go out of order on that?
I think there is a slight difference of opinion on that.
Between the Chair and the Minister?
Exactly.
The Minister is for Deputy Mullen and against the Chair.
I am not for or against anybody; I am merely concerned that the House should know what we are discussing. We are discussing amendment No. 12 and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle suggested we were dealing exclusively with Sunday opening hours. I want to make it clear that amendment No. 12 is applicable to every day of the week.
If the Minister is offering to intervene, surely he will be taken?
I accept the ruling of the Chair and presume that I shall have an opportunity of commenting on weekday opening hours when dealing with the section. I thought the amendments were being discussed in conjunction with the section.
I feel I should make one other small observation in regard to the suggested alteration of the hours outside Dublin and Cork. In putting down our amendment, we were anxious that Cork and Dublin be left as they are. If that is not possible, the hours of 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. will do. That is the information we have from those who work in the business. I also feel that I must make clear that, personally, I have no objection to the hours of 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. outside Dublin and Cork. In many cases, these hours are necessary because I have very often met people working in the catering business who come in contact with tourists, not necessarily from abroad, who make it a point to leave Dublin and go down the country. When they return to the city, they express dissatisfaction with what they experience under the present Act. They have not got the opportunity of enjoying themselves that existed prior to the 1960 Act. I think it is well that opportunity is coming back.
Finally, reference was made today to the views of the Pioneers and Pioneer Associations in my area have been in touch with me and have asked me to protest against these new hours.
I am not quite sure I am in order, but I ask permission of the Chair to reply to a point made by Deputy Kenny a few minutes ago when he referred to the carnival at Killorglin as being a pagan event. That carnival is no different from other similar events throughout the country. I feel sure the Deputy must have been reading the News of the World or the Daily Express which described it many years ago as a pagan custom. The Bishop of Kerry is as able a churchman as there is in this country, and I do not think he would allow any pagan custom to be carried on in any part of his diocese. That should answer Deputy Kenny. Our people in Kerry resent very strongly any reference to that famous event as such. I thank you.
There has been a good deal of comment here today about excessive drinking. As a publican and as a man who takes a drink, I am of the opinion that people who want to drink to excess will be able to get drink, irrespective of the hours fixed by this House. I agree with other Deputies that, certainly, the views offered to us by Pioneers should get fair consideration.
The main argument here today has been in regard to Sunday evening hours of opening and closing. I might at this stage, if I am in order, congratulate the Minister on extending the time of Sunday morning opening to 12 noon, under certain conditions. That is a great idea. In most parts of the constituency I represent, Church services are concluded by about 11.50 a.m. The proposed hour of opening will mean that people attending these services will be able to get a drink on their way home. The opening time fixed by the 1960 Act meant that people, particularly the farming community, had to wait around the town or village or publichouse in order to get a drink on a Sunday.
I should like to refer to the question of the cost of the exemption order for fair days. There are exemption orders available under the 1960 Act, particularly in rural Ireland, for fair days. The stamp duty is £3 and the solicitor's fees bring the price up to about £4. I would suggest that the Minister should consider reducing the cost of these exemption orders.
By a variation of the hours of opening, not necessarily involving longer hours, it might be possible to arrive at a suitable arrangement. At the moment, hours of opening are 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. In my opinion, 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. would be more suitable. There is the question of people coming from football matches or other sports meetings. These people are certainly entitled to a drink. The difficulty could easily be overcome by giving an exemption for the area where the event is taking place.
There is no holiday resort in my constituency but if the people in such districts feel they want longer hours of opening on Sunday, there is no reason why district justices should not be empowered to give an exemption to these areas for whatever period of the year they are required.
Various suggestions have been made about the position in Dublin and other large cities. I do not think it is an answer for anybody to say that there is no obligation on a publican to open. I am a publican. I do not open my premises on Sunday for the reason that I carry on a mixed business and if I were to open on Sunday, it would mean that I would have to try to get my whole staff in to work on Sunday and they would not be prepared to do it and I would not be prepared to ask them. As a result, I lose a certain amount of business, due to the fact that other publicans in the town open their premises on Sunday. It is not fair, therefore, to state that this is a matter entirely for the publicans in the area and that there is no obligation on them to open.
If the Minister insists on the Sunday hours of opening he has proposed, I would ask him to consider the question of closing public houses for one hour on Sunday evening. If it is intended to provide a 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. opening on Sunday, it would be a good idea, particularly in rural areas, to provide for an hour, say, from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m., during which public houses should be closed. That would suit the customers. It would mean that those drinking in public houses in the afternoon would have to leave at 6 p.m. They and their wives would be afforded an opportunity of attending Church services. It would mean that they would be home for an evening meal. In the case of the person who cannot control his own drinking, it would mean that if he were in the public house for the first session, he certainly would not go back for the second session. The fact of his having to go home would prevent that. As I said at the beginning, a person who is anxious to get drink or who is addicted to drink will get drink at any time, irrespective of the hours of opening of public houses we may provide.
May I repeat that the recommendations received from the Pioneer Association should be given full consideration?
I have listened to the reasoned statement of Deputy Reynolds. It is a difficult matter for the Minister to meet everybody's point of view. Even Deputy Reynolds and I could not agree as to the hours of opening. I have had experience on both sides of the counter and have a reasonably good knowledge of the trade for 50 years. The Minister should be congratulated on the courageous effort he has made to make the licensing laws such that they can be respected, obeyed and enforced without apology.
Deputy Reynolds suggested a third opening and closing on Sundays. I wonder did he, as a publican, realise the dangers attaching to that suggestion? It would mean that a publican could lose his livelihood on one Sunday. There could be three convictions and three convictions would mean that his licence would be gone. That would be a very serious matter. If there is one thing more than another which prompted the Minister to provide the longer hours proposed, it is the fact that the penalties for breach of the law are now so severe. There could be a conviction for failure to close the premises exactly at 2 o'clock and there could be a conviction for like failure at 10 o'clock. If the Minister were to provide for an interim closing for one hour it would mean that there would be in all three closing hours. That might prove fatal for some unfortunate member of the licensed trade.
The 4 o'clock opening is, in my opinion, the one that commends itself to everybody who examines the position very closely. I am not concerned with the cities or the towns to any appreciable extent. We must try to legislate for rural Ireland because the pint of Guinness is one of the few amenities left to the older people anyhow. The people who go home from Mass or Divine Service on a Sunday will have their lunch and then go to the local to have a drink or two to which they are entitled. You will not see those people again on a Sunday. The people who go out on Sunday afternoon at 4 or 5 o'clock and must return before 6 will very seldom be out again at 7 or 8 o'clock. Another point is that in many of our rural parishes people will not accept new time. They go by old time with the result that the 9 o'clock closing would in their eyes be only 8 o'clock. That was altogether too early and there has been great resentment about that in rural Ireland.
I think Deputy Reynolds was right when he said there is no obligation on anybody to open. There is a severe obligation on them to close. Any publican who does not want to open from 4 to 10 o'clock need not do so and many members of the licensed trade will not take advantage of the hours. On the whole, however, if I had any say in it I would recommend the 4 o'clock opening to the House. The man who has to do his work at home on Sunday, who, perhaps, cannot go to a hurling or football match because he has to attend to cattle, and so on, on Sunday afternoon will find these hours convenient. I agree with Deputy Reynolds also that the exemption orders are altogether too expensive. The early morning fairs have gone to an appreciable extent and the trading to be carried on is on a very small scale. Therefore, with a view to accommodating people early in the morning the Minister should see that the exemption orders do not exceed £1 or 30/-. A charge of £4 by a solicitor puts it beyond the reach of most of these members of the licensed trade because it is almost impossible for them to earn that amount between 7 or 8 in the morning and 10.30.
I conclude by complimenting the Minister on the courageous effort he has made to meet the wishes of rural Ireland. I have no sympathy with the city. There the licensed traders have a large volume of trade and a big turnover. They have greatly enhanced profits on drink which the licensed trader in rural Ireland cannot have. On the whole, the public houses in the city are doing reasonably well as the prices which they fetch will indicate. On the other hand, the people in rural Ireland at the crossroad public houses find it hard to make a livelihood. We must try to preserve the crossroad public house. The day it goes from Ireland then the last amenity is gone from the people who work hard on the land. If we do no other good by this measure than to make it possible for these people to go to the crossroad and have their drink in peace and comfort without risking backdoor methods, then this Bill will be worth while.
I counted the number of times Deputy Davern congratulated the Minister and I think he did so on four occasions during his short contribution. I recall that two years ago he congratulated the then Minister even more often for having resisted the argument that Deputy Davern just made to-night, because this Bill is repairing some of the loopholes that were in the 1960 Bill. I recall the strong criticisms that we offered of the arrangements for the opening hours in the second session on Sunday and Deputy Davern was even stronger in the measure of the congratulations he extended to the Minister at the time in support of the hours that were then proposed and that were later made the law of the land.
The Deputy is not forgetting that Deputy O'Donnell told the Minister to dig in his heels.
One could hardly recognise this as the Committee Stage of the Bill. It must be borne in mind that we have before us a group of amendments with which we have been dealing for some hours. The whole purpose of a Committee Stage is to give individual Deputies an opportunity of advancing suggestions for the improvement of the Bill. Unfortunately, however, the Tánaiste came into the House to make one observation and that was that there was no need for the Minister to make any contribution on this section of the Bill on the Committee Stage because he said: "Our policy is clear in the Bill itself", that the Deputies on that side of the House would be wasting the Minister's time and the time of the House in discussing it because the policy of the Government was set out in the terms of the Bill itself. I do not think the Minister for Justice agrees with the point of view of the Tánaiste. Before the Tánaiste came in the Minister agreed to examine an amendment to the Bill on the Report Stage. The Tánaiste will probably clip the ears of the Minister for having done so because it is completely contrary to the observation of the Tánaiste that the Bill is perfect and cannot be improved by amendment. We have been some hours now discussing the Bill and various contributions have been made from both sides of the House. It is unfortunate that the Minister did not intervene before now.
I want to hear what Deputies have to say.
I agree that is desirable but surely the Minister can rise more than once? After all, the Minister must have great practice in the course of the past few days of rising on numerous occasions to deal with points of view that were put to him in relation to other Bills connected with the Department of Justice.
I am asked to be reasonable. The most reasonable thing I can do is to listen to whatever Deputies have to say.
And keep his mouth shut in the meantime.
Would the Minister just tell us if he agrees with the argument of the Tánaiste that the attitude of the Government is enshrined in the Bill and that there will be no amendment of it?
Do not be too clever. Do not put words into the mouth of the Tánaiste.
I say to the Minister that he did intervene on an earlier amendment and indicate to Deputy O'Higgins that he would examine the matter and, on the undertaking given by the Minister that he would examine for Report Stage, we withdrew the amendment. That was an advance in the discussion of the Bill, that both sides could come together on an understanding. Now we have been speaking for a considerable time on this matter and the time for the House to adjourn is near and we do not know what effect the amendments we are discussing are having on the mind of the Minister. Is it not the purpose of the Committee Stage to examine the Bill line by line, word by word and section by section to see if we can improve it? The Minister has made no reply to the arguments made.
All the arguments have not yet been made.
Does the Minister realise that what he is saying is an invitation to us to start all over again?
Every Deputy is entitled to contribute to the debate on the Bill and to try to improve it in the manner he thinks best and my function is to listen to the arguments, weigh them and see what they are worth.
We are discussing the Bill and we have not heard the Minister's opinion of the amendments. The Tánaiste started all this.
Can we not stop scoring points and get down to the question?
Quite so, but what is the point of a Deputy making suggestions, if the Minister does not give his opinion on the matter?
We want a pearl of wisdom from you.
We had no trouble until the Tánaiste came in. Deputy Davern made a novel contribution by saying that he supported the proposal to open at 4 o'clock on Sundays. Before the Bill was introduced and since it was circulated to Deputies and since the people heard the proposals, I did not meet one person who wanted the 4 o'clock opening on Sundays until Deputy Davern spoke. On the night before the Bill was circulated I attended a meeting of vintners in the town in which I live. It was a meeting of all the publicans of the town and Deputy Davern will probably appreciate the purpose of the meeting.
When the work before the meeting was completed, the discussion came around to the Bill and they asked me if I knew what the new proposals were. I said I had no information beyond what had appeared in the Sunday papers. That meeting was representative of all points of view but they were unanimous that they did not want opening up to 10 o'clock on Sunday nights. They were also unanimous that under no circumstances did they want opening before 5 o'clock on Sunday evenings.
Since the publication of the Bill, we have had plenty of time to consult everybody involved and the agreement everywhere is that this is an outrageous extension of the hours for drinking on Sundays. The argument is that people will have time enough to spend what they have to spend on drink. The majority of people have just so much to spend and they like to spend it during the last hour. They are inclined to come in and allow that much time for their drinking and if you extended the closing time to 12 o'clock they would not come in until 11 o'clock and would get out at 12 o'clock. That is the habit among habitual drinkers.
We have been trying to get the Government to amend the 1960 Act and to have a rearrangement of the hours of drinking on Sundays in order to facilitate people on Sunday afternoons. It should have been apparent to the Government when they brought in the 1960 Act that the hours in it were unsuitable for the rural areas and particularly so for the dairying areas. Other Deputies have said that in all the Munster counties the people in the dairying areas have to get back to their farmyards and work for some hours. Some of them have to work from day-break until early Mass time and they have to get back to it again in the late afternoons and evenings. Up to now the licensed premises were closed by the time they finished work on Sundays.
We feel that 10 o'clock on a Sunday evening is a reasonable closing hour. We know that it is not reasonable in the cities. We know that the hours stated in our amendment are still over-long in relation to the cities but we are accepting that there should be uniformity. We know that the great volume of opinion in Dublin and Cork is in favour of 9 o'clock Sunday closing but we agree to the hour later in order to have uniformity in closing hours. But there is no argument that can be advanced in favour of earlier opening hours, or for uniformity in opening hours. We are not a uniform people and why cannot we facilitate some people in relation to some difference in the opening hours if it suits them in particular parts of the country?
The 1960 Act made a fetish of uniformity. The Minister has said that he does not regard the principle of uniformity as divine but he has departed from that stand in the present Bill. We welcome what he is doing in relation to some things that were in the 1960 Act.
You had no policy in the 1960 Bill. You had a free vote.
I would be glad to hear Deputy Ó Briain make his contribution but for a Deputy who has been responsible for order in this House, he is not setting a very good example.
It might be better to have no policy than to have one policy then and a different one now.
One of his own Deputies spoke here tonight and asked the Minister to do two different things. The Minister has departed from the principle which he expressed with regard to uniformity on the 1960 Act in relation to the provision that where Divine Service was over before 12 o'clock there should be facilities to enable people to avail of Sunday morning opening because that was the one occasion during the week on which they had an opportunity to meet their friends and neighbours. That was the normal practice in the country and it operated before the strict enforcement of the law with regard to Sunday closing.
We welcome that little easing of the situation, but there you have a surrender of the principle of uniformity in the opening hours. Now, if you have surrendered the principle on that, why not admit there are areas in the country in which there should also be a different opening hour on Sunday? We suggest there is no demand for this provision and I invite Deputies supporting the Government to tell us whether they have had, in their own constituencies, any support whatever for the Sunday four o'clock opening.
Yes.
I will be interested if Deputy Collins gives us information about that. Has Deputy Collins had the views of the people who will be obliged to stand behind the counter from four o'clock to ten o'clock on Sunday?
They are not all the people.
Are they not entitled to consideration?
I am entitled to talk as I wish. I am not saying, as Deputy Corry said, that it was the practice for people in rural areas to leave before the Last Gospel on Sunday to get a drink.
Holier than thou!
I will give the Minister for Justice the credit for blushing when that statement was made by Deputy Corry this afternoon. If Deputy Corry had not interrupted me, I would not have revived that remark. Four o'clock opening on Sunday will oblige those who have to open their premises at that hour to do six hours' additional work on Sunday. These hours are too long.
What would amendment No. 12 do to them?
At least, it would then be of their own volition, would it not?
Twenty-four hours a day.
The majority looked for it.
It is permissive, not mandatory. What the Minister proposes is mandatory.
The worker would be compelled.
And so would the self-employed person running his own premises. Deputy Davern is in the trade himself. I disagree with his view. I agree with Deputy Reynolds that it is not enough just to say one is not obliged to open. If one fails to provide the service on Sunday afternoon, one's customers will go to the man who does provide it, and they will transfer their custom to him on the other nights of the week as well. People want to live some life of their own. They do not want to be trapped behind a counter, without relief, until 11 o'clock or 11.30 p.m. six days of the week. They are entitled to some leisure on Sunday, just as the rest of the community are entitled to it.
Amendment No. 12 would keep them there.
Is the Minister against amendment No. 12?
Most certainly.
At least we have now got a definite viewpoint on some section of the Bill.
Does the Minister then stand over uniformity?
The Deputy should know that I am against No. 12. That would mean 24 hours a day every day of the week.
It is, at least, permissive. We want them to be permitted to do it, if they want to do it. Here we are legislating to oblige people, whether they want to or not, to open their premises from four o'clock to ten o'clock on Sunday.
There is no obligation.
No obligation? If one closes on Sunday, one might as well close the other six days of the week.
There are thousands of publicans who do it.
I know there are. I am one who is doing it.
Has the Deputy to close for the other six days of the week?
Not yet, but, if Fianna Fáil remain in power long enough, with the way they are increasing the price of drink, they will close more premises than mine. The fact is a re-organisation of the Sunday hours was desirable. I agree that the Minister struck the right time with ten o'clock closing. That is generally agreed. There is no volume of support for a four o'clock opening, none whatever. I challenge the Deputies supporting the Government to get up here and quote the demand they say is there, if it is there.
All sections of the community are in favour. The farmers and the farm labourers are in favour.
Deputy Meaney knows them; I know them, too. Deputy Meaney was not in this House when his Party refused to give the farmers and their workers any opportunity of having a drink at any hour on Sunday evening.
Order.
The Deputy was not here in time to put the previous Minister right in relation to the hours suitable for agricultural workers. There are areas—tourist areas and holiday areas—and there are special occasions on which the hours the Minister says are perfect would not be suitable at all. Discretion is usually given to a district justice to extend the hours to suit these areas on particular occasions. It is not so long since we were listening to an eloquent disquistion on the responsibilities of the gentlemen who occupy the Bench. Now that we have decided to pay them more, I think we should give them this little additional job of work. We should give them the responsibility—I am sure they would be capable of administering it justly— of deciding when special exemptions should be given. In that way, tourist areas and holiday resorts would be catered for with hours in conformity with the requirements in a more suitable way than the hours proposed here.
We are opposed to this extension. Apart altogether from the people who will be obliged to work these hours, and apart altogether from the people who want to drink at all hours, there are other sections of the community who must be considered. The wives, the mothers of families, and the children have certain claims. There are people unfortunately who, while the public house door is open, will just not go home. Here we propose to give these people extended facilities so that they may have a longer time in which to abuse the privileges given to people in general.
Deputy Sherwin made the case for the city of Dublin. Let us hope he is wrong in the picture he painted. He said that people wanted hours which would enable them to get from the pub to the cinema and from the cinema back again to the pub. I wonder do these people ever do any work, but, whether they work or not, surely they spend some time in their own homes.
Deputy Sherwin was talking about Sunday.
He was talking about Sunday. Is it no longer proper for an Irish father to spend an hour in his own home with his wife and children? There is no doubt that this considerable extension of the hours on Sunday will lead to the breakdown of family life in a number of homes. I do not say a great number of homes, but we all know that unhappy circumstances are created because the head of the family is not prepared to live up to his obligations. We also know that people come to us from time to time to secure a medical card for the head of the family. When we investigate the income we find there are three or four sons, earning good wages, living with the parents. Yet, the father has to make this appeal to a public representative and he will prove that, substantial as the earnings of his sons are, the sons have no intention of helping to maintain him.
The more we increase the facilities to the extent proposed in this Bill, the more we shall encourage them to spend less time with their families and to spend more time in dissipating their earnings over the Sunday when they could very well spend more time with their wives and families.
Are all the people to be punished because of these few?
All people are not to be punished: we say we are punishing a number of people unnecessarily. We say that there was a demand for the re-arrangement of the Sunday hours but that there was absolutely no demand whatever for a second session on Sunday of six hours' duration, none whatever.
The decent, sober man is to be deprived of his rights because a few abuse them?
I should not like to see the Tánaiste after six hours on a Sunday in a public house.
God forbid. The Tánaiste is bad enough without putting that upon us. Perhaps, on the other hand, if he did, he might be even a better man. However, we shall leave that over.
Expound your theory of vicarious punishment.
I want to give way. The Tánaiste wishes to speak on this.
Deputy McAuliffe rose.
The Tánaiste is not availing of my offer?
Does the Tánaiste want to speak or only to interrupt?
No. I want to hear Deputy O'Sullivan expound his theory of vicarious punishment that the just are to be punished because of the sins of the unjust. That is what he has been preaching here for the past ten minutes.
Order.
Does that indicate that the Tánaiste feels there is no case for the principle of uniformity?
No: I believe in the liberty of the subject.
Liberty? The Minister for Justice brought in a Bill yesterday to enable people to be put in jail without being charged.
Those were people who betrayed their trust.
You see, it is the Tánaiste who says we are being vicarious and—what was the expression— we are blaming the just. On the other hand, the Tánaiste is going to put fluorine into the water, whether the people want it or not.
The fluoridation of water does not arise now.
The Tánaiste believes in putting fluoridated water down the throats of the people whether they want it or not.
Order. Deputy O'Higgins and Deputy O'Sullivan may not speak at the same time—just one.
If we cannot get the Tánaiste to intervene, we must inject some variety. I am quite convinced that there is absolutely no demand in any town, city or part of the country for the opening at 4 o'clock on the Sunday. There is agreement that the 10 o'clock closing is a good hour. It is too late in the cities but, for the sake of the principle of uniformity in relation to the closing hour, we are prepared to accept the 10 o'clock closing in the cities on Sundays. Unless the Government give way in relation to the second session on the Sunday, they will be in considerable trouble. No matter how emphatic they may be in regard to the terms of this Bill the Government were just as emphatic on the 1960 Bill and, unless we are to have another Liquor Bill in this House before 1964, the Government would do well to accept the amendments.
I am against the statements made by Deputy O'Sullivan on this Bill. I represent the constituency of East Cork. In addition, I live in the constituency which Deputy O'Sullivan represents.
That is sensible.
I think I am pretty conversant with the mind of the people in the constituency. I have spoken to publicans and others since the 1960 Act was introduced. Every publican and the majority of the people were anxious to have the 1960 Act amended. Now, this Bill comes in. As far as I can see at the present moment, the only way the Minister can please every member of this House is by permitting a complete opening of public houses day after day and night after night.
That is the remedy.
I can assure the Minister and the members of this House that there is a demand for the 4 to 10 p.m. opening in certain places.
The Deputy is honest about it, anyway.
I am aware of the position in the seaside resorts in South-east Cork from the town of Cobh to Youghal. In addition, we have towns such as Buttevant, Doneraile and Mallow which benefit to a great extent by hurling and football matches in the afternoons. The 4 to 10 p.m. opening will suit the interests of the publicans in those towns. It would be hypocrisy on my part to say otherwise, having said so much about the Licensing Act during the recent general election. I am not denying what I said. The Licensing Act was not what the people required. If I did not tell that to the Minister and say that there is a demand for its amendment, then it would be hypocrisy on my part and, as far as I am concerned, I am voting the Minister in.
As the House already knows, the Labour Party decided that they would allow a free vote of its members. We make no apology to anybody for that. We do not think it is a sign of having no policy. We think it is much better to do that than have the spectacle we had here tonight when at least one member of the Government Benches attacked the Bill very strongly but proceeded to say, because of his peculiar idea of democracy, that his Party decided they would vote for it and that that was that.
However, a most extraordinary variety of arguments was put up here tonight. At one stage, it looked as if it would be a case of the Pioneers versus the publicans. I am speaking as a Pioneer. I was not elected to this House as a Pioneer, nor were the publicans elected as publicans. If they claim the right to speak as individuals —as they have claimed that right—and as publicans, then I think I have the right to put my point of view.
While there is very definitely an argument in favour of the late opening on Sunday, I have found only one person in my constituency—a person whose opinion I value very highly, I may say—who says he considers that there should be longer hours on Sunday. When I asked him why, he pointed out that he would be working as a farm labourer until 7 o'clock and that by the time he got home, changed his clothes and got to "the local" it would be after 8 o'clock, by which time the public houses would be closed. Therefore, he felt they should be open until 10 o'clock, which is exactly in line with my opinion.
I believe the public houses should be open until 10 o'clock. I do not believe they should open at 4 o'clock because it would be six long hours. I do not care what anybody says: I think it is foolish to suggest that people would be able to stay in a public house and, if they had money enough to drink, drink from 4 p.m. until 10 p.m. and be able to continue to enjoy it.
The local parliament has been mentioned. The local parliament would need to be better patronised than this Parliament and would need to have a lot more sense spoken in it if people could continue for six solid hours discussing local interests there.
The question of seaside resorts has been mentioned. I think people have a wrong idea about them altogether. I live in a seaside resort, very close to Deputy Donegan. While I agree that the argument is made from time to time that people who go to a seaside resort on a wet Sunday find it pretty awful if they must go out and stand around in the rain from 2 o'clock until the public house opens again at 5 p.m. —that argument has been made—I do not think it was ever suggested that the reason people go to a seaside resort is to go into a public house at 12 noon and stay there until 2, 7 or 10 p.m., until it is closing.
Even if it is raining?
They are entitled to go and have a drink, very definitely, whether it is raining or not. However, I do not think anybody would consider that that is a substitute for a day at the seaside. I do not know if staying in a public house from 4 o'clock in the afternoon until 10 o'clock at night in a seaside resort is a substitute for a day at the seaside.