Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 3 Jul 1962

Vol. 196 No. 8

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

SECTION 7.
Debate resumed on the following amendment:
In page 5, lines 6 to 22, to delete subsection (1) and to insert the following subsection:
"( ) For the purposes of the Licensing Acts and the Registration of Clubs Acts a meal served in any premises after the commencement of this Act shall not be deemed to be a substantial meal unless—
(a) the meal is such as might be expected to be served as a main midday or main evening meal or as a main course at either such meal, and
(b) the meal is of a kind for which—
(i) having regard to the prices charged for meals in the premises at times other than prohibited hours, or
(ii) if meals are not normally served in the premises, having regard to all the circumstances,
it would be reasonable to charge a sum that is not less than—
(I) the sum (if any) that for the time being stands fixed under subsection (2) of this section, or
(II) if no sum stands fixed for the time being under the said subsection (2), five shillings."— (Minister for Justice.)

When we interrupted the debate on the last occasion, I was explaining that the definition of a substantial meal is important from two different aspects. It is important in so far as it governs the circumstances in which restaurants of the various types I mentioned are permitted to serve drink after the ordinary closing hour to customers who are having a meal. The definition is important to ensure that that provision is not abused and that the position will obtain where people will be having a drink with their meals and not having a meal as an excuse to drink after hours. We want to bring about a situation in which a person who is bona fide having a substantial meal will be entitled to have a drink with that meal up to a certain hour.

The definition is also important in another respect. The Bill contains important provisions governing the sale of drink in dance halls. The definition is of very considerable importance in that regard. Broadly speaking, the Bill provides that an unlicensed dance hall will not be able, apart from four occasions in the year, to serve a drink at which a substantial meal is provided and similarly in regard to the type of function such as an annual "at home" of a sports club. Again, it will be possible to procure an occasional licence for a function of that sort only if a substantial meal is provided. Therefore, Deputies will realise that the definition is of very considerable importance in regard to these two aspects of the licensing laws.

I feel that the definition we propose is a reasonable one. I think it will close the loopholes which exist in regard to this matter at the moment. I feel that the sum mentioned, 5/-, is a reasonable one. However, in the event of its proving to be unrealistic, the Bill provides that the Minister for Justice may, by order, from time to time increase it to whatever figure he thinks is necessary.

Would the Minister say, in view of the objection from urban and rural areas, that he would be prepared to consider the point I made about places in urban and rural areas which are not capable of providing a substantial meal at dances? I know it is not in the section. I want to tie it in with the point I made before. When we come to Section 9, would the Minister say he will consider the point I am making? It is not possible to comply with what the Minister suggested without depriving some rural and urban people of the right to hold a dance with a bar.

This matter is appropriate to Section 9. When we come to that section, I shall make my position in this regard quite clear. I want to restrict the sale of drink in a dance hall.

Even in urban and rural areas?

I think the trend which has been increasing in recent years, that all dances must have a bar and must have drink sold at them is socially undesirable. One of the principal features of this Bill is an endeavour to control that tendency. The Bill provides, in effect, that six special festive occasions in the year are allowed to every dance hall and that, normally, it will not be possible to sell drink at the ordinary 5/- hop, as we call it. It may be sold only at a special type of dance—for instance, the annual dance of a club or the staff dance of a factory, or an organisation of that sort —at which a meal is provided. The idea behind the Bill is that the sale of drink at the ordinary dance is to be done away with.

I do not want to bother the Minister but I must put the point of view to him as I see it in my area. The Minister speaks of six festive occasions in the year. I take it that that is for different premises within a particular area. Take an area where there is only one premises. In such a case, would the Minister be prepared to accept the extension of the number to, say, ten? I am not looking for anything impossible. I know what the Minister is trying to eradicate. However, I want to give a fair chance to the people in the area I represent.

I am 100 per cent. behind the Minister in what he is seeking to achieve by this Bill. At the same time, I want to be fair. Can the Minister give me an assurance, even on Report Stage, in regard to the point I am making now and will make when we come to the section? Can he say he will be prepared to consider extending that number, say, to ten, where there is maybe only one dance hall in existence in an area? Would the Minister be prepared to consider that? I want to vote with the Minister. I do not want to oppose the Bill because I think it is a good Bill, but I do not want to be tied in with what I think might be awfully wrong for my constituency.

I am interested in the part of the section which deals with the "substantial meal". Would the Minister indicate to the House what he would consider a substantial meal within the meaning of the section?

I want to make a correction. I think I said "six occasions"; it is four occasions.

I find it difficult to conceive what kind of a meal a person could get for 5/- in any decent restaurant, especially at night. You are always overcharged at night because the owners of these places have to pay overtime to their staff after a certain hour. In Paris, it would cost £5 for a substantial meal but we are not in Paris. What would you get for 5/- after 12 o'clock at night here?

The 5/- is not the only criterion.

I am trying to figure how the thing will work out. One could get 5/- worth of chips and that would be a substantial meal but who wants 5/- worth of chips? What would you get in the line of anything tasty for 5/-? It is nothing.

The only thing about that is that if 5/- were the only criterion, it would be too low. The meal must qualify in certain other ways as well and when you take the combination of factors into account, I think you will have a reasonable definition.

Mr. Belton

Would the Minister give his definition on this point? If a person goes into a restaurant that has a licence to sell intoxicating liquor until 12.30 a.m., can that person have a drink when the order for a substantial meal is given or will he be required to wait until the meal is served?

The wording of the section is "served with the meal".

Mr. Belton

Might some people not consider that the words "with the meal" might mean when the meal is ordered?

I do not want to be too specific in this matter because there was a decision of the High Court the other day which I have not had an opportunity of considering fully yet. I took the actual interpretation up to now to be that the drink would have to be served with the actual meal.

Can you buy more than one drink? Can you get drunk?

There is no legislative provision for that.

Can you buy only one beer or can you buy several?

You can buy several.

But you must make your meal last the full hour.

I would like the Minister to clear up this point because I know there is a case pending and we have several borderline cases in my constituency. The questions put to the Minister by Deputies Belton and Sherwin are the very questions that have been put to me by the people concerned. They are these borderline cases of a Guard going in while John Murphy or Paddy Burke are sitting down in a restaurant, a meal having been ordered and a drink comes about half a minute before the meal. These are cases of people who went in for a meal and had a drink, and I should not like it to be part of our legislation that these people could be prosecuted.

I should not like this section to be left so wide that a pernickety man can come along and question the whole thing. I would like an indication given that the section will be administered reasonably, without being left open to abuse. We had a case in south County Dublin recently in which a section of the old 1903 Liquor Act was cited. I have not got the section with me but the prosecution case was that while the people had quite a substantial meal, they were finishing up with a drink and, under the meaning of the Act, they had not had a drink with the meal.

If a person genuinely goes in and gets the top of the bill in a hotel or public house with a restaurant licence we should not make this section possible of interpretation by perhaps one per cent. of the Garda so that that person can be accused of not having the meal with the drink. I appeal to the Minister, before the Report Stage, to consolidate this section in such a way that when a person goes in for a substantial meal and has a drink, he cannot be put in Sally Jones's locker and prosecuted and the proprietor also prosecuted.

Mr. Belton

Following on what Deputy Burke has said, I should like to say that it is accepted by the public and accepted also by the licensed trade that if I go into a hotel or restaurant to have a meal at 10 o'clock at night and remain sitting at the diningroom table after the conclusion of the meal, I will be permitted to sit there and continue drinking until 12.30 a.m. I gather that that is the position under this section. The public and the licensed trade at the moment believe that is the position and that is the way they operate.

In discussing this section, the question arises for several Deputies and myself of what is a substantial meal. The Minister is going to make it possible for anybody with a restaurant licence to run a very late night session and to make a good profit for himself. If people are out for an evening or a night, there are young people and older people who will take advantage of this and you could have people running restaurants who would be glad to take advantage of those two words "substantial meal". I can visualise a man advertising traditional Irish dishes on the inside or the outside of his premises. He would be doing a fair business during the day and in after hours when people wanted a drink, he could serve two or three people, who were prepared to pay for it, with bowls of porridge. If the Guards came, he could stick to his claim that it was an Irish dish and say he was serving stirabout. It would be very difficult for a judge to say that a bowl of stirabout was not a substantial meal. This section will leave itself open to great abuses and will cause great hardship to clubs in the country. Take, for example, an area where there is only one dancehall and there can be only four dances in the year which can be licensed without serving supper.

That is not in this section. Section 7 merely deals with the definition of a substantial meal.

We will stick to the substantial meal. A friend of mine came from Donegal the other day and what happened to him was the reverse of what Deputy Sherwin was talking about in regard to prices. I believe there is a very good fish and chip shop in County Donegal and this man was served grilled salmon and chips for 3/6d. It could be possible in——

One would be inclined to query the origin of the salmon.

Poached.

It would be possible in times when there is a glut or even in times when there was no glut, for a man to serve salmon at that price. This is only a ticket to allow him to serve drink after hours. It is another abuse of a substantial meal. I am sure the Minister should be able to find in his records, or from the officials of his Department, cases in which the law was set at nought in London by night clubs illegally serving drink with the substantial meal. The substantial meal sometimes consisted of a plate of chicken bones from which the people had not eaten but which were placed before them as an excuse to run an after hours business.

That is what the Minister is opening up and as surely as he passes this, that is what will happen. I should like the Minister to say how the 5/- is to be measured. You can be charged 5/- now in a restaurant for anything, especially if it is served after hours. It is only a means of holding up a customer for an extra 5/- because he wants to get a few drinks after hours. I do not think the Minister is justified in bringing in this section. As I said on other sections, I do not think there is any demand for it. If we are to have drinking in a licensed premises, let us have drinking in a licensed premises so that a man can go in and stand at the counter or sit down in the lounge and have a drink served, but do not provide this excuse of the substantial meal.

This is after hours— it will only become relevant after hours.

I know. I would prefer that it was not there. I should like to hear the Minister's justification for it and I should especially like to hear the Minister say what the position would be if a man were served a bowl of porridge and stood over his claim that it was a substantial meal.

And charged a dollar for it.

And charged a dollar for it. People will pay it in order to get a drink after hours. That is where the loophole is.

I am at one with the Minister on this question of a substantial meal. I think he is doing the right thing. I also think that Deputy Lynch has been posing questions to the Minister which he has answered.

Not at all.

He wants to know whether a bowl of porridge would constitute a substantial meal. If he reads the amendment, he will find that the Minister has made it quite clear what a substantial meal is, as clear as it is humanly possible to make it, plus a costing. This is an extension of the drinking hours, over and above what the ordinary public house has a right to, for hotels and restaurants. All that I want to say other than that is that the only fear I have is: if I vote with the Minister on this amendment will I trap myself into agreeing to something on Section 9? If the Minister could give me an assurance on that, I should be glad to go into the lobby and vote with him.

Deputy Kyne need have no hesitation in walking into the lobby with me on this occasion. Apart from the fact that it is always a pleasant thing for him to do at any time, he will not be committing himself with regard to the point he wants to make on Section 9. That is a separate and distinct issue, as to how many occasions will be permitted to ordinary dancehalls to serve drink in the course of any one year. That is a separate issue. Here we are merely concerned with——

The substantial meal.

——defining a substantial meal for the purpose of our——

Hotels and restaurants merely.

Yes. It is also of importance with regard to the occasions on which we will permit dancehalls to serve drink but this section is concerned only with defining a substantial meal for that purpose. It does not say anything about the number of occasions on which we are going to permit that sort of licence to be granted.

I think Deputies are unnecessarily worried about this matter. As the law stands at present, there is a concept of a substantial meal. That concept is important in relation to a number of matters. There are a number of situations in which it is permissible to serve drink after the ordinary hours, provided that drink is served with a substantial meal. Up to now, no attempt has been made to define a substantial meal. Section 7, as it is proposed to amend it, is concerned with rectifying that and with stipulating what we really mean by a substantial meal. When we provide in the Bill at any point that drink may be served with a substantial meal, we mean that and nothing else.

I do not anticipate any difficulty in the operation of this section. I have wellfounded and justifiable belief in the capacity of the Garda to administer this sort of thing in a reasonable, commonsense way. I think that every Deputy will agree with me in that belief. We have no reason to believe that the Garda are going to take finicky, pinpricking prosecutions in relation to this matter. The intention of the legislation is quite clear that where a person is having a substantial meal in certain circumstances, he will be entitled to have a drink with it.

We could go into all sorts of abstractions but the simple issue is this: If you are having a substantial meal, in those circumstances, you are entitled to have a drink with that meal. At what time the meal ends is something we need not worry about. If this provision is just used as an excuse to serve drink after hours illegally with a porkpie or something like that, then a prosecution will be taken. I have complete faith in the capacity of the Garda to administer it in a sensible and realistic way. I am sure they will not go in for any of these pinpricking prosecutions about which Deputies seem to be worrying.

In matters of this sort, experience will dictate whether or not anything further should be done with regard to the operation of this by administrative action. In a large number of these matters, it is necessary from time to time for the Commissioner to issue instructions for the guidance of the Garda throughout the country as to how to interpret various sections so that the interpretation will be uniform. If there are any really serious discrepancies arising out of the administration of this Act, they will be dealt with in that way by simple administrative instructions to the Garda by the Commissioner. I do not anticipate that there will be any——

Can the person keep on drinking after finishing his meal? Can he not prolong the agony and leave the meal on the table?

This is the sort of abstraction to which I referred. The wording is that the drink is to be ordered at the same time as the meal is ordered and is to be consumed at the same time as and with the meal.

He can take his time?

He can take his time.

He can drink twice as much.

The only stipulation the Bill makes is that the drink must be served and consumed contemporaneously with the meal. The Bill does not stipulate how long the meal must last. All it says is that so long as you are having a substantial meal, in these circumstances you can have a drink with it.

Is it not true that there will be no difference from what is in existence at the moment?

Except that they pay £1 at the moment——

This drinking with a meal is not an innovation. That is the important thing. Up to now, there was no check on the people who were abusing the arrangement.

Now there is a check.

How many times during the meal can the individual order the drink? Can he have a dozen drinks during that meal or simply one?

The Bill permits him to have a dozen.

I am asking the Minister.

There is no stipulation as to the amount or the number of drinks that may be had. The drink must be consumed with a meal.

The Minister said that a person can order as much drink as he wants—at least that is what the Bill says. People could prolong the meal so as to take as much drink as they want to. Can they prolong the meal to take as much——

All I can say is that the Bill does not make any stipulation as to the length of time the meal lasts. All it says is that as long as the meal lasts, the person will be entitled to have a drink with it.

Mr. Lynch

A drink?

Not just one drink. He is entitled to consume intoxicating liquor with the meal. There is no change in relation to the present position except that the matter is being defined.

The operation of the Bill will mean that while there is no particular time at which a person can have the meal, there is a time at which the glasses must be off the table at the finish.

We are dealing with the matter entirely within the context of the permitted hours.

That is my point. This is not going to afford people the opportunity of drinking outside prohibited hours. I do not think we should concern ourselves a great deal about that type of possibility. It is not possible.

Only to the extent that restaurants and hotels have an hour longer than public houses.

Only an hour is right. The Minister mentioned pinpricking. I am drawing the Minister's attention to the fact that the Guards will have difficulty in administering the law and making up their minds as to what a substantial meal is. That is where the difficulty lies.

We are trying to help them. There is nothing at all to help them at the moment. We are giving them this now.

If a restaurant owner wanted to dodge the law, he could sell bowls of porridge and if any Guard said that was not legal or that it was not a substantial meal, he could tell the Guard something about where he came from and so forth. I am pointing out the great loophole in this. Someone spoke about fish and chips. One could have a little bit of salmon and a few chips but again you are dodging the column. You are charged 5/- and this is a ticket to enable you to drink for an hour. As much drink can be called for as people want, provided they are prepared to pay for it. The Minister stated he was hoping to restrict the amount of drinking but I do not think he will restrict the amount of drinking at all.

Would I be correctly interpreting the Minister when I say that the reference to fish and chips comes in only where a wine licence operates? Of course, the person desiring fish and chips would be entitled to drink a litre of wine or whatever amount of wine he wanted. I agree with the Minister's predecessor that there should always be provision whereby a person can get a drink with a meal. There were loopholes in the past to such an extent that the purchase of a sandwich was adequate to secure a drink but I cannot see that happening in the future, having regard to the prospect of uniformity. I accept the Minister's assurance that certain directions will be issued to the Garda, in which case I agree with this provision in the Bill, although I cannot say I agree with certain other sections.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 8.

Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 appear to be consequential and perhaps the two could be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 10:—

In page 5, subsection (1), lines 35 to 37, to delete "of special festivity that will be likely to attract a considerable number of persons" and to insert "during which a considerable number of persons will be likely to be attracted".

Section 8 as originally proposed in the Bill was designed to cater for problems that arise especially in small towns when there is a gala occasion—an occasion when there are festivities of such a nature that they are likely to attract considerable numbers of people from all over the country. This is not, of course, a question of facilities for drinking. It is a question of providing shelter, meals, toilet accommodation— facilities of such a kind as are often strained to the limit on occasions of this kind. Some people have pointed out to me that in certain places in the country there are occasions where these very problems arise just as severely as they do in the case of a gala occasion, but they were not covered in Section 8 as originally devised.

The section speaks specifically of the period of such festivity and the purpose of the section is to grant to any one town during any one period in the year a period not exceeding eight days when it can have specially extended hours such as the district court may decide. The original Section 8 spoke exclusively of periods of special festivity. Deputies will not have any trouble in thinking of certain areas where the same situation obtains once a year but where it could not be described as a period of special festivity, so the simple purpose of these two amendments is to remove from Section 8 the notion that festivities are essential to the granting of this concession.

I have no objection to the Minister's amendment but it is necessary that we should be careful in designing sections such as this. When discussing his last amendment, the Minister referred to the fact that the intention of the Legislature was such and such. I did not want to interrupt him then when he was talking vis-à-vis the enforcement of the intention of the Legislature through the courts. I think the Minister will agree it is the task of the courts to interpret the law as passed by the Legislature in the words in which the legislation is framed and that the courts cannot interpret the intention of the Legislature. For that reason we have to be careful that the words we use convey the intention of the House. In dealing with his amendments on this section, the Minister said this provision is intended to apply to any town. The wording in the section, which I took to be deliberate, was “any locality”.

That is right.

I wanted to clear that up.

I used the word "town" as a handy concept.

During the discussion on this section it is appropriate to call the Minister's attention to a state of affairs which this section will remedy if it occurs in the future. The fleadh ceoil was held in Swinford in 1961 from, I think, 20th to 22nd May. It was a three-day affair. The town of Swinford normally has a population of not more than about 1,000 people and has something like 50 licensed premises. During the three days of the fleadh ceoil in May, 1961, the population of the area was swollen to something between 30,000 and 40,000 and a state of affairs existed there in which all these thousands of visitors had to get accommodation as best they could.

They were accommodated all over the place, in private houses, business houses, licensed premises and elsewhere. In fact, a number of them had to sleep in their cars because they could not get accommodation. I must be careful on this because I do not want to discuss something which to some extent may be sub judice, but I think the Minister is aware that in the particular circumstances, in the confusion existing in that place and the urgency of the occasion, a number of holders of licences found it quite impossible to get their premises cleared within the permitted hours and as a result there were floods of summonses issued against publicans in the town, all related to offences alleged to have been committed within the three-day period of the fleadh ceoil.

I wonder if this would not arise on the section rather than on the two amendments?

I do not mind. It would be relevant on the section, but having gone so far, I might as well complete the point I am making to the Minister. As the law stands at the moment, though all these summonses related to a particular special period, the licence holders are in jeopardy, if convicted on foot of more than three summonses, of losing their licences because of endorsements. Section 8, particularly with the amendments which the Minister proposes to make in it, will to a great extent safeguard against that kind of thing happening again.

I do not know whether I am correct or not, but it may be because of the experience in relation to the fleadh ceoil in Swinford that this section was introduced into the Bill. I want to ask the Minister to consider between now and Report Stage the possibility of giving this section retrospective effect to the extent of indemnifying the publicans of Swinford who were caught in that unfortunate position in May of last year. I do not think it would be doing any injustice to look at the matter in that light and it would in fact relieve the publicans of what could be intolerable hardship. The Minister is providing that from now on in similar circumstances, no offence will be committed against the licensing code. I do not think anybody in the House would feel that an injustice was being done to any section of the community by legislating to that extent retrospectively in this section.

I was very pleased with the Minister's explanation. At first, I did not see the point of dropping the word "festivity". It is now quite clear to me that the interpretation of this word might defeat the purpose the Minister has in mind. On the Second Stage, I took objection to the fact that the county borough of Dublin is excluded from the provisions of this section. I do not know whether I should discuss it now or on the section.

It would arise on the section.

I must thank the Minister for his explanation. It was very clear.

The only point I wanted to make clear is that Section 8 is expected to cater for precisely the sort of situation which arises when a fleadh ceoil is held. The fleadh ceoil is only one of the types of function we have in mind. There are race meetings, opera festivals, music festivals and so on. The idea is now becoming more common throughout the country that every locality should have at least one of these special occasions during the year. We will all agree that that is eminently desirable. This section is designed to allow each locality eight days in the year for such an event. The fleadh ceoil is the function that comes immediately to mind. To my mind, the fleadh ceoil is one of the most wonderful and encouraging things that have emerged in rural Ireland in recent times. It is a tremendous thing that 30,000 people can come together, perhaps in a small rural town, to listen to traditional Irish music, as happens on occasions of this sort.

Would that apply to the Munster final at Thurles?

The Munster hurling final would not be, to my mind, the sort of occasion catered for. That is only one day. The Sunday opening hours we are now providing would cater adequately for the GAA

The Minister mentioned eight days. Later on, there is a section concerning festivals and perhaps I am talking out of turn now. I want to point out there is a Festival of Light Opera in Waterford which runs for 17 days.

You overdo everything in Waterford.

We do everything well, in spite of the Fianna Fáil Government who try to down us every time we do anything well. This festival is not one of the festivals "in the red". There were festivals in Cork, Dublin and other places which brought starlets nobody ever heard of before or after, but who cost a lot of the taxpayers' money. The idea was to attract tourists, but no tourists came, only the starlets. We had places where they had opera nobody ever heard of or wanted to hear. The festival performances in Waterford attract full houses.

The Deputy will not make a good case for Waterford by blackguarding everybody else.

The festival filled the city of Waterford and all around it with tourists. I asked some of the high executives of the Tourist Board what they thought of it and they admitted to me that it was the first time they saw so many tourists coming. They came in droves from South Wales and many other places. They made merry and the danger in this section is that these people might be able to have wassail on only eight nights of the week and have to have sackcloth and ashes on the other nine. I would ask the Minister to reconsider this and I shall be drawing his attention to it on Report Stage. I think the Minister is doubtful of me sometimes.

The Deputy has never given me any cause.

This Waterford festival is the best from the point of view of attracting tourists to the country.

Deputy Corish says it is not.

I know Deputy Kyne will drive Deputy Corish away. Even Deputy Corish himself comes to the Waterford Festival.

You might have us all down this year.

And you will be quite welcome. We will open a public house for you at the same time——

And close it between 2.30 and 3.30.

The Minister will be given the reception to which his high office entitles him. Last year, the Taoiseach very graciously accepted an invitation to open the Festival and expressed himself as pleased with the magnificent reception accorded him by the people, many of whom were his political opponents.

Did he sing a song?

Nearly. But if the Minister gets his way, neither the Taoiseach nor the visitors will sing any songs after the opera. One of the great attractions is that groups of people can meet in the hotels after the opera and sing songs and some of the natives can show the visitors that we can do it, too. The section refers to eight nights. I want to remind the Minister that this year the Waterford festival will run for 17 nights and next year it will probably run for 25 nights.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 11:—

In page 5, subsection (1), line 45, to delete "of festivity" and to insert "aforesaid".

Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 8, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

I said on Second Stage that the section refers to "any locality not in the county borough of Dublin". There are occasions when the festivities or parish activities would comply with what is proposed in this section. In my constituency there is the Kimmage-Crumlin Sports Development Association. It is a registered association and it holds what is known as a Kimmage-Crumlin week every year, which includes such activities as might take place at a fleadh: Irish traditional music, dancing, boxing, football matches, and eventually they hope to have a swimming gala in the parish. It is now proposed to build a swimming pool.

The planning of the activities of the association is very good. Children in the area took responsibility for the trees. Boys were put in charge of one tree each. The period of these festivities is regarded as a special occasion for one week. The type of exemption they would look for would be to have the public houses open between 2.30 p.m. and 3.30 p.m.

For the boys who are looking after the trees?

For the organisers and adults of the association to have a sandwich and a drink. That place is not overloaded with cafés and restaurants—there is no demand for them— but there are several licensed premises that serve small meals.

The main question is whether or not this section should apply to Dublin. I think there is good reason why it should. Another matter I have in mind is that this week in Dún Laoghaire— admittedly the weather spoilt it to some extent—the International Yachting Club held its regatta. Next Saturday the Royal St. George Yacht Club are having their regatta. The Dublin Bay Sailing Club decided to run a regatta for an entire week. Last Saturday there were over 200 boats sailing at that regatta and from Cork, Waterford, Wicklow and Dublin large numbers of people came to witness the festivities. The club had an extension and the regatta was very successful, but there are other activities such as prize givings during the year, and they cannot be expected to use up all the extensions for this one week's activities.

I am quite sure every Dublin Deputy knows of parish activities in respect of which a case could be made for an exemption under this section, particularly during the midday closing hour rather than after 11.30 p.m. I think 11.30 p.m. has been generally accepted as late enough for everyone, if we are to close public houses at all, as I said before.

Whatever the administrative difficulties might be, I should like the Minister to consider making this section apply to Dublin. If you like, the word used in the section could be "parish" rather than "locality". The wards would probably be far too big. There is very good reason why the section should apply to the whole country.

May I say in reply that Deputy Lemass has answered himself? Of course, nothing would please me more than to make this concession available to Dublin, but it just simply would not work. It would be impracticable. The section provides that the application must be made by the holders of licences who have been able to show, "to the satisfaction of the Court that the application has the approval of a majority of the holders of licences in respect of premises so situate..."

In other words, the majority of the publicans in the locality must agree on what period is involved. Of course, that just would not work in Dublin. There is always something going on in Dublin and you would never get a majority of the publicans to agree on any one period.

That is the simple practical consideration but we have to have regard to the fact that one could think of at least ten different periods in the year when one would like to invoke this provision for Dublin City, but what would we pick?

The Phoenix Park Races?

Horse races, the Kimmage-Crumlin week, the regatta in Dún Laoghaire or Howth——

Deputy Lemass is quite right in saying the other matter is separate. I do not think anyone would want an opening later than 11.30 p.m. for any type of function in Dublin.

I should like briefly to draw the Minister's attention to a consideration of a matter which I raised already. I think it is more in order to talk about it on the section. I refer to the Fleadh Ceoil held in Swinford in 1960. As I explained briefly—and the Minister is probably well aware of the position already——

I am afraid so.

——for three days in May of 1961, Swinford, which normally has a population of about 1,000, found itself confronted with a situation where there was an influx of visitors to the extent of 30,000 or 40,000. They had to be catered for and they were, I understand, extremely well catered for through the energy and kindness of a local committee which went to endless trouble to see that the national Fleadh Ceoil held in Swinford was a success.

Owing to the very, very large influx of visitors which, as I say, increased the population from some 1,000 souls to nearly 40,000 souls for the two or three days, it was necessary to have those people billeted all around the town, and it was necessary for licensed premises as well as private houses to take them in. The licensed premises which had to take them in, in the national interest—I do not think that is putting it too far—found that they were unable to clear their houses inside the permitted hours. Summonses have been issued to them arising out of that very limited period.

As the law stands at the moment, if these publicans are convicted, their licences are in jeopardy. I cannot help feeling that the house as a whole would think it was not fair that that situation should be allowed to arise. I know it is extremely difficult to word an amendment which will cover that kind of contingency exactly, but I would appeal to the Minister to ask his advisers to see if they can bring in an amendment which will safeguard the publicans in Swinford who unfortunately found themselves in the position I have described.

The fact that the prosecutions in Swinford arising out of the Swinford fleadh ceoil have not yet been determined has led a lot of people to believe that the prosecutions will be dropped. As things stand at the moment, that is not the position. Various questions arose in the country and the justice adjourned consideration of a number of the prosecutions pending the outcome of a certain case stated to the Supreme Court. I think in the result the Supreme Court was no help to Swinford, so that the position is that these people are not in danger but they are certain to lose their licences by endorsement as things stand at the moment.

I think Swinford was responsible for the framing of this section, that what happened in Swinford last year must certainly have influenced the Minister in drafting the section which caters precisely for the situation which arose at that time. It is also fair to say that when the 1960 Act was passed, that sort of situation was not envisaged so that Swinford people found themselves in a situation which was not envisaged when new legislation was passed in the previous year but which, as a result of their experience, is now being covered in the next year.

While I do not approve of the attitude taken up on behalf of the publicans, more particularly by those who sought to make Party political capital out of it, I still think it would be unfair to victimise these individuals. The justice accepted beyond doubt that the owners, some permanent, some temporary, of the premises at which this enormous influx of people arrived were literally helpless. They could not get the throng out of their premises. I was present at one of the fleadh ceoil and I confirm that it would have been humanly impossible to get these people out of some of the more densely-packed licensed premises. One man, even with a staff of 12 and assisted by a half-dozen Gardai if they could be spared, would be quite incapable of removing what Peter Sellers once described as "the vast concord of people". They could not be got out. That was abundantly proved and fully accepted in the court but the position at the time was that the law was there and had to be reckoned with. That is still the position but that will not happen again, as a result of the passing of this section, and the next time there is a concourse of people in Swinford or Ballydehob, they can avail of the provisions of this section to have extended hours for refreshment.

In backing up what Deputy O'Higgins has said, I suggest the Minister should insert a short section that would not be drafted in any vague way so as to tend to disguise what we are doing. That section could be put in to deal specifically with the Swinford situation and could empower the justice to dispose of all the cases by fine. If such a section were put in, I think fair play could be achieved all round.

I do not know if it is appropriate to mention on this section the position that arises in regard to "Reek Sunday" or "Reek week-end" as I suppose it should properly be described, when people start climbing the mountain any time on Saturday night or the following Sunday. It seems to me that the people of Westport could not avail of the provisions of this section because they would need them, possibly, for the sea-angling festival or something else of longer duration. Again, I think experience has proved in the past two years that the 1960 Act, while making a very laudable effort to put everybody into the same straitjacket failed to do so because situations arose which had not been envisaged and for which, in fairness as apart from statute, provision should have been made. The principle of uniformity was the sacred cow at the time and that was why the straitjacket had to be applied in circumstances where it should not have applied at all. I strongly urge the Minister, even though I have nothing to gain in any way as regards the people of Swinford because they are no longer constituents of mine —if they were, it would not make any difference — that, in fairness, they should get this provision.

I wonder if the Minister would clarify this point? I have not been a very good attender for this discussion but if the Minister has said so already, he can reply in a few words. Does this period of special exemption mean but one period in the year?

One period not exceeding eight days.

That means if there is a period of special festivity lasting, say, for two days in any town, the other six days are just wasted. It also means that if the Waterford Light Opera Festival, the Wexford Music Festival or the Swinford festival do not extend for the full eight days, any other society cannot take up the balance. It, therefore, means that places like Waterford, Wexford and Cork and perhaps Swinford, if there is a period of special festivity in one of them, cannot have two festivals——

"Special event" now; "special festivity" is gone.

In any case, the eight days may not be broken?

No—one period only.

The one period must absorb the eight days. Would the Minister consider breaking it up?

I want to say a word on behalf of my neighbours in Swinford which was the principal town in the old constituency of East Mayo. There are special circumstances in this case. For the fleadh ceoil, I think 30,000 people descended on the town, a town with a population of about 1,100. It was generally assumed, I think, that some relaxation of the regulations would be sanctioned when that happened. These things look very different in retrospect from what they look in the presence of an emergency, but I think it is true that everybody in Swinford, including those in the most responsible position, took the view that the emergency of catering for the people was such that it was fantastic to send them away without any refreshment.

There is a peculiar situation obtaining in certain towns in that part of the country, the exact historical reasons for which I do not know, but it is a fact that in Swinford, with a population of between 1,000 and 1,100 people there are 56 public houses, with the result that if all these houses at that time were to conform to the licensing law as it then stood, it meant that practically every catering establishment in the town was closed against the people and there was no means of giving them any refreshment at all.

In general principle, people ought not to disregard the law, but in practice if you are dealing with an emergency, you do the best you can. I do not see how any rational community with 56 licensed houses could say to 30,000 people whom they had invited into the town: "We decline to open for any purpose, good, bad or indifferent in order to provide you with refreshment." It would be wiser, of course, if they had anticipated that problem and chosen another day or done something of that kind, but we cannot have a fleadh ceoil except on a Sunday and they walked into it.

It is now becoming abundantly clear that we are prepared to take cognisance of this kind of situation in the amending legislation before us. If the law is strictly enforced as it stood in 1961, many of these publicans must lose their licence because they have received three, four, five or some of them, six summonses in respect of the one day. Whatever we may feel about the strict observance of the law, I doubt if there is any rational Deputy who feels that the publicans of Swinford, having met the emergency which undoubtedly existed as best they knew how, should now find themselves faced with being put out of business altogether.

I am just wondering if Raheny were a little more remote from the city of Dublin and the Minister and his neighbours had been concerned as to how they should cater for 30,000 in a similar situation, would he on that occasion have advised the publicans to close their doors and send the people away or would he have said to them: "We are faced with an emergency. We had better make the best fist of it we can ex post facto in the situation which confronts us and which was never anticipated in the licensing laws in the past.”

I look upon myself as a law-abiding man and attach great importance to the observance of the law in its letter by responsible people. I am not at all sure that if I had been consulted in regard to that matter while there was that multitude in the town of Swinford I would not have said: "You will have to feed the people; make the best fist you can of it ex post facto.” I do not believe the Garda authorities or the Executive can be so unreasonable as to assert that no exception should ever be made, even in the presence of an emergency. If the parish priest and the others responsible for organising the fleadh ceoil had come to any of us and said: “If we cannot invite the people to some refreshment, we cannot have any fleadh ceoil. We want to bring 30,000 people into the town to have an enjoyable day and go home happy”, how many of us would have said: “You should not have a fleadh ceoil?”

These fleadhanna ceoil are a very desirable rural development. If I had been asked before they were ever started was there any prospect of their succeeding, I would have taken the view there was not the slightest but, simple as is the amusement, concerned with Irish music, dancing, fellows playing the melodeon or fiddle or singing songs, they are a greater success than more elaborate and better organised festivals. I have seen feiseanna which have drawn a couple of thousand people but a fleadh ceoil can draw 20,000, 30,000 or 40,000 people. I suppose it is the informality of the whole affair. They seem to constitute part of a very desirable form of rural occupation. If we do not do something ad hoc to meet these people who fortunately are politically a very mixed bunch, so far as I know— Fianna Fáil publicans, Fine Gael publicans, Clann na Poblachta publicans and neutralist publicans——

No Labour?

I do not know that there are any Labour publicans in Swinford.

I would not say that.

Stranger things have happened in Swinford but in that context I know of no Labour publican in Swinford.

There are independent publicans.

I think I catered for the independent publicans. However as the Minister will readily see there seems to be a general atmosphere of goodwill for the publicans of Swinford which is a pretty clear guarantee that they are a mixed bag politically. They are my neighbours, not my constituents, so on behalf of my neighbours of east Mayo, I urge on the Minister that equity, if not the letter, of the law requires that some step be taken here.

The Minister may very properly say: "If I am asked to intervene by an executive act in a matter of this kind, I might open the door to all sorts of abuses for which this might be construed as a precedent." I would therefore advise him to draft some suitable amendment for Report Stage and deal with the matter ad hoc. I see difficulties because there may be other prosecutions outstanding in relation to the breach of the law, but this was one occasion. I would not ask the Minister to make any exception except in respect of offences committed on this day. Was there only the one day, Sunday?

No, Saturday and Sunday.

This certainly was a parochial activity. I did not know there were any offences committed on Saturday; I thought it was Sunday.

Saturday night.

I understood it related solely to Sunday but in any case I would suggest to the Minister that an ad hoc legislative exception might be made. If there is, I think everybody will feel that substantial justice has been done and that these people are not under what would be a very cruel grievance if, by the enforcing of the letter of the law in their regard, their livelihood were taken from them. Remember that under the law as it stands, there may be no discretion left to the district justice to forbear from endorsing their licence with the fatal three endorsements which would deprive them of the only means of livelihood they have.

It is not my intention to enter the controversy in relation to Swinford, but I should like to have some guidance from the Minister in respect of something Deputy Lemass submitted concerning Dublin. Am I right in saying that under this section any town or city outside Dublin is regarded as a locality?

Is Cork city a locality?

If we were to bring in Dublin, then Dublin would be regarded as a locality. I could well imagine the difficulty that would be experienced in trying to decide which section, which area, which particular part of Dublin, should have these particular exemptions.

I suggest it should be on a parish basis.

The Minister has indicated that a locality is a town or a city.

That is why I want an amendment.

I am trying to find out exactly what the position is.

If Deputy Mullen refers to subsection (8) of the section, he will see that the position is reasonably clearly spelt out there. I am not accusing the Deputy of not doing his homework, but the subsection provides:—

For the purposes of this and the two next following sections a locality that is situate in a county or other borough, a town (whether or not having commissioners under the Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1854) or village, shall include the whole of that borough, town or village, as the case may be, and any surrounding built-up area.

That satisfies me. I realise the enormity of the suggestion made by Deputy N. Lemass because I can well understand the competition that would arise in this city.

It should be a parish basis.

Am I right in interpreting the section in this way: there is nothing to prevent anybody running an exhibition, a regatta, bazaar, gymkhana and serving drink within the prohibited hours. Is that right?

I am not clear as to what the Deputy means. There are several ways the problem could be met in Dublin city. In the type of situation visualised by Deputy Lemass, where a yacht club might be running a regatta, such a club would be entitled to 15 extensions. The number at the moment is 12, but it is proposed to extend that to 15. I would not give them very much credit for using up seven of the 15 in regatta week. Apart from that, there is provision for occasional licences to cover other functions.

That satisfies me. I do not think there would be any great disturbance in Dublin, particularly having regard to the fact that the operatives do not want to work any later than the normal hours.

There are some very good residential clubs off the Navan Road in Deputy Mullen's constituency.

The sooner some of the clubs described here are closed, the better it will be. Deputy Sherwin agrees they should have been closed long ago. One thing this section does prove is that we do not need to dwell too much on uniformity any more. Here we can break away from uniformity because we are separating Dublin from the rest of the country.

One point that worries me is the question of proof in the district court. It has to be shown that the application has the approval of the majority of licence holders.

We will leave that to the solicitors.

Unfortunately, it will not be left to the solicitors. It will be left to the district justices. They will be entitled under this section to (a) proof of the number of publicans in the area and (b) to the personal attendance of the majority of such publicans for the purpose of testifying on oath that they, in fact, approve. Alternatively, it might be accepted if a solicitor were to get the signatures of the various publicans and testify in court as to the various signatures. As the Bill stands at the moment, I am quite satisfied the district justice could base it on the personal attendance of the majority of the licensed traders in, say, a place like Mallow or Mullingar, not to mention the whole of Cork city.

I have heard Deputy Dillon and Deputy Seán Flanagan dealing with the case of Swinford. I have not heard them say a word about Gorey. As I understand the position —I may be wrong—there are prosecutions pending in Swinford. Is the matter not then sub judice? Is it not wrong to talk about it in this House? I do not think the Minister should meet any of the requests made for retrospective legislation for Swinford, Gorey, or anywhere else. I should like to ask the Minister one question. If Waterford win the All-Ireland Final in September——

Most unlikely.

That was said before and we hammered Dublin.

The Minister says "most unlikely" but we might want to celebrate the return of the victorious Waterford team. Deputy T. Lynch might have his music festival at the same time. Which of us will get the licence?

The publicans will decide that, and that is wrong.

Does the Minister not think that is unreasonable?

What is the alternative?

I do not know the answer. I am not making the law.

Oh, yes, the Deputy is. No one in this world but we here can make the law.

I am participating in making it; I have not the final decision.

With regard to the points made by Deputy Sean Flanagan, I do not anticipate any difficulty about the mechanics of the thing. In Section 21 there is machinery whereby a certificate of the district court clerk shall be evidence of the number of licence holders in an area. There will be no difficulty in establishing the number of licensees. It will then be a simple matter of court mechanics to establish whether or not the majority are in favour of a particular period. I should imagine the situation would be that some solicitor would go into court and indicate he represented the majority of the publicans, that they agreed to the particular period, and then the court would satisfy itself whether or not he spoke for the majority. I am quite happy that the ingenuity——

I am not a bit.

——and advocacy of the legal profession will be sufficient to solve the problem in the different areas. With regard to the point raised by Deputy Kyne as to why the publicans should decide, the simple answer is that somebody must be the judge as to what is the most appropriate period in any locality. I think a majority of the publicans is the answer because they more than anybody else will be alive to the realities of the situation. Their profit will be involved and they will wish to cater for the most appropriate period in the year. Nobody other than the publicans would be as quick to realise what would be the most appropriate period in any locality. I believe they would reflect more closely than anybody else the popular demand in this regard.

The simplest way of dealing with the situation is to take the period agreed upon by the majority of the licensees—not because of any particular merit on their part to decide the period but because they would be very anxious to reflect the popular demand.

The Minister ignores the views with regard to Section 2.

I do not ignore them. We have taken everybody's view into the most careful and anxious consideration.

The Minister is not being consistent.

We weighed every possible factor and I eventually decided what was the best thing to do with regard to any provision in the Bill. An appeal has been made to me about the Swinford publicans——

——who, we can assure Deputy Kyne, have all been convicted.

I was told there would be an appeal to the High Court. Surely it is sub judice?

The situation is difficult. I do not want to say any more at this stage. Since there is a demand from certain quarters of the House for consideration of this matter, I think I would be fully justified at this stage in saying I shall look into it. I should also point out that, on the part of the majority of these publicans, there was no question of innocent contravention of the law. I think it was carefully pointed out to them beforehand exactly what would happen if they did contravene the law as it stood.

They supported two big Parties.

Will anything go, pending the enactment of legislation?

I shall have a careful investigation made to find out whether or not there is a Labour publican in the town.

There will not be.

It is really a great pity that the Deputies who have come here to shed crocodile tear over the ills of Swinford would not pay more attention to their own constituencies and leave the publicans of Swinford to their own Deputies. I think they would be doing a good day's work if they did that.

Hear, hear.

Some Deputies have tried to drag a red herring into this discussion. They have as much interest in the people of Swinford as I have in what is going on in the moon. These are the gentlemen who had not the guts to put a Bill before this House but who caused a commission to sit—and sitting they remained for long enough. The sum total of their wisdom was enshrined in the 1960 Intoxicating Liquor Act—the most retrograde Act and the worst effort that was ever made. Fine Gael were the gentlemen who set up the commission to do it.

Hear, hear.

I know what I am talking about. Fine Gael were the people who started the commission.

We happen to be on Section 8 of the Bill.

Now, Fine Gael want to blame the Minister for that.

The Deputy is at sea.

The Swinford affair has been rehashed over the past hour. I suppose it is as well to have the last say. I would ask the Minister to take the wind out of these people's sails by taking steps to protect the interests of the people of Swinford. If the law takes its course, the position will be that there will be either one or two publicans in Swinford in the near future instead of the 50 odd that are there now. In the interests of everybody concerned, that would be a ridiculous situation. After all, what happened there is something which will not happen again. It cannot happen again if this Bill goes through and, anyway, I do not think it would happen. I am glad the Minister indicated that he will give consideration to the troubles of the people of Swinford.

I want to speak now about the eight days. I am not so sure that that one period is the best way of dealing with it. If the Minister would give two periods, it would surely be more beneficial.

Acting Chairman

We are on the section now, not on any amendment to it.

The Deputy is on the section.

He is all right now.

Take any town as an example. If any town gets the eight days and if they happen to be the eight wettest days that ever came in history there is no redress if this Bill goes through.

I gather the Deputy is talking about the weather.

He is watching the moon.

I am watching my own ends, like all of you. It would be much better if at least two periods were given in the year—not eight days in one period. Any publican with common sense and any member of the public with common sense can see that that would be a better idea, from the point of view both of the publican and the public, than just giving the one exemption period in the year.

To arrange for special occasions only in dry weather?

The Minister was referring, in reply to my point about including Dublin on a parish basis rather than the whole of Dublin, to the activities in Dún Laoghaire this week. On Saturday, the hosts to the visitors were the National Yacht Club. They used their permission to have an extension in that club. Next Saturday, the Royal St. George will be hosts. They also will be using their permission to have an extension. In between, the hosts are the Dublin Bay Sailing Club who have only small premises. They have no licence. Therefore, they are not in a position to use exemptions to deal with this problem. I think the Minister himself probably brought forward two of the best examples as to when this matter might be considered, as has been done in the past, and that is in relation to the Horse Show and the Spring Show.

The Minister started off the Committee Stage by saying he would be reasonable. I want him to be reasonable to the extent of saying he will consider between this and the Report Stage what has been proposed to him by Deputy Kyne. The breaking up of the eight days may seem a formidable task now. If the Minister will consider it, he will go a great way towards making this section more workable than it is likely to be. I can foresee the conflict that has been described by Deputy Kyne. I forget whether or not Waterford is in the Munster Championship. Here is a possibility. On the first Sunday in September you have the All-Ireland Hurling Final. On the first Monday of the month, if Waterford, for example, win it, the people will be tremendously happy and enthusiastic about receiving the team. The application would have to be made beforehand. In any case, the people would feel somewhat cheated if they could not celebrate the homecoming of the team and their victory.

On the Monday?

Monday.

They are open to 11.30 p.m.

Surely the team would not get in until 11 p.m.?

Perhaps the Minister would consider the difficulties? It would be very bad to see a conflict between the GAA soccer associations or rugby associations with, say, the Waterford Opera Society, the Cork Film Festival, the Wexford Musical Festival and various other such functions. Therefore, if it could be broken up into four twos or two fours, it would be much more satisfactory. The publicans have a vested interest. They only want to sell drink but the Minister has emphasised the importance of tourism and that interest will have to be taken into consideration as well.

I do not know what body should determine the interests of the community as far as tourism is concerned. It may be said that the corporation, or the town commissioners or the urban council ought to have some say. There should be consultation between a body like the public bodies I have mentioned and the publicans as to what there should be. To have eight days and eight days only might in many cases cause conflict between the publican, the drinking public and those interested in the various festivities.

I should like to endorse what Deputy Corish has said and he has given me an idea. Local authorities such as county councils, urban councils and so forth should have a say in this matter.

Have they not got enough trouble without getting involved in this?

Then the answer is to abolish them completely and not give them any responsibility at all. They reflect public opinion more than the vested interests of the publicans. They have to stand every five years before the public and give an account of their actions and very few other people have to do that except Deputies. I recommend to the Minister that even if the publicans make a recommendation, that recommendation should be considered by the urban council or whatever local authority has control over the area where the festival is held. In that way, you will get a reflection of public opinion. The district justice, the Garda and probably the parish priest will all make recommendations and I think that we should endorse the right of the local authority to give the view of the people.

I agree entirely with what Deputy Kyne and Deputy Corish have said. In a matter such as this, there will be conflict of interest amongst the publicans themselves. Certainly there will be no unanimity amongst them. At the present moment and for the past four or five years, particularly where Dublin is concerned, the licensed trade is split up. There are the Dublin County Vintners' Association and the City Licensed Vintners' Association.

This does not affect Dublin.

Down through the country, members of the licensed trade belong to one or other of these two associations. The only way to solve the problem is to leave it to the discretion of the local authority in the area concerned. That body is representative of all sections of the community and can see a truer picture than the licensed vintners can see. If a NACA event gives better results than a rugby event the publicans will vote for the NACA event. If a GAA event brings in more than a soccer event, the publicans will vote for the GAA event. That is just what the publicans will be doing when they meet in committee. My advice is to take this matter completely out of their hands because there are other people involved and a fair way of dealing with the matter would be to leave it in the hands of the local authority.

We know what it costs to call a special meeting of the county council. It costs £100 to call a special meeting and it would be ridiculous if there were to be eight of these meetings during the year.

They are meeting every month.

You have bad administration in Galway.

I think the publicans will make their own decisions in this matter. The local authority would not be competent in this regard to decide for them.

I have no great interest in this matter as it does not apply to Dublin but, on this question of leaving it to the local authority, my own experience is that every matter dealt with in the Dublin City Council is dealt with along political lines. The publicans are the people who are going to win or lose in this matter and they know their onions. They know the events that will bring in the big crowds.

I think this matter will cause great disruption in many towns. As I have already said, if the Waterford Opera Festival gets six nights what will happen to any other type of celebration that might take place at another time of the year? It would mean that that function could not get a special concession. Even the six nights would not be any good in the case of the Waterford Opera Festival because it will last for 17 nights. I can see that there will be great difference of opinion in this matter.

I heard Deputy Kenny last week talk about the Reek Sunday in Westport. I do not need a licence to talk about this matter as it concerns the whole country. If the people who run the very successful Westport Angling Festival get the six occasions there will not be any special concession for the Reek Sunday. A similar difficulty can arise in many places all over the country. It will not be a matter for the publicans but for the people who will jump the gun and get the six occasions. There will be people left at the post and there will be no special concessions for them.

In Dungarvan, in my constituency; it is possible that we may be celebrating an all-Ireland victory, or it is possible that we will have a successful fleadh ceoil but which of them will be regarded as the special occasion? If the fleadh ceoil is regarded as a special occasion, it will mean that no provision can be made for another occasion if it arises. It is not a matter for the publican. It is a matter for various clubs and local groups who run or administer promotions such as drama festivals, light opera festivals, angling festivals and so on. Outside of these there are other occasions which the people would want to celebrate. A place like Killarney will use up the eight days for some of their promotions. If Kerry won the football final, they would be coming home to a Kerry in which there would be no toasts and no wassail. You, Sir, have had experience of this in Cork, I am sure. In places about that distance from Dublin, where the teams play on Sunday and travel on the Monday, their homecoming is reasonably slow, especially when they get to their home county and have to stand for the cheers of their supporters. It is often very late when they get to Cork city, say, in the case of Cork, or Killarney or Tralee in the case of Kerry.

The Minister should make provision for such occasions because the eight nights as a hard and fast provision rules out any second promotion or festival. As I pointed out before, if some of these people jump the gun and get permission, and even if they use only two nights, it is considered that the eight nights have gone. That is where the section is not good. There should be provision that if two nights were used for one festival or special occasion the rest of the nights should stand to the credit of the area. Even then there is a difficulty because there would be a certain amount of bidding between people to get in before others. The people who would be really caught would be the promoters of a game. In a national championship, for instance, they cannot anticipate what will happen and there is no provision for them at all.

Generally there is a misconception among Deputies as to the purpose of this section. To relate it to the victorious return of the Waterford team, or any other team, subsequent to an all-Ireland Final is to miss the whole point of the section and the situation for which it is meant to cater. In many towns and localities, there is usually only one period in the year in which traditionally the town is en fête. You have the Galway Races, the Listowel Races—I do not know whether there is anything in Ballaghaderreen or not—and a fleadh ceoil is held in a particular town. Deputies can think of many others. There is the Wexford Festival, the Waterford Festival and so on. This provision is designed to cater for that sort of situation and my approach to the matter, as I have outlined all along, is to make the ordinary licensing laws capable of catering for the sort of situation referred to by Deputy Lynch and Deputy Corish.

I am endeavouring in this Bill to provide normal hours of opening which will be such that whether there is a football match in town on Sunday, or whether there is a team coming home from winning an all-Ireland Final on a Monday, the reasonable needs of the people will be catered for with regard to such special events. I am somewhat amazed, when I hear the comparatively liberal views expressed by Deputy Corish and Deputy Lynch, that they did not vote for my proposals earlier in Section 2. However, I do not want to be debating about this matter.

Surely we are not to be denied the right of debating changes to be made in the legislation? That is the only right we invoke.

No. I am referring now to what seems to be a more liberal and more——

As long as the Minister does not call it inconsistency——

"Consistency is the bug-bear of the little mind."

The hobgoblin.

That has been quoted so often in this House——

I never thought I would have to quote it to the Deputy.

This provision is not meant to cater for one particular day or one particular isolated instance, as has been mentioned. It is meant to cater for the traditional event which takes place once a year in a particular locality. It is an eminently reasonable and sensible provision and in most areas and localities there will be no trouble at all. The people of Galway will settle for Galway Race week and the people in Listowel will settle for the Listowel Race week. The people of Ballaghaderreen will settle for whatever Deputy Seán Flanagan asks them for.

What will they do in Belturbet?

As I said, I would like to extend it to Dublin city but it would be completely impracticable. It is not the sort of proposal that would be appropriate to a city the size of Dublin and I do not see how it could be given practical effect. Apart from that, with regard to the rest of the country, it will work without any great difficulty. Everybody in a locality will know what period of the year the locality always goes en fête and they will be fairly unanimous on that. Deputy Sherwin is quite right when he said, and he put it much more graphically than I could, that the publicans' interest will be to ensure that the proper period will be chosen.

I said they know their onions.

I think that sums it up and I think it is reasonable to allow one period in the year and I do not think most localities would look for more. I do not think Deputy Lynch is serious when he suggests that we should extend the period permissible to 17 days.

The Minister should understand that this is the last Intoxicating Liquor Act we are ever going to have.

This is the Act to beat all Acts.

It certainly is the best you are ever going to have.

We heard that before.

I asked the Minister would be consider, without committing himself, between now and Report Stage breaking up the eight days——

All right.

——into two four-day periods or four two-day periods. I want to put my argument a little further. I do not think the publicans are the sole people to determine this. Contrary to what Deputies Coogan and Barry said, I did not advocate at all that local authorities should decide this issue. I said they should have an opportunity of considering it.

On a question of fact, I want to point out that subsection (2) indicates that any person appearing to the district court to have a bona fide interest in the matter may appear and give evidence on the hearing of an application under this section.

That is, as to whether or not they are to get an exemption.

The publican is specifically mentioned as the one who should intiate the action.

The publican will initiate it but it is open to anybody——

I want to put this point of view to the Minister. I do not think the publicans are the proper people to determine it. They are concerned only with selling drink. That is their only interest but the Minister has another interest which he has expressed quite often—the tourist interest.

I think both will coincide.

The tourist end is bound up with the festivals mentioned. We all like different types of festivals and music. While Deputy Lynch may be enthusiastic about the Waterford light opera festival and I might be somewhat over-enthusiastic about the Wexford festival, there are people in both Wexford and Waterford who do not put much pass on these festivals at all. There is the possibility that those interested in the fleadh ceoil may decide in each of the provincial towns and big centres to have their weeks during the year. There you have a conflict. Contrary to what Deputy Lynch said, I think 8 days may be too long for certain places but what I would say in respect of all of them is that if they had three, four or five days for this special exemption, they would be satisfied. It would be an awful conflict, say, between those who want to have a festival of Irish dancing and music as against those who want to put on Italian light opera. That is a situation that could arise in a very short time. The people who run the fleadh ceoil may decide to have something similar to a feis for four or five days, or a week of Irish music, dancing and drama. It is for that reason that the Minister should consider breaking up the eight days into two fours or four twos.

Having listened to all the arguments made by Deputies from all sides of the House, I am inclined to think that this is not flexible enough. I take this section to mean that the people in any area can apply for a licence once a year and they may have that up to eight days. They may apply only once. I do not think that meets the case. The Minister ought to be more flexible. He has not given an answer to the recent suggestion of Deputy Corish that the eight days might be broken up into several periods.

Wexford has a festival which goes on for about a week. As well as that, annually we have the Barry memorial celebrations. Barry was the founder of the American Navy to whom we have a statue erected in the town of Wexford. In fact, the Wexford people are hoping that they will be able to get President Kennedy, when he visits Ireland, to come down to that function. I do not know whether that is possible but, as Shakespeare said, "hope springs eternal in the human breast". If that comes about, we would have to make another special occasion of it.

Only one day.

Yes. As I understand the position—and I speak subject to correction—each area can have an exemption only once a year. They may have that exemption up to a period of eight days. If we have the Wexford festival, we are finished.

That is the end of it.

If President Kennedy arrives for the celebrations——

Bring in a new Bill.

It will be a big day in the town and we will be looking for another concession.

That would mean a special Bill.

What about Mr. Eisenhower?

Let me turn to more normal occasions. We have a GAA park in Wexford and major games are often played there. The different championships are played there from time to time.

The Sunday hours cater for that instance. That is absolutely satisfactory now.

It is not allowed in this section. Let me refer to the town of Gorey. We had the fleadh ceoil this year, as the Minister knows. Under the existing Act, nothing could be done. We also have the GAA park in Gorey where championship matches are played also. The Minister is restricting particular areas to local initiative and enterprise but he is adopting the wrong point of view and is revealing a lack of knowledge of rural Ireland.

It is all very well to say that this is the final Bill which will settle all the doubts and difficulties which have existed heretofore. These are weaknesses which we are trying to point out to the Minister and he ought to take cognisance of them. A suggestion was made by some Deputies as to its being a matter for the local authorities. I am not a member of a local authority. The only thing I have ever aspired to is Dáil Éireann. I never sought to be on an urban council. If you are going to arrange anything in a town in rural Ireland where there is a mayor or corporation, they are called in for discussions in the matter. In the town of Gorey, where we have town commissioners, they are called in to discuss matters. They are members of political organisations. They make representations to the leaders of particular Parties they represent and they are briefed by the people concerned. They are actively concerned with the furthering of this project.

I think they should be seriously concerned. They would be able to get a better opinion and they would not even be giving their own opinions but opinions which they received from other people. I would be strongly inclined to favour the idea that these local authorities should have a say in these matters. That is what they are elected for. They are elected to represent public opinion and the Minister ought to give serious consideration to that.

Does this section not mean that exemptions in respect of 16 days of these festivities could be granted in every part of the Twenty Six Counties?

Sixteen days because of the fact that in subsection (8) the area defined may be a village and any surrounding built-up area. In practically every village in the Twenty Six Counties, there are two villages in every parish and we could have a situation in which during the 12 months one village in the parish might be celebrating the winning of a hurling match or a championship, and might apply for an exemption. The next village might then decide, if they win the football championship, to apply for an eight-day exemption. If they are not lucky in those events, they might find it necessary to apply for and get an exemption in respect of another event as, for instance, cock-fighting or some such event. The provision here does not say what the population of the village may be.

What is a village?

In rural Ireland, the people are not slow to concoct excuses for celebrations. In some parts of my constituency, if it so happened that they were not in luck in respect to sporting events, they might come to an agreement to apply for an exemption in one village, if, say, the Minister were to pay a visit, while in another village, they might be more pleased to see Deputy Dillon arriving. It is amazing how they can dig up a reason for a festivity and this section leaves it wide open.

The occasion must be one in which there is an influx of people.

The Minister knows from his experience of life in Dublin what a crowd may be here, but in rural Ireland the approach must be vastly different.

It is entirely a question of the crowd.

I would press the Minister to reconsider this situation. In my constituency, we run Féile Luimní, the competitions for which run for three consecutive weeks at one end of the city. They include singing, dancing and drama. Then we run a fortnight's opera at the other end of the city to which trains and buses bring crowds from practically all over Munster. In respect of which of these two events will the exemption be granted?

When the Tostal festivities were first established in Cork and when they were very popular, with international choral concerts and so forth, provision was made whereby each publican, on payment of a special licence, could open until 12.30 at night. Certain publicans applied for those licences and others did not, and the following year those who did not apply checked up on the success or otherwise of those who had applied. In the second year, the licence fee was increased to £2 but the net result was that after 11.30 at night, there were very few people in the public houses, even though the festivities went on fairly late. The individual publicans had to decide whether or not it was worth while applying for these licences and eventually the problem solved itself when it was found that after last bus time, after 11.30, people went their way home and very few of them stayed in public houses.

I hope the Minister is not influenced by what Deputy MacCarthy has said because the experience on that occasion was that many people did not attend these festivities. The situation is different where you have large crowds of visitors and in such cases it is undoubtedly necessary to have special exemptions. Another question arises as well. With the enormous number of people who come in only to see their own friends performing, come others as well.

In Waterford, we have the annual festival, which is attended by a great number of people, many of whom stay in Tramore. Tramore, at a different period of the year, holds one of the oldest traditional race meetings in the country. There would be no exemption available in respect of Tramore, with its hotels and boarding houses, during the Waterford festival if they had availed of the exemption in respect of the race meeting earlier. Accordingly, people staying in Tramore during the Waterford festival would arrive home to find the public houses shut.

If they are staying in hotels, they are residents and it does not matter.

What about the boarding houses? A great many people, particularly family groups, prefer to stay in boarding houses nowadays. Many people attending the Waterford festival would be compelled to stay in Tramore because of lack of accommodation in Waterford. I hope the Minister will take cognisance of this situation and of what has been said about it from all sides of the House. I often ask myself who thinks up these things—surely not the Minister.

Nobody else.

I might say a lot of bad things about him but I would not say he would do a thing as bad as that.

I give due regard to what everybody asks for, to what everybody says. My mind is like a delicate electronic balancing machine —it gives full weight to everything and comes up with the perfect solution.

With the most imperfect solutions. The Minister has shown great inconsistency in this matter. He said he would be guided by what the majority of the publicans in Dublin wanted. I would point out to the Minister that there are other places than Dublin in the country.

The Minister knows that there is a place in this State which has not yet seceded from it— Waterford—where more than 80 per cent. of the publicans are united on a certain line; yet the Minister cannot see eye to eye with them. He protests to the House that he is prepared to listen to the organised publicans in Dublin and to organised labour in the Dublin public houses but not those in Waterford.

It was pointed out previously that in places where there were three or four villages within a reasonable distance of one another the people there could have some form of cats dancing, make it a great occasion and have open house. That can be done under this and will be done. I am finding fault with the Minister because he is not giving a chance to centres where there is more than one legitimate activity. The Minister says, for example, that he has catered for Puck Fair; but if Kerry win the All-Ireland, the people of Killorglin will not be able to celebrate it. Of course, they probably will celebrate it and break the law. The Minister should be prepared to meet the House on this. I am only adding my voice to the voices of Deputies who have already spoken and laying particular emphasis on the situation in Waterford city and county. I would ask the Minister to consider, if there is a four-day special occasion in a centre, putting the remaining four days to the credit of that place to be used as wanted.

I agree with most of the Deputies who have contributed on this section, but I think it would be better if the eight day period were broken up. The Minister should seek the opinion of the Minister for Transport and Power, as the Minister responsible for tourism, regarding the encouragement of tourism in the off period by breaking up the concession and placing the incentive before such areas to organise special events in the off-season and so extend the tourist season. This marathon of eight days will be used only where there are very important events. I agree that the publicans in the area are the best people to decide on the most suitable occasion to avail of it. On the other hand, there will be very serious difficulties in deciding which event will be entitled to avail of the provision.

Are there any typical events in the Deputy's constituency?

Yes. I know areas in which there will be no difficulty, in which it will be quite obvious.

Give us a typical example of an area in which there would be difficulty?

I can. Without naming the particular occasion, I know where there is an old sore, a longstanding row between sporting organisations. I know these sores are not healed. I can see a complete boiling up of old animosities. I can see this being availed of and it will place the licensed vintners in that town in a very invidious position, if they are to decide. I can see cases like that arising. On the other hand, I cannot see any other group being in a better position to decide than the licensed traders. The Minister should give more consideration to the suggestion that the period of eight days be broken up.

I got the impression listening to the speeches that this country consisted of countless masses of people moving from one portion of it to another to attend festivals at which there were so many people that nobody else could fit. There has been a great deal of exaggeration about all this. I do not think it would require even the Minister's delicate electronic brain to control the whole thing. I am sure that every one of these functions has an organising committee that will row in with the local publicans to decide whether they will stand in or not. That is the position for which machinery has to be provided to deal with and I would be the Minister not to intervene but to withdraw the proposal and leave it to the local authorities.

I will consider everything Deputy Lynch has said so far.

I hope the Minister will consider something I said this night week. The Minister looks at the Dublin Show as the greatest show in the world—we will leave it at that. If the Cork Festival takes all the days, what will the Cork Show do? What will the shows in New Ross, Wexford and Gorey do? They are special occasions in those places, but they will be ruled out. On these occasions, the country people come in to see and, perhaps, to criticise what their neighbours are doing. One of the great attractions in a country town after the show is to go into a public house and discuss it.

Now the Minister comes along with his proposal for eight days. That is all right for one special occasion. The Minister is telling the people: "You can have only one special occasion." But if any really special special occasion arises—if Waterford won the All-Ireland Final, for example—we would not be able to celebrate the homecoming of our team. The team usually arrives back about 7.30 p.m. or 8 p.m. They go to the City Hall for a civic reception and attend a GAA dance. That is important for the GAA because they get a great deal of money from the dance. A dinner is also arranged but, if this Bill is passed, they would not have time to attend it. This kind of dinner usually starts at 10.30 p.m. or 11 p.m. There they would be and they could not have a few drinks. Most of the boys who win these All-Irelands are not in the habit of celebrating in that way, but the people who follow them are. We all know that they like to toast the victors, but according to this Bill, there will be no more of that in Clare, Kerry, Cork——

——Galway may win once in eight years—in Mayo or Cavan. If the Minister for Agriculture were here, he would back me in this. I am sure if his county won, he would like to celebrate.

You do not know beforehand.

No, you do not know beforehand.

Is that not when you apply for a licence?

At any rate, in a well-ordered community, a decent sporting justice would sit on the following morning and a licence would be granted because there are special occasions, and neither the Minister nor the Department nor anyone else can gainsay it and say they are not special occasions.

Especially if Waterford win.

We won three times in a few years. That was not too bad. We were in the semi-Final a couple of years ago.

The Deputy is in the final now.

The Minister should withdraw the section from the Bill. In any case, we will be seeing him on Report Stage and I hope he will have changed his tune then.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Amendment No. 12 not moved.

I move amendment No. 13:—

In page 6, subsection (1), line 28, to delete "(other than a licence granted under section 15 of this Act)”.

This amendment is consequential on the proposal to delete Section 15.

Could we dispose of amendments Nos. 23 and 24 which relate to Section 15?

That would make it very confusing.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 can be taken together.

I move amendment No. 14:—

In page 6, subsection (2), line 38, before "members" to insert "entertainment of the".

This is largely a drafting amendment.

I have no objection, but I should like to make sure what the Minister means by amendment No. 14. Instead of "members", he is putting in "entertainment of the".

This is to tighten up the situation. As the section is drafted at the moment——

It seems to me to be loosening it up. That is why I am asking.

There could be a function for the benefit of the members and they need not be present at it——

It is not "for the benefit of the members". The present wording is "for the members".

As it stands at present, there is no obligation on the members to be present at the function. The idea is that it should be essential that it should be attended by the members. We are proposing the words "entertainment of the" to make it clear that the function should be primarily attended by the members and not for their benefit.

I know the Minister wants to tighten it up, and perhaps what he is doing is the right way to tighten it up, but it seems to me that the effect will be to loosen it. The present wording is "as a special function for the members". That seems to me to make it quite certain that it is limited to the members and no one else.

That is where we disagree. I do not think so. This function is for the entertainment of the members——

They will have to be present to be entertained.

There could be dozens of entertainers who could not get in.

I am not objecting to it.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 15:—

In page 6, subsection (2), line 46, before "members" to insert "entertainment of the".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 16:—

In page 7, subsection (8), line 22, after "granted" to insert "and the special event for which the licence is granted is held in compliance with the relevant provisions of subsections (2) and (10) of this section".

This is purely technical.

Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 9, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Section 9 deals mainly with the granting of occasional licences for different functions. My particular interest is in dances. It is true that formerely permission was got from the Revenue Commissioners and now I understand that due to the change in this Bill, it will come direct from the district justice. The effect is the same. It will take effect up to sunrise, which I understand has been agreed at eight o'clock in the morning. I have no interest in the time.

I am mainly interested in two facts. One is that in the rural areas a substantial meal must accompany the dance. As I have already indicated to the Minister—and I shall not repeat myself because I do not believe in holding up the House—in the rural and urban areas, the means of providing a substantial meal are just not there. In my own little town with a population of 5,000, we have a town hall which serves for holding dances, plays, and other functions and in their own way, the people there confine their activities to the town hall.

There is no means there of catering for and providing a substantial meal. On occasions, we have up to 200 or 300 couples attending dances which they enjoy, but they require the same stimulation for dancing as is given in Dublin or anywhere else. I have already suggested to the Minister— apparently he has not listened to me— that unless we have a substantial meal, we cannot have a dance with a licence. If that is his attitude, I must, much as I regret it, vote against this Bill and challenge a vote on this section.

I expressed my general attitude to the Minister earlier—perhaps I was out of order—that he might consider an extension of the number which is limited to four dances in the area. Four dances could be taken up by four clubs. I do not want to name them or put them in any order, but the local GAA club, the soccer club, the Labour Party club or the Fianna Fáil Party club are entitled to have dances. They are used mainly as social functions and to build up the financial support which their supporters are willing to give.

The Minister will be doing a severe injustice to the rural and urban areas if he insists on this substantial meal as a condition on which a licence can be given. I suggest to him that we should have some confidence in the ability of the district justice in the area to decide whether or not it is a lawful occasion, whether or not the licence should be issued, with the right to the superintendent of the Garda to come and object, with the right to the clergy and to any well-meaning or ill-meaning citizens to lodge their protests. Let the district justice, in his wisdom, as heretofore decide whether it is a function within the meaning of the Act to which he should give a licence, with such limitations as he may decide, whether it should be from 12 to 2 a.m. or whatever hour he decides.

Normally, in my town, a bar licence consists of an extension from, or opening at, 12 o'clock and closing at 2 o'clock. That is two hours. The dances usually continue until 3 o'clock and there is no drunken spree, nothing but a means of refreshment for those taking part. If the Minister insists on the section as it is, I fear he is doing a most unfair thing to the people in my area. Certain privileged classes—I say this with all respect to them—such as those who run the hunt ball, may charge say 35/- for a ball and can bring reputable caters from Dublin or Naas and can include the 5/- in the entrance fee. I ..... suggest that is wrong because the local hurling or soccer club, the local Fianna Fáil Party, the Labour Party or Fine Gael Party—except perhaps the golf club— should not be penalised because they are not able to ask their supporters to pay an entrance fee of 7/6, which is normal for a four- or five-hour dance, plus 5/- for a meal, which in most cases none of those attending wants to eat and even if they did, there is usually no means of catering for them.

I suggest this is an impractical provision. I suggest it will stop, with few exceptions, urban areas from holding social functions, with a bar. If the Minister says he wants to do that, let us be clear that is class legislation and I shall vote against it. I shall demand a division. I think it is rotten and wrong. I hope the Minister is not going to do that.

In a county or area where there is only one centre at which such functions can take place, instead of four occasions in the year, we should give, say, ten special occasions when they can have dances without this special meal. I think ten would suffice. Under the present Act, all we get, I think, is nine. I appeal to the Minister to be reasonable. This is not a question of trying to get a bona fide trade set up when the remainder of the town is closed down. This is something that will give social life to a country town which can be very dull, give an opportunity to those who live there to carry on their normal lives and pursuits, encourage Gaelic, tennis, soccer or social clubs. I am not much of a dancing man; I go to dances only by compulsion. I am not speaking for myself but I believe I am expressing the view of my constituents as a whole in saying that the Minister should reconsider this. If he can give an undertaking that he will do so, I am prepared to allow it to go to the Report Stage to see what he produces.

I think the previous speaker extended his arguments to Section 10 as well as to Section 9 but I suppose they are related to some extent. There are a few things I am worried about such as the reference to four occasions for dances in any locality as described in the previous section. In other words, in the entire city of Dublin on four occasions, the Shelbourne, the Gresham, the Metropole and Clery's, if they can come to an agreement, may have one dance a year without a dinner. This will leave out all other ballrooms that have run well-conducted licensed dances in the past.

I have also come across some charities that raise a great deal of money at ordinary licensed dances, particularly in the Metropole. They include, for instance, the Benevolent Fund of Irish Actors' Equity which raises between £800 and £1,000 a year; the Variety Club of Ireland which raises about £1,500 a year; UNICEF which raises about £2,000 a year; the Polio Fellowship which raises about £4,000 a year; and the Inkblots group which raises about £900 a year. That is about £10,000 raised for charitable purposes. I am a member of Skerries Sailing Club. They had a meeting last week and we find that from this type of dance— they had one last Friday—they raise about £400 a year which, in effect, means the difference between whether or not that club can continue in existence.

What sort of dance?

An ordinary dance from 9 to 2 a.m. licensed to 1 a.m.

Charging how much?

6/6d. or 7/6d.

That is the one we are after.

Obviously, it is. I should say that a great deal of pressure was probably brought by the Vintners' Association who I believe have been very strong in their views if we read their magazine which is sent to us each month. I think the associations are hitting at one particular ballroom to protect one particular publican. I wonder if that publican is making a mistake. It is true that people go to a particular ballroom at the weekend to attend dances which are fully licensed but it is also true that nearly all of those people stop at this particular publichouse on the way out. I suggest to the chairman or the secretary of this association— I am not sure which he is—that he should consider this very carefully because he might be killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Against that, there are other ballrooms that make use of licences invariably in connection with charitable activities. I know from my own experience of being on committees and political Parties——

One political Party.

Yes, and other organisations—that sometimes the fact of having a licence is an added attraction. That applies particularly in the case of a sports club where you have members who pay their subscriptions and attend these functions not to dance but in order to relax and discuss the activities of the club.

If the Minister is anxious to introduce some control, I think to suggest four occasions for the city of Dublin is absolute and utter nonsense. A better type of provision would be something like 24 occasions for each ballroom that has facilities. That would enable numerous groups, house associations, and charitable organisations which reap about £10,000 a year for disabled children and such purposes, to have some opportunity of continuing their activities. When one comes to think of it, 24 occasions would not be sufficient when one considers the Metropole and other ballrooms of that nature. The Minister might be better advised to take out that section or reframe it entirely.

Reading this section, I could not but remember the preceding one. I was wondering therefore was it not possible for the Minister to do exactly as he did in the preceding section and leave the county borough of Dublin out of this section. I say this in support of what Deputy Lemass has said: I am satisfied that to charge 5/- for a substantial meal, as has been decided, will make this type of dance completely unattractive and will undoubtedly prevent people from going to that type of entertainment. It also involves class distinction because an admission fee of 15/-, £1 or 30/- to a dance means nothing to people who can afford it. That type of person can also afford to dress up for a dance. A number of working people are averse from doing that because it is often a problem for them to find even the admission fee.

If this section goes through, a considerable number of people in Dublin City will be told: "We have no further use for your services." I am referring to the staff who are employed for the purpose of serving drink on occasions such as this. I am not only referring to the waiting staff. There are also cloakroom staff, kitchen staff and wash-up staff. In the two major establishments in Dublin practically 250 people would lose their employment. That is a very serious matter.

I can understand the Minister's desire to regularise the position in regard to dances but in regard to the two establishments I have in mind and to which licences are attached, there has not been a prosecution against them in the past 30 years. If this section is passed, these establishments will be put in the position of having to run informal dances with no licence and people who come out of the public houses at 11 o'clock or 11.30 p.m. will come in with a flask in their hip pocket and will attempt to consume drink in the dance hall. It will be extremely difficult to keep track of them. You will find people drinking in toilets and in corners. This will all be brought about because the establishments concerned will have ceased to be allowed to serve drink on these occasions. One of the most difficult nights in that regard would be a Sunday night. One can well imagine that people who would get into the habit of drinking in dance halls to which there is a licence attached would also develop the habit in regard to dance halls to which there is no licence attached.

Another aspect of this is that people who want to go out to enjoy themselves dancing do not deliberately go out to look for drink. In regard to any establishment where there is a licence attached or a licence granted for the purpose of serving drink the people concerned know full well there will be drink sold at that dance. As Deputy Lemass said, many charities have been afforded an opportunity of making a considerable amount of money through sponsoring dances. The people who attend these functions have planned nights beforehand to do so and therefore we are not catering for the fellow who rushes in out of the public house.

What about the person who goes to the dress dance? He can go to a public house with a lounge bar and then go on to the ballroom to drink as much as he likes because he can pay 15/- or 20/- for a ticket. That is undoubtedly class distinction and that should not be. I would appeal to the Minister to take into consideration the moral aspect of what may happen because of lack of control. It is rather ironical if the Minister is to give a licence to people who sell drink on dog tracks and elsewhere where there will not be the same control.

I would earnestly appeal to the Minister to make a check with the police in Dublin city and with Dublin Corporation. I am satisfied he will find that the establishments I have in mind are well-regulated and well-controlled. If there is a case for control of other establishments, it is wrong that the type of establishment I have in mind should suffer. Therefore I would ask the Minister to consider between now and the Report Stage changing this section so that establishments to which licences are attached will not come within the ambit of this section.

I have an idea that the Minister is aiming this section mainly at myself because there are some loyal supporters of mine in part of County Waterford who run a dance once a year. They get a great deal of money out of this dance which is well conducted and which——

They can do it on four occasions.

I know, and I know also what will arise in relation to the four occasions for which there will be a great demand. The ICA will be there fighting for one of these occasions, as also will Macra na Feirme, the National Farmers' Association, the hurling club, the soccer club, the ploughing association, the rugby club, the hunt club, the beagles, probably the Gaelic League, Fine Gael, Labour and Fianna Fáil. The charge for that type of dance is 5/- or 6/-, including supper. It would be a physical impossibility to serve supper to all the people who attend the dances in these places. Really they do not go there for the supper and if the Minister compels us to charge 5/- for the dance and 5/- for the supper, we will, like CIE, lose our customers because we will be pricing ourselves out of business.

The majority of the young people arrive at the dances about 11 p.m. The bar opens at midnight. The majority of the young people do not go to the bar, but a great many of the non-dancers, like myself, do patronise the bar. The bar is a draw where they are concerned. There are some young people who go to the bar; it does them no harm because the bar is under the control of the committee and, therefore, all is well. Now if the Minister insists on this 5/- for dancing and 5/- for supper, which the young people do not want anyway, there will be no bar. That means that we will suffer what always follows in the footsteps of prohibition—the hip flask and the drink brought in the cars to the dances. That is something over which the committees will have no control at all. The Minister is actually taking away control out of the hands of the people who actually know how to control. He is giving only these four occasions in the year. My colleague, Deputy Kyne, said it should be ten. I have enumerated some of the occasions for the Minister, just a few of the reputable organisations that I know run dances. I am sure if I had time I could treble the number.

Is the Deputy talking about a particular area?

How many halls in the area?

One hall—Clonea in County Waterford. The trouble is the Minister is thinking in terms of Dublin which is thick with halls and where this provision does not apply. Hunt clubs could hold a dance in a hotel, charging 50/- for a double ticket. The more they charge, the more people attend because of the snob value, if you like. The Beagle Club in Waterford is a very old and a very excellent club. It is run practically out of the proceeds of a big dance they hold. I can imagine what will happen to these people if they have to charge the kind of prices the Minister wants them to charge. They will lose their customers. These dances in future could not be made a financial success. The Fine Gael dance run in the hall I have mentioned is run by a local Fine Gael committee in Dungarvan. They have been running that dance now most successfully for the past 15 years, I am glad to say.

Do they always have a licence?

Yes, always. That is an instance of a dance run very well and in a very orderly fashion. The bar opens round 12 o'clock and closes round two o'clock. There is no harm in that at all. It would be a mistake for the Minister to take away a concession like that from the rural areas. The people's lives are dull enough. Dances are more of a social occasion for them. The older people come along to these dances run by the local hurling or football club. The Minister will ruin that. With the best will in the world, the committee running these dances could not possibly cater for all the people who attend these dances. The people would have a grievance then if they had to pay 5/- and could not get supper. The Minister will create a very confusing situation indeed.

There is another point. It arose in connection with exemptions for festivals and so on. The Minister will give so many nights to a hall. That will mean that all these clubs will be competing with one another trying to find out who will be the favoured one where licences are concerned. Unknown to himself, the Minister may be opening the way to a racket. He is certainly bound to create a good deal of misunderstanding and senseless competition between the various clubs and organisations. I can appreciate how furious my colleague, Deputy Kyne, would be, or my colleague, Deputy Ormonde, if I managed to get one of the nights and they failed. I know how furious I would be if they succeeded and I failed. I think the Minister should seriously consider what Deputy Kyne has said, but I go further than Deputy Kyne. I say ten nights would not be enough for each dance hall.

Deputy Lynch realises that I answered a question here last week giving the average figures for licences applied for for dances and dance halls. It was one per hall per year over the whole country.

That was an average over the whole country.

That is not a fair average.

It includes the metropolitan areas.

Deputies are endeavouring to convey the impression that it is impossible to run a dance in a rural area without a licence.

That is not the position. Ninety-nine out of 100 dances at the moment are run without licences.

They are not dances; they are "hops".

The Minister does not understand the position. The dances the Minister is talking about are the eight to 12 dances. We are talking of dances from ten to two or from nine to one. There is no bar at the eight to 12 dances.

And we are all agreed there should not be.

We do not want a bar for the "hops" from eleven to one... We want it for the dances from ten to two. For the ordinary "hop", no bar.

I am talking about the type of dance advertised from nine to two-thirty or from nine to three in the morning.

For 7/6d.?

For 5/-, 7/6 or 10/-. It all depends on the bands engaged. If you get the Royal Showband, the Waterford band—yes, it is the best band in the land; they were able to go over to England and beat everybody there——

They are the best hurling team; their fish are better; now they have the best band.

And they have the best Deputy.

Mr. Belton

And they sell the best drink.

Have they not the best footballers?

We won the soccer cup several times—a foreign game, if I may mention it here. I do not know what section it comes under, but, however, I must make these remarks. The type of dance I am talking about is the dance from 9 p.m. to 3 a.m. The price charged for that is around 5/-and you are taking an awful chance if you charge 6/-. I am talking from a political point of view on this. When you charge 6/-, you want to have it very good.

Is that a victory dance?

A lot of people go to such a dance and claim they voted for the Party.

You do not have many of those, of course.

I can assure the Minister that we have had much more of them than his poor supporters have had—much more of them. That is the reason, maybe, the Minister is putting this into the Bill. He wants to try to stop us from having them. However, the dance from 9 p.m. to 3 a.m. is what we are talking about. I think the Minister's idea and the figures and statistics he got were in relation to dances from 8 p.m. to midnight or from 8 p.m. to 1 a.m. They are what we call "hops". There is no supper at these and no bar. The most that can be got at them are ice cream, lemonade, and so on. However, the dances to which I am drawing the attention of the Minister, and which the Minister is trying to "down" in this section, are dances at which people can have supper, if they pay for it.

A young fellow will come along and buy a ticket for himself and his girl and they go dancing. She might say she would like supper. He will tell her that the funds would not permit it and that they can manage without supper. Then, I have often seen starry-eyed young men impressing their girl friends, but they are not the majority. They are only a very small minority of the people who attend these dances. They will go in and have supper, but they are the minority. If all the people came in starry-eyed and demanded supper, it would be impossible for the promoters of these dances to provide a supper for everyone concerned. Therefore, it is a great amenity, when the bar closes at midnight. A whole lot of people can go in and can have a few drinks at these dances—especially these. Fine Gael dances I am talking about, which are so successful that the floor is crowded and we need to get a bar open to try to get a number of people into the bar so that the remainder will have more room for dancing.

In so far as, say, Tramore and Waterford city are concerned, there are very big, well-run dance halls there, but they are commercial dance halls, and there are three hotels that have very good ballroom accommodation. I do not know what will happen these hotels and how they are to divide up, say, their four nights among their customers. The Minister will say—I am sure he will bear with me—that the majority of the people who belong to these clubs are people who——

This does not really affect a hotel with a dance hall attached.

That is the next section.

This affects the non-licensed commercial dance hall.

I shall tell the Minister about the hotels at great length when we arrive at the section. To come back to the commercial dance hall——

This affects only the commercial dance hall.

The commercial dance halls often lend the hall to clubs. The clubs make a reasonable amount of money out of their dances. They plug their dances and have a certain amount of supporters. It is not a case of the same people supporting each of these big dances. There may be a regular crowd of very young people who follow dances but you have a section of people who go to a certain dance. I forgot about the golf club: that is another one. Golfers and their wives and people to whom they would sell tickets go to these kinds of dances. A golf club needs to make money from its ticket dance every year. It helps them out in balancing their budget. Only four clubs—if there will be any at all—will get the four nights from the commercial dance halls because, if I know the commercial dance halls, they will wait to hold their great gala night dances and they will hold them for the house, for themselves.

This legislation will have a terrible effect on the finances of various clubs and organisations. The Minister should stay his hand in this. He must consider the ordinary people. Earlier on this Committee Stage, the Minister said he was not so much inclined to go by what the licensee says. I am pointing out now that the people concerned with the running of these dances are big groups of the ordinary people. I forgot to mention the club that runs dances in a few of the commercial dance halls—the Waterford Golf Club and the Waterford Bohemians soccer club, a very prosperous club because they run very successful dances with a bar licence. The South End Club go to Tramore. They have been running dances all during the season in the Atlantic Dance Hall and over the week-end, they run late dances in Tramore. The Minister should take note of that. I do not know what will happen these clubs if they are debarred from having their usual licensed dances when you pay 5/- to go into the dance, with the option of buying supper. I would ask the Minister to take the condition out of the Bill that people will be compelled to buy supper and if he wants to restrict the number of licences for each dance hall, the number should be ten.

Deputies have spoken of discrimination: I agree. Like them, I would not stand for discrimination. But perhaps we may approach it from a different angle from that from which they approached it and that would be to give no exemption. Mention has been made here of "hops"—8 p.m. to midnight and 1 a.m. I have had experience, as a spectator, in various parts of the country of these so-called or so-termed "hops", 8 p.m. to 1 a.m. or 9 p.m. to 2 a.m. When there was no drink there, I could see that the people enjoyed themselves far more than at some of the dives where the so-called swell dances and big dinners are held. If we are worrying about social life in rural Ireland, if we are really anxious about it, this section is very important. If we oppose it at all, it will be solely because we are giving special concessions or facilities to certain classes to have what I believe no section should have, namely, drink until the early hours of the morning at what we hear is supposed to be a social event, a happy event, a dance.

I am not speaking as a member of an organisation. The name has been mentioned here very freely during this discussion. I am broad-minded about it. However, social life in halls for "hops" in these areas—particularly in County Cork—is a lot more happy, more wholesome and much more sociable than at some of the centres where now, apparently, we are giving the facilities for plenty of drink with a substantial meal.

Mr. Belton

I only want to know from the Minister if subsection (5) of Section 9 is in conflict with subsection (1) of Section 11 which states that an occasional licence shall not be granted in respect of any Sunday, Christmas Day or Saint Patrick's Day.

No, because an occasional licence is a different thing from a special exemption which a club may get. Deputy Belton is right on the fact that you cannot get a special licence on a Sunday.

Mr. Belton

Only for members within the confines of the club.

Only the special 12 or, as it is now, the 15 club occasions.

That Sunday licence finishes at 12 o'clock midnight?

Yes; it finishes at 12 o'clock.

I feel that the Minister should make it a condition of the licence that the bar close one hour before the dance ends so as to give sobering-up time for some of the drunks we have poured on to the roads when the dances end.

In order to let them dance it off?

Yes. The Minister has a moral responsibility in this and I think he should live up to it. He has a grave responsibility to keep death off the roads.

I am not satisfied that the Minister has justified the introduction of subsection (3) of this section. My reading of the papers has been that cases of misbehaviour or wild activity at dances which are licensed have been more usual at functions that are very expensive and that are supposed to attract only the best of the social set. Some of these have got headlines not only in the Irish but in the English papers. The more modest events have caused less trouble in this regard.

Any of the small dances with which I am familiar are well conducted and give no cause for complaint. If this subsection is persisted in, it can only result in what Deputy Mullen described as hip-flask drinking. I cannot see why a practice that has grown up over the years should be thrown away without an explanation. There are a number of ballrooms in Dublin and there are many of these that have licensed nights. Under the provisions of this Bill, one might hog the whole lot or three or four of them might get together and divide them between them and have one each and there might be one or two which would not have any night on which this drinking might take place.

Dublin has extended considerably in recent years and I do not know whether we include in the city for the purposes of this Bill places like Finglas and Ballyfermot, which are in County Dublin. If I am forced to do so, I shall certainly table an amendment for the Report Stage, if the Minister is not prepared to consider this matter at this stage. I have agreed with every provision in the Bill, with the exception of this one, and I think the Minister has been ill advised with regard to this. He has listened to everybody except the people who are adversely affected. If he were to start all over again and see the direction in which he is going, the arguments might balance out the other way.

There is a serious problem for employers in the principal ballrooms of the city of Dublin. The Minister cannot suggest that there is any abuse of the provisions of the old Act in places like the Metropole. I cannot accept that although that is the implication here. Take Skerries, for instance. The Rugby club there, the Gaelic club and the sailing club—there is only one ballroom—are dependent almost entirely for their very existence on this type of function. They run these functions in the tourist season and they have to ration out amongst themselves whatever nights the ballroom proprietor is prepared to give them.

When one thinks of the interference there would be with desirable clubs of this kind in a place like Skerries, there is no doubt that, despite what the Minister may say, he is doing a great disservice to the people in general. Everybody gets attached to some club at one time or another and is interested in raising funds for that club. In Skerries, one way of raising funds is through dances in the Pavilion Ballroom in the tourist season. In Waterford——

I thought Deputy Lynch had made it clear he represented Waterford.

I am sorry; I have gone a little to the west. In Waterford, there used be a substantial ballroom—I do not know whether it is still there—which had a separate portion where a substantial bar could be run by the promoters and which was organised by one of the local publicans. They said to the promoters: "There is your stock; take it; we are going home and that is that." At these functions which I attend — I do not attend dances now, though I did years ago— there are two distinct groups. There are the younger people and the more mature, married people who are interested in discussing the general affairs of the club, how it is doing and what money is coming in. Husband and wife may have one dance during the night. The attendance of these people will certainly be reduced and there will be a serious loss of revenue to these organisations.

The principal source of revenue of my own trade union—apart from one or two raffles in the year—is the dance. We found the cheaper dance with the meal—you could have the meal, if you liked—at 7s. 6d., with the meal inclusive, was better from the revenue point of view. Twice a year, we hold such a dance at Malahide. I cannot see travellers rushing home on Friday night to dress up to get to Malahide. This is a very important section of our trade union. When people run out of benefit, when they have been unemployed or have been sick for a prolonged period, the only way the union can provide for them is out of the benevolent fund. I am aware of one case where a man has been sick for a very long time. Only the odd few pounds from the benevolent fund keep him alive. Unfortunately, he is one of those people who will not apply for a blue card—I am sure he is entitled to one—and he has to pay for very expensive drugs. When you bring it down to the more human point of view, this section has not taken any consideration of that human feeling.

The Minister has simply said: "I am legislating that the closing hour will be such and such, something different with meals, and rather than stop having the licensed dance entirely as we know it, we will allow it four times a year." It is going to devalue some properties which have had facilities built to cater for that type of trade. It is a retrograde step and I seriously appeal to the Minister to reconsider this subsection.

I would just like to straighten out a few of the basic elements of this situation. First of all, the law of this land is, in the main, that intoxicating liquor is to be sold on licensed premises. We have in our legislation adhered to that principle and we have instituted a pretty rigid control over the manner in which and the times at which drink is to be sold on these licensed premises. That is the principal aspect of this matter. The Legislature has taken note from time to time of the fact that there are possibly certain social occasions on which it may be desirable to depart somewhat from that rigid principle and we have had the conception incorporated into the law that unlicensed premises may on certain very special, limited occasions have the privilege of selling intoxicating liquor.

I do not think any Deputy will challenge that fundamental basis of the situation. The position, broadly speaking, obtained also that dance halls could, for very special functions on their premises, procure an occasional licence, that a club or group or association might once or twice a year wish to run a special function and for that function the law said: "Very well; because of the special social nature of the occasion, we will permit the sale of intoxicating liquor on this unlicensed premises." I want to emphasise that we are dealing with unlicensed premises, with what Deputy Lynch referred to as the commercial dancehall, the hall not licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor but for dances.

I want to put to the House this broad proposition that drinking and dancing are two separate elements of entertainment and the desirable situation is that in the main dances, particularly dances for our young people, should be an entertainment in themselves and not be linked with the sale of drink. That is the philosophy behind my proposals. We have had to face up to this situation. The law, as I said, was there and the broad effect of it was that you could have functions in dancehalls at which intoxicating liquor could be sold because of the special nature of the function. But we found a tendency creeping in where more and more of the dancehalls applied for licences for the ordinary "hop" as we call it and not for the special social function, for the ordinary, run-of-the-mill "hop" of 5/- or 7/6d. Do we not all know that in the main the people who go to these 5/- or 7/6 or 10/- "hops" are young people? It is no good trying to tell me that elderly people go out for a night to them. Ninety per cent. of the patrons are young people.

It is undesirable that we should drift more and more into a situation in which all the dances in the country would have practically an unlimited sale of drink for the young people attending them. That is my simple objection. In this Bill, I set about dealing with that situation and this is the machinery I devised to deal with it. I have started off with this principle that there should be no sale of drink in dancehalls. That is the rigid adherence, to my mind, to what is the desirable position—that dancing is one form of entertainment and drinking is another.

We have to be reasonable about these things and have regard to the humanities, as Deputy Lemass said, and see if we will give some concessions. I feel there is still an argument for the special social function held in the dance hall and I have in mind the annual dance of the GAA or the hurling club, or the annual factory outing and anything of that sort.

A victory dance.

No. We in Fianna Fáil have much greater and more regular experience of that sort of function than anybody else.

No, you have not. You had to open the doors and let them in for nothing.

We want to ensure that the legitimate social function by the group, organisation or club is catered for and we provide, in effect, that where such an annual event takes place, provided there is a substantial meal costing 5/- served at it, that proves the bona fide nature of the special occasion.

What happens if the facilities do not exist?

They have to go to an hotel.

If the hotel is not there?

We are not dealing with the deserts of Nevada. I refuse to believe that there is any part of this country where a genuine club wanting to hold its annual dance or dinner will not be able to get within reasonable striking distance of an hotel with a licensed dancehall capable of supplying its needs.

The dance room is not big enough.

The Minister is only bluffing.

I am not bluffing. This is a very serious matter and it is no good being emotional about it.

The Minister is bluffing.

I am not.

It is class legislation.

There is no element of class legislation in it. Deputy Kyne wants the unrestricted sale of drink to young people at these functions and I do not. That is the simple difference between us.

That is cheap and the Minister knows it is cheap.

Deputy Kyne should allow the Minister to speak without interruption.

I am endeavouring to make reasonable provision for the type of organisation, group and club about which Deputy Kyne and other Deputies appeared to be so concerned. There are two concessions set out in Section 9. One is where it is the special annual function or dance, and a substantial meal. It need not necessarily be a hunt ball dinner. We amended the definition in Section 7 to include what is properly called a meat tea. All that is involved is the serving of a meat tea costing 5/-. In addition, there is the extra concession involved in Section 9, namely, that four days of the year can be specified as four special festive days. Any Deputy can readily visualise the sort of day we have in mind. On those days, without a meal, no drink can be served at the dance in the unlicensed dancehall.

As I said, the provisions of Section 9 appear to me to be essentially reasonable and eminently desirable. The trend which is increasing in recent years of more and more bars at ordinary dances attended in the main by young people is something of which we must take serious note. I do not think that the ordinary dance-going public, the people who frequent dances, will be one bit upset by this provision. Most of the ordinary decent young people going to dances do not want bars at them. Dancing is usually far more enjoyable for the young people, if they want to dance, if there is no bar.

Another aspect of the matter put to me is that a number of sporting and charitable organisations will go out of business if they are not allowed run these licensed dances. Surely that is an absurd proposition? What are Deputies really suggesting? This is what they are suggesting: Unless these clubs are, in effect, allowed run an after-hours public house business, they will not be able to——

That is not true.

That is what it amounts to. I am told that the dance becomes a profitable commercial proposition only if you are able to have a bar.

Why do you not cut it out for all groups?

What is involved? The club or organisation concerned wants to be allowed to operate a public house after the other public houses have closed. That is an unfair and absurd proposition. If the sporting organisation or the charitable organisation cannot support themselves without running an after-hours public house, I suggest they should seriously examine their conscience.

They are not running an after-hours public house business.

I do not think there is any need for anyone to lose his temper about this section. Most Deputies realise what the Minister is aiming at and realise the arguments that are weighing with him. I think the disagreement is as to whether or not under subsection (3) of the Bill he is making sufficient provision for these special occasions where a licence might be permitted for drink without a meal.

I do not at all subscribe to the view that it is necessary to have a bar and to have the sale of drink at a dance in order to make money. The Minister might be disappointed to know that a unit of my organisation in County Wicklow held a successful dance last Sunday without a bar and without drink. They made a great deal of money so that I can appreciate the force of the Minister's argument that it is not necessary to have drink at a dance in order to make money. This dance was very successful and a lot of money was made without drink.

On the other hand, there are a number of organisations — Deputy Lemass spoke on behalf of some and Deputies Kyne and Lynch mentioned others—which genuinely feel that this section will do them a great deal of damage. I personally, am doubtful if it will but the question has been raised in a serious way by these people and by Deputies to such an extent that I feel the Minister would be only fair to himself and fair to the Deputies concerned by having another look at this matter. It is not a thing that should be a matter for political controversy at all.

I am accused of enacting class legislation.

Of course, you are.

That is how it may appear to some Deputies. If we can have regard to what we see in the newspapers, a number of branches of the Minister's organisation feel he is going too far here. I have a cutting from the Dublin Evening Mail of 23rd May which is headed: “City Fianna Fáil Clubs Jib.” It goes on to point out that certain Fianna Fáil clubs were joining with other organisations to protest against this very section of the Bill.

Not a single one. The report is completely misleading.

I do not know. The Minister accused the Irish Times the other day of producing a completely fabricated story.

I was right.

Now we are told that the Evening Mail is completely misleading. I do not think it could be entirely misleading. Deputy Lemass has come in with very strong views and he is rather more than a mere member of the Fianna Fáil cumann. He is a member of the Fianna Fáil Party in the Dáil. I have no doubt that he is able to get the ear of the Taoiseach occasionally. All I am saying to the Minister is that I am not personally in any violent disagreement with him. In view of the force of the arguments and the obvious sincerity of the views that have been put to him, it might be as well for him to have another look at this section.

Would you give me the section now if I undertook to have a look at it?

Yes—honestly.

I cannot promise anything.

Just your word.

A genuine reconsideration.

Particularly with regard to the rural areas.

We will agree on that understanding.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 10.

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 8, subsection (5), line 3, after "for" to insert "the entertainment of".

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Wednesday, 4th July, 1962
Top
Share