Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 28 Jun 1962

Vol. 196 No. 7

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

Debate resumed on the following amendment:

In paragraph (b), line 28, to delete "four" and substitute "half-past five".—(Deputy Sherwin).

Mr. Tully

When the House adjourned last night, I was endeavouring to put a point of view which had not already been put in this House, that is, the point of view of a Pioneer. Some people seem to think that Pioneers have no right at all to offer opinions on the Bill because they do not drink. In view of the fact that we have had the point of view of the publicans and the drinking man, it is only right that we should have the view of the man who does not take a drink. I am speaking on this matter as an individual because the Labour Party have decided to have a free vote on it. I want to make it clear that, despite what has been said by one of the speakers, Pioneers are not all kill-joys and people who would like to close down every public house in the countryside. You get the impression, to hear some people speak, that all public houses should be closed. We do not subscribe to that view at all. We believe that if somebody wants a drink and enjoys it and can take it in moderation and can afford it, there is no reason why he should not have it.

However, we do object to a further extension of licensing hours which would result in people being encouraged to do things which otherwise they would not do. I refer again to the extension of Sunday drinking hours. Every sensible man and woman will agree that it is not right that facilities should be provided for a person who wants to stand at a public house bar from four o'clock to ten o'clock on Sundays. The question of whether or not proper facilities are being provided for the country people has been discussed. I believe the Minister is correct in having the closing hour changed from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. but I do not agree that he is right in putting the opening hour back from 5 p.m. to 4 p.m.

I believe that the hours of 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. are sufficient or, if a good case can be made for it, the opening hour could be put back to six o'clock so that the Sunday evening hours would be from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. I believe those hours should be sufficient for any man in the country. We seem to be interested in the men working in the fields and working with cattle and I agree that the fellow who is working up to five or six in the evening, by the time he would have his clothes changed would find that it was eight o'clock before he could get into a public house. For that reason, the extension until 10 o'clock is reasonable but I do not think that any good purpose would be served by having the opening hour put back to four o'clock.

The question of people who have to work in public houses has already been ably dealt with by Deputy Mullen. The hours to be worked by these people have to be taken into consideration. There is also the question of the family public house. Numerous people running family public houses have told me that they think it unreasonable that they should be asked to stay all day in the public house on Sunday. They do not think it right that they should have to stay in the public house from 12 noon until 10 p.m. with a short break of from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. in order to give out drink.

The argument that they are not bound to do that is fallacious. It has been pointed out by one publican in the House that if there are two public houses in a village and one opens on a Sunday and the other does not, the fellow who gets a drink on a Sunday will go back on the Monday to the house that was open on the Sunday. There is no argument in saying that the publican does not have to open, if he does not want to. If the case is being made that publicans are entitled to close if they want to, the Minister should see to it that they all close at the same hours.

So far as the men working in bars are concerned, we have all heard of the terrific wages they are supposed to get for working on their day off. I do not think that is any compensation for the loss of their leisure hours. As a life long supporter of the GAA, I would say that the effect on the Dublin GAA clubs of the extended opening of the public houses on a Sunday afternoon which would prevent young men from going out to play football on Sunday afternoons would be disastrous. It would be a very great mistake.

I merely intervened in this debate for the purpose of putting the point of view that we are all entitled to have our own opinion and to state it here. Unlike Deputy P.J. Burke, I believe that, having put our point of view here, we are entitled to vote according to that point of view and not according to what we are told to do. This is not a political Bill. There is no political kudos in it for anyone. We should do our best to help those who want to drink in moderation and those who are employed in the trade. Reference has been made to the tourist. Tourists come and go and many tourists do not have as long drinking hours in their own countries as they have here.

Mention has been made of hotels where people can have a drink at any hour provided they are staying. Holiday camps are in a different category. I agree that people staying in hotels should have a drink when they want it. They are inside and even if they have too much they can go to bed and are no danger to anybody. This privilege is allowed to hotels and not to holiday camps. The regulation about the holiday camp is that it must close down at the same hours as they have to under the previous Act but if there is an extension provided in one case I believe it should be provided in all cases. I would like the Minister to have a look at that aspect of it.

Mr. Dillon

Every licensing Bill debate has this quality, that Deputies on all sides of the House contribute to it very generously. That is an interesting thing because it shows how much this matter approximates to the daily life of the people. Whether we are Pioneers or not, we are all familiar with the impact of this kind of legislation on the lives of the people we represent. It is a good thing that this should be manifest not only in the House but in the country generally.

Some people criticise us here in Dáil Éireann because we are not all sitting in the Chamber all the time. They might learn a lesson from the attendance of Deputies in connection with a Bill such as this rather than in connection with a Bill dealing with some obscure aspect of local government or law amendment. In such matters, perhaps, only a few Deputies have a specialised knowledge and they will attend constantly and debate the question involved. When there is a subject with which we are all familiar and which affects the lives of all our neighbours, there is always a very large attendance of Deputies because they know they have something of value to contribute. I wish some of our less sophisticated critics abroad would observe this distinction and learn a lesson therefrom and try to understand to some degree how Dáil Éireann and the Oireachtas work.

We put down a series of amendments which I understand we are now discussing—Nos. 8, 12 and 20—and which we offer to the House as a pattern to provide for a reasonable arrangement for drinking hours in the cities and in rural Ireland. We object to the proposals in the Bill because we believe the hours proposed by the Bill of 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. on Sundays all the year round are too long. That is our sensible, reasonable proposition and I want to recall the mind of the House to the beginning of this story.

Until quite recently, there was no general opening of public houses in rural Ireland on a Sunday. But there was a right in travel: if a person were a traveller, he had the right to stop at a seven-day licensed house and get a drink, but there was no right in anybody who travelled in order to get a drink. But the case was pressed on the Oireachtas that if people were entitled to get a drink during certain restricted hours in the cities and not in the country, it was unreasonable that a person in rural Ireland had not the right to get a drink in a public house at all on a Sunday, unless he was a traveller, and on that basis the House accepted a completely new departure. The House accepted the proposal to grant an opening period of three hours in rural Ireland on Sunday afternoon.

Now the Government's proposal in this Bill marks a complete philosophical departure from that original attitude adopted by Dáil Éireann on this matter. I understand the original attitude was that on the whole we did not want public houses generally open on a Sunday, but we wanted to take up the position that if the people in cities in the country were entitled to have a drink on Sunday, therefore the public houses in rural Ireland should also have a restricted period of opening on Sunday. The case was then made very strongly that though there are few Sabbatarians among us and that though we do not take the rigid puritan attitude of drawing down our blinds and disposing ourselves purely in religious activities on the Sabbath, we did not think it was a desirable thing unnecessarily to suggest to business people that they should undertake service work on Sunday.

We are now proposing, in substance, if not in fact, to open all the public houses on Sundays for over seven hours all the year round. That practically means that we have introduced universal opening of public houses on seven days a week all the year round. We think that is wrong. I am not suggesting that the Minister is a heretic or a pagan or anything of that sort, but it is, I think, an indication that we have lost sight of the original philosophy with which we approached this matter, that is, that in rural Ireland we should try to avoid turning Sunday into an ordinary business day. We had, of course, been prepared always to sanction the provision of limited facilities in the country, if publicans wished to provide them for their regular customers.

There is another principle which we laid down—and there was pretty general agreement all round the House about it—that the bona fide traffic was an evil because it brought or tended to bring drunken drivers on to the roads and that therefore a sound general principle or an ideal to be aimed at was that there would be no differential in the closing hours of public houses which would operate to create a regular traffic of persons who had to leave a public house in one place but could repair to a place two or three miles distant, where a different jurisdiction operated, and continue drinking there with the consequent obligation to drive home later.

Mr. Haughey

That is what amendment No. 12 will do.

Mr. Dillon

That is the very point I want to raise. There is no use getting incensed because this is a very pragmatical question and that is the very point I want to raise. The idea from our point of view was to eliminate altogether the differential. And listen —we are not dafties in this House: we have to be practical politicians who realise we are not dealing with boys and girls in monastic institutions or in convent schools and that we cannot set up a rigid ideal and, having worked it and found it does not work, tie ourselves up and say there is nothing we can do about it.

I believe in the principle of uniformity but if I find that when you put that into operation you are creating a situation to the detriment of the seaside resorts and causing the greatest possible difficulty to the organisers of sports events or the individual in a country town who organises a fleadh ceoil or any other occasion of a good social gathering, and they come and say: "Your ideal is grand, we all agree with it but in practice it is not working," I, as a politician, must answer: "That is my job; that is what Parliament is for." We all ought to have an ideal but that ideal ought to be examined in the light of practical working conditions and if the ideal will not work, then we must look at the philosophy of the late Mr. Tom Kettle, that far-seeing man, who said: "Politics is only too often in our experience not the achievement of the second best but the grateful acceptance of the second worst."

We live in a realistic world and we have got to face that fact. When the present Bill came forward for discussion I had many discussions with various interests, and long before the Bill came on the agenda, I was besieged as Leader of the Fine Gael Party with representatives from seaside and holiday resorts generally who said that the Bill Dáil Éireann had passed in 1960 with the best intentions had broken down. Is that not so? Our Party considered a policy to lay before the people and we went before the people and announced we were going to change the Intoxicating Liquor Act and we invited public discussion on the public platform. We said we considered that the licensing legislation which was passed in Dáil Éireann 18 months before had failed and needed amendment and anybody who thought we were wrong was invited to challenge us.

We said that what we proposed to do about it was face the facts. The fact is that the legislation is wreaking great hardship on people trying to provide for the tourist industry. I know of cases in places like Bundoran where a whole section of the tourist industry that had been most remunerative to that town had vanished as a result of the provision we made in the Act of 1960. There are other localities operating under special conditions where the trade had completely vanished.

It would be idiotic for practical men and women responsible for the legislation in this House to refuse to come back to Dáil Éireann and say: "We made a mistake. We ought to put that right. We thought we did what was best but it has not worked out." When you come to ask yourself how are you to remedy it, the fact emerges that the amendment suitable for Bundoran might not suit Ennistymon and the amendment suitable for Buncrana might not suit Rosslare. The question then arises how Oireachtas Éireann is to deal with the problem. The answer is that it is not equipped to deal with it, it. If it is not equipped to deal with it, how are you to get it dealt with?

The right thing to do is to give wide discretion either to the district court or the circuit court. I think I would try the district court first. If the district court does not seem to show a sufficient appreciation of the obligations of this, we could transfer the jurisdiction to the circuit court if we thought that was necessary. Theoretically—this is where the theorist goes cracked—you are asking Oireachtas Éireann to give the district justice the right to open the public houses in all areas within his jurisdiction for 24 hours of the day. That is perfectly true. But theoretically the same district justice could give any one of us six months in jail for spitting on the footpath or for parking our cars in the wrong place. But if that became his practice, we would come to the conclusion he had gone stark, raving mad.

We are committing this to the discretion of the district justice, subject to an appeal to the circuit court. I assume we could provide for that here, if the Minister had any anxiety about the discretion of the district justice. We commend to the jurisdiction of the district justice not only the absolute discretion to determine what hours public houses will open in seaside resorts, but we commit to his care and to his discretion the question of whether he will put anybody in jail for six months. Suppose the district justice suffers from a temporary aberration and makes an order that for the months of July, August and September the public houses in Ballydehob should be allowed open an hour longer than we think is reasonable. Suppose some district justice goes off the deep end and says: "Let the public houses stay open for the entire 24 hours," there is now machinery whereby a psychiatric report could be secured to find out whether he has gone off the deep end completely or whether he believes, as I think many rational people could believe, that one of the best ways of regulating the hours of opening would be to have no hours at all and simply let the licensed traders fix their own hours.

We are not going to do that and, short of doing that, we have to do the best we can. As I say, the ideal is that we have universal uniformity. In my considered judgment, and I take full responsibility in public for saying it, we have tried that and I do not think it works. I want to avoid any departure from the principle of uniformity that will recreate the pattern of the old bona fide trade. What created that pattern in the past mainly was a significant permanent differential in the hours of closing. It had to be permanent in order for the persons who sought to benefit out of those who came in search of later drinking hours to organise themselves to receive them. There is no doubt that where you had a permanent differential in closing hours certain persons quite legitimately equipped themselves to cater for that business. They had the bulk of their staff on duty in those hours, expecting the apex of their trade to be reached with the influx of the migrants from the closed areas.

We sought in our amendment to retain a unity of closing hours, save for the summer months or for a special occasion. If you give any rural town like Boyle, Carrickmacross or even a city like Kilkenny a special concession to open the public houses on the occasion of a fleadh ceoil, a football match, a feis or something of that kind, no pattern is created, even though you create a temporary wide differential in closing hours. It is only for one day and maybe another day later in the year. But no pattern emerges for which anybody will organise himself to cater regularly. I fully appreciate and concede to the Minister that in regard to the holiday resorts for the summer months such a pattern may emerge. I see no escape from it, but it is for a restricted period, for the summer months.

I admit to the Minister that in so far as that happens, it is a breach of the ideal of uniformity, which I would prefer to maintain if I believed it practicable to do so. But I ask Deputies on every side of the House if they have not heard from a variety of seaside and holiday resorts an almost universal complaint that the present system does not work and that a wider degree of flexibility is necessary. Have Deputies from every side not heard different sorts of complaints from different sorts of holiday resorts? That is the problem. I know of no way in which it can be satisfactorily disposed of except by the courts. We proposed the district court because resort to the district court is cheaper, more expeditious and more convenient. But if somebody expressed the view very strongly that a higher and more prudent discretion should be invoked——

Mr. Haughey

More prudent.

Mr. Dillon

We usually grade the judiciary into the court of first instance, the circuit court, the high court and the supreme court. I am advocating the district court. I believe it would provide adequate protection. The district justice is intimately familiar with the conditions of the people he habitually serves. The district justice's court is cheaper and the procedures more expeditious. As a rule, because of his intimate contact with the people, he enjoys their confidence and understands their problems. On the whole, I think we may safely leave it in the hands of the district justice to control.

I do not think we should lightly turn our minds away from the deep and, I think, legitimate offence given all over the country—I shall not say universally but very widely—by a proposal to open the public houses in rural Ireland on Sundays. The effect of the proposal in this Bill would be that the public houses would effectively be open from 12.30 in the morning until 10 o'clock at night. I doubt if any Deputy wants that.

The plain truth, when it comes down to tin tacks, as the Minister himself has probably experienced, is that when an alternative is asked for, there are plenty of people who will stipulate their objection to any proposal the Minister makes but when he says: "What do you want?" are not so ready to put it down in black and white. We have put down something in black and white. I make no apology and no pretence about the fact that what we are advancing are compromise proposals. There are various views in our Party but we sat down and discussed this at length and we tried to arrive at what was as close an approximation as we could get to the general feeling of the Party, and it was on the basis of that joint and general proposal that this Party put down these amendments.

I understand Deputy Tully's difficulty. He says that every man must vote according to his conscience, but that is a strong argument against the existence of political parties. I take the view that if Parliament is to work, we should sit down and consider things in our Party and, as a general rule, in order to make the Dáil work, we should come in here and act and vote as a Party. These are the fruits of our joint wisdom and we believe them to be a fair and reasonable compromise between all of the interests involved.

Some of us would prefer to adhere to the hours of 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. in the winter, and 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. in the summer all over the country, uniformly, but the case has been made, and we have had to listen to it, that if there is a GAA final in Cork or a final in Dublin, the crowd may be leaving the field at 4.30 p.m. or 4.45 p.m. and if the public houses do not open until 6 o'clock, they would have to stand around in the streets for an hour, or an hour and a half, before getting any refreshment and getting themselves ready for the road home. Therefore, we have to try to meet their convenience.

Other sporting occasions or social occasions may arise in the country towns and the other cities, and in particular in the cities where matches are ordinarily scheduled to begin at 3 o'clock and finish at 4.30 p.m. or 4.45 p.m. We had to recognise that and we met it by saying that in Dublin the opening hours should be from 5 o'clock to 10 o'clock.

Mr. Sherwin

What about 5.30 p.m.?

Mr. Dillon

That is the problem.

Mr. Sherwin

What about the workers who want to go to the matches, too? What about the barmen?

Mr. Dillon

We have to try to consider them.

Mr. Sherwin

5.30 p.m. would suit them.

Mr. Dillon

I want to deal with that position. I have present to my mind, and all my colleagues have present to their minds, that there are more people concerned in this than the publicans. There is also the public. I have been a publican for 40 years. Publicans have their rights the same as everyone else, but this Bill does not affect publicans only. There is the consuming public, and there are also the people who work for the publicans. Do not worry. I have been employing them for 40 years. I know a good deal about this matter from both sides of the counter. I have worked beside them and I have employed them.

Mr. Sherwin

They will be at the match, too.

Mr. Dillon

They will not get to the match.

Mr. Sherwin

But they will want to go.

Mr. Dillon

Certainly if this Bill passes——

Mr. Carroll

On a point of order, is this a debate between the Leader of the Opposition and Deputy Sherwin?

Mr. Dillon

Yes, it is. It is a debate between us.

Mr. Carroll

It is not respectful to the Chair.

Mr. Sherwin

This is Committee Stage and it is not unusual for people to interrupt.

An Ceann Comhairle

Interruptions are not in order on any Stage.

Mr. Sherwin

Deputy Dillon made no objection.

Mr. Dillon

Lords Mayor manqués should not think themselves the Ceann Comhairle of Dáil Éireann. I want to say that the men who work behind the counter, the publicans and the men who work for them, get their living from the public and it is our business to convenience the public. If a man works all his life behind the counter, either as the proprietor or the employee of a public house, I would not thank him to get down near the gate in the closing stages of a match, get out quickly, head for his bicycle and be behind the counter to receive his customers.

Mr. Sherwin

He might be at the pictures.

Mr. Dillon

He should get out of the pictures.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Sherwin must contain himself.

Mr. Dillon

The important thing is that there should be legitimate regard for everyone's rights in this respect. Deputy Tully referred to the ordinary small country publican who with his wife is running a bar, and who has no grown-up children in whose care he can leave the premises. We are now effectively providing that from this day forth such a person is chained to the counter for the rest of his life, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday.

It is nonsense, and any of us who have experience of the business know it is nonsense, to suggest that if there are three small publicans in one town or village, one fellow can put up the shutters and say to his customers: "You can go to blazes." If he did, he would be out of business in a month, and quite rightly. Every publican in rural Ireland has his own clientele who expect to be received with civility, and to have a place where they can park their horse and cart if they go into town on a Sunday, and no compliment about it. If a publican is living out of his clientele, he should be prepared to accommodate them.

It is nonsense to suggest that in the ordinary practical atmosphere of rural Ireland, it would be possible for a publican, if he had neighbours who open from 12.30 p.m. until 10 p.m., to put up his shutters and refuse to take them down until 6 o'clock and for the rest of the day say: "You can go home or go to my rivals." If he went once or twice to a rival, the rival would be very quick to say to him: "Oh, what brought you here? I am surprised to see you. We are greatly flattered to see you coming in here on a Sunday." Either he would have to stand for such jeers and jibes or he would have to transfer his custom. Is that not true? It is a fact. It would operate to see that the self-employed publican would never have a free day again. I think it is foolish and wrong and shows a complete lack of familiarity with the ordinary conditions of rural life in Ireland.

The Minister may say to me: "But you have just said a case is to be made for abolishing all closing hours and letting the publicans settle it themselves. The funny thing is that if you did that, the thing would settle itself, and the publicans would fix their hours to suit themselves and their clientele.

Mr. Haughey

How would you get over this difficulty?

Mr. Dillon

What difficulty?

Mr. Haughey

Say a publican decides to open three hours a day, if he has a monopoly, what happens then?

Mr. Dillon

What is the problem? What is to prevent him from opening for three hours only?

Mr. Haughey

What about the convenience of the public.

Mr. Dillon

What do you mean? I do not know what dilemma the Minister is putting to me.

Mr. Haughey

They could not do that now.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

They do not do it.

Mr. Haughey

The fact that the licensing laws are there means that they are adhered to.

Mr. Dillon

I am not arguing that it would be practical politics to abolish all opening hours now. I do not think at this stage of our development that it is practical politics but I think it will be practical politics. This House will discover that as not infrequently happens I am ten years too soon in respect of the licensing laws, as well as international politics.

Mr. Haughey

That must be a wonderful feeling.

Mr. Dillon

No. It is a most distressing feeling. One of the great tragedies of Latin literature is founded on Cassandra. Virgil wrote poems about it. There is a great feeling of tragedy in those books in which she looked on her neighbours and saw their folly as I have so often done from this seat. Happily, I have had two opportunities of repairing much of it but I suffered all the agonies of 20 years contemplating the wreckage of human folly—but that is another story. We are discussing the Intoxicating Liquor Bill——

Mr. Haughey

Magnificent. That is as fine a piece of English as I have heard for many years.

Mr. Dillon

I refer you to Virgil for the rest of it. It is a fascinating story——

An Ceann Comhairle

Let us return to the Intoxicating Liquor Bill.

Mr. Haughey

Arma virumque cano....

Mr. Dillon

Now the Minister, I suspect, is quoting Horace. If he would polish up his Virgil and distinguish it from Horace, he would be getting places.

Mr. Haughey

I have quoted the opening lines of Virgil's Aeneid, not Horace.

Mr. Dillon

I see. We shall both be getting into trouble if we go on.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Intoxicating Liquor Bill is the matter before the House.

Mr. Dillon

We have attempted to provide a reasonable opening time in rural Ireland for public houses, that is, from 6 to 10 p.m. in summer and 7 to 10 p.m. in winter. Over and above that, we have deliberately proposed in two separate amendments, Nos. 12 and 20, that it should be vested in the district justice of the area under Section 10 that if the majority of the licence-holders of a holiday resort area make application and the justice is of opinion that the locality is one which, by reason of its being a holiday resort, will be likely to attract a considerable number of persons during such period, the justice, if satisfied that it is desirable to do so for the accommodation of those persons, may, after hearing the officer in charge of the Garda Síochána, make an order subject to such conditions as the justice may think proper, exempting the holders of licences in respect of premises situate in that locality from the provisions of the Licensing Acts relating to prohibited hours in respect of those premises at such times and on such days and subject to such conditions during the period as he thinks fit. The period for holiday resorts that we envisage is June to September inclusive.

Amendment No. 20 is designed to permit the district justice for any particular area, without restriction of the months of the year, to make an order exempting the area for a certain occasion from the usual restrictions on Sunday drinking which operate in other areas. That is a tripartite proposal in that it maintains the generally uniform closing hour as ten o'clock; in that it recognises the special conditions of cities as opposed to rural areas in regard to opening hours; in that it acknowledges that the ideal of uniformity is one of value but that in practice recognition must be given to the special case of the rural town or city and that the special circumstances of the holiday resort must be acknowledged and that in catering for them we are not constructing a pattern of such character as is likely to evoke again the evils of bona fide drinking.

We believe that our proposal is a better proposal, mainly because it corrects what we regard as the really grave defect in the Bill as it stands at present, that is, the altogether unjustified—in our judgement—extension of drinking hours on Sunday. Our proposal seeks to restrict those hours back approximately to the hours provided in the original legislation of two years ago, subject to the exceptions I have indicated. I urge the Minister to look on this proposal which we put forward in its triparite form and, having considered the arguments, at least to give it a trial. He is in the position of having to come back two years after the previous Bill was enacted, a Bill which was thought by the Government to be the complete answer to all our problems. He may have to come to the House again to review whatever is now decided but I think the proposal we submit is well worthy of trial. It avoids the evils I described, not the least of which is the condition of the self-employed publican who is entitled to have some life of his own and who will be denied it if the Bill passes in its present form.

Mr. Haughey

I am sure every Deputy will agree when I say this is a difficult problem. I have propounded a certain solution to it and I honestly assure the House that nothing I have so far heard in this debate has convinced me that my solution is not the right one or that a better one could be evolved or, in particular, that the solution put forward by Fine Gael is even workable.

There is a fundamental difference between my approach to this problem and that of the Fine Gael Party. The difference is, of course, that I have no belief at all in the efficacy, or even the practicability, of the area exemption order or any particular variant of it. It is absolutely clear that the solution propounded by Fine Gael relies entirely on the area exemption order. Both of us face the same problem. The Fine Gael Party and most Deputies and myself agree more or less precisely as to what the problem is. We differ completely in our solution to it. The Fine Gael Party propose, in effect, to resurrect the old area exemption order system to cater for the problem. I suggest the problem should properly be tackled in a different way.

I want to point out to the House that the area exemption order system broke down completely before and, in effect, caused more or less administrative chaos. As I mentioned, there was a case where a district justice granted an exemption on the ground that a number of people went for a walk in a particular direction on a Sunday evening. I do not suggest for one moment that that district justice was not absolutely within his rights in interpreting the provisions of the Act in that way, but I just quote the case as an example of what could happen and can happen under the area exemption order system. I object to the area exemption order system, first of all, because it tears the whole system of uniformity to shreds.

I am asked what is my view about uniformity. Deputy Michael O'Higgins was very insistent yesterday that I should give my view and, funnily enough, my view on this point is largely in agreement with that of the Leader of the Opposition. I think our objective in this matter should be to ensure the greatest degree of uniformity possible. I want to make it clear that that view is not arrived at on the basis of some abstract principle; it is just simply my conviction that there are enormous advantages flowing from the system whereby the intoxicating liquor law is the same in every part of the country. Those advantages are obvious and I need not repeat them. It is my objective, therefore, to adhere as closely as possible to the principle of uniformity and in so far as we can do so to ensure that in all parts of the country the general hours of opening are the same.

I would be prepared to depart from uniformity if it could be shown to me that it is absolutely necessary to do so and that there is some particular situation where the only possible solution is to breach the uniformity principle.

That is my simple view about it. I think the idea of uniformity has enormous advantages and that it should be our objective to adhere as closely as possible at all times and in all parts of the country to that idea but if it is ever clearly and unequivocally demonstrated that there is no solution but to depart from it, then I would be prepared to consider departing from it.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Does the Minister not consider that a strong case has been put up?

Mr. Haughey

A strong case has undoubtedly been put up, but I do not think it is the only solution. The Fine Gael amendment——

Mr. Dillon

The Minister speaks of three amendments as one amendment?

Mr. Haughey

Yes. I am speaking really of amendments Nos. 12 and 20, and particularly No. 12.

Mr. Dillon

We would ask you to consider the three amendments. We are doing that, are we not—considering them together? They stand together.

Mr. Haughey

The Fine Gael approach to this matter is to shorten general hours of opening on Sunday to some extent and then, by means of amendments Nos. 12 and 20, to introduce a system of exemption orders for different localities so that in different localities we could have different opening hours and different opening hours in the same locality at different times. It is a solution, but my first objection to it is that it would recreate a position where on a very large scale we would have different hours in different parts of the country and Deputy Dillon himself is the first to admit that a pattern would emerge in certain areas, seaside resorts, for instance. I want to point out to him that closely adjacent to Dublin city there are a number of seaside resorts. Is it not obvious to us all that the system which is proposed by the Fine Gael Party would recreate the old pattern with regard to these seaside resorts? I am taking, for instance, Malahide, Bray, Skerries, or any of these. A definite pattern of opening for the summer months would emerge in these areas and we would in effect be recreating the bona fide traffic.

The other difficulty I see about the Fine Gael approach is the difficulty of defining a holiday resort. In this connection everybody immediately thinks in terms of seaside resorts but, of course, the amendment could not ever possibly be drafted to confine its operations to seaside resorts. There are inland towns——

Mr. Dillon

Holiday resorts.

Mr. Haughey

——which are now holiday resorts, yes, and it is a very desirable development that throughout the midlands and other places these towns should be developing a satisfactory tourist business and are becoming resorts. So that the difficulty would immediately arise as to the definition of a holiday resort and the pressure on the district court to recognise more and more areas as holiday resorts would become irresistible and the term would become interpreted more and more widely until ultimately it would be very difficult to establish that any one part of the country could not in some way qualify as a holiday resort.

The Fine Gael solution, to my mind, just will not work for those two reasons. First of all, it would certainly recreate a pattern of extended opening hours in certain areas and that pattern would slowly spread all over the country. It would cause a complete collapse of the licensing code which we have been endeavouring to establish.

Mr. Dillon

May I interrupt the Minister? I am trying to understand him. What does he mean by "a complete collapse of the licensing code which we have sought to establish"? Does he mean the disappearance of uniformity?

Mr. Haughey

My idea is that we are trying to establish a code which would be as nearly as possible uniform throughout the country, which would be consistently and impartially enforced and which would not in any circumstances create a situation where people would be able to get drink by travelling from one place where drink is not obtainable at a particular time to another where it is. That is, I think, the situation which the Oireachtas bravely and courageously faced up to in the last Bill and to a large extent solved. The system we created then has begun to creak a bit at the seams and I just want to do a repairing job in time.

As I said, the Opposition Deputies and I recognise where the problem exists and where the danger spots are. My proposal is to try to extend the hours generally throughout the country so that by and large all areas will be satisfied and at the same time the general hours of opening will be kept uniform throughout the country.

Fine Gael have a completely different approach. They say, on the contrary, the thing to do is to keep the existing hours or restrict them a little and then let special areas have, in effect, whatever hours they want.

Mr. Dillon

And that the district justice considers they legitimately require—not whatever they want but what they want, subject to what the district justice considers they legitimately require.

Mr. Haughey

Why should we go to the length of what is suggested in amendments No. 12 and No. 20? Do not forget that amendment No. 12 incorporates the idea that a district justice in any area, if he saw fit, would be able to grant any hours of opening for every day of the week that the publicans sought.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Does Section 8 not contain exactly the same principle?

Mr. Haughey

For only one period of the year.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

For a period of eight days.

Mr. Haughey

For a period of eight days in the year. But the principle incorporated in amendment No. 12 is that for any particular area for the entire summer period the public house would be able to remain open every day of the week as long as the publicans of the area wanted it.

Mr. Dillon

No. As long as the publicans of the area wanted it and the district justice was prepared to allow it, having heard the civic guards.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

The Minister does not anticipate that under Section 8 a district justice will go mad and allow 24-hour opening. We do not anticipate that either under amendment No. 12.

Mr. Haughey

Yes, but it is possible. Apart from 24-hour opening there is no restriction as regards Sundays, which would be the same as weekdays. It is impossible for Fine Gael Deputies to argue with me that they want the sanctity of the Sunday preserved when in amendment No. 12 there is incorporated a provision which says that you can have the same opening as on any weekday.

Mr. Dillon

In a holiday resort.

Mr. Haughey

Yes, which, as I am trying to argue, would eventually cover most parts of the country.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

A person who ventures to define a "substantial meal" should not be afraid to have a shot at defining a "holiday resort".

Mr. Haughey

I would be prepared to venture into this dangerous country of the area exemption order if I thought it were necessary. I received deputations from all parts of the country from hoteliers, publicans, all the various interested organisations, and I was assured by practically everybody I met that the hours of closing on weekdays were generally satisfactory but most people suggested what is incorporated in the Bill, namely, that the longer opening in the summer period should be extended to coincide with summer time. Apart from that, the consensus of opinion was that in seaside resorts, holiday resorts and elsewhere the half-past eleven closing on week-nights in the summer was late enough. All were practically unanimously agreed that the Sunday hours might be extended. There was a very substantial agreement that 10 o'clock on a Sunday night would be late enough, and that measure of agreement is here in this House.

Here we have a situation where almost everybody is agreed on the main essentials, on the half-past eleven closing on week-nights for the period of summer time and on the 10 o'clock closing on Sunday night. What problem are we left with? We are left with the question of Sunday afternoon, at the most, a question of one hour. Some people suggest two hours. Some people suggest 6 to 10 p.m. Deputy Sherwin says 5.30 to 10 p.m. and Deputy Byrne suggests 5 to 10 p.m. I am suggesting 4 to 10 p.m.

Mr. Dillon

Five to ten in the cities and six or seven to ten in the country.

Mr. Haughey

By and large, we are now narrowed down to one hour. I think that hour is essential for seaside resorts dealing with trippers, for holiday resorts of one kind or another and for rural Ireland. If we give that one hour, everybody agrees that everything else is all right. Therefore, Fine Gael are reintroducing area exemption orders and all the dangers inherent in them for one hour or at the most two hours on a Sunday.

Mr. Dillon

No. Seven to ten in the winter, six to ten in the summer. There is a big difference between that and four o'clock.

Mr. Haughey

Everybody admits we do not want any major change on weekdays, that the weekdays are satisfactory. It is narrowed down to Sunday. Deputies agree that 10 o'clock closing on a Sunday night is all right.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Did the Minister hear Deputy P.J. Burke? Is he considering his views?

Mr. P.J. Burke

Ten o'clock.

Mr. Haughey

I want seriously to put this to the Fine Gael Party. They know the dangers inherent in reintroducing area exemption orders of any sort. I am suggesting it is an unworkable system, one that will abolish uniformity and eventually create a position where people will be travelling to get drink.

Mr. Sherwin

There is no moral danger in the daytime.

Mr. Haughey

By endeavouring to have the area exemption orders reintroduced they are prepared to take all that risk for one or two hours on a Sunday. Is it not better to do what I am suggesting, to give that extra hour, 4 to 5 p.m. on a Sunday generally, to suit all the various areas where it is needed? I am prepared to admit that maybe it is a bit more than is required in certain areas, that it is a bit more than is required in the Cork city or Dublin city areas and possibly Waterford. I do not know.

Mr. T. Lynch

I am glad the Minister mentioned Waterford. I hope he will later.

Mr. Haughey

It is certainly desirable and even essential in the greater part of the country. All we are worried about is that it is a bit more than is absolutely necessary or essential in Dublin city or Cork city.

Mr. Dillon

And in the country.

Mr. Haughey

Not in the country.

Mr. Dillon

We propose 7 to 10 p.m. in the country. The Minister proposes 4 to 10 p.m. There is a difference of three hours there which we believe to be significant.

Mr. Haughey

So far as I can assess rural opinion in this matter, it is essential, as expressed by Deputy McAuliffe.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

The only Deputy from rural Ireland who spoke about the Bill last night. There are 69 other Deputies besides yourself.

Mr. Haughey

Every rural Deputy in the Fianna Fáil Party agrees with me. Deputy Leneghan agrees with me and I know Deputy Bill Murphy, if he were here, would agree.

Mr. Sherwin

Deputy Burke is half and half. He did not agree with the Minister.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I made myself very clear.

Mr. Dillon

He is both mild and bitter.

Mr. Haughey

He has exactly the same approach to this Bill as I have. Deputy Burke says: "I know 4 to 10 p.m. is ideal for rural Ireland and the seaside resorts of the constituency I represent. I admit that the extra hour is not really necessary in Dublin, but, in the interest of unformity, I am prepared to impose this extra hour on Dublin because it is ideal for the rest of the country." Do I interpret the Deputy correctly?

Mr. Dillon

Perfectly.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I should like to hear Deputy Burke answer that. Is that correct?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

The Minister put a fair question to Deputy Burke.

Mr. P.J. Burke

The Minister is speaking now.

Mr. Haughey

I should like very much if I possibly could, to persuade the House that what is proposed here is inescapable. Where is the great disadvantage in what I am doing? I think we can all agree that it is essentially narrowed down to one or two hours in the case of Dublin city and Cork city.

Mr. T. Lynch

What about Waterford?

Mr. Dillon

And the three hours in rural Ireland.

Mr. Haughey

I do not think it affects the public in Dublin or Cork very much. The public houses will be open for an hour or two in which people will not go into them.

Mr. Sherwin

That will be the idle hour, not the midday closing hour.

Mr. Haughey

We are not imposing any hardship or any inconvenience. If they do not want to, people need not go into the public houses. The fact that they are open, but people do not want to go into them, is no disadvantage to the public. We are back then to the publicans and the workers. I will readily admit that there is a problem, but I suggest that there is no way that problem can be better faced and solved than in Dublin and Cork cities where, by and large, you have strong trade union organisations and bigger and wealthier publicans.

Mr. T. Lynch

With respect, what about Waterford city where the publicans are all agreed?

Mr. Haughey

I am perfectly happy about the situation of the Dublin barmen because I know they have a very effective, very efficient, very strong, capable trade union organisation and I am confident that organisation will be able to protect the interests of its members. We are left, therefore, with the Dublin city publicans. I have told them that I agree I am imposing some element of inconvenience on them. On the other hand, I have told them they are people who have been a long time in this business. They are skilled at it. They have great experience. They have managerial capacity and ability and they will just simply have to solve this problem in their own way as they have solved other problems before. That is what I told them. One line of approach I suggested to them was that they could decide they would not do any business between four o'clock and five o'clock or between four o'clock and six o'clock. I asked them, if they did not want to do any business during those hours, could they not so organise their houses in such manner as would enable them to operate with a skeleton staff, or something of that nature, during that period?

In approaching this matter, I have another factor in mind. Deputies will realise that I thought it would be both good and desirable to abolish the early morning opening in the dock area. I was immediately besieged with all sorts of legitimate pressures to retract from that position. I was approached by workers, trade unions, and so on. I discussed the matter with the barmen's trade union. I asked them what their view was in the matter. I explained the situation in which certain licensed premises were open for three hours— three-and-a-half in some cases—in the morning every day in the week. I asked them if they had any view about that. The barmen's union assured me they had no problems. It did not create any problems for their members because, they said, they had taken the view that they would not work this period anyway and, if any particular publican wants to open in the early morning, he can make his own arrangements. "Our trade union members will not," they said, "work in that period." That is the position taken up by the trade union concerned with relation to not one or two hours on Sunday but three hours every day in the week. When I see a trade union legitimately taking up that position and dealing with the matter in that way, I find it very difficult to accept that they will not be able to evolve some similar solution for one hour on Sunday.

Mr. Mullen

We have not got the staff.

Mr. Haughey

I do not think we are creating for either the publicans or the trade unions any insoluble problem. From the point of view of the general good this is something, I think, with which we must go ahead. I readily admit that it is more than is required for either Dublin city or Cork city but, in the interests of development, it is to my mind the solution to which we are inescapably driven.

Mr. Blowick

The Minister has put the problem of keeping open from 4 p.m. until 10 p.m. on the licensed vintners in Dublin, Cork, Waterford and Limerick. Did he take into consideration the fact that this period of six hours represents practically a full working day during which the publicans must keep open? There is no break allowed for tea in that period of six hours. I do not think this six-hour opening on Sunday evening is called for. Secondly, I think the Minister should have provided a break, at least, for the publican. Several of them have told me—I use their own words— that they have absolutely no privacy at all now in their houses on Sunday or any other day of the week. With the exception of the two-hour break on Sunday afternoon they are open from noon until 10 p.m. If the Minister will not accept the amendments to limit the opening hours on Sunday, he might at least provide a break of one hour or an hour-and-a-half both for the publican and his staff either from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m., or 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. It is only common sense to ask for that.

In extending the hours, the Minister has, I think, lost sight of one point. A man has only a certain amount of money to spend on drink. If he spends it on Sunday, he will not have it to spend on the other days of the week. From that point of view, opening from 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. is quite uncalled for and quite unnecessary.

The Minister has taken a very definite stand on uniformity. I am all the way with him there, but he said— I think these were the words he used —there would be a complete collapse if the Fine Gael amendment to allow district justices to grant occasional exemptions were accepted. I cannot agree with him in that because there are special occasions on which uniformity must be broken. I refer to a fleadh ceoil or a pilgrimage.

Mr. Haughey

In Section 8 we are providing a special period of eight days in every year in which any town can have extended hours.

Mr. Blowick

Is that not for a dance?

Mr. Haughey

No. Any town can have for any period it selects eight days' extended hours of opening, hours which appear to the district justice to be suitable, on the occasion of a festival, a fleadh ceoil, or anything like that.

Mr. Cosgrave

That is only once a year.

Mr. Haughey

Once a year in any one town.

Mr. Blowick

That meets my point. I am quite satisfied with that provision because a period of eight days would normally cover——

Mr. Haughey

Most situations.

Mr. Blowick

——most situations that would arise. It would not, I think, cover the occasion of the Croagh Patrick pilgrimage.

Mr. Haughey

As the provision is at the moment it does not let in the "Reeks Sunday" in Westport, but I have an amendment here, No. 10, which will rectify that. The Deputy can take it that the particular circumstances of Westport will be catered for.

Mr. Blowick

Very well; I am very glad. As a matter of fact, that was the original point. However, I would also ask the Minister to reconsider the Sunday opening from 4 to 10 p.m. Without labouring the point, it is too long a period. I am not going into the question that it is turning Sunday into a weekday, which it is, for the public. The 4 o'clock opening is too early. If the Minister insists on the 4 to 10 p.m. opening, he ought to give the publican and his staff at least an hour or a half-hour break for tea about seven o'clock.

Here is another point as far as rural areas are concerned. Evening Devotions are held there from 6 to 7.30 p.m. A closing during that time, in town and country, would be a good thing. I think nobody would disagree with it. It is a reasonable suggestion. I put down an amendment to that effect but, between now and the Report Stage, I would ask the Minister to consider that side of the matter. If he feels the public houses must open as early as 4 p.m. and close as late as 10 p.m., then I would ask him to bear in mind the two points which I have raised in regard to the Evening Devotions and a break for the publicans and their staffs. Surely they are entitled to get even a short period for their tea and to a little bit of privacy in their houses on Sundays?

Comments were made about Pioneers. I am a Pioneer. I have never taken a drink. I have never yet heard of a Pioneer who has taken up the attitude that nobody should take a drink. As a matter of fact, what the Pioneer organisation set their face against is the excessive use of drink. Disparaging remarks in this House about such an organisation are to be deplored and should not have been made. The Pioneers are doing very good work.

Mr. Leneghan

They are usually big wholesalers of drink.

Mr. Blowick

That is just more of the insults which the privilege of this House allows an irresponsible member to throw at decent people, in the knowledge that he is perfectly safe and that they have no come back at him. The character of a Deputy who so abuses the privileges of the House is not of a very high standard and he should not do it.

Mr. Carroll

I have been very impressed by the Minister's various statements. I am sure that, with his analytical ability, apart from representations he has received, he has sought to do the best job possible in this case. I am a Dublin Deputy. I know rural Ireland very well, also. I think the Minister omitted to say that the barmen agreed that there would be no difficulty about the 4 o'clock opening on Sunday afternoon.

I have received representations from barmen. We must bear in mind that, for barmen who are raising a family, Sunday may be the only day on which they have the privilege of seeing their children at lunch time. The Minister is a Dubliner and I am sure his experience in this connection is the same as mine. I am sure he realises the position as regards the opening of public houses at 3.30 p.m. on week-days. I pointed out to the Minister's predecessor that one could walk into a licensed premises any week-day between 3.30 and 4.30 and he would not have to wait one moment for service. Therefore, if his intention was to cut down the hours, he had a very easy way of doing it.

I also agreed with the Minister's predecessor on the question of uniformity. I do not see any reason why I should change my viewpoint now. However, that question arose when we were considering allowing some places to remain open later than other places, not earlier than other places.

The various needs are being catered for by the Minister in the Bill. However, it will come down to a question of voting for a 4 o'clock opening on Sunday. The Leader of the Opposition stated that Fine Gael, as a Party, met and discussed this point; that they were not quite uniform in their views but that eventually they came to a decision and decided to vote as a Party. That procedure, I am sure, is applicable not only to the Fine Gael Party but equally to the Fianna Fáil Party.

I do not want the Liquor Bill or the 4 o'clock opening to be a factor, so far as voting against the Minister or the Government is concerned. In my view, this Bill could be deferred. There is no immediate need for this legislation. It should not be brought forward until such time as possibly the Government or the Whips would agree to allow a free vote of the House so that the matter would not be a political issue. It is being made a political issue, as it was made a political issue at the last election.

Mr. Corry

Where?

Mr. Carroll

The Leader of the Opposition said this morning that he promised the people he would have this matter revised.

Mr. Leneghan

He got his answer.

Mr. Carroll

I do not wish this matter to be a political factor. From the point of view of the barmen, every aspect has been submitted for consideration. I think Deputy Mullen has put the position regarding the workers before the House. The Minister countered by saying that the workers of Dublin are so well catered for that there is no need for him to worry about their problems. Surely he would not wish to be responsible for bringing about a strike in the trade?

The licensed premises in Dublin have created an all-time record mainly by virtue of the greater consumption referred to by the Taoiseach. However, I repeat that one can walk from here to the north side of the city and find that the premises are virtually empty between 3.30 and 4.30 p.m. Possibly the barmen are doing some useful work then which they would not be able to do when things get busy. Mention was made of Britain and other places. Do the public houses in Britain open at 3.30 p.m.? They do not. They close at 3 p.m. and open at 6 or 6.30 p.m., according to local custom. However, I am not concerned with that but with the Sunday question.

Usually, the only difficulty I have ever noticed about the Sunday question is that, possibly, if he went to Navan with a football team, and so on, a person might be anxious to go into a public house after the match or the function. I agree that 5 o'clock is a reasonable time. People are coming away from sporting fixtures and venues of amusement around that time and are possibly in need of some beverage, and so on, which can be obtained only in a public house.

If the Minister can assure me that the representatives of the barmen are in favour of a 4 o'clock opening, I will unreservedly give him my support but I cannot believe it because people have come to me about this. Apart from that, there is still the question of family life, the question of the rushing involved, even for those who may be off at 5.30 p.m., which might suit the barmen but it would not suit the public. They want 5 o'clock. It could have been made 4 o'clock for the seven days of the week as suggested for Sunday and an equally good job would have been done. There appears to be general agreement between the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister on this with the exception of the exemption laws.

Why should it be 4 o'clock in Dublin? I will not speak for Cork. There is talk about uniformity but when we were talking about uniformity before we were thinking in terms of the publicans in Dublin closing at 10 p.m. and the people going out to the bona fide houses until 12 o'clock. Now we are in reverse so there is no question about uniformity being a reason for considering the opening on Sunday. It is in complete reverse. Heretofore, they closed at 9.30 p.m. or 10 p.m. as the case might be and the boys went out to the bona fide houses. This, however, is completely different. The Minister says that this relates to the seaside resorts. If they want to go to the seaside they will go anyway and they will not be going in at 4 o'clock or 5 o'clock in Dublin. The 4 o'clock opening is completely ridiculous, with all respect to the Minister.

Mr. Corry

I rise to speak because of a statement made by Deputy O'Sullivan last night and a challenge he issued regarding rural Deputies and rural areas. In my opinion, Deputy O'Sullivan is talking through his hat. He must not have travelled much in his constituency or he would know what the feeling is. The vice-chairman of the Cork County Vintners Association, Mr. Michael Murphy, lives in his constituency in Fermoy, and he came on a deputation looking for the 4 o'clock to 10 o'clock hour without any break. That puts the thing in a nutshell. I do not think there should be any closing hours at all. You have no closing hours in the restaurants in Dublin city. People have been talking about the barmen but if they travelled around the restaurants in this city they would find that they are open until 12 midnight or 1 a.m. I see no reason why the public houses should not remain open the same way. The value of a public house compared to a restaurant is in the ratio of three or four to one so they must be making money and able to pay their staff. We heard a lot of nonsense talked about barmen.

I should like to warn the Minister in regard to one aspect of this. We have heard a lot of noise about exemptions and "breaks". The more "breaks" you have, the more work the Guards are going to have and, of course, the more money the lawyers are going to get. That accounts for a lot of the noise I have heard in the past few days. If we are to take the amendments you are going to have the Guards watching the public houses at 12.30 for fear anybody would open at 12.15. Then they would have to come along again at 5 to see they were closed, or come along at 3.45 and again at 6. They would have to come along at 7 p.m. and then again at 10 p.m. to see that they were closed. I suggest that would mean a wholetime job for the Garda Síochána without looking after anything else.

I remember a time in this House when the majority of the Deputies, rural and city, thought the rural community should not have public houses open on a Sunday. That was voted on here in this House. The same people voted for the retention of the opening of the city public houses on Sundays. I do not want to disgrace them altogether by reading the division lists but they did that here and they kept that barrier here for the past 50 years and the result was that everybody laughed at the licensing laws and nobody obeyed them. That was the state of affairs until the last Act was passed.

A man may go for a walk with his wife on a Sunday evening and he might like to bring her in for a drink. There is nothing wrong with that and there is no reason why he should not. Young people and old go to matches and they like to get a drink afterwards. I have seen funerals of 200 to 300 cars coming to rural villages. The burial is generally at 3 o'clock. The public houses are closed and the people have no opportunity of getting a drink. That could amount to a 12 months' loss for the publican but that is not considered here. Only the Dublin barmen are considered. If you put up a twopence-halfpenny public house here for auction, it will fetch between £20,000 and £40,000. I never heard such nonsense in my life to think that a man is prepared to pay £20,000 or £40,000 to buy that public house and then he is not prepared to pay sufficient help to get all he can out of that public house.

Mr. Sherwin

There are 100 little public houses for the one big one.

Mr. Corry

They are all alike. Put up the small one and see what it fetches. The restaurants in the city can keep open from 10 o'clock in the morning until 1 o'clock the following morning. If they can do that with far less income and far less profit than the publican and pay helpers and staff, there is no case at all for the city publican on that basis.

The only complaints I have got about this are from two publicans in Youghal who complained about the 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. closing. They said that should not be there. We have a condition of affairs now where there is plenty of employment in my constituency. You have men coming off work at mid-day on Sunday and going to work on Sunday evening in Irish Steel Ltd. where the foundries have to be kept going. Those men want some provision for them since they must work on Sunday at harder work than the filling of a pint. Those people are entitled to as much consideration as any Dublin person.

The thing that is preventing the House from doing the sensible thing, which would be to open when you like and close when you like and give every man a drink when he wants it, is the legal profession. They would lose too much. Now they have appeals from decisions of the district justices regarding exemption orders and there are nine different sets of circumstances in which a publican can be caught on Sunday. Under the proposals from the other side they can be caught if they open before 12.30, if they do not close before 2.30, if they open before 4 o'clock, if they do not close at 5.30 or 6, if they open before 7 o'clock and if they remain open after 10 o'clock. This list of penalties and clauses is the most nonsensical thing I ever heard of. Any unfortunate publican who tried to live under them would want to be a genius and have the tamest customers that ever existed. And you usually do not find these in public houses. That is the sole reason why we have not done the sensible thing, which is to give every man a drink when he wants it.

I would not have intervened in this debate to-day except for the speech made by Deputy O'Sullivan. The licensed vintners in his constituency came up to Dublin, saw the Minister for Justice and put up the case for opening from 4 o'clock to 10 o'clock.

Mr. O'Sullivan

You did not include the Chairman of the Bandon Town Commissioners in that.

Mr. Corry

No. He is a member of the association and he sent his representative who gave his viewpoint to the Minister. The view they expressed was that there should be opening from 4 o'clock to 10 o'clock. I would advise Deputy O'Sullivan to go around the publicans in his constituency and consult them. It would not hurt him and if he does that, he will find a more sociable atmosphere.

Mr. Haughey

You might take him by the hand.

Mr. Corry

I did my best to have him in my constituency and I did not get him.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Was I not lucky?

Mr. Corry

I promised him a most enjoyable time and he would not fight.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I will say Deputy MacCarthy would feel the same on the subject.

Mr. MacCarthy

I will let you know in a moment.

Mr. Corry

I have given my views on this. I am honest in my views and I can speak here as the pioneer of Sunday opening. Those fellows who are talking here are 12 years too late.

Mr. Clinton

Early on this discussion, Deputy Mullen posed a very important question. Now, at this late stage and after the Minister has spoken, that question remains unanswered. He inquired as to where the demand came from for these extended hours of opening in the Dublin area. Deputy Noel Lemass would have us believe that these proposals for extended opening had the support of Father Dargan and the ecclesiastical authorities but I would say it was more or less for fear that something worse would be imposed on them. Deputy Meaney said that he was in favour of these hours, that he represented the people and that, therefore, they wanted them. Deputy P.J. Burke who represents the same constituency as I do found himself in a difficult situation. Having listened to him for some time, I came to the conclusion that the only thing that would solve his problems and mine would be that the Minister would allow us to make the licensing laws and administer them for his constituency and mine. If he did that and left it to us, we would do a first-class job.

I feel that there has been no demand for these extended hours. I have met many publicans in the city and county of Dublin and they do not need the extended hours. I have met many of the people who work in the public houses and they do not want them. I believe that the vast majority of the people in these areas do not want extended hours and I think the limited few who would be anxious to have them are the people whom the Minister should protect against themselves.

I think that the last person who should come into this House and look for extended hours for drinking is the Minister for Justice. At the present time if a man is caught in a public house at 9.15 p.m. on a Sunday evening he is heavily fined and the man who has opened the premises has his licence endorsed. If he does it a few times, he loses his livelihood and the value of his house is reduced to practically nothing. Therefore at the present time it is regarded as a serious matter to open after hours and now the Minister who believes that is telling us that it would be a good thing if we had a couple of hours extra opening on Sunday.

Personally, I believe that there is now too much opening for drinking on Sunday. I am wondering what the Minister is worrying about. Does he feel the publicans are not making enough money and that if he gives them these hours it means they will make a living? I do not know any poor publican in this area and if there are such people I suggest the best way for the Minister to go about improving their lot would be to restrict the issuing of licences. I think we have far too many licences.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I cannot see how the Deputy can argue this relevantly on these amendments.

Mr. Clinton

I am sorry if I have gone outside them, but we have discussed Puck Fair.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There was a brief reference to Puck Fair.

Mr. Clinton

I thought that when the Minister was on his feet, he would deal with the effects of the proposed new drinking hours on Sundays. He did say it was a problem and I think Deputies generally are in agreement that these hours are completely unnecessary for Dublin city and county. I can see a case for the seaside resorts, but as far as Dublin is concerned, there is general agreement that the new hours are unwanted. The Minister as much as admitted that. In fact he practically threw his problem over to the trade union movement by saying: "I cannot deal with it, but, perhaps, you can and then the lack of uniformity that would exist is the responsibility of the trade union movement and not mine. If you refuse to allow the men to work, then the public houses will not open for the hour or two extra provided for in the Bill. In other areas, there will be public houses open for the extra hours and then you will have lack of uniformity."

The Minister also failed to deal with the possible effects on the price of drink. My information is that the pint will rise in price by 2d. to make up for the overtime that must be involved in working these extra hours. That is a very serious aspect of this matter. In fact, I see no excuse whatsoever for these extra hours. If people were free to have a drink after Mass, and then if they had three or four hours after their evening meal in which to have a drink, that should be enough for them. The hours proposed in the Bill for Sunday will lead to excessive drinking on the part of certain people; it will lead to more accidents and it will increase the price of drink. I cannot see the point of harping on this question of uniformity. Why do we need uniformity for a people so far from uniform in their habits or pursuits? There is no uniformity about how our people make their livelihood.

It is right to say that the seaside resorts have only one harvest, lasting during the holiday months. They should be allowed special consideration so that they can reap that harvest. It is unfortunate their harvest depends so much on drink because I think we have far too much drinking and that far too much is spent on drink. Many sins have been blamed on tourism. Personally, I should hate to see our tourist industry built on the type of singing lounge depicted in our tourist advertisements. We have a lot more to offer to people who come to this country than just public houses and it would be a shocking impression for visitors to think that all we have to offer is the facility of drinking. The Minister has admitted there is absolutely no necessity for these extra drinking hours on Sunday and I would appeal to him to reconsider the question.

Mr. Mullen

Listening to the Minister, I formed the opinion that, while he did make a case for these new hours in rural areas, he did not attempt to make a case for them in Dublin. He suggested it was only a matter of one hour. That is not correct. It is a question of two hours in the summer and three hours in the winter. It involves a long spread-over and most workers do not like a spread-over. They want to have their working hours put together. If these new hours are allowed, it will mean a spread-over of nine and a half hours working hours and that, added to the time it takes a barman to get to work from his home and to get home after work, is far too long. We can compare that with the present eight and a half hours in the summer and seven and a half hours in the winter and we will find a strong indication of a worsening of conditions at a time when we hear so much about the five-day week and shorter working hours.

These new hours would also interfere with the barmen's family lives. It is very important to take that into consideration. Consequently, there is no point in the Minister or anybody else saying this is a matter for the trade unions and the employers to discuss among themselves. I am telling the truth when I say there will be no staff available to work these extra hours. If there is no staff available how can the Bill be worked?

Mr. N. Lemass

I can send the Deputy a few apprentices. Will he get them jobs, because, if so, I shall be delighted?

Mr. Mullen

I am talking about barmen. It takes five years to train an apprentice. It is very hard to get barmen.

Mr. N. Lemass

Will the Deputy get jobs for these apprentices?

Mr. Mullen

I will take some from the Deputy. There are two unions looking after the barmen — the National Union of Vintners and Allied Trades Assistants and the Irish Transport and General Workers Union, of which I am an official. The two unions, through the offices of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, accompanied by representatives of other unions who look after bar staffs in other parts of the country, went to the Minister and made the plea not to interfere with the present hours on Sundays. I have already said that there will not be staff available to work these new hours and that, therefore, you are asking barmen to work longer. Nobody wants to do that on a Sunday. Freedom of pursuit on a Sunday is something everybody cherishes. Deputy Lemass said they worked only every other Sunday and that they got £3 for it. That is incorrect. They get only £2 12s. 6d.

Mr. N. Lemass

Some of them get £3.

Mr. Mullen

They pay £3 to supervisors. Surely the Minister can devise some code that will satisfy all interested people. The Minister has reasoned that on one side you have the employers and employees and that on the other you have the public, and he intimated that no problem existed in relation to the public. As I understand it, the public do not want these new hours in Dublin. I should say that the barmen's union and my own are exploiting the possibility of conducting a canvass of barmen, public house proprietors and customers with a view to getting a general opinion on these new hours. Would that type of evidence satisfy the Minister?

I was pleased to note the Minister indicated he would be prepared to depart from the principle of uniformity if it could be clearly demonstrated it was necessary to do so. It is our intention to set about procuring that evidence, not with a view to scoring off anybody but with a view to satisfying the Minister that so far as Dublin is concerned there is not a demand for the 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. opening. I have already referred to the representations made to the Minister. While the union representatives said they wanted the hours left as they were, if that cannot be done I believe they would accept the hours of 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. I would ask the Minister not to impose the hours of 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. on the employers, employees and consumers in Dublin.

Deputy Corry admonished us for making submissions on behalf of Dublin. He referred to restaurants being open until 1 a.m. That shows he spends little time in Dublin. Few restaurants are open until 1 a.m. A couple are open until much later, but they are not desirable establishments and I do not imagine Deputy Corry would be found in them. They are not the type of establishment we should advertise in this House.

Mr. Sherwin

"Wine joints".

Mr. Mullen

There are more than "wine joints". Perhaps, this Bill will deal with that type of activity. Deputy Sherwin lives near one.

Mr. Sherwin

Two. I am aware of plenty more. There is plenty of whiskey and no licence needed.

Mr. Mullen

If this section is passed, it means that the hotel bars will remain open until 11 p.m. There will be the "spread over" I have already referred to. I have not mentioned the time that must be spent preparing for opening and clearing up after the closing hour. I hold that this is requiring people to work an impossibly long day. Most workers have their Sunday off and many of them have Saturday as well. Under this Bill people employed in bars in Dublin will have to confine themselves to the bar every Sunday and simply wonder what is happening to their wives and families at home. They cannot have Sundays off for the simple reason that staff are not available. If Deputy Lemass produces his apprentices, they may be available in five years' time. It is possible to verify they are not available at present. I propose producing such verification and, by the Report Stage, the Minister may be in a position to do something about it.

Mr. MacCarthy

Last night, Deputies got an invitation and a challenge. There was an invitation from the Minister to discuss this Bill with all its various problems and difficulties and, if possible, present for his consideration the means of dealing with the various difficulties and ensure that the cure is not worse than the disease. One of the leading Opposition speakers challenged the Deputies on these benches to get up, one after the other, and show there was no demand for 4 p.m. opening on Sunday. Both the invitation and the challenge can be dealt with together.

First, we ought to remember we are legislating for a self-respecting people, trying to cater for their various interests and the ways in which they spend their leisure. It has been said that some people break and evade the law and that we are legislating for them. But the prohibitions imposed by the general interests of the country should be sufficient to deal with those who behave in that way.

It has been admitted by all that the Act of 1960 was generally accepted, but with a few reservations. One was that there was some difficulty in the rural areas on Sunday mornings, but the Minister has dealt with that neatly and adequately. The other concerned a later opening on Sunday evenings, mainly to suit the rural population. I agree with the Minister's reservations concerning Cork and Dublin. Those engaged in this trade, so important for both town and country, have failed to bring up a suggestion that would be satisfactory to everybody concerned. Consequently, our problem is to decide what is best in the general interest.

So far as Sunday opening is concerned, there has been a request from various villages and isolated public houses on the main roads to the seaside and holiday resorts for a 4 p.m. opening. The reason for this is simply stated. An opening hour of 5 p.m. would be too near tea time, and tourists and others on the road would not stop. But tourists like the atmosphere of rural public houses and like to stop and have a chat, perhaps, with the local people. That is one case.

The other case put forward is of much wider implication. It concerns the big sporting events which take place in the bigger centres on Sundays. When 80,000 or 90,000 people come to Croke Park on a Sunday, not all the restaurants and hotels in Dublin could cater for one-tenth of them. During a big rail strike one summer I, as a very interested party, made a survey of the attendances at these games. If it is a hurling match, of the 90,000 who attend 30,000 will be from Dublin city and environs, and if it is a football match, from 35,000 to 40,000 will be from Dublin city and environs. But the remainder will come from various parts of the country. They have to start off early in the morning after Mass and often find no catering available on the trains. They leave in the evening after the match with a long journey facing them. Were it not for the fact that many of them bring some food with them, and have facilities in the public houses for an hour or so before their train leaves, they would not be catered for from early morning until they returned late at night to the outlying counties. Consequently, the opening hours should in some measure suit those people.

Matches generally finish at 5 o'clock in the summer time, but in the winter time in order that the players and spectators may follow the ball—and particularly the hurling ball—matches have to be played earlier. They start at 3 o'clock or a little before, and end at about 4 o'clock. There is the problem during the autumn, winter and spring of the 4 o'clock opening. The answer is that these people must be catered for because, after all, a few thousand people would attend at a local championship match, and a match in Thurles or Limerick attended by 50,000 or 60,000 people is as important to the local people as are the bigger games in the bigger centres. If we wish to cater for those people the 4 o'clock opening is certainly necessary and advisable.

I agree with the Minister that Cork does not want the 4 o'clock opening in the summer. Perhaps, Dublin is the same. I cannot speak for Dublin. The point is that if we are to accept the principle of uniformity as the real basis for this Bill, how can we get away from those considerations without making special provision for them? The making of special provision for special occasions has been mentioned. It is undesirable that they should be made general. I have had experience in the past of occasions when applications of this kind were made and the decisions were very varied. The hours in many cases led to abuses of various kinds.

It is far better to have uniformity. Usually, the people who go to these big venues and fixtures must get their train at 6 o'clock and there is no abuse, but they require some facilities at any rate. They travel long journeys. They are attracted to their native pastimes and sports, and it is only right that their interests should be catered for in some way. Many of them, of course, have cars and can quite easily go to a nearby town if the town they are in is over-crowded, but the people who cannot afford cars have to travel by train. They are numerous and their interests must be considered too.

It is not for the purpose of drinking that they go into these establishments. They go in for a little refreshment, to discuss the affairs of the day and coming events. A sporting friend of mine, Slieve Rua, who is known to some people in the House, used to say that they go in for a drop of conversation water and to talk about who played well, the events of the day, and the prospects for the future. It is not for the purpose of taking a drink as such that these facilities are provided.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

It is as good an excuse as any.

Mr. MacCarthy

It is not an excuse from my experience for many years of travelling all over the country with teams. On Sunday afternoons there are also drag hunts, coursings, bowls and other various sporting meetings here and there in the various centres. If we had to make special provision for special occasions, they would be so numerous that there would be one in practically every parish every week if we were to cater for them properly and impartially.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Why not?

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I do not want to interrupt the Deputy but was that not the position in 1960? The Deputy spoke about the hours in 1960 and he said he thought 5 o'clock to 9 p.m. or 9.30 p.m. opening ought to be sufficient for all purposes.

Mr. MacCarthy

Yes, but it is a well-known fact that in introducing the Bill the Minister said it was for a trial period of a year or two and could then be reviewed to see where it was falling down. That is what we are now doing. There is nothing inconsistent in my attitude either then or now. I am raising the question of the 4 o'clock opening because representations have been made to me.

Members of the House have spoken again and again on the various aspects of the case and there is no need to stress them any further. There are certain fundamentals to be done. In my judgment the Minister has gone a long way towards solving the difficulties that have arisen. I am with him to the fullest extent in what he proposes to do.

Mr. Rooney

I consider that all these discussions arise from the mistaken approach of the Government to the question of uniformity. I believe the efforts being made to impose uniformity are causing all these difficulties because when we try to bring in a Bill based on the principle of uniformity we immediately find ourselves in a position where exemptions, exceptions and alterations are required to suit local needs. That is why I consider the Government are making a very great mistake in trying to impose uniformity instead of bringing in legislation which is flexible to the needs of the particular time, the particular day and the particular occasion.

It would be quite possible for the Minister to bring in a Bill making provision for flexible arrangements in relation to hours in the various areas. The Minister himself on one occasion said that there is nothing divine about the principle of uniformity. He should pay greater attention to that expression of his own. If he approached the Bill and the various problems which will arise from whatever hours are finally determined, having examined those words and tried to follow them, he would be doing a better day's work for the country.

We can now see that it was a mistake, in the opinion of many people, to abolish the bona fide trade. Quite a number of decent publicans, particularly in the vicinity of Dublin, were ruined in their business by the 1960 Act. Not alone that, but the people who tried to enjoy the facilities made available by these publicans were deprived of these facilities. Business premises were left worthless with their turnover down to less than one-sixth in some cases. Efforts have been made to remedy that but these people had to face that situation. At that time, the question was raised as to whether they should be compensated when legislation was introduced which had the effect of putting them out of business. Under the Transport Act, arrangements were made to compensate certain traders whose business was ruined by that Act.

Apart from the fact that uniformity is really the cause of the problem in this discussion, we have two different areas to consider, the county boroughs and the areas outside them. The Minister has tried to produce some special legislation in respect of county boroughs. Generally speaking, hours that will suit the city will not suit rural areas and that must be considered. If we could introduce a flexible type of legislation to deal with the question of opening in any area with regard to special functions there, whether festivals or football matches, I believe it would meet the situation more effectively. That could be done through special area exemption orders obtained through the courts. Providing by legislation hours which will apply all round is a mistake. One aspect of this problem is to provide hours for all-the-year round operation and the other is to consider legislation for special occasions.

Deputy MacCarthy mentioned football matches but we do not have 35,000 people from in or around Dublin every Sunday at football matches and the balance of 60,000 coming in from other areas. If we do not have them, why put in hours in legislation which will apply every Sunday? Can we not have a flexible arrangement leaving hours to be determined by the court? We can rely on them to be fair, to decide whether the occasion justifies a special exemption. If that were done, we would not have the proposal to have hours from 4 to 10 p.m. whether in the depth of winter or the middle of summer every week for the 52 weeks of the year. Normal opening hours on Sunday could be from 6 to 10 p.m. or 7 to 10 p.m. and when we have these football matches with extra thousands coming into the city, we could go to the court for a special exemption and rely on the courts to provide the hours they consider fair both to the visitors and those giving the service to them. It is foolish to legislate for 52 Sundays in the year on the basis of opening at 4 o'clock in the afternoon just because the case has been made that people at a football match require a drink before they start for home. I hope the Minister will consider that aspect of the matter.

If we are to have a situation in which the public house must be open from 4 to 10 p.m. in the city, with a tea-break of one-and-a-half hours, we must envisage the price of drink going up. Deputy Mullen mentioned that a barman gets about £2 10s. for coming in on a Sunday afternoon when he is entitled to be off. The consumer must pay for that. Obviously, the publican must collect it and he has to put up the price in order to do so. The supervisor, apparently, gets between £3 and £4 and somebody has to find his wages and again it is the consumer who will have to put up that money. The publican would be foolish not to recover it from those for whom the service is provided. Obviously, if these hours are imposed in the county boroughs, the price of drink must go up immediately that service begins to operate.

The proposal here is to have seven-and-a-half hours drinking on Sundays. Instead of calling it the Sabbath day, I think we shall have to call it the drinking day, because, in addition to the seven-and-a-half hours opening, the workers must come in for an hour beforehand to prepare the premises and they must stay an hour afterwards to clean up the premises and get ready for the next day. It is a terrible prospect to think of licensed premises being open for seven-and-a-half hours on a Sunday instead of having the opening time in accordance with the requirements of the situation existing on any particular Sunday.

Mr. Haughey

Deputy Rooney knows Malahide well, as I do. What hours would he suggest for Malahide on Sunday?

Mr. Rooney

I would suggest, first of all, that there should be a special exemption for a special occasion where a large number of persons are brought into the town. Secondly, the exemption for holiday resorts must be considered and, as has been mentioned earlier, that consideration applies only to a few Sundays of the year. There are only a few Sundays when Malahide is crowded. The Minister is familiar with the situation there.

Mr. N. Lemass

From St. Patrick's Day onwards.

Mr. Rooney

I would not agree with that.

Mr. N. Lemass

It is crowded on St. Patrick's Day.

Mr. Rooney

That is only one day. That is where the special exemption comes in. Otherwise, I think it is only in July and August that big crowds are there. I doubt if it happens in June. This is one of the nearest seaside resorts to Dublin. The best part of 5,000 or 10,000 people go by bus and bicycle and train to Portmarnock from the city on a very fine Sunday. That happens mainly on Sundays. You will scarcely get a crowd of that size there even on a fine Saturday afternoon. That does not happen on 52 Sundays in the year.

The case I am making to the Minister is that he does not want uniformity of hours from 4 to 10 p.m. for 52 Sundays in the year. The Minister has asked me to state my view. I consider that there could be uniform hours, from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. or 6 p.m. to 10 p.m., for 52 Sundays of the year and special exemptions for the couple of Sundays on which there would be crowds of people in any area such as Malahide, which the Minister has mentioned, or Dublin city. The case I am making is that opening hours of from 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. on 52 Sundays of the year would not be justified.

The question was raised of having an hour's closing in the course of the afternoon. It is a very great mistake to depart from the principle of having a drinking pause from 2.30 p.m. to 3.30 p.m. It is a very effective arrangement. The vast majority of people are not interested in being on licensed premises during the hour when they are not supposed to be there—2.30 p.m. to 3.30 p.m. Unfortunately for themselves, there are the few who do not want to stop drinking and who want to stay on the premises as long as possible and to get drink by hook or by crook. That is where the drinking pause comes in. It should be retained. At that time, those who have been in the public house for a drink can go home for lunch and have a chat with their families, perhaps, for once in the week, and discuss domestic affairs and other matters. They can have tea at home and go out for some refreshment and a chat in the "local" after 6 p.m. or 7 p.m.

I agree with the suggestion that has been made during the course of the debate that, normally speaking, even on weekdays, it is only in the last couple of hours or last 90 minutes that a large number of people are to be found in licensed premises. A football match could be played in some of the large public houses most of the time but at a certain hour convenient to the consumers large numbers go in and have their drinks and their chat before closing time.

A Deputy yesterday evening referred to the fact that people stand outside public houses and do not go in until half an hour before closing time. That is quite true. It is a tradition in many places. There are people who like a drink but who are not interested in being on licensed premises except for the purpose of having a drink before retiring for the night. Although the public house is open all the time, they do not go in until 10 p.m.

There is another suggestion which I want to make, in fairness to the consumers. Instead of the price of drink being increased all the year round in order to cover the extra cost of providing service on Sundays, I would suggest that publicans should be allowed to charge an extra price for that service rather than charge an extra price to people who are not interested in drinking during the Sunday hours of opening but who do require a drink on occasions during the week. I do not think it is right to ask the weekday consumer to pay for the extra expense devolving on publicans in providing staff to cater for consumers between the hours of 4 p.m. and 10 p.m. on Sundays.

The main point I wish to make to the Minister is in regard to uniformity. The case has been made by many speakers that uniformity is not suitable, for many reasons. Uniformity will involve an increase in the price of drink; it will upset the normal staff arrangements; the publican must demand services of staff who normally should be on a day's leave. He must engage them in order to ensure that his business will be preserved and carried on; he must provide service for the public. In order to meet the expense involved, publicans will be compelled to consider putting up their prices.

The question of the tea break was mentioned by Deputy Mullen who knows the problem very well. The tea break is the real problem so far as Sunday opening is concerned. The tea break could be catered for if we had a system whereby special exemptions could be available in areas where it is considered desirable and necessary to have public houses open at an hour before, say, 6 p.m. or 7 p.m.

One Deputy made a statement which should not be allowed to pass. He said restaurants which are open until 12 midnight or 1 a.m. or 2 a.m. are undesirable places. It is wrong to say that. There are very desirable places in the city of Dublin, which provide good service, which are run very properly and well, which remain open until 12 midnight or 1 a.m. or 2 a.m. They cater for very few people, for instance, those who are enjoying some special occasion. They are not places to which people go regularly. It should not be stated in this House that any restaurant owner who keeps his premises open until 12 midnight, 1 a.m. or 2 a.m. is running an undesirable business. Dublin is the capital city and visitors could take a poor view if they found it was not possible to get a bite to eat in this city after 12 midnight. Most restaurants in the city close at 10 p.m. There are a number of restaurants in the city which cater for those who want to have a meal after 10 p.m. They should not be described as undesirable places because they provide this amenity.

Having heard the views expressed by Deputies, I hope the Minister will reconsider the hours of opening proposed for Sunday. It would be a great mistake to provide for a 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. opening. It was suggested that an application for a special exemption would require the approval of the majority of the licence holders in an area. That would be a very good idea. The majority of licence holders in any area would know what service was required for any particular occasion and their views should be sought when application is made to the court for an exemption. I would certainly rely on the courts to interpret the needs of the consumer in any area at any particular time of the year. That is the right way to do it, instead of having fixed hours for the 52 Sundays in the year which will cause many of the difficulties which have been mentioned.

Mr. N. Lemass

Yesterday evening, having listened to Deputy Burke from County Dublin, I completely reversed the first views I expressed on amendment No. 4. However, today having listened to the two Fine Gael Deputies from County Dublin, I am afraid they have not only been contradictory in their speeches but they apparently are not aware of the situation in County Dublin at all. Deputy Rooney, in 1960 as well as on this occasion, said that the situation that existed before the 1960 Bill in relation to Sundays was more desirable than the situation that exists now. The situation that existed before 1960 was that when the public houses opened, they stayed open all the afternoon and on top of that, particularly in places like Malahide, Donabate and Skerries which the Deputy represents, there was a demand for later closing on Sunday. I think that 10 o'clock closing is generally accepted here and the only point at issue is the opening hour. If the Deputies from County Dublin are consistent about the differentials they mentioned both in 1960 and on this occasion, they want the public houses open all day on Sunday.

I stood up to deal particularly with one point. I am on the branch committee of a trade union that is affiliated to Congress and therefore I am particularly interested in the trade union attitude to the various provisions in this Bill. I listened with great interest to Deputy Mullen and other Labour Deputies and I have now come to the conclusion that in speaking here they are misrepresenting entirely the situation so far as barmen are concerned. On the Second Stage of this Bill, Deputy Corish, the Leader of the Labour Party, at column 1640, Volume 195, No. 12, of the Official Report of the 29th May, 1962, quoted a resolution passed by the Irish National Vintners', Grocers' and Allied Trades' Assistants which read as follows:

That we, the Executive Committee of the Irish National Union of Vintners', Grocers', and Allied Trades' Assistants, view with alarm the proposed extension of hours under the new Intoxicating Liquor Bill to be introduced in the National Legislature next month, and we call upon the Labour Party to oppose strenuously any extensions which would tend to impose hardships and slavish conditions on the workers engaged in the trade.

I am afraid that Executive are not aware of the protection which their members have and which is laid down already by legislation passed in this House. I should like to quote the former Minister for Justice, who said at column 945, volume 177, of the Official Report of 11th November, 1959:

The trade unions have been stressing the hardship on the barmen and porters which later working hours would entail. But the conditions of employment for barmen are already safeguarded by the Shop (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1938 and these safeguards would apply just as much when licensed premises keep open for a 70-hour week as in the case of an 80-hour week. Under the 1938 Act, barmen may not be required to work for longer than 11 hours in any day or for longer than 48 hours in any week — 56 hours, including overtime. The employment of persons under 18 years of age between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. is prohibited. Barmen may not be required to work for more than six hours without a meal interval. There are provisions for annual holidays and for compensatory leave for work on half holidays or Sundays.

If there has been any change in that situation, I am quite sure it is to the betterment of the conditions of the barmen. That Act of 1938 protects the barmen and if the public house were open 24 hours a day, it would not mean half an hour's extra work for the men employed in the public houses. That puts paid to the political slant the Fine Gael Party are trying to put on this. They say that prices will go up if this Bill is implemented. That is all nonsense. Furthermore, we have been sent here a memorandum by the Irish County Vintners' Association demonstrating the way they can buy up licences without increasing the price of drink. It is a well-known fact that the gross profit in the licensed trade is higher than it has been at any time before. Perhaps we in this Party made a mistake when we decontrolled the price of drink. I do not think we did.

I believe we should try to do away with as much restriction as possible and it is with that in mind that I changed my view on amendment No. 4. The more we restrict, the more we leave the matter open to abuse. In 1960, Fine Gael put down a similar amendment to amendment No. 8 in the name of Deputy O'Higgins. The best they could do on 29th March, 1960, when that amendment was put to a division, was to get the support of 18 Deputies. I doubt if they will do much better on this occasion.

I come back to Deputy Rooney. He considers that extra hours are required for two months in the year, that for St. Patrick's Day and such other days special exemptions should be granted. But the Fine Gael attitude was quite different in 1960. It was propounded by Deputy O'Donnell who put forward the same view here last night. I quote what he said at column 998, Volume 180, of the Official Report of 23rd March, 1960:

I should like to support Deputy Palmer's amendment which is to extend the late opening during the months of June, July and August for the period of Summer Time.

He went on to speak about the may-fly, hunting in the autumn, and so on. Let us have a little consistency about this. I am sorry Deputy Mullen has gone out of the House because, having studied the actual protection that has been laid down by this House, I am now convinced that the arguments of the Labour Party are dishonest.

Mr. Sherwin

I have listened to this debate from the commencement and to the Minister's speech. Just as he said he was not convinced, I am not convinced. I am not concerned with what some organised body says because the organised body's policy is decided and dictated by a few people at the top and the other fellows have to say "Aye". I am more concerned with what the individual thinks and what I conclude in my own heart is best for the individual. We are told, for instance, that the organised bodies want the hours 7 to 10 o'clock. I am satisfied that the Minister would not accept that I am trving to be a realist and to nail the Minister down to some differential of an hour or an hour and a half. He favours uniformity as against a differential.

The Minister had a good case for that where the closing hours at night are concerned because of the dangers inherent in a differential then. When there was a differential we had regular tours of the bona fide premises. Many of these premises were patronised by objectionable types of women. I do not say that all the women who frequented them were objectionable, but there were women to whom exception could be taken. These women picked up men in these premises, as often as not both of them being drunk. That immorality was there when the differential existed.

Now that the bona fide public houses have been done away with there are really no good grounds for uniformity in the opening hours. We have uniformity in the closing hours. That is all to the good. Where the opening hours are concerned, people are not in a mood for revelry at three or four o'clock in the afternoon. If the public houses opened at four in the rural areas and at five-thirty in the city there could be no abuses. Only a very small percentage might journey to the rural areas to start drinking at four o'clock in the afternoon.

Mr. Haughey

I should point out to the Deputy that Deputy Seán Dunne, who represents the County Dublin publicans, has framed his amendments exclusively in their interest; he is very keen to get this differential because he knows it would mean there would not be such a great influx as the Deputy says.

Mr. Sherwin

He is speaking for the publicans of County Dublin. I am speaking for everybody.

Mr. Haughey

But he wants the differential.

Mr. Sherwin

What harm could evolve from the nearness of these seaside resorts? Would it not be a good thing if thousands of people went out to the seaside for a breath of fresh air? What special problem would that create? No harm could be done, even from the moral aspect. Remember the cinemas are filled to capacity on Sunday afternoon, even in the suburbs; the cinemas do not close until five-thirty. Matches are not over until five o'clock.

Mr. Haughey

Four Forty-five.

Mr. Sherwin

There is no risk in a differential as far as opening is concerned. The reason why I differ from the Fine Gael Party in relation to 5 p.m. or 5.30 p.m. opening is because there are 4,000 or 5,000 people employed one way or another in Dublin public houses. On my way here this morning, an elderly man, a grocer's porter, jumped off his bicycle and told me that his son had heard what I am advocating; he said he was delighted because he would now be able to take his children out on Sunday afternoon. This argument about the thousands for which public houses are sold does not hold water since it applies to only about five per cent. of them. There are hundreds of little public houses run by families. The convenience of these people must be considered. It is no answer to say they need not open. Competition will compel them to open. Self-preservation will dictate their opening. I made the case for 5.30 p.m. opening because that would give some three-and-a-half hours to these thousands of people to go to a cinema, attend a football match, and get home in good time to open.

Mr. Haughey

One shouts and roars at a football match, and one gets thirsty. One does not shout and roar at a picture.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

And not always at a football match either.

Mr. Sherwin

I do not think there should be a time lag during which people would have to stall for 15 or 20 minutes before they could get a drink. That is why I am against 6 p.m. opening. What organisations and Parties say is something dictated from the top. The proof of that is the statement made by Deputy Dillon this morning when he said that, despite any differences they may have outside the House, when they come into the House they support the majority view. That is an admission that some people say things they do not really mean here. I do not mind what organisations say. I am speaking for everyone. I know what the people of Dublin want. They do not want 4 o'clock opening on Sunday. A break of two hours is useless; all one can do in the time is have one's dinner, take a quick look at the paper, and have a smoke. One cannot go out anywhere. I see no risk in opening at 5.30 p.m. in Dublin and at 4 p.m. in the rural areas. The Minister should think it over between this and the Report Stage. He knows now that no one in Dublin wants 4 p.m. opening. If he has a talk privately with his own Party members they will tell him that Dublin does not want 4 p.m. opening.

Question —"That the word proposed to be deleted stand" put and declared carried.

An Ceann Comhairle

That disposes of amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8.

Mr. Sweetman

No.

An Ceann Comhairle

Oh, yes. They all fall — Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

No. I am not sure we understood the way this was put. This was an amendment by Deputy Sherwin to have the hour altered from four to half past five.

An Ceann Comhairle

Clearly, the hour of four stands.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Surely there is a misunderstanding?

Mr. Sweetman

Four o'clock as an alternative to 5.30?

An Ceann Comhairle

No.

Mr. Sweetman

The alternative provided in Deputy Sherwin's amendment is that "four" should be substituted by half-past five. The alternative provided in amendment No. 8 is that 4 p.m. should be substituted by 5 p.m. They are two different alternatives.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I think that if the Chair put the Question again, the House would understand it.

Mr. Sweetman

I suggest that at the very beginning, in relation to this, it was agreed, and the express terms of the agreement were, that we would discuss all the hours together and that there would be separate decisions.

An Ceann Comhairle

There are only two amendments, Nos. 12 and 20, on which separate decisions——

Mr. Sweetman

I was in the House at the time.

An Ceann Comhairle

I remember myself. I announced it when this discussion on amendment No. 5 started. Clearly, the House decided that if the hour of 4 o'clock stands, then we could not——

Mr. Sweetman

In fact, when we started the discussion on these amendments, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle was in the Chair.

An Ceann Comhairle

I did. I remember.

Mr. Sweetman

I was here when the Leas-Cheann Comhairle started this discussion. There was some difficulty. Deputy Corish raised some point of difficulty as to whether amendments Nos. 12 and 20 were proper also to be discussed with the hours——

An Ceann Comhairle

It was agreed that amendments Nos. 12 and 20 would be discussed but that a separate decision——

Mr. Sweetman

It was quite clear——

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Our difficulty is this. Deputy Sherwin's amendment sought to apply the hours generally all over the country. Amendment No. 8 differentiates between Dublin and Cork and the remainder of the country and different hours are proposed. It seems to me that the House would be stultifying this discussion here to-day if it worked to make it impossible to take a separate decision with regard to Dublin and the country as a whole.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is impossible to put a question that would save any of these amendments because the House has taken a decision that the hour of four o'clock stands. Obviously, there is no other question that can be put.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I do not want to argue unnecessarily. Clearly, there is a misunderstanding. I think the Minister will not object if the Chair puts the question again in order to avoid——

An Ceann Comhairle

I certainly shall.

Mr. Sweetman

I cannot see how, if you have only one question, you can choose between the alternatives. The only way you can do it is by having people vote for an amendment on hours of which they do not approve. That would not be the desire of anybody. It means, in fact, that if a person wants to approve of amendment No. 7 then, in order to get to amendment No. 7, he must vote——

An Ceann Comhairle

Against the word "four".

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

If this amendment were put in the form "That the words `half-past five' be inserted instead of `four' "——

An Ceann Comhairle

But we must decide about the word "four" first.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

If the question is put "That the words `half-past five' be substituted for the word `four', the House could arrive at a decision on that.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not the usual practice in putting the question.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

These things are difficult. I recognise the Chair's difficulty.

An Ceann Comhairle

We must come to a decision as to what will happen the word in the section, which is "four". Here you have "four", on the one hand, and all the other amendments, on the other. If you want to remove "four" from the section, vote against it.

Mr. Sweetman

We are voting against four o'clock but for different reasons, which is not exactly——

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I shall be happy if the Chair will put the question again.

Mr. Sherwin

Is my amendment being put to the House again?

Mr. Haughey

By agreement, this might be solved. The proposal is that the question be put again. I have no objection to that. I want to be as obliging as I can. However, I think the House should agree. The agreement of the House——

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I think there is agreement.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not think anybody objected. I did not hear anybody objecting.

Mr. Coogan

I think it is unfair. I was here and I wanted to say a few words.

An Ceann Comhairle

I called every Deputy who offered, as far as I could see.

Question put: "That the word ‘four' proposed to be deleted stand."

The Committee divided: Tá, 70; Níl, 43.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Lorcan.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Boland, Kevin.
• Booth, Lionel.
• Brady, Philip A.
• Brady, Seán.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Brennan, Paudge.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Burke, Patrick J.
• Calleary, Phelim A.
• Carter, Frank.
• Carty, Michael.
• Childers, Erskine.
• Clohessy, Patrick.
• Colley, George.
• Collins, James J.
• Corry, Martin J.
• Cotter, Edward.
• Coughlan, Stephen.
• Crinion, Brendan.
• Crowley, Honor M.
• Cummins, Patrick J.
• Cunningham, Liam.
• Davern, Mick.
• de Valera, Vivion.
• Dolan, Séamus.
• Dooley, Patrick.
• Egan, Kieran P.
• Egan, Nicholas.
• Fanning, John.
• Faulkner, Padraig.
• Galvin, John.
• Geoghegan, John.
• Gibbons, James M.
• Gilbride, Eugene.
• Gogan, Richard P.
• Haughey, Charles.
• Hillery, Patrick.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Kitt, Michael F.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Lalor, Patrick J.
• Lemass, Noel T.
• Lemass, Seán.
• Leneghan, Joseph R.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Lynch, Celia.
• McAuliffe, Patrick.
• MacCarthy, Seán.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Meaney, Con.
• Medlar, Martin.
• Millar, Anthony G.
• Moher, John W.
• Mooney, Patrick.
• Moran, Michael.
• Mullen, Michael.
• Murphy, Michael P.
• Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Connor, Timothy.
• O'Malley, Donogh.
• Ormonde, John.
• Spring, Dan.
• Timmons, Eugene.
• Treacy, Seán.

Níl

• Barry, Anthony.
• Barry, Richard.
• Belton, Jack.
• Blowick, Joseph.
• Browne, Michael.
• Burke, James J.
• Burton, Philip.
• Byrne, Patrick.
• Clinton, Mark A.
• Connor, Patrick.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Crotty, Patrick J.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dockrell, Henry P.
• Dockrell, Maurice E.
• Donegan, Patrick S.
• Donnellan, Michael.
• Dunne, Thomas.
• Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
• Farrelly, Denis.
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Gilhawley, Eugene.
• Governey, Desmond.
• Hogan, Patrick (South Tipperary).
• Jones, Denis F.
• Kenny, Henry.
• Lynch, Thaddeus.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• McLaughlin, Joseph.
• Murphy, William.
• O'Donnell, Patrick.
• O'Donnell, Thomas G.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F. K.
• O'Reilly, Patrick.
• O'Sullivan, Denis J.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Reynolds, Patrick J.
• Rooney, Eamonn.
• Ryan, Richie.
• Sherwin, Frank.
• Sweetman, Gerard.

Tellers:— Tá: Deputies J. Brennan and Geoghegan; Níl: Deputies O'Sullivan and Crotty.

Question declared carried.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendments 6, 7 and 8 may not be moved.

Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8 not moved.

Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

While this matter does not arise on the section, it is well to make the position clear. The Leader of the Opposition and I, when moving our amendments, made it clear that we were moving amendments Nos. 8, 12 and 20 as a kind of tripartite arrangement. The Government's view regarding the extension of hours having prevailed in the division which has just been taken, we do not propose to press the latter two amendments because part of our proposal has gone and, consequently, the other two do not arise.

Mr. Mullen

I understood we would be afforded an opportunity of pressing amendment No. 6.

An Ceann Comhairle

No.

Mr. Mullen

My information was that if No. 5 fell, we could take the others in order.

An Ceann Comhairle

I have explained to the House that if No. 5 fell, Nos. 6, 7 and 8 might not be moved.

Mr. Coogan

On the section, I should like to say that I am not a drinking man. I am not a pussyfoot and neither am I a prohibitionist, but if I did not go to that school, I met the scholars coming from it. The Minister is aiming at uniformity in this Bill and his approach to it is one of trial and error. I feel he will find that before another year is out, he will have another Bill before the House.

Mr. Haughey

It looks as if I will still have this one before the House.

Mr. Sweetman

I am glad the Minister realises that.

Mr. Coogan

The theory was that if you had extended hours it would interfere with industry. The most industrialised people in the world are the Danes and they are very much alive to what the tourist industry means to them. They are out to catch the British tourist and the tourists from other countries and they are catering for them from 9 o'clock in the morning until 5 o'clock the following morning. The same can be said for the United States which is also a highly industrialised country. There they have 23 hours a day. I do not advocate such long hours here but I do say that if you close the front door the Irishman will come around to the side door. If there is not a side door he will go around to the back door but he will get in anyway. I have heard it said that the extended hours lead to less drinking because the Irish in us makes us "agin the law" when the doors are closed.

There is a lot to be said in favour of closing after the 12.30 p.m. to 2 p.m. period on Sundays. Some people do not know when to stop drinking. They will drink while the money lasts and there is a lot to be said for ensuring that a man goes home to the best dinner of the week. It is galling in the extreme for a housewife to have a fine dinner ready and for the husband not to turn up on Sunday.

With regard to the extension of hours in the evening, I feel that I can speak for the major tourist centre in this country.

Mr. T. Lynch

Question.

Mr. Coogan

It is beyond question. I speak for Salthill and Galway city when I say that an extension to 10.30 o'clock on Sunday evenings would be fitting. Seaside resorts have to exist for twelve months on what they can make in three. They have nine months during which what they take would hardly pay the electric light bill. They are not keen on winter opening and what you take off them in the winter you can give them in the summer. There is also the question of bad weather in the tourist resorts when the older people have no place to go. They must stay inside and look out of the windows. The cinemas are packed and they will not go to dances. It would be unfair to lock them up and deprive them of what they feel they are entitled to.

With regard to drinking in the seaside resorts, it is not the amount of drinking in the hotels that does the harm at all. The hotels are jealous of their good name. They will not tolerate drinking to excess. They feel it is important that their good reputations should be preserved and they will not tolerate anything questionable. The danger is that you will have bottle parties. I saw it last year. They went to the beaches and that is where you will find danger caused by broken bottles and everything else. You are going to encourage that if you do not meet them on this request.

I feel that the the extension in the tourist areas is justifiable. I would even go so far as to say that summer time should start in June. I would even say that there would be justification for starting it at Easter. With all the talk there is of extending the tourist season, we should extend the summer drinking time to the beginning of that season. This would help to a degree.

A matter to be frowned at is the failure in this Bill to provide for closing of public houses during evening Devotions. There is a lot to be said for a short close-down during evening Devotions. This is supposed to be a great Catholic country and something should be provided in our legislation in this respect. I suggest there is also a case for further extensions of the opening hours in the peak holiday period of July and August. Business people in seaside resorts have to pay heavy rates and I must say that the people of Salthill in Galway are paying their share, particularly towards the big improvements and renovations there. They have only three months of the year in which to make their livelihood and they should be given every facility. We all know that no Bill the Minister could put through the House will please everybody, but one general aspect of this Bill to which I should like to refer——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will understand that we are discussing only Section 2.

Mr. Coogan

You can add all the sections together and it will leave the same taste in your mouth.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is confined to the section.

Mr. Coogan

It is the question of teenage drinking. We have a certain amount of that, and it should be severely dealt with by the Minister.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not see how this can be discussed on the section.

Mr. Coogan

Up to a degree, we should give special extensions in respect of seaside resorts, but where there is a danger of small towns being wrecked by teenage blackguards who come down from Dublin, it is time the Minister tightened up the law in that respect.

Mr. Ryan

They are Galway people going home for the day.

Mr. Coogan

Dublin jackeens, blackguards who come down.

Mr. Mullen

Are there no blackguards in Galway?

Mr. Coogan

When the mystery trains come down there, we see plenty of them.

Mr. T. Lynch

The Minister said this morning that he wanted to ensure the greatest degree of uniformity possible throughout the country. I do not think he is aiming at that in his provision in respect of the four county boroughs. He told us that nothing we on this side of the House had said had convinced him. He should have as much regard for the organised licensed trade of Waterford as he has for Dublin. He said he must have regard to the views of the well-organised licensed trade in Dublin—both licensees and barmen—and I agree with him in that. But why should he not have the same regard for the well organised body of people in the trade in Waterford. We had hoped the Minister would meet us on amendments Nos. 8, 12 and 20 in this respect.

I would remind the Minister again, in those weary watches of this Bill's progress through the House, that I did not come up here on my own and put my case to him in respect of Waterford. I brought him a petition signed by 80 per cent. of the licensed trade there asking for a very small concession—to leave Waterford in with Dublin and Cork in the matter of this midday closing hour. Conceding that would not have upset the Minister's Bill. In fact, it would have improved it by making for more uniformity in so far as the county boroughs are concerned. Of course I have nothing to say for Limerick. But the Minister took no notice. I can tell him now that I intend putting in later—I am told that I can—an amendment on this question. My original amendment was defeated, but I can assure the Minister my next one will be differently worded.

Mr. Haughey

I would not doubt the Deputy's ingenuity.

Mr. T. Lynch

There is no ingenuity. It is as clear as print. I wish, however, that the Minister would appreciate my ingenuity by saying he is prepared to meet me. If he did that, he would not see me in this House again till the Bill had gone through. The Minister is reported as having said he could not meet me on this point because some force or some organisation in Waterford greater than the publicans, who are behind Deputy Kyne and myself, had convinced him not to. I should like the Minister to say what that force is or what is this organisation that prevailed on him to adopt this attitude. I do not believe any such representations were made to the Minister from Waterford. Throughout the morning, I have been inundated with messages and telephone calls from irate people in Waterford. As I said yesterday, the majority of these people are very staunch supporters of the Minister's Party and it might be good politics for me to say nothing.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am slow to stop the Deputy but this ground has already been covered on the amendments and to go over it again on the section is repetition, which is not in order.

Mr. T. Lynch

I submit that the duty of a parliament is to try to reflect, as far as possible, the will of the people and I respectfully submit that even though I may not be strictly in order, it is my duty to come here and tell the Minister such strong representations had been made to me.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

In view of the Deputy's statement that he will raise this question at a later stage, I feel it would not be in order or relevant to introduce on the section arguments already put forward by him.

Mr. T. Lynch

I shall not protest against your ruling, Sir. I shall accept it. In fact, I am grateful to you for having allowed me go so far. I would say to the Minister—this is about the fifth time—that he should give me some indication. He has met his colleagues from Dublin on this question. I do not see why he should not meet my colleague and myself here and receive representations from the people in Waterford county borough. I should like the Minister to indicate he will do that. He will be hearing from me again on Report Stage or maybe even sooner.

Mr. Desmond

I stated last night I was opposed both to the amendments and the section because in both cases there is an extension of the drinking hours. Therefore, I want to say now that under no circumstances could I support a section of the Bill providing for such an extension.

Mr. Mullen

I am also opposing the section. Again, it postulates a worsening of conditions for the employees and provides for something that is unnecessary. The present hours provide for opening until 11.30 p.m. from June to September. It is suggested now that that be changed to Summer Time, and this year Summer Time is from 25th March to 28th October. That would mean that the bar attendants would be called upon to work a long, "spread-over" duty of 13 hours.

We must not forget also that the bus services in Dublin cease at 11.30 p.m. and that would affect not only the employees but the consumers. In many cases, the consumer drinks in the city centre or in areas, not necessarily the area in which he lives, in which he has become accustomed to drink. Consequently, he has to use the bus services. If the public houses remain open until 11.30 p.m., it will mean the consumers will miss the last bus. At present, if you go into a public house, you will find that at 11 o'clock or a few minutes afterwards, it is practically empty. That is because people are chasing the last bus. The only one who has to remain back is the barman and very often he has nobody to serve.

There is no use saying this will benefit the tourist. By that time, most of the tourists have gone to bed or, if they are staying in hotels, they can get their drink there. It is unnecessary to impose hardship of this kind. The argument against this is somewhat similar to the case made against the Sunday hours. I was surprised at the Chair's ruling in connection with the amendments. I understood each amendment stood on its own. I do not want to appear to have voted for the hours of 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. on Sundays—far from it. I should also like to direct the Minister's attention to the fact that the employers, the employees and the publicans do not want opening to 11.30 p.m.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has already put forward these arguments on the amendments.

Mr. Mullen

This is the section.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am aware this is the section, but there may not be repetition. The record shows that the Deputy has spoken four times on the amendments. It would be too much now to have the same speech on the section. It would be completely out of order.

Mr. Mullen

You prevented me from talking about the weekdays, Sir.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is putting forward arguments already put forward by him on the amendments.

Mr. Mullen

Undoubtedly, there is no desire for these hours. I would ask the Minister to explore the possibility of having the closing time on weekdays 11 p.m. all the year round. That would satisfy the trade, the employees and the consumers.

General MacEoin

I purposely did not participate in the debate on the question of hours for a very simple reason, which, I am sure, is well known. But I want at this stage to remind the Minister and the Government that in extending the Sunday hours they are inserting the thin edge of the wedge, if not the whole wedge, into Sunday observance. Every man here knows thoroughly well that, unless the work is necessary, it should not be performed and that two hours' work is regarded as the limit. It does not alter the fact that a Fianna Fáil Government says it is not.

Mr. Haughey

What sort of pocket theology is this?

General MacEoin

The Minister has in his office a document signed by the competent authority on this in the country. He knows full well that the decision was to condemn an extension of Sunday opening where it was not a recognised custom. It does not matter what anybody says to the contrary. Eight hours' work on a Sunday in Dublin, Cork or in the country is a major breach of the Sunday observance. There is no use in throwing your hat up in the air and saying "You can run in and out now as you like". I want to remind the Government of that fact.

Mr. Haughey

I do not know what the Deputy is reminding us of.

General MacEoin

Ask your Department what the decision was in regard to Sunday opening on the 1960 Licensing Bill.

Mr. P.J. Burke

In other words, we close down hotels, railways, buses and so on.

General MacEoin

Before the Deputy butts in, he should read the document again, if he ever saw it. The Minister has it in his office.

Mr. Haughey

What document?

General MacEoin

It is in the Government archives.

Mr. Haughey

My office is full of documents of all sorts.

General MacEoin

All I am saying is that, as far as you are concerned, the Sunday observance will be no more throughout the country. There will be an eight-hour day on Sundays without exception.

Mr. Haughey

What about the bus drivers?

General MacEoin

I have already said "necessary".

Mr. Haughey

Is the Deputy talking about unnecessary servile work.

General MacEoin

I have already said "necessary" or "unnecessary". As I say, a greater authority than I has defined what that is and it is in the Minister's hands——

Mr. Haughey

Is the Deputy talking about unnecessary servile work?

General MacEoin

I will not stand for cross-examination by the Minister. I am asserting——

Mr. Haughey

What advice is the Deputy purporting to give? I am trying to find out.

General MacEoin

If the Minister and the Government intend to persist in doing that, they will be doing it with full knowledge of what I have brought to their notice before the section is passed.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I did not intend to say anything until the Deputy spoke. Literally, we should have to close down hospitals and everything else——

General MacEoin

The Bishops of Ireland issued a pastoral and said what was "necessary" and what was not.

Mr. T. Lynch

Deputy Burke will offer an encyclical of his own.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I am surprised that the Deputy should have brought that up here. We are all anxious that we should have the greatest possible regard for our churchmen, our Bishops, Cardinals and others. This is a deliberative assembly composed of laymen who are supposed to be sensible men. We must deliberate as far as we can, and we are concerned to do the best we can for our people. We must put our point of view here. We may be wrong or we may be right, but we must make our contributions according to our consciences. We all have our consciences and we are supposed to act according to our consciences and to the teachings we were all brought up to respect. If we do not discharge our duties, we are not worth our salt and we should not be sent here.

Mr. Kyne

I rise mainly to put something on record. I think I misled my colleague, Deputy Mullen, on the last vote. While I must bow to the rulings of the Chair on the question of arranging how the amendments are taken, I feel there was some slight unfairness in the last vote. As the vote was taken, I had to vote for 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. openings for the country, tied in with the city opening, although I would definitely, if I had the opportunity, have agreed with my colleague, Deputy Mullen, on a different hour for the city. Because of the way the vote was taken, Deputy Mullen and I were compelled to vote in a certain way. It was a choice of whether we should open at 4 o'clock or 5.30 p.m.

That was the original amendment and tied in with that were the various other amendments. Deputy Mullen did not want to vote for a 5.30 p.m. opening. He wanted it as it was. I did not want 5 o'clock or 5.30 p.m. opening in the country. I was in favour of 4 o'clock but we found ourselves with different ideas and for different reasons in the same Lobby. I do not think that is a good procedure. As I say, I am tied by the rules of the House. The Ceann Comhairle is the judge and we must accept his rulings. I want that on record, not for my sake but for the sake of Deputy Mullen.

Incidentally, tied in with that, I should like the Minister to know that I, like Deputy Lynch, received a protest from the licensed vintners in Waterford taking exception to the statement he made the day before yesterday, and published in yesterday's papers, implying that a demand to have the closing hour retained in Waterford did not have the support of the publicans of that city. I do not know what strength it has but the licensed vintners assured me in that telegram—as they did Deputy Lynch and possibly Deputy Ormonde—that they represent 80 per cent. of the licensed trade of the city. I think the Minister should accept that.

If he said something that implied— I did not read his statement—that that was not correct, I suggest to him that when he is concluding, he should gracefully accept the fact that the licensed vintners of Waterford do represent 80 per cent. of the licensed trade. I suggest that unless he has proof to the contrary, he should accept that statement by most responsible people in Waterford city. They are the leading innkeepers of that city. I know them and I am quite sure they would not send me a telegram stating a thing to be true which was not true. I have no personal knowledge of it but I have received a telegram which emanated from those people and I think it must be true. It would be easy for the Minister to say whether he meant any offence in any shape or form, and I do not believe he did, and make amends by saying that he accepts it as a fact but is not prepared to alter it.

There is one other point. As I say, most of what I am saying is for the record. I spoke only once on the amendment. I was asked by a colleague of the House, not of my Party, Deputy Dunne, to move an amendment in his name because it coincided with my own views in general. With the permission of the Minister, it was agreed that I could move it. Unfortunately, a few visitors came in at an inopportune moment before the Official Secrets Bill was concluded and I was absent from the House for about five minutes and the amendment went. It dealt with closing throughout the year at 11.30 p.m.

I want to say that if I had been here, I would have moved that amendment. I do not intend to argue in its favour now. The time has gone for that. I want to put on record the fact that it was unfortunate that I was not here to move the amendment. I would have used the same arguments as Deputy Mullen used for closing at 11 p.m. He raised the question of transportation. We have not that problem. In the country, time means a different thing altogether from what it means in Dublin. Everyone walks, or cycles or has his own transport to the local public house. In most cases, they walk because it is only a couple of yards away. It is probably a walk of ten or 15 minutes. When it is 11.30 p.m., in the country, it is 10.30 p.m. most of the year, because most of rural Ireland does not recognise Summer Time. They just work away.

I have always advocated that you cannot have licensing legislation to suit the people of Ireland without having a differential in the county boroughs or the urban areas. They have different problems. I am willing to agree with the Minister on the Bill as a whole. I think it is an excellent Bill. It tries to meet most of the people most of the way. So far as I can see, it suits my own constituency as well as it possibly could.

Question put and declared carried.

Mr. Corish

Vótáil.

An Ceann Comhairle

Will the Deputies calling for a division please rise in their places?

Deputies Corish, Desmond, Casey, Mullen and Pattison rose.

The Committee divided: Tá, 65; Níl, 17.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Lorcan.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Boland, Kevin.
• Booth, Lionel.
• Brady, Philip A.
• Brady, Seán.
• Carty, Michael.
• Childers, Erskine.
• Clohessy, Patrick.
• Colley, George.
• Collins, James J.
• Cotter, Edward.
• Coughlan, Stephen.
• Crinion, Brendan.
• Crowley, Honor M.
• Cummins, Patrick J.
• Cunningham, Liam.
• Davern, Mick.
• de Valera, Vivion.
• Dolan, Séamus.
• Dooley, Patrick.
• Egan, Kieran P.
• Egan, Nicholas.
• Fanning, John.
• Faulkner, Pádraig.
• Galvin, John.
• Geoghegan, John.
• Gibbons, James M.
• Gilbride, Eugene.
• Gogan, Richard P.
• Haughey, Charles.
• Hillery, Patrick.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Brennan, Paudge.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert
• Burke, Patrick J.
• Calleary, Phelim A.
• Carter, Frank.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Kitt, Michael F.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Lalor, Patrick J.
• Lemass, Noel T.
• Lemass, Seán.
• Leneghan, Joseph R.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Lynch, Celia.
• MacCarthy, Seán.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Meaney, Con.
• Medlar, Martin.
• Millar, Anthony G.
• Moher, John W.
• Mooney, Patrick
• Moran, Michael.
• Murphy, Michael P.
• Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Connor, Timothy.
• Ormonde, John.
• Timmons, Eugene.
• Treacy, Seán.

Níl

• Barry, Anthony.
• Belton, Jack.
• Blowick, Joseph.
• Casey, Seán.
• Clinton, Mark A.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Desmond, Dan.
• Dockrell, Maurice E.
• Donnellan, Michael.
• Hogan, Patrick (South Tipperary).
• Lynch, Thaddeus.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McLaughlin, Joseph.
• Mullen, Michael.
• O'Donnell, Thomas G.
• Pattison, Séamus.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies J. Brennan and Geoghegan; Níl, Deputies Casey and Mullen.

Question declared carried.

SECTION 3.

Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Sullivan

Will the Minister explain the section?

Mr. Haughey

It is simply to enable licensed premises to open for unlicensed business at 7.30 a.m. instead of at 9 a.m. A licensed premises which has a mixed business, that is, which sells both intoxicating liquor and ordinary goods, at the present moment may open at 9 a.m. for the purpose of transacting unlicensed business. The proposal now is to make it 7.30 a.m. instead of 9 a.m. for unlicensed premises.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 4

Question proposed: "That Section 4 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Mullen

I object to this section as it offers to hotels and restaurants an opportunity of remaining open half an hour after midnight as compared with the present position, all the year round. The view of the people who are employed in hotels and restaurants, in Dublin, at any rate, is that they do not want to work any longer hours than they are working at the moment. Indeed, they contend that an increase in the hours of working would impose grave hardship on them. As I have already said, the hours of working proposed would mean that hotels and restaurants would be open for an extra half-hour after midnight on weekdays all the year round and until 11 p.m. on Sundays.

The view of the people concerned, who work in this business, is that their hours should be the same as those for public houses. The argument is made about the difficulty they will experience in getting home after work. That would apply not only to bar attendants but to other types of workers. As we know, in the operation of a hotel, if the bar hands are working other members of the staff are engaged in work in conjunction with the bar. For instance, porters and washers-up would be working later than usual, beyond the time of the last bus.

There is no point in suggesting that trade unions and employers could get together to provide compensation for that extra work. If they were given overtime pay, even double pay, the money would be expended in paying for transport home.

The suggested hours for hotels and restaurants would impose an extremely long day on workers. The day is found to be long enough at the moment. It is considered that if they were asked to work any longer hours they would have to say no in no uncertain terms. Quite recently, they have succeeded in having their hours of work reduced by trade union negotiation and the proposal in the Bill means that the hours of work would be lengthened by Government legislation.

One noticeable feature is the absence of reference in the Bill to treatment of operatives. If it were proposed in the Bill that a worker who was obliged to work these hours should be treated in a certain fashion, should get so much time off, should get so much pay, that, perhaps, would be worthy of consideration. There is no such provision and we are inclined to think that the worker is taken for granted.

I should also like to point out that not every hotel or restaurant worker is organised. The hotel and restaurant workers who are not organised have nobody to act and make representations on their behalf. That applies to Dublin as well as to other parts of the country. There is a considerable number of establishments in Dublin the workers in which are not organised. That being so, these people would be thrown to the wolves. That is the main reason why we object to this section.

Furthermore, the length of time hotels would be open after the closing of public houses would be increased as compared with the present position. If my reading of the section is correct, the existing position is that hotels can serve drink for one hour after the closing time for public houses. This section suggests that hotels could serve drink for an hour and a half after the closing time for public houses.

What kind of people are we catering for in that regard? Who are they? What is the demand for that extension? If they are tourists, whether from Ireland or from outside Ireland, if they are staying in a hotel they can get a drink and it is not necessary to keep the bar open so that they can get a drink. Then we must say to ourselves that they are people who come from the public houses, who go elsewhere for a drink when the public house closes. These are the kind of people we were concerned about when we were attempting to abolish the bona fide traffic. These are the people who seek an opportunity to go into a hotel or restaurant late at night until 12.30 a.m. I move to report progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.