Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 18 Jul 1962

Vol. 196 No. 15

Committee on Finance. - Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1962— Report Stage.

Mr. Mullen

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, to delete lines 12 to 17 and substitute the following:

"(i) in the case of the county boroughs of Dublin and Cork after the hour of eleven o'clock in the evening, and

(ii) in the case of the remainder of the country after the hour of half-past eleven o'clock in the evening."

A great deal was said on the Committee Stage for and against the various points of view in relation to the hours that should operate during the week. I urge the Minister to accept this amendment. I would appeal to him to take into consideration a number of very important factors. It is vital that three important factors should be considered. We must consider the type of people attracted into the liquor business, the people who dispense drinks in public houses and all kinds of bars. If the hours advocated by the Minister are insisted on, a considerable number of young people will be dissuaded from going into the business. The reason is obvious, particularly when one remembers that the hours being advocated are half past ten in the morning to half past eleven at night in the summer time. That is a 13-hour spell. At the moment there is absolutely no regulation in public houses that a youth should work a certain number of hours. I am referring now to regulations laid down by the State. It is quite true that trade unions and employers can make regulations, but not every house is organised.

I am particularly concerned in this amendment with the city of Dublin. I have been asked, too, by my colleagues to mention Cork. I consider there is very good reason why Dublin and Cork should be treated in a different fashion from the rest of the country. That is one of the factors.

Another factor we must take into consideration is the people presently engaged in the business. These proposed hours postulate that operatives will be expected to work past the time of the last bus in the city of Dublin. That fact alone compels one to realise the difference that exists between Dubling and the rest of the country. To my knowledge, the rest of the country does not have the kind of bus service that Dublin city has.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present.

Mr. Mullen

I was drawing a comparison between Dublin and the rest of the country. In the country, people working in licensed premises generally live on the premises or live close by. The same cannot be said with regard to operatives in licensed premises in the city of Dublin. It is quite common to find an operative in a Dublin public house living some few miles from his place of employment. If these hours go through, that postulates that he will have to arrange for transport. A considerable number of these operatives do not use bicycles. Even if they did, the weather is so unpredictable and so inclement, it would be most unfair to expose them to the elements after their hard day's work. These are the people to whom the Minister should give consideration. These are the people upon whom he should not impose a hardship.

The next consideration the Minister should have in mind is the customer. I am satisfied that the customer in Dublin does not want these new hours. During the Committee Stage debate, I inquired where the new hours came from and who initiated them. I suggested that they did not come from the Minister and contended that he was wrongly advised in agreeing to them. We are told that this Bill has not been introduced for the purpose of looking after the tourists. That being so, we must take it that we are looking after the locals. Surely the obvious thing to do is not to encourage them to go too far in their drinking. It would not be a wrong thing to encourage the local customer to finish up at 11 o'clock at night and go home, having regard to the fact that the vast majority of these people have to be at work next morning at 8 o'clock. If we think in terms of their health, we must realise that such people should be encouraged to have and guided into having reasonable hours of rest. The opportunity should not be presented to such people to waste time drinking when they should be resting so that they can be on time for work next morning.

Another matter I should advert to is that despite the protestations of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions acting on behalf of the unions that look after the interests of bar operatives in Dublin, the Minister still felt that he should stick to these hours. It was decided to initiate some method of ascertaining the people's feelings on this matter. In conjunction with the barmen's trade union, the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union conducted a canvass of customers in trade union houses. This canvass was carried out without putting on any pressure whatever. There was no pressure whatsoever used to get the customer to indicate how he felt about the proposed hours. It was done deliberately with a view to showing what the facts are.

While that canvass has not yet been completed, the situation was found to be, as a result of a week's canvass in the public houses which asked the customer to give his views on the proposed new hours, the existing hours and an alternative suggestion, that 10,260 people put their signatures to a petition. The result showed that 7,140 persons voted for or indicated their desire to have the present hours of drinking continued; 1,159 people were in favour of the new proposals; and for a suggestion that there should be 11 p.m. closing all the year round, 1,961 people were in favour.

In hotels and restaurants, there was another canvass which has not been completed. After one week of the canvass, the situation was that 2,432 people signed the document presented to them. Of these, 1,646 advocated that the hours should remain as they are, and 486 in favour of the new proposals. That canvass has not been completed but there is there a strong indication that the customer is not in favour of the new hours of drinking. I have yet to hear from the Minister one good reason as to why the existing hours should be changed.

I am conscious of the fact that the Minister has indicated that these new hours are not for the purpose of catering for tourists, and I hold that if the present hours are to be changed at all, they should be changed to 11 o'clock closing all the year round in Dublin and Cork. It is true to say that if the change proposed in the Bill is brought about, you will have a set of people who were formerly inclined to come into the business no longer coming into it because the hours of trading are too long. You will always have the situation where the trade unions will have no option but to negotiate for new payments for the hours suggested by this Bill.

Some people may say that is nothing bad but I believe that we have come to the stage now where we have to make up our minds whether we can continue increasing prices. I am satisfied that if these new hours are continued, the price of the pint will be increased by about 4d. and that will have a serious effect on the customer. A considerable number of working class people get great enjoyment from the pint, and there has been considerable resentment in recent years about the increases. To increase the pint by another 4d. would be pushing it too far.

Let us give a little consideration to tourism in this connection. One of the attractions of this country for the tourists is that drink is cheaper than in England or the North of Ireland, but if these new hours are introduced, we will price ourselves out of that valuable market. I urge the Minister to accept this amendment. It asks that we have 11 o'clock closing in Dublin and Cork all the year round.

Mr. N. Lemass

It should be made clear that Deputy Mullen is speaking about hotel workers as distinct from barmen. It was made clear here by the former Minister for Justice and I quoted it on 28th June. At Column 145, Volume 177 of the Official Report of 11th November, 1959, Mr. Traynor, the then Minister for Justice, pointed out:

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

If Deputy Mullen knows of anybody who is not complying with those conditions he should bring that to the attention of the authorities who would have these people prosecuted because they can be prosecuted.

Mr. Mullen

There are not enough inspectors.

Mr. N. Lemass

I am quite sure if I were in the same position in a union as Deputy Mullen I would make it my job——

Mr. Mullen

Does the Deputy expect me to be responsible for the Act?

Mr. N. Lemass

The 1938 Act is there. If there are not enough inspectors that is a different question entirely.

Mr. Mullen

The Act does not spread it over.

Mr. N. Lemass

"...Barmen may not be required to work for longer than 11 hours in any day, or for longer than 48 hours in any week".

Mr. Mullen

But not spread over 13 hours.

Mr. N. Lemass

They need only work 11 hours.

Mr. Mullen

Spread over 13 hours. That is what I complained of. It is not working 13 hours.

Mr. N. Lemass

The workers' rights are protected there. The length of time they are required to work is laid down by statute and the trade unions, I believe, have negotiated better terms than these in the meantime.

Mr. Mullen

Those are the minimum conditions in any Act.

Mr. N. Lemass

The argument, therefore, that the pint will go up by fourpence is unsound. Deputy Mullen says there is great difficulty in getting people to go into this trade. That may have been so some years ago but the remuneration for barmen has been considerably enhanced in the last few years and they are in a better position than they were in 1959 or 1960. In regard to hotels, I think Deputy Mullen would confirm that a number of hotels have not adopted the 1960 hours yet.

Mr. Mullen

I said that already.

Mr. N. Lemass

It is a matter for the hotels and for the publicans, for that matter. If they do not want to adopt these new hours they need not; nobody will force them. The workers' conditions are protected by statute. It is up to the publicans then to decide.

Mr. Mullen

The Deputy should tell that to the barmen and see what they will tell him.

Mr. Ryan

If arguments were needed to justify what Deputy Mullen has said those arguments would be presented by Deputy Lemass who points out that there is a statutory obligation upon employers to observe the conditions of the Shops (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1938. How does he expect that to be done except by their getting more money to pay extra staff or to pay the existing staff more money for working extra time? How is that money to be got except from the pockets of the consumers who will have to pay more to drink the quantity they drink at the moment over hours they do not want?

Any Deputy representing Dublin who is in any way in touch with his constituents must know that Dublin as whole does not want the extended hours that the Minister is forcing upon it in this unwanted Bill, as far as Dublin is concerned. The majority of consumers are reasonable and I am concerned only with those. I am not concered with the fellow who takes a glass of sherry the day his daughter gets married or with the fellow who goes into the public house as soon as he leaves off work and stays there until closing time. We cannot make laws for these extreme cases or to suit these people.

I am concerned with the person who is difficult to define but we understand what we mean when we say "the average man", the average man who wants to have a drink at reasonably convenient hours. For that purpose he does not want the public houses open from 10.30 a.m. until 11.30 p.m. with an extra 10 minutes for the few who cannot get out before closing time. If we do not adopt more reasonable hours for Dublin not only have we the 13 hours but we shall also have an extra 10 minutes under the latest proposals, which means that the workers in public houses will have to work for longer periods than they have at the moment, an extra 40 minutes of employment they do not want, no matter what they are paid for it but which if they want to hold their jobs, they will have to work.

The last increase in the price of the pint of stout was partly attributable to the Minister for Finance in the Budget and to some extent attributable to an expectation of different working hours on Sunday. I speak subject to correction but I think the publicans put on twopence to meet the extra hours they expected for Sunday.

Mr. N. Lemass

Surely Sunday hours arise on the later amendment?

Mr. Ryan

Neither the publican nor the employees expected longer hours on Sunday plus longer hours on weekdays, which are been forced upon them and for which compensation will have to be given to the employees. If I thought there was a certainty of greater employment in the licensed trade without any increased cost for the consumer, there might be something to be said for the Bill, but from the point of view of the consumers there is no demand for it; in fact they are very much opposed to it. It is no proper answer to suggest that public houses need not remain open if they do not want to. If that system is to operate and the unions refuse to work these hours we shall have a system which sometimes exists on Saint Stephen's Day when only family houses are open. They are chockful for the few hours they are open; there is nothing but chaos. There will be some houses closing at 11 p.m. and others at 11.40 p.m. Then we shall have shebeens night after night and all kinds of confusions and unfair trading. Whatever hours are set out here will be uniform hours. I do not think there is any need to give to Dublin the hours proposed in the Bill.

Deputy Mullen's amendment would mean a reduction of the hours we have at present which is worthy of consideration and adoption. The argument may be used against it that it would provide again the key to the bona fide traffic which was abolished with, in general, overall beneficial effects. If there is to be a differential of only half an hour between city and rural public houses and if there is to be a ten minute concession for city consumers to enable them to consume their drink after closing time, there would be only 20 minutes in which to get out to the nearest bona fide and I do not think any person would be bothered making a mad rush for that period. Therefore, Deputy Mullen's amendment is worthy of serious consideration even at this late stage. If it is not accepted it is clear the Minister is completely out of touch with what Dublin wants.

The unions are to be congratulated on the impartial manner in which they went about taking the census of opinion in relation to drinking hours in Dublin. The forms which they made available to the publicans did not plead in any way for particular hours. They set out at one column the present hours, in the second column the proposals in the Bill, in the third column some amendments, and in the fourth column other amendments. I saw two sets of those forms which had been completed to a certain extent. In both cases the majority for the weekday alternative was in favour of the existing hours and was followed very closely by a preference for 11 o'clock all round. There was only a very small minority that wanted the hours proposed by the Minister in this Bill which is unwanted as far as Dublin is concerned. Therefore, I ask the Minister to consider Deputy Mullen's amendment on its merits so far as this city and its people are concerned. They want reasonable facilities; they do not want to pay, in the few hours drinking they have, for a staff that have not got sufficient work to do for the remaining period of opening.

We found under the 1960 Act that the result of the extended hours in most cases was that people did not repair to their "local" until about an hour later than was their wont beforehand. When the summer time extended opening to 11.30 p.m. came round it simply meant they went to the "local" a half an hour later than their normal time. That is the case with the majority of people in their local club which is the local public house. I do not think we should compel the working man to pay for the unnecessary hours which perhaps suit parts of the country, or do so for some portion of the year, but which certainly the ordinary decent Dublin citizen does not want.

Mr. Sherwin

I have an open mind on this matter because I do not represent any organisation and I am not here to back up the Minister as a member of his Party or to oppose him as a member of the Opposition. I am here only to speak from what I know. I happen to be in a public house every other night at the time when it closes. I do not drink but my wife takes a bottle of stout. In fact she does not go in until I arrive and as I live now in Portmarnock, that is at about twenty minutes to eleven. So, at twenty minutes to eleven my wife has one or two and I have two stone beers. I am mentioning my experience as it is. This question of the extra ten minutes now has some bearing on what we are discussing——

Acting Chairman (Mr. Cunningham)

I am afraid we are not discussing that.

Mr. Sherwin

We are discussing weekdays.

Acting Chairman

We are discussing amendment No. 1.

Mr. Sherwin

I know we are discussing Deputy Mullen's amendment to alter the hour for Dublin to 11 p.m. and that the hour suggested by the Minister in the Bill is 11.30 p.m. The point I am getting at is that the Minister is now preparing to give ten minutes which will mean that the public houses will be open up to 11.40 if the Bill is passed and until 11.10 p.m. if Deputy Mullen's amendment is carried. The ten minutes has a bearing on the discussion. I believe in uniformity at night. I shall argue against it later on the Sunday hours for the daytime. I believe in uniformity at night because at night we have plenty of revelry and other things that we have not got in the daytime. The danger of any differential between Dublin and the country at night is this. If you take Baldoyle, for instance, half of it is in Dublin City and half is in the county and you could have a case of two public houses in the one town or village so situated that one would be open up to 11 p.m. and the other until 11.30 p.m. Then you have the bona fide. That will occur around the fringe of the city and in all likelihood those public houses which have to close at 11 p.m. will be empty. The “boys” will become wise and will go out because they will say: “We will not be allowed in after 11 o'clock in the other one.” Half of the public houses would be empty while the others would be full. In other words, you would have a bona fide trade. That is why I object to any differential at night.

I believe in a happy medium. This is not in the Bill and it is not on paper but perhaps the Minister could agree to 11.15 p.m. for Dublin since he is going to give another ten minutes?

Acting Chairman

The Deputy is again going outside the terms of the amendment.

Mr. Sherwin

I know I am.

Acting Chairman

Then the Deputy is not in order.

Mr. Sherwin

I am making the suggestion. In any case we must include this ten minutes in our consideration of the matter now because the Minister has agreed to the ten minutes.

Acting Chairman

That is a different matter. We cannot discuss it on this amendment.

Mr. Sherwin

What I disagree with in regard to the 11.30 p.m. is that the last bus to Finglas, for example, is at 11.30 or 11.25. I get the last bus in winter. This means that there are people in public houses who may live in Finglas and may miss their bus. That may mean a taxi or else walking home. Eleven-thirty is too late. In many parts of the city the last bus goes before that. If the closing hour is a little earlier, not only will the drinker be able to get his bus but perhaps the barman also. There will be trouble with the 11.30 hour in the Bill. That, now, will mean 11.40—again the ten minutes. I ask the Minister, if he is not prepared to accept Deputy Mullen's amendment, to consider introducing an amendment himself to bridge the gap. One cannot argue without bringing in the ten minutes.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Deputy Sherwin has put his finger on the difficulty here. It seems quite clear that neither the publicans not their customers in Dublin want the hour of 11.30 p.m. Whatever may be said for the hour of 11.30 p.m. in rural areas it seems to be quite definite that it is not wanted in Dublin City. I understand the same applies in the case of Cork. Publicans and their customers in Dublin and Cork will be forced by the Minister under this Bill to accept the hour of 11.30 p.m. for the greater part of the year as their closing hour. Once that is being done the only solution is an amendment on the lines of that proposed by Deputy Mullen but that immediately creates the difficulty adverted to by Deputy Sherwin, that you are creating a differential at the wrong end, so to speak. All the evils of the bona fide trade arose out of the differential in the closing hour. I do not think there would be any objection from what might be described as the bona fide point of view to a differential at the opening hour but what is suggested in this amendment is that there should be a differential at the closing hour. Deputy Ryan is probably correct in his assessment of the position and I should be glad to have the Minister's views on this because I presume the Minister will speak with the views and investigations of the Garda authorities behind him.

Deputy Ryan has suggested that a half-hour differential will not make any great difference; that it will not recreate bona fide traffic and the evils associated with it. There may be something in that. Certainly, if there is any assurance forthcoming from the authorities that that is the position, that they would not regard a half-hour differential as likely to recreate the bona fide trade, my personal view would favour Deputy Mullen's amendment. It is a matter which should have the serious attention of the Minister and I hope when he speaks on this amendment he will be able to give us the views of the authorities on the matter.

Deputy Lemass has referred to the position of the workers in the trade. It is worth drawing the Minister's attention to the fact that there was a very strong view expressed by the minority report of the Intoxicating Liquor Commission. The minority report was a very strong report in this way. It was signed by nine members of the commission, whereas, if my recollection is correct, 12 signed the majority report. Nine signed the major minority report. These were the views expressed in the minority report with regard to the question of hours in county boroughs.

I quote from the minority report of the Liquor Commission in 1957. They said:

After careful consideration we are satisfied that the extension to 11.30 on week-days and 5-9 p.m. on Sundays in the densely populated areas of County Boroughs would mean:—

(a) Complete disruption of the present pattern of family life.

(b) Absence of public transport facilities.

(c) Attendant ills of late drinking, increase of prostitution, public scandal, all its consequential evils and the acute exposure to danger of young people.

(d) Potential increase in petty and general crime.

(e) Fatal consequences to the general family economy.

They went on a little bit later in the minority report with these words, also on the same question:

We cannot but be impressed by the considered views of the employers and the employees who submitted evidence before the Commission to the effect that if the proposed hours of 11.30 p.m. closing were to come into operation in Dublin over 2,000 workers, many only 16 to 18 years of age, would not finish work until after mid-night. Substantial numbers live several miles from the place of their employment and would be denied the facilities of public transport. It is certain that such a change in hours would be followed by an acceleration in existing emigration among this class of worker where recruitment is already a serious problem.

Amongst others who signed that report —his name is the last but it stands out —is Martin J. Corry. There were two other members of the present Dáil who signed it, both from these Benches. I am referring to the matter to point out to the Minister that this was obviously a question which exercised the minds of a substantial minority in the recent Liquor Commission who felt that very serious dangers would be created if the 11.30 opening was extended to the county boroughs.

Let me say that I recognise the Minister's difficulty in this. I recognise that by virtually the unanimous wish of this House and the Oireachtas generally the bona fide trade was brought to an end under the 1960 Act.

I recognise that that differential in the closing hour——

Mr. Haughey

And the corollary was, of course, the 11.30 opening.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

That 11.30 opening was there, I think, four months of the year under the 1960 Act. It is now becoming about eight months in the year. It is now going to be summer time as fixed by ministerial order. This year is runs from 25th March to 28th October, which is a very substantial lengthening of the period. However, the point I want to make is that this is a matter that was very seriously considered.

Deputy Mullen is quite right in bringing it to the attention of the House by means of this amendment in order to get our minds focussed on the problem. There is a problem there. There is a problem for the Minister and there are difficulties for the Minister. I believe the Minister will be failing in his duty to the House unless he can give us some assurance that this question has been specifically examined not only by his Department but by the Garda authorities for which he is responsible as Minister for Justice.

Deputy Mullen and his colleagues in the trade union movement have gone to the trouble of trying to compile evidence of the views of the people in the city of Dublin. I believe there is a definite obligation on the Minister to have this examined from the point of view of the authorities to see whether or not there would be a serious danger of recreating the bona fide traffic if an amendment on these lines were to be adopted by the House. I want to be quite blunt about it. As far as my own personal view is concerned, if there was any danger of recreating bona fide traffic, I would not support an amendment which would create a differential in closing notwithstanding the fact that there is ample evidence before us that the hours proposed by the Minister are not wanted by the people of Dublin or Cork.

Mr. T. Lynch

I only want to say a word with reference to Deputy Noel Lemass. He mentioned that if people wanted to close at 11 p.m. they could do so and that anybody who liked could stay open until 11.30 p.m. That is ridiculous because if 90 per cent. of the publicans decided they would like to close and that it would be better to close at 11 p.m. and only 10 per cent. decided they would open, that would eventually be the cause of the 100 per cent. of the licensed houses being open until 11.30 p.m.

It is obvious what would happen if 90 per cent. of the pubs closed at 11 p.m. There would be some overflow going over to the pubs which would be open. A substantial percentage of custom would eventually be lost to the people closing at 11 p.m. because the people who would go over would say to themselves: "I am not going back to the old pub again. It closes at 11 o'clock. I will go over to the man who stays open until 11.30."

Nobody wanted this Bill. I do not know who wants it. I do not think there was any pressure from the inner courts of the Fianna Fáil Party on the Minister for the Bill. There was not any pressure from the licensed trade nor was there any from the customers or from the country as a whole.

Mr. N. Lemass

What about Deputy O'Donnell——

Mr. T. Lynch

They are entitled to their opinion just the same as I am. I commend Deputy Lemass for having a mind of his own. I have a mind of my own on these things, too. If the Minister approached these amendments in a reasonable fashion, this Bill could go through the House very quickly.

Mr. S. Flanagan

Not while the Deputy is talking.

Mr. T. Lynch

Not when I am talking. I can assure the Deputy that if the Minister does not, I will talk. I have the ammunition here.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I am listening very attentively to the Deputy.

Mr. T. Lynch

Deputy Burke is the chief commissioner for the County Dublin publicans.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are getting away from the amendment.

Mr. T. Lynch

Deputy Burke has come in here consistently to speak for Dublin. I commend him for that. He is also a member of Dublin Corporation. But no matter what he says, he does not follow it up in the Lobby.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

What Deputy Burke says or does is not relevant.

Mr. T. Lynch

Deputy Burke pointed out on the previous Stage of this Bill that it was pressure from him that got the Minister to take out Section 15.

Mr. Haughey

He is a very influential man.

Mr. Sweetman

He was never able to get the widow the full pension all the same.

Mr. T. Lynch

I hope Deputy Burke will intervene for me on No. 3.

Mr. Leneghan

For some weeks past, we have listened to all these futile arguments about hours in the licensing trade. We have listened to those people who have tried to prevent the Minister from giving the ordinary public what they so manifestly want. These people have held up this legislation unnecessarily. I have no hesitation in saying that the result will be that they will be taking thousands of pounds out of the pockets of many publicans in the next few months. When these gentlemen go out to thank those who elected them, I hope they will explain the real reasons for which they held up this Bill. If ever they have to pay a visit to Achill Island in my constituency, the publicans there will be delighted to listen to their excuses. As a result of their misguided activities, the publicans in such places as Achill and Enniscrone will have lost thousands of pounds. I hope these gentlemen will be able to convince these publicans that they are right and the Minister for Justice is wrong. I doubt it. The publicans in my area are not such fools as some of the gentlemen from Waterford and elsewhere seem to think they are. I would advise them to get that into their brains, if they have any brains.

Mr. Ryan

On a point of order, Sir, Deputy Mullen's amendment deals with closing hours in Dublin and Cork. It does not deal with the particular local problems of Achill Island.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It also deals with the remainder of the country outside the county boroughs of Dublin and Cork.

Mr. Leneghan

The rest of the country is just as important as Dublin.

Mr. Ryan

The Deputy from the lighthouse is not dealing with the hours of closing.

Mr. Leneghan

I shall bring up a mousetrap for the Deputy the next time.

Mr. Ryan

Is that how the Deputy makes his money?

Mr. Leneghan

If I had an empty matchbox, I would put the Deputy into it.

Mr. Ryan

Or a brandy bottle.

Mr. Leneghan

Many publicans are going to lose thousands of pounds. If these gentlemen had any commonsense, they would see that they are leaving these publicans with less money to subscribe to their political funds, if they were ever inclined to subscribe to them. The Minister came in here to try to give the people of the country the type of legislation for which they have been asking for two years. A crowd of people, who represent nobody except themselves, are trying to sabotage the Minister's efforts. I see no reason why the cities of Dublin and Waterford should dictate to the rest of the country. We are just as much entitled to consideration as the people in Dublin, Waterford or Cork. The alleged city of Dublin would not be regarded as a decent town in a proper country. Yet these people have the effrontery to try to dictate to us.

Mr. Barron

Be careful in case you hurt the Minister in saying that.

Mr. Leneghan

I am sure if the Minister could get another address in the country, he would be glad to go to it. The tourist industry will suffer very greatly. Already thousands of people who normally came to the West no longer go there. They just go to Dublin and no further. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why the gentlemen from Dublin want to perpetuate this type of legislation and prevent people going down to the West among decent people. I do not believe tourism is the beginning and end of everything, but it is one of our most important industries. The people in the tourist areas should not be victimised to suit a few people in Dublin, usually cranks and cynics.

I do not want to hold up this Bill any further. I want to congratulate the Minister on bringing in a sensible Bill, which I hope will go through in the way he wants it. I also want to thank him sincerely for his amendment of Section 27.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We cannot discuss that amendment now.

Mr. Sweetman

Is Deputy Calleary going to take him as a running partner? No answer? He is thinking it over.

Mr. Haughey

All that is involved in this Bill with regard to weekdays is an extra half-hour for the additional months of Summer Time. I do not think it can be seriously argued that that will make any substantial difference to the situation of the Dublin barmen. I want to point out to the House, and to Deputy Mullen in particular, that the Dublin and Cork publicans have not said a single word against this proposal. In fact, if it were to be put to them as a specific issue whether or not they would opt for the proposal in the Bill as against some differential, I know their answer would be overwhelmingly in favour of what is in the Bill.

I want to make it clear that the Dublin and Cork publicans have made representations to me on many matters, but this additional half-hour for the extra months of Summer Time was not one of the matters to which they adverted at all. From what I know of them, it is something they are fully prepared to accept. It is, I think, a reasonable suggestion, one indeed which was widely canvassed when the 1960 Bill was being put through, and one which experience since then has shown to be eminently desirable. My main objection to accepting Deputy Mullen's amendment is that it would create a differential. My mind is very much set against differentials for the reasons advanced by Deputy Sherwin and others. There is no doubt that, once you breach the broad principle of uniformity, you have no bastion on which to stand. You would have to start giving in all over the place and you would finish up with chaos.

The question was specifically put to me by Deputy M.J. O'Higgins as to whether or not the Garda were consulted in this matter and, if so, what their view was. The Garda Síochána are, of course, in constant touch with my Department in all these matters. Indeed, the only matter in which we do not have discussions are disciplinary matters affecting individual Gardaí.

Mr. Sweetman

The Minister would be wise not to press that because nobody in the wide world who read this morning's papers believed him this morning.

Mr. Haughey

It is absolutely true I have no function.

Mr. Sweetman

The Commissioner is bound to inform the Minister of something that is political.

Mr. Haughey

I have no function with regard to a particular individual disciplinary matter.

Mr. Sweetman

Nobody in the world believed the Minister in that regard this morning.

Mr. Haughey

As I was saying, we keep in very close touch with the Garda Síochána. We seek their views in these matters. But this is not a matter in which the views of the Garda Síochána could be accepted because this is a matter of the general habits and movements of the people and, in regard to that, I would not look to the Garda Síochána for an opinion. Deputies are the best fitted of any section in the community to give an opinion as to what our people might do or how they might behave in any given situation. It is the point of view here that should guide us. We have between us an accumulation of experience unequalled by any other section of the community. I object to Deputy Mullen's proposal on the principal ground that it would reintroduce differentials. That would be bad. It would have bad effects. There is, of course, inherent in Deputy Mullen's suggestion—I do no know whether or not it is accidental—a proposal that in the rural areas the closing time of eleven should be changed to eleven-thirty in the winter months.

Mr. Mullen

That is not in the amendment.

Mr. Haughey

It is inherent in it, and that is another reason why I ask the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. Mullen

Deputy Lemass referred to the Shops (Conditions of Employment) Act. I would not accuse the Deputy of doing it purposely, but he carefully refrained from mentioning that that Act prescribes minimum regulations to be enforced by officers appointed by the State. It does not apply only to trade union establishments. It applies to all types of shop employees, organised or unorganised. There is no provision in this Bill to safeguard the worker. Under this measure, operatives will be expected to work for 13 hours a day. I have asked the Minister not to do anything to dissuade young people from going into the licensed trade. It is very important that these young people should be able to travel home by bus at night. Deputy Sherwin said he felt that this half-hour would lead to a resuscitation of the bona fide trade on the perimeter. I do not believe that for a moment. What is a half-hour? He said 11.15 p.m. might meet the situation. The amendment says eleven o'clock and, in advocating eleven o'clock, we are leaving the rest of the country untouched.

I make that point for the benefit of Deputy Leneghan who talked about the thousands of pounds the publicans would lose. His concern, I understand, was with the publicans outside the city of Dublin. I have not said a thing about what should happen to publicans outside Dublin. I have no objection to their implementing the hours proposed by the Minister in this Bill. My interest is in the people in the city of Dublin. Despite what Deputy Leneghan thinks about Dublin, he is very pleased to come up here and sit in Parliament. Unfortunately for him, Dublin is the capital of Ireland. If he feels as he does about Dublin, the proper thing for him to do is not to appear here at all. If he is sincere, that is what he will do. He would, of course, say anything for a joke. Indeed, sometimes he talks without thinking.

The Minister pointed out—I can well understand his purpose in doing so— that by accepting this amendment, we would be spoiling the uniformity. May I remind the Minister once more—I made this point already on Committee Stage—that the tendency in organised areas is to reduce rather than increase the number of working hours? The people working for Deputy Leneghan are not organised. If they were, things might be different.

The Minister has said that the Dublin publicans have made no representations about the weekly hours of trading. I accept what he has said, but I point out that the Dublin publicans, in conjunction with their employees, conducted a canvass of their customers to obtain their opinions. I understand that the week before last they held a meeting and unanimously decided that the obtaining of a petition was an excellent idea; they were against the proposed weekly hours of trading.

I believe there is a good argument for the Minister to differentiate between Dublin and the rest of the country. Dublin is a densely built-up area. It is in a different category from anywhere else. Perhaps that is why some people like to come up to Dublin, even if only for the purpose of making fools of themselves in this Parliament.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."

The Dáil divided: Tá, 68; Níl, 13.

Tá

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

Níl

• Barron, Joseph.
• Clinton, Mark A.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Costello, Declan D.
• Hogan, Patrick (South Tipperary).
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Lynch, Thaddeus.
• Mullen, Michael.
• Norton, William.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Ryan, Richie.
• Tierney, Patrick.
• Treacy, Seán.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies J. Brenn an and Geoghegan; Níl: Deputies Mullen and Ryan.

Question declared carried.

Mr. N. Lemass

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, to delete lines 18 to 22, inclusive.

May we discuss amendments Nos. 2 and 3 together?

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes.

Mr. T. Lynch

I do not agree. They are completely separate.

Mr. N. Lemass

Very well. When we discussed this matter before, I defended the retention of the midday closing but listening to the debate I think the weight of argument is in favour of the abolition of that mid-day closing. Having taken the other point of view the last time, I thought I would table this amendment particularly in view of the Minister's statement at columns 908-9, Volume 196, of the Official Report of 27th June, 1962, in which he said:

It seems to me that all we are really concerned with here is the convenience of the Dublin and Cork publicans and their staffs. It does not seem to me that the general public will be inconvenienced one way or another. In that situation we might leave over any further discussion until the Report Stage...

He went on to say at column 909:

...I would also like to have further discussions with the publicans concerned because my information is that the Dublin publicans are fairly well divided on this issue.

In the same column, he said:

My understanding of the situation is that in Dublin the larger publicans, who employ in the main trade union labour, are in favour of a total abolition of the midday closing hour, but that the smaller publicans who man their own premises are in favour of its retention because it provides them with an opportunity of having their midday meal and of tidying up their premises.

My own personal inclination would be to abolish the midday closing hour altogether...

Although I defended the midday closing hour in the first instance, in the same volume at Column 908, I said:

I am inclined to agree with Deputies P. O'Donnell and P.J. Burke that the more restrictions you have, the worse type of drinking you will have. To my mind, the fewer restrictions you have the less drunkenness there will be.

In view of these statements, I thought it would be better to table this amendment in order to give the Minister an opportunity of letting us know the outcome of whatever discussions he was to have and the further consideration he was to give to the matter.

Mr. T. Lynch

Are we taking amendment No. 2 separately?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Yes, No. 2.

Mr. Sherwin

I take it the Deputy is seeking to drop the midday closing in Dublin?

Mr. N. Lemass

It is open for discussion.

Mr. Sherwin

I object entirely to the amendment. Strange as it seems, I have a letter from a publican in Waterford last week who said he was shocked at the suggestion made by the Minister to keep public houses open all day. Having referred to my own speech, he said: "We know." He pointed out these session drinkers, those fellows who have money and nothing to do, who do not want to leave the public house and who are responsible for wrecked homes. The people of the country areas are more of a working type but there are a tremendous number of people in the cities, especially Dublin, who live on pensions and who live on their wits. They are in Dublin in thousands as compared with scores in country areas. Those fellows would live in the public houses. They would be a nightmare to the publicans, to themselves, their wives, and everybody else.

I live around the markets and I know what goes on behind the scenes. I know Dublin. I have run dances for 30 years and you get to know everyone. You get to know the underworld and the "overworld". I know all the "spunkers" and all those fellows up the lanes drinking poteen, methylated spirits and hair oil. I also know the fellows who go in for the glass of whiskey and the cup of tea. I know a number of people who would not leave the public house and if they did come out later and happened to be drivers of cars, they would have deaths on their hands. That would be the Minister's responsibility also.

This midday closing is a deterrent. It prevents people from overdoing it and gives the publican an opportunity to get the people out. By chance, they may go home for their dinner. It also gives them a chance to know how drunk they are. It is a fact that people do not know how drunk they are until they stand up to go out. As far as the capital city is concerned, it would be dangerous to accept this amendment and I do not think we should even discuss it.

Mr. Haughey

As promised, I discussed this question further with the various interests concerned and I am assured by the Dublin city publicans that they are overwhelmingly in favour of the retention of the midday closing period. Not alone that, but they are in favour of retaining the existing hours, half-past two to half-past three. That is also the view of the Dublin barmen conveyed to me through both their unions.

I understand the same is the situation in Cork. In those circumstances, I think the argument for retaining the midday closing hours of half-past two to half-past three is unanswerable. As I indicated on Committee Stage, there is no real public interest involved in Dublin and Cork in this matter and in that situation, I think we can have serious regard to the wishes of the people engaged in the trade. I know there is a small section of Dublin city publicans who would like the midday closing hour abolished but on balance, I am convinced we should retain it for the moment.

Mr. N. Lemass

As the Leas-Cheann Comhairle is aware it is only as a result of arguments here that I was inclined to change my views. Now that I have heard this statement from the Minister, with your permission, I should like to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Kyne

Would the Minister not take No. 3 with it?

Mr. Haughey

Deputy Lynch objected to that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. T. Lynch

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 3, line 19 after "Cork" to insert "or the borough of Waterford".

I rise to speak on this amendment with great hope, having listened to the Minister tell us that he must retain the midday closing hour in Dublin and Cork because the publicans of Dublin and Cork have come to him and asked for it. I put it to the Minister that he should include the Borough of Waterford for the same reason. I placed in the Minister's hands a document, petition or memorial—whatever you wish to call it—signed by nearly 90 per cent. of the Waterford publicans saying that they wanted to retain this hour of closing between 2.30 and 3.30 p.m. That is, or should be, as convincing to the Minister as a meeting with the representatives of Cork and Dublin publicans. Tonight, when he was speaking on the first amendment, the Minister said he wanted to make it clear to the House that the licensed trade in Dublin did not show any objection to these hours. The Gardaí were in constant touch with the Minister in the matter.

The Garda are not the people to guide the Minister. Deputies are in a better position to give opinions and I am conveying the opinion of the people in the licensed trade in Waterford. I am also conveying the opinion of many housewives, mothers and sisters and workers in Waterford. The men consider the public houses should have that closing hour because the majority of the young men I meet in Waterford are working in factories there. They have been striving hard up to recently for a 40-hour week and, having got it, they do not want to see other people working eternally.

It is reasonable for the publicans to send a memorial to the Minister and ask him to meet them. I had hoped that the Minister would give an indication that he would be prepared to meet me on this. I think he should. It is a most reasonable amendment. I ask the Minister to accept it and I should compliment him if he did. It would be an instance of democracy at work, of public opinion making itself felt through myself and my colleague Deputy Kyne from Waterford, if we, having brought the opinions of our constituents here, the Minister, having considered the matter since the Committee Stage, would say: "I shall allow Waterford to stay in the Bill with Dublin and Cork."

I do not see why the Minister should cut out Waterford. On the Committee Stage the Minister said that the situation in regard to Dublin and Cork was different. So far as he could see, the publicans in Dublin, he said, were equally divided on this matter. Largely, the publicans in the central city areas wished to have this mid-day closing done away with for the various reasons he enumerated. The smaller Dublin publicans, on the other hand, wished to have the mid-day closing retained because, they say, it gives them an opportunity to go for a mid-day meal, tidy their premises and so on. Why should the Minister treat the people of my constituency differently from the people of Dublin? According to the Minister's reasoning tonight, if the majority of publicans in a particular place want a particular thing he is prepared to meet them on it. Now he says only half the publicans in Dublin want this but at the same time he is prepared to give it to them. I was one of a deputation composed of my colleagues from Waterford that presented this memorial to the Minister and I was sure the occasion would not arise when I would have to come into the House and plead this.

There is another matter I want to point out to the Minister because I had no opportunity of speaking on it on the Committee Stage.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

Mr. T. Lynch

The Minister said he had no evidence that the people of Waterford wanted to stay in. That was on 26th June, as reported at Column 888 of Volume 196 of the Official Report. Tonight, the Minister said he had no evidence that the people of Dublin wanted this mid-day closing but he was quite satisfied that the publicans of Dublin and Cork wanted it and therefore he was prepared to give it to those publicans.

I live in Waterford city and move about a good deal. The debate on the Committee Stage was discussed there in various public places and my question put to different people was:

"Would you prefer the closing hour to be retained?" It was not a case of a majority being in favour but only one man replied that what he would like was to have the public houses open 24 hours a day.

Let me remind the Minister that we have factories working 24 hours a day and in a number of them the workers finish on Friday night. They have their wages in their pockets on Saturday morning. They do not go into town very early on Saturday morning as it is their day off. Not all of them go into public houses but many of them do at about 11.30 or 12 o'clock. If they go in, they do not get out for the day. They begin card-playing or something else and many of them will stay there. I am repeating what a former colleague of mine said when he sat on the Fianna Fáil benches and he was a highly respected member of the licensed trade in Waterford.

The Minister said that Deputy Lynch told him that he met a few people. I met hordes of people. Every one of us who goes around as a Deputy meets lots of people. If we do not, we are slipping. As I told the Minister, I met one man who said: "I am not in favour of any midday closing hour or any closing hour. They should be open the whole 24 hours." The Minister can put any weight on that he likes. I said then at column 889:

Mr. T. Lynch: May I interrupt the Minister to ask if he has any evidence that anybody in Waterford wants this?

Mr. Haughey: I have, yes.

That was a most surprising statement. I had a full post about it. I had many people coming to my office about it. I had people stopping me in the street and even coming to see me at functions and meetings about it. What evidence has the Minister that anybody in Waterford wants the pubs open from 2.30 p.m. to 3.30 p.m.? It is an extraordinary thing that the Minister could have such evidence.

I put it to the Minister that this is a most reasonable amendment. It does not upset his Bill in any way. He is doing this for Dublin and Cork. Why can he not do it for Waterford when it is asked for? On his own admission, only about half the publicans in Dublin want this. He will not do this for Waterford, even though 90 per cent. of the licensed trade want it. He says he will not do this for Waterford because he has a consensus of public opinion in his favour. With respect, I say that he has not. He has not made any statement as to how he obtained that, from whom he obtained it or who sent it to him or when he got it.

The Minister has given his opinion on amendment No. 2 about how he feels in relation to the licensed trade. He has given his opinion in relation to Dublin on amendment No. 1, that if they do not see any objection to these hours, he was prepared to meet them. The publicans in Waterford have no objections to these hours and the Minister should be prepared to meet them on it.

Mr. Kyne

I am here not to put forward my personal view but to try to interpret the views of my constituency. While I know nothing about the question of the midday closing in Waterford because I live in a rural area, where it did not exist, I must admit that the consensus of opinion, in so far as I can register it, amongst the publicans in Waterford is in favour of this closing. I must agree with Deputy Lynch that at least 90 per cent. of the publicans there feel that they should have a closing hour.

In common with Deputies Ormonde and Lynch, I received telegrams on the Committee Stage of this Bill protesting against the Minister's statement on Second Reading that it was not the view of the Waterford people. I do not represent the consumers view but I do know the publicans' view. The Minister might rightly ask me, as he did at a private meeting, if I could give him any idea of the consumers' view. I cannot, and I am perfectly honest about it. I do not know what the ordinary man who takes a drink in Waterford wants. I could not tell the House that. In the Bill the Minister has seen fit to say that in other areas if the publicans in general decide that they should make a request to open half an hour earlier, unless they conflict with the State or the Church, they may be permitted and could get the extra half-hour.

If he gives that concession to the publicans in the rural area, I do not think there is anything wrong with his considering the request of the Waterford publicans. I am only trying to interpret as well as I can the views of my constituency. I want it to be perfectly clear that so far as I am concerned this is a good Bill. I am going to vote for it but I would suggest to the Minister that he should in all reason consider a serious amendment put forward on behalf of an organised group in the city of Waterford. It will not interfere with anything. There is nothing sacrosanct about changing an hour and allowing us to have this closing hour. The Minister might well say, as I have said to the publicans in Waterford, that there is nothing to stop them closing, if they want to close, but the publicans have retaliated with the statement that they employ labour at a good trade union rate and that they will be held up to ransom in relation to the family house which employs a girl or boy who can go on and keep the place open for that hour.

I do not think the Minister wants that. I think the Minister has treated the whole Bill reasonably and well. It is an excellent Bill as far as I can see, even though the amendments I had hoped to see in it are not in it. The Minister should have a look at a serious request from the third city in the country. Could he not be reasonable and say that if Waterford publicans want the hour, there is no law against it and that the position should be the same as that obtaining in Dublin and Cork? The Minister should consider that. I do not know how I am going to vote if it comes to an issue but I feel it would be unfair as a Waterford representative if I did not press that view on the Minister. It is the only view I can get from Waterford so far. I would appeal to the Minister to consider it.

Mr. Sherwin

I am speaking for this amendment although I am not from Waterford. A publican wrote to me and appealed to me to support the amendment. Just for that reason and apart from the fact that a good case was made, I support the amendment. I am sure that the representatives from Waterford would not advocate the amendment unless it was the will of the publicans in Waterford. If it were not the will of the publicans in Waterford, one would be in danger of getting into serious trouble. The representatives here must be people who express the wishes of the publicans in Waterford.

If any city wants to keep the mid-day closing, the Minister should let them keep it. There is a difference between a city and a rural area. The rural area publicans are largely family publicans. While the publican is at his dinner, his wife can keep the pub running. In the city, you have none of that type of business: you have employed persons. The situation is entirely different. If the publicans in any city want to retain the hour, I do not see why the Minister should object, because such a differential in the daytime is not a serious departure from the principle of the Bill at all. I see no danger at all in slight differentials in the daytime; the great danger is at night. If Limerick is not making the case, that is Limerick's business. Waterford is making the case. It is not a very controversial or serious matter and I think the Minister should accede to it.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I want to support this amendment. I cannot understand the Minister's attitude with regard to it. As Deputy Sherwin pointed out, this is not a matter that should be regarded as controversial in the political sense. There is nothing political about it. It is a question of public representatives from the Waterford constituency coming in here and representing the views of the people concerned in their constituency. No one in this House can doubt for a moment the words of Deputy Lynch and Deputy Kyne that the vast majority of the publicans in the city of Waterford want to maintain what is, after all, only the status quo. It certainly seems to me that if there is a proposal to alter the status quo, there should be a very strong case made before that is done.

The House should compare the Minister's approach with regard to this question in connection with the city of Dublin and the city of Cork and his approach to it in connection with the city of Waterford. Deputy Noel Lemass had down an amendment to abolish this midday closing in the cities of Dublin and Cork. What was the Minister's attitude? His attitude was that he had examined this matter. He had gone into consultation with the publicans in Dublin and Cork and they were overwhelmingly in favour of retaining the midday closing in those two cities. Accordingly, having heard their views, the Minister decided the status quo should be maintained.

What are Deputy Lynch and Deputy Kyne asking the Minister to do? They have furnished the Minister with evidence—they have certainly satisfied me and I venture to suggest they have satisfied every Deputy—that the overwhelming majority of the publicans in the city of Waterford also want the status quo maintained. Why does the Minister seek to upset that? Why does he treat the people and the publicans of Waterford any differently than he does the publicans in Dublin and Cork?

I cannot understand why there is such a complete reversal of Government policy on this matter inside the space of two years. I do not want to weary the House with quotations which I have already put on record, but the Minister's predecessor just two years ago dealt with this matter in the House. He told the House it would be a retrograde step to do away with this midday closing. He was talking with reference to a proposal at that time which sought to abolish it for the city of Limerick. His colleague, the Minister for Lands, came into the House and told us it was the view of the authorities that this midday closing was valuable and should be retained. No less than two Government Ministers went on record in this House in fighting down a proposal from an independent body from Limerick two years ago that the midday closing should be abolished in Limerick. The Minister's predecessor told us that this midday closing in the county boroughs was one of the most valuable features of our licensing legislation, a sentiment with which I fully agree.

Two years later, the Minister, apparently in pursuance of a policy of uniformity I cannot understand, tells us he is going to abolish midday closing in two of the cities and retain it in two others. The Minister has evidence, which I venture to suggest cannot be denied, put before him by public representatives of the constituency in question. There are no politics in it. There should be no controversy associated with it. There is no reason at all that I can see why the Minister's approach to the Waterford. Deputies and publicans should not be precisely the same as his approach to the people of Dublin and Cork.

In addition to what the Minister's predecessor and his colleague, the Minister for Lands, had to say on this, this question was also examined by the Liquor Commission which reported in 1957. They dealt with the matter regarding week-day hours generally. Their recommendation, on which the 1960 Act was principally based, was that the hours of general trading should be from 10.30 a.m. to 11.30 p.m. all the year round, but that in the county boroughs of Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford the existing provision for closing between 2.30 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. should be retained.

What evidence has the Minister had since the Report of that Commission that leads him to suppose that an alteration such as this is desirable? What arguments has he to advance— they should be forceful arguments if he is going to alter the status quo— to counter the arguments put forward by two out of the three Deputies representing the city of Waterford? In replying to this on the Committee Stage, the Minister threw it out that he had evidence that the people of Waterford wanted this change. Like Deputy Lynch, I now ask him what is that evidence? Will he give us proof of whatever knowledge he has in this matter? I very strongly urge on him, in the interest of trying to get some agreement with regard to some section of this Bill, that the amendment proposed by Deputy Lynch be accepted.

Mr. Corish

I just wish to say I support this amendment. I cannot say I have any new arguments for it. With all due respect to the last speaker, I gather from Deputy Lynch and Deputy Kyne that their plea is tantamount to being an expression of the views of the Waterford publicans and, I think, some of the Waterford people. Waterford is a sister constituency of mine, if you like, and I am aware that the publicans in Waterford want to preserve this midday hour.

I do not think there is any use in waving the former Minister for Justice in the face of the present Minister on this measure. It is quite obvious the present Minister does not even pretend to frame liquor legislation in the same way as his predecessor. That is the responsibility of the Government and they will have to take whatever criticism there is for that. It seems Deputy Haughey, as Minister for Justice, has a different approach to many of these matters.

Mr. Kyne

Hear, hear.

Mr. Corish

I cannot say whether that is good or bad. I do not know. I object to the majority of the sections of this Bill. It seems obvious that the Minister does not see eye to eye with the proposals contained in the Bill introduced by his predecessor. That is his own look out. I would ask him to listen to the plea being made by the two Deputies from Waterford and the plea put to him by the publicans of the city of Waterford. He may have a case that there is no strong demand from Limerick. Maybe he wants that uniformity which suggests this hour be preserved in the four county boroughs. If he is not prepared to accept this amendment might I respectfully ask him to say now that, between this and the consideration of the Bill in the Seanad, he will further investigate the attitude of the publicans and the consumers in Limerick so that he will have, at least, that sort of uniformity where the hour's break in the day will be peculiar only to the four county boroughs?

Mr. Leneghan

I received a very large number of letters in connection with this Bill. I received one letter from a publican in Waterford. He is a supporter of either Deputy Lynch or Deputy Kyne. I replied asking him for some further information. After getting the second letter, I regarded him as nothing but a head case. I took it then that he was a supporter of Deputy Lynch.

Deputy Lynch claims to represent the publicans in Waterford. I am surprised he has not some kind of organisation in Waterford and that somebody representing that organisation did not write to me instead of this individual publican who made utterly fantastic statements. One was that, if the hours were extended, he would have to sell out and go to England. He claimed he was operating the house himself with, I think, the help of his family. As far as I know, if the hours are extended in the West of Ireland, that will keep a great many people from going to England.

Mr. Haughey

I am fairly clear in my mind that Deputy Lynch does speak for a substantial number of Waterford city publicans in this matter. I am equally clear in my mind that the majority of the Waterford city publicans, for their own convenience, would be against what I am proposing. But I am afraid I cannot agree that the matter ends there.

Apart from the excellent pipeline which Deputy Lynch is from the constituency of Waterford, I have my own sources of information as to the wishes, needs, requirements and desires of the constituency. I am quite satisfied that, apart from the convenience of the majority of the publicans, there are excellent reasons why quite a number of people in Waterford agree with what I propose. Apart from the narrow sectional interests of the publicans in this regard, I have certainly had no protests from Waterford. I know that Deputy Kyne in his frank and honest approach to this Bill, and it has been that throughout, is torn in this matter. He cannot make up his own mind. All he can say to me is what the Waterford city publicans want and, if he can meet their wants, he will. That is the sum total of his argument. I have information from my own sources——

Mr. T. Lynch

What are the sources?

Mr. Haughey

——as to what the needs and requirements of Waterford city are in this regard. Over and above all that, I am all the time in this Bill trying to get uniformity wherever possible. This situation was examined first on the basis of whether or not the midday closing should be abolished throughout the country and whether the degree of uniformity should be extended in this way. The arguments in favour of abolishing it in Limerick city were very compelling. They seemed to me to be equally compelling in regard to Waterford city. Reluctantly I came to the conclusion that this anachronism, as I think it is, should be retained in regard to Dublin and Cork for the reasons I have given. I am not convinced, apart from a narrow sectional interest, that what I am proposing here is in any way undesirable.

Mr. McQuillan

In connection with the licensed trade in Waterford, if the Minister agreed, for the sake of argument, to the publicans' wish to close the premises for this particular hour, where there was a mixed business, would not that entail those who pursue such mixed business being prevented from allowing their customers in on the premises?

Mr. Haughey

It would.

Mr. Corish

Does not that obtain in Dublin and Cork as well?

Mr. T. Lynch

It does not obtain in Waterford.

Mr. Haughey

There is no mixed business in Dublin.

Mr. T. Lynch

The Minister said he wanted to try to separate Waterford from Dublin and Cork. Taking drink is a matter of spending money. It is a matter of so much money per head of the population. I am not talking now about tourists, I am talking about natives. I asked the Taoiseach for details as to the amount of retail sales per head per county some time ago. Per head Dublin was the highest. Waterford came next. Cork and Limerick were away down. I do not think the Minister is being fair in this. The Minister says he has ways and means of obtaining information and that there is a need for doing away with this hour in Waterford. The Minister is a Dublin man, resident in Dublin. According to himself, he has no idea as to whether there is any public demand for the retention of this hour in Dublin city, but he has an idea about Waterford. That is a rather extraordinary statement by the Minister. He said earlier this evening that he is in touch with the Gardaí, but they are not the people who guide him. He says Deputies of this House are in a better position to give the Minister information. I have conveyed to the Minister in no uncertain fashion the fact that the majority of the people in Waterford want this. The men and women, the wives and mothers want it.

Mr. Leneghan

And the children.

Mr. T. Lynch

We will leave the children to the poteen counties and the Spanish rum. The tourists do not go back there any more. They were so severely clipped last year they are staying east this year. They know where they will get good value. We do not want to open the public houses day and night for them. We want to close them.

The Minister must be aware of what Deputy Sherwin described as session drinkers. The Minister is responsible for the whole set-up and the smooth running of the licensed trade. It is very difficult for a publican, if he has reasonably good spending customers, and they come in at 11 a.m., settle down and start playing cards; they will not go away for the rest of the day. The publican who wants to keep a well run house would like to break the party up and send the men home to their dinners. They can come back again and, even if they do not, maybe it will be just as well. I suggest that this is a reasonable amendment we are putting to the Minister and he should be prepared to meet the people of Waterford in the matter. I shall feel very disappointed if the Minister is not prepared to meet us.

Mr. Corish

Would the Minister not consider at least promising to consider the matter, in conjunction with Limerick, if he likes? I can see the Minister's difficulty there.

Mr. T. Lynch

I would ask the Minister to consider the question of Waterford by itself in the Seanad. If the people of Limerick want it that way, that is their business. I can assure the Minister that he will have nothing but compliments from this side of the House if he will consider it.

Mr. Kyne

Will the Minister consider it, if it is at all possible?

Mr. Corish

Perhaps the Minister will consider the matter in the Seanad in conjunction with Limerick?

Mr. Haughey

Limerick is out. However, for Deputy Kyne's sake, I will do it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Corish

Can we discuss amendments Nos. 4 and 5 together?

An Ceann Comhairle

I suggest that we take Nos. 4 and 5 together.

Mr. Sherwin

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 3, to delete lines 28 and 29 and substitute:

"(i) if the premises are situate in the county borough of Dublin, half-past five o'clock in the afternoon or after the hour of ten o'clock in the evening,

(ii) if the premises are situate outside the county borough of Dublin, four o'clock in the afternoon or after the hour of ten o'clock in the evening or".

On Committee Stage, I put down an amendment similar to this but it referred to the whole country. I have changed it to this extent, that it now refers only to Dublin. I want to make it clear that I am accepting the Minister's section but I am asking him to exclude Dublin from it. The case I am making is that no one in Dublin wants opening from 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. Even the members of the Minister's party are aware of that and I am sure they have told him that. We object to six hours drinking on a Sunday but the real reason I have put down the amendment is that I want to give the workers a reasonable break on a Sunday. Whatever chance they might have with a break of three or three and a half hours, a break of two hours is no good because you cannot go anywhere or do anything in two hours.

If a public house closes at two o'clock, it is after two before the employees get out and then they only have time to eat. They certainly have no time to go anywhere if they have to be back at four o'clock. It kills their chances of going to a cinema or to a match. Most of the big matches are held in Dublin, not in the country. Most of the barmen are country folk; few of them are Dublin folk. They are used to hurling and football and are fond of these games. They like to go to the games and if they have any spare time, they play the games.

If they were off for three and a half hours, it would give them a chance of getting some dinner and going to a match, seeing it, perhaps participating in it and getting back to the public house in time. It also gives them the chance of going to a cinema and getting back in time for the reopening. It would give them the chance to get out in the country for an hour or two, if they wished. I believe that it would suit 100 per cent. of the employees and the publicans themselves.

The public have no great interest in drinking beer at four o'clock on a Sunday afternoon. Sunday afternoons have always been regarded as an occasion for games, for outside sports. If the opening hour were 5.30 p.m., it would encourage people to promote Sunday games but if the public houses open at 4 o'clock, it would be a killer. What the promoters of these events are afraid of is loss and even if only a certain percentage attended any of these events at 4 o'clock, it would give the promoters a chance of meeting their expenses. If the public houses were shut from 2 p.m. to 5.30 p.m., it would give a chance to all and sundry to go to a cinema or to some game and the "beering" hours would be shortened by an hour and a half.

Everyone I have approached, including all the Deputies representing the city and members of the Minister's party, have agreed with me that Dublin does not want opening from 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. How the Minister can say that he wishes to put this Bill through in the name of uniformity, I do not know. I have agreed to uniformity regarding the night hours and will support the Minister on it because I am well acquainted with the behaviour of people in all walks of life. I flatter myself as being an expert on human nature and on the behaviour of people in various circumstances. I was in a business where I met everybody from the lowest to the highest and I know their behaviour from long experience.

I know that there are certain dangers at night and that is why the Minister aimed at eliminating those dangers by insisting that all premises close at the same hour. That danger does not occur in the daytime and no case can be made for uniformity in the daytime. The Minister has accepted differentials in the day hours. He has accepted opening at 7 o'clock in the morning to suit certain people attending markets. He has accepted a differential where people may open at 12 or 12.30 p.m. He is even accepting a differential as far as public houses being shut during the midday closing in Dublin and open in surrounding areas is concerned. In at least five different cases he has accepted a differential.

The Minister adverts to unformity at night. I am merely asking him to agree to another differential which will not make any difference because people will not rush out of Dublin to the country at 4 o'clock in the day and even if they did no harm would be done. People will know they have six hours to drink. They are not in the mood in the daytime. People who are out for a good or a bad time come out dolled up at night. Night is the time for good or evil. The Minister has recognised a differential in five different instances, in relation to the morning public houses, the closing in the city, the opening in the country, the extra half hour for publicans from 12 to 12.30 on a Sunday. The people who are employed will not object, the publican will not object, the public are indifferent and it will suit the pioneers, the people who do not like beer, because they will say it reduces the drinking period by an hour and a half. My amendment deals with Dublin. I have not said anything about Cork because I am minding my own business. I am concerned with Dublin, the capital city.

I am even prepared to compromise at this stage and to accept the hour of 5 p.m. or if it goes to that 5.30 p.m. If the Minister does not agree he will lose many friends in many areas let alone in his own area.

Mr. Mullen

I understand the two amendments are being taken together, Numbers 4 and 5?

An Ceann Comhairle

They are being discussed together.

Mr. Sherwin

They are being discussed together but they will be taken separately.

An Ceann Comhairle

If it is desired, separate decisions may be taken.

Mr. Mullen

I have been asked to put down my amendment, particularly by the people who work at the business in Dublin, because they are very much concerned with what the Bill purports to do on Sunday. This section of the Bill may safely be described as, if not the most objectionable section, one of the most objectionable sections of the Bill. It has imposed very severe penalties on the operatives, and as I said on Committee Stage, one of the most deplorable features of this Bill is the absence of a single line indicating or prescribing the minimum conditions under which workers should be called upon to operate. If anything is crying out for that single line it is the Sunday hours of opening. It is very much to be deplored that interest is not being shown in this respect.

I would draw the attention of the House and the Minister to the fact that for Sunday trading public houses operate on half staff by reason of the fact that operatives get every second Sunday off. This four to 10 opening will produce a situation where you will call on half the staff to have more breaks than they had normally. It will create a great deal of chaos in the business. Furthermore, it will interfere to a great extent with the family and social life of the operative and the family and social life of the customer. One does not have to stretch one's imagination to realise the effect of this. One must not lose sight of the fact that under the Bill the new hours will be: 12.30 to 2 p.m. and 4 to 10 p.m. That means the barmen must go in before 12.30. Most barmen will take at least 20 minutes to travel to their place of employment so if they hear half past 11 Mass they have to go straight into work. If the public house closes at 2 p.m. they will be very lucky if they get out to their lunch at 2.20 p.m. and, having gone home to have their lunch, they are due back at 4 p.m.

I am advocating in my amendment that the hours should be 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. for Dublin and Cork. That will take care of many things. When the customers leave the public house on Sunday at 2 p.m. they will not have the temptation to linger outside talking and perhaps wait for the public house to open again. They will go home to lunch. As the Bill stands we are interfering with family life and, as Deputy Sherwin says, there is something special about Sunday. If nothing else, the working man is free not only to go to a football match or to a film but to take a walk with his family and later on to go for a drink if he wishes.

I am also anxious to ascertain what is the Minister's case for the hours of 4 to 10 p.m. I have not heard such a case and I think we deserve some explanation as to why these hours should be imposed on the Dublin barmen and the Dublin customers. I regard it as an imposition on the customers having regard to the fact that customers have been canvassed with particular regard to what they would like in respect of Sunday hours of opening. The Irish National Union of Vintners, Grocers and Allied Trades Assistants circularised 120 public houses in which their members are employed. In one week they got back 12,000 signatures. Of that number 2,249 voted for the present hours of working. In regard to the Minister's new proposals in the Bill, 951 voted for them out of the 12,000. As regards the alternative proposal that the hours should be from 5 to 10 p.m. from June to September and 7 to 10 p.m. for the remainder of the year, 4,199 people were recorded as being in favour of that proposal. As regards the proposal that they should operate from 6 to 10 p.m. from June to September and from 7 to 10 p.m. for the remainder of the year, 4,601 people voted for it. There is direct evidence that the proposed new hours are not in keeping with the operatives' wishes, the wishes of the public or the wishes of the publicans.

That being so, I wish to know who advocated these hours. What is the case for them? The Minister has mentioned uniformity. Before I come to that point I should like to mention that a canvass was made of hotels and restaurants to ascertain how people there would like the hours to operate. There was a total of 2,677 names obtained. Of that number 1,987 voted for the present hours on Sunday and 690 voted for the new proposals. I should like to mention in that connection that the restaurants in Dublin that have licences will not open on Sunday so there is no demand there.

I think the Minister may break away from uniformity and need not feel concerned about it or feel that he did not achieve anything by making the difference in this section because, just as he made the difference in regard to the midday hours of closing between Dublin and Cork, and the rest of the country, when he has Dublin and Cork separated in that way, I say he has the same opportunity in regard to the hours of opening. I entreat the Minister to realise that this will result in the bar worker feeling that he is tied to the job all day on the one day on which he does get "a kick" out of being off. While he works every second Sunday, he gets some use out of the hours he has off but in this case he will not be able to make use of any hours except those before 12 noon or after 10 at night.

I should like the Minister to have regard to matters of this kind. I do not think it is something we should press to a vote. As Deputy Corish said in regard to the Waterford publicans wanting to have the midday closing, I would ask the Minister, instead of having a vote, to give full consideration to the purposes behind this amendment, not necessarily fixing the hours from 5 p.m. until 9 p.m. but at something that would get away from 4 p.m. If he said he would consider that before the Bill goes to the Seanad, I should be satisfied.

An Ceann Comhairle

Before Deputy O'Higgins speaks, I should like to make the position clear on the two amendments——

Mr. Sherwin

On a point of order, that was made clear to me when I sat down but not when I stood up to speak. That is why I did not touch on Deputy Mullen's amendment. I did not mention a word about it.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has spoken.

Mr. Sherwin

I spoke on my own amendment. It was not made clear to me——

An Ceann Comhairle

I cannot allow the Deputy to speak twice.

Mr. Sherwin

I never said a word on Deputy Mullen's amendment.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Will the Deputy not be entitled to reply?

Mr. Sherwin

I can reply, but I should like to speak before the Minister.

An Ceann Comhairle

What I want to point out is that amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are being discussed together.

Mr. Sherwin

I did not know that when I stood up.

An Ceann Comhairle

Will the Deputy please not interrupt? Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are being considered together. Amendment No. 4 will be put, if desired, and the question will be: "That lines 28 and 29 stand." If that is carried, obviously there cannot be a division on No. 5.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I do not propose to delay the House on these amendments but I want to say that, of the two, I should prefer Deputy Sherwin's amendment, for the simple reason that Deputy Mullen's amendment would create a differential at the wrong end, a differential at the closing hour, whereas Deputy Sherwin avoids that. From what I have heard of the views of Dublin publicans and Dublin consumers, I think the hours as proposed in Deputy Mullen's amendment are the hours which would be favoured in Dublin, but once the principle of uniformity is there and is being insisted on, then I think it is necessary for the Minister to cater for the rural areas by allowing a later closing hour than 9 o'clock. There was a general demand and a general need for that. If that is conceded—and it has been conceded in the Bill—then I think the Dublin publicans must accept 10 o'clock as the closing hour, but that does not mean, to my mind, that they should also be tied to the same opening hour as rural areas.

I am not going to repeat arguments I made on another amendment but I do not believe that any of the dangers or evils associated with the bona fide trade would be recreated by allowing a differential at the opening rather than at the closing end. Consequently, I think the Minister should consider something on the lines of Deputy Sherwin's amendment. I quoted on an earlier amendment the very strong views of the minority report of the Liquor Commission on the question of both week-day hours and Sunday opening hours and, as I pointed out then, it was a very strong report of a very strong minority because nine members signed the minority report while 12 signed the majority report. I quoted their views in regard to the opening hours which at that time were 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. in the cities on Sundays and the proposed hours in the majority report and, for very strong and specific reasons given by those who signed the minority report, they felt that even those hours were too long in the county boroughs.

As I pointed out, one of those who signed that was Deputy Corry. I want to make this clear as Deputy Corry is not in the House. I am not saying this for the sake of tilting at him in any way. I said there were two members from this side of the House and Deputy Corry from the opposite side among those who signed this report and I am drawing attention to that to show the Minister that this is not, and should not be, a Party political matter. It is a matter on which the views of the different political Parties as well as the different sectional groups were obtained and those were the views put up by a very strong section in the minority report. I do not say that because somebody expressed those views five years ago, or subscribed to them, he is necessarily tied to them for life. Experience may alter one's views but those views are on record and they should not be lightly disregarded by any Minister introducing a Bill of this sort. They would be justification for the Minister in endeavouring to meet the viewpoints put forward by Deputy Sherwin and Deputy Mullen and of the two, for the reasons I have given, I would favour the views of Deputy Sherwin.

Mr. Haughey

I am afraid I have not really any new arguments to put forward on this matter. On previous occasions, I have endeavoured to give my views and my reasons for these proposals. I am still convinced that what I propose is the right thing to do.

I think I analysed this situation here pretty closely for the House and brought it down to the point where we are really only arguing about one hour, basically the hour from 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. on Sundays. Deputy Sherwin might say "half-past five" but I think even he would be prepared to accept 5 p.m. We are only arguing then about one hour, in Dublin between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. and, to a lesser extent, in Cork. I have readily admitted that there is not any real public demand for opening during this hour in Dublin city or in Cork city, but I put it forward as something we must do, as it were, the lesser of two evils, I do not think it is a very serious evil. All that is concerned, and Deputy Sherwin himself admits this when he says the public is indifferent, that there is no public interest involved from the point of view of the Dublin or Cork consuming public, is the convenience of the publicans and their staffs.

I have already expressed my view that this is something they will be able to cope with, if we accept that it is necessary in the interests of uniformity and I seriously urge on the House that it is necessary for that reason. Do not forget that very closely adjacent to Dublin city you have areas to which people in the not very recent past have been accustomed to travel to get drink. I think a pattern would very quickly re-emerge if we were to depart from uniformity. If we accept that uniformity is necessary, then I think we can decide, with a reasonably clear conscience, to accept this proposal for this reason.

As I said, the Dublin city publicans and the Cork city publicans are a group of people skilled in their business. They have long experience and a great deal of skill in managing their houses. They have staff problems all the time. Everybody today has staff problems in running a business. I am quite certain that the Dublin and Cork publicans will be able to get over this difficulty as they have got over many other difficulties. I do not think it would be crucial for them and I do not accept that there will be any hardships for the staffs. They are, fortunately, a very well organised section of people, and I am quite convinced they will be able to look after their own interests.

I am particularly persuaded to that point of view when I think of the early morning opening in the docks. I want to remind Deputies that my proposal was to abolish the early morning opening in the docks and contiguous areas. There were approximately 30 publicans—their view did not ultimately weigh with me—who were determined to fight every inch of the way against that proposal. They went to great trouble to mobilise all sorts of public opinion. They even had petitions signed over the bar counter to ensure that my proposal would not go through.

Here are 30 publicans who know their business. They are looking for an opening of three or three and a half hours every morning of the week, an additional three hours every morning of the week. They say they are able to cope with that. They will have no staff problems. How then can I accept that one hour on Sunday, on one day in the week, will make a crucial and critical difference? I cannot accept that. The proposal is put forward by me on this basis. It is not necessary in Dublin but it is essential for the general structure of our licensing laws and the preservation of uniformity. It will not really cause any serious hardship to anyone.

Mr. Sherwin

I am not convinced by anything the Minister has said by way of addition. The objection is that a pub will be open for six long hours. For every big pub that employs staff, there are ten little pubs which are run by the owners with, perhaps, the help of one assistant. The people in the little pubs will have to remain on their premises for the six hours. They cannot afford to employ additional staff. The owners and the staff are entitled to get away, if they want to get away. Perhaps it might be said that the pubs can employ someone else but that is going to be costly and difficult.

I know many publicans who will not do it but will compel the employee to work the six hours. The porters who are the small fry will be made stay there for the six hours. There are a large number of people who will be obliged to stay in the pub for six hours. The Minister is robbing these people of the chance of getting away.

The Minister mentioned as an argument that certain pubs in areas like the docks and the markets do not object to three and a half hours. No one objects when there is big money to be made. Big money will not be made from four to five or from five to six but there is big money to be made from seven to nine because all the fellows who cannot sleep are up in the pub at seven. If the Minister wants information, let me tell him that probably two-thirds of the people in the pub are neither dockers nor market men.

Mr. Haughey

That is not true.

Mr. Sherwin

I live beside it. It is a well-known fact that the fellows who get too much drink the night before get up and go there in the morning. These pubs do big business so that it would pay them to get another assistant, but it will not pay the man who has to open on a Sunday where there might be only one individual there. The argument of the Minister in that respect does not count at all.

Another thing is that those pubs which open at seven o'clock in the morning are situated in bleak areas. Once it goes beyond 6 o'clock, there is nobody in the pub. Let us take the case of the docks. After six or seven o'clock, there are not very many around. The same thing applies to the markets. There is no one around the markets at 5 o'clock or 6 o'clock, with the exception of a few of the local people. The market people are all gone.

A large number of people will have to stay in their pubs for six hours on a Sunday. I will not push the matter if the Minister is prepared to give a thought at least to that between this and the final Stages of the Bill.

Mr. Haughey

I will do that.

Mr. Mullen

I have an amendment down. I want to correct the Minister's statement. There are three hours at stake.

Mr. Sherwin

Can we take it that the Minister is prepared to give this matter a thought?

Amendment No. 5 not moved.

Bill recommitted in respect of amendment No. 6.

Mr. Haughey

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 4, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following section:

"Section 14 (which provides for certain exemptions from prohibited hours) of the Act of 1927 is hereby amended by the insertion after paragraph (a) of the following paragraph:

`(aa) the sale at any time at a railway station (being a station to which persons who have recently travelled or are about to travel by ship resort for refreshment) of intoxicating liquor to passengers who have recently travelled or hold tickets entitling them, and are about, to travel by ship for a distance of not less than fifty miles, or' ".

The purpose of this amendment is, very briefly, to facilitate persons who have disembarked from cross-Channel boats and trans-atlantic liners and who wish to get refreshments outside the normal hours. As Deputies know, boats of this nature have a peculiar habit of arriving at all sorts of odd hours. Briefly, what is proposed is this. As Deputies know, at the moment a traveller by train can have refreshments at a railway station, provided he has travelled or holds a ticket entitling him to travel more than ten miles. What we now propose is that a person who has travelled more than 50 miles by boat will be in the same boat, so to speak, as the person who travels by train. Disembarking travellers at Dún Laoghaire will be able to get refreshments at Westland Row, though the train journey would not necessarily be ten miles.

Mr. Tully

This is the greatest hoax of an amendment we have had on this Bill. The Minister rightly condemned the person who goes to a dancehall at night, pays the entrance fee and then goes straight to the bar. He now suggests that the person can go to a railway station, buy a ticket and have as much drink as he likes. He does not need to hold on to the ticket. He can sell it and the one ticket can last a month. It is a joke. You are subsidising CIE in a new way.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill, as amended on recommittal, reported.

Mr. Haughey

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 5, before line 1, to insert the following section:

"(1) (a) Nothing in the Licensing Acts shall operate to prohibit a person from being on, or consuming, or permitting the consumption of, intoxicating liquor on, premises in respect of which an on-licence within the meaning of the Act of 1927 is in force during the period of ten minutes commencing at the beginning of a period during which the sale of intoxicating liquor on licensed premises is prohibited.

(b) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of this subsection a period during which the sale of intoxicating liquor in licensed premises is permitted by or under any provision of the Licensing Acts (other than Section 2 of the Act of 1927) shall be deemed to be a period during which such sale is prohibited on such premises.

(2) (a) Nothing in the Registration of Clubs Acts, or contained, by virtue only of subsection (1) of Section 56 of the Act of 1927, in the rules of a club registered under those Acts shall operate to prohibit the consumption of excisable liquor on the club premises by any person during the period of ten minutes commencing at the beginning of a period during which the supplying of excisable liquor on such premises is prohibited.

(b) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of this subsection a period during which the supplying of excisable liquor on club premises is permitted by or under any provision of the Registration of Clubs Acts (other than subsection (1) of Section 56 of the Act of 1927) shall be deemed to be a period during which such applying on such premises is prohibited."

An Ceann Comhairle

Are amendments Nos. 7, 33 and 34 being discussed together?

Mr. Haughey

Yes.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I think the Minister intends to meet a viewpoint on this amendment but I do not think he does meet it.

An Ceann Comhairle

I thought the amendments were similar.

Mr. Haughey

I feel sure most Deputies will accept this amendment and I expect a very great deal of commendation from all sides for this noble reform.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Is the Minister prepared to commend the Deputies who recommended it to him on Committee?

Mr. Haughey

Correct, and he is also prepared to commend himself for being a reasonable man, prepared to accept any reasonable suggestion put forward by reasonable people in a reasonable way.

Deputies will recall the discussion we had on Committee Stage. The argument was strongly put forward at that time that some publicans got into serious difficulties over comparatively trivial offences. The situation might arise where a publican would be endeavouring to clear his premises after closing time—maybe only five or six minutes after—when he would be discovered by the Guards and prosecuted for an offence. The argument was put forward that that would not matter so much, were it not for the fact that we have a system of compulsory endorsement. There is some validity in that argument.

Another aspect of it is this. The law at the moment is rather illogical. It entitles a publican, or indeed a restaurateur or a hotelier, to serve drink to customers one minute, indeed one second, before closing time and, at the same time, expects him to have it disposed of on the dot of closing time. I was going to say that any drinking man knows that that provides for an impossible situation. I think any sensible man will readily realise that.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Is there a distinction between the two?

Mr. Tully

Of course, there is.

Mr. Haughey

I am putting this forward to meet two points of view. First of all, publicans say there is a great deal of hardship and annoyance over this matter. Customers rightly say they are entitled to get drink right up to closing time and the publican is in a dither endeavouring to clear his premises from that second onwards. A lot of bad feeling arises from time to time between the publican and his customers. That is bad from every point of view. Here is a valuable and noble reform put forward by myself to the House proposing to allow ten minutes drinking-up time. That will remove a lot of sting out of the argument about compulsory endorsements. The main suggestion in that argument was directed towards five or six minutes after closing time. Deputy Burke and others instanced the sort of situation where a publican was caught in what they would regard as difficult circumstances, namely, five, six or seven minutes after closing time. This proposal for a ten minute drinking-up period, therefore, should be generally welcomed.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

The Minister has endeavoured to meet the point of view put forward by the Committee by the introduction of this amendment. I support this amendment, but I do not think it is ideal. I do not think the Minister has really tackled the problem properly. There are a number of people who feel that what the Minister is doing in this amendment is merely extending the opening time by another ten minutes and that the closing hours instead of being 11.30 p.m. will be 11.40 p.m. A great number of people feel that that is rather worsening the position than bettering it.

The view was also expressed here in Committee from both sides of the House that a period of drinking-up time should be allowed. I understand that is the position in England. I hope the noble gesture of the Minister is not too much inspired by what is happening across the water. The suggestion was also put forward that if a drinking-up time were allowed, it might be as well to arrange for the closing hour to be, say, at 11.15 p.m. I am simply mentioning these things. I am not objecting to the Minister's amendment. I think it is worth while doing, and that it will alleviate the position to some extent.

I take it we are discussing amendments Nos. 33 and 34 with this? Those amendments are really on a rather different matter. Amendment No. 33 proposes, in effect, that the district justice should have general discretion with regard to the question of endorsement of licences. Amendment No. 34 is a repetition of an amendment proposed on the Committee Stage that, at least for offences committed within a period of 15 minutes after the permitted opening hours, discretion as to whether or not an endorsement should appear on the licence should be vested in the district justice.

I want to concede that the Minister's amendment allowing ten minutes drinking-up time does to a very large extent meet the arguments advanced in favour of what is now amendment No. 34 when a similar amendment was being dealt with on Committee. But it does not meet the arguments or, if you like, the principle enshrined in amendment No. 33. I argued on Committee, and I argue again now, that it is bad in principle that you should have mandatory penalties. When you have the judiciary there to administer justice and have people brought before the courts charged with an offence, it is bad in principle that the courts should be refused discretion as to the penalty to be imposed. They are being refused discretion to a certain extent so long as it is mandatory on the courts to couple with whatever penalties may be imposed an endorsement of the licence in respect of liquor offences.

The courts were allowed discretion prior to the 1960 Act. That was the Act which took away the court's discretion on this matter. I am suggesting in amendment No. 33 that the courts be given back that discretion. I would simply point out to the Minister that he has not met the argument fully in this amendment. I should like to put a couple of questions to him. It seems to me it is obviously intended that the liquor should be supplied during the permitted hours and that there are then ten minutes allowed after closing to drink up. Would the Minister consider whether it is necessary to put into paragraph (a) of the first subsection of the amendment, after the words "intoxicating liquor", the words "supplied during permitted hours" or some words to that effect? It seems to me to be open to the construction at the moment that liquor could be supplied at any time, even during the ten minutes drinking-up time.

Secondly, with regard to paragraph (b), I find it very difficult to understand exactly what is intended. I should be glad if the Minister would elucidate a bit. This paragraph says

For the purpose of paragraph (a) of this subsection a period during which the sale of intoxicating liquor in licensed premises is permitted by or under any provision of the Licensing Acts (other than section 2 of the Act of 1927) shall be deemed to be a period during which such sale is prohibited on such premises.

Mr. Haughey

That is to ensure that it is after ordinary public house hours.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

The Minister may be able to make it a little clearer. It seems to me to say that the period during which intoxicating liquor will be permitted to be sold shall be regarded as the period during which it is prohibited from being sold.

I support the Minister's amendment and the idea of allowing this drinking up time, but I do not think he has met us fully on the question of the endorsement.

Mr. S. Flanagan

I find myself totally in disagreement with Deputy O'Higgins. I think some of us are inclined to forget not merely the approach of the Minister for Justice at the time in 1960 but of all the members of this House. It was essential then that the old abuses which had obtained, particularly in the rural areas, prior to the enactment of the 1960 Act should be ended. The overriding consideration was the enormous benefit that would result to the public at large from putting an end to these abuses. I am happy to be able to say that in my experience they have, in the main, been put down. We should not do anything now to go back on that approach.

Even though I concede to Deputy O'Higgins that it is rather undesirable that a district justice should not have a discretion, the overriding consideration here is the public good. I believe that if the penalty of endorsement were not mandatory, it would, in fact, be very rarely imposed. In 1960, the Government were trying to implement the recommendations of the Commission and the whole object was to put an end to flagrant abuses, all-night drinking, and so forth, which were rarely punished other than by fine. It was imperative then to bring in a system under which mandatory endorsement after the first offence would bring home to the publican the lesson that, if he did not keep the law, he would lose his licence.

Everybody who takes a drink and who has spoken to me about the effect of the 1960 Act is delighted that he no longer has the temptation of the shebeen. He is delighted to be put out at the end of the period. He is no longer a source of annoyance arriving home at three, four, or five o'clock in the morning. I implore the Minister not to accede to the request that discretion should be given to the district justice in this matter of endorsement. I believe the 1960 provision was a good one and an essential one. It has worked well in practice. It has had the necessary effect. You will, of course, have a certain number of publicans in every area who will take a risk but, mark you, after the second or third time, they realise they are in danger of losing their licences and they amend their ways.

I am grateful to the Minister for bringing in the ten minute drinking-up time but, like Deputy O'Higgins, I am not too pleased with the phraseology used in paragraph (b).

Mr. Sherwin

I agree with the amendment. Although I am a lemonade man——

Mr. Haughey

The Deputy was not always.

Mr. Sherwin

——I go into public houses every second night. I go in about half-past ten, or a quarter to eleven, just to give my wife a bottle of stout. I have experience of the difficulty of closing and getting people out. I have seen more rows and heard more bad language used by people whose drink was snapped off the counter. A drink may be served at five minutes to closing time and, immediately they serve it, they are shouting: "Drink up, drink up." Only last night I saw a man leave half his pint on the counter. He got browned off being told to "Drink up." This ten minutes will enable the publican to close at a certain time and enable the customer to drink up in reasonable comfort. After that, everyone will have to get out. There will be no excuse for the publican or anyone else. The amendment is reasonable and I am glad the Minister has introduced it.

As I said earlier, it will mean, of course, that people will be in the public house until twenty to twelve. The employees and the employers will have to be there for that full ten minutes. That is a snag. It is a pity the Minister did not decide to make the closing at 11.15 p.m. and add the ten minutes' grace on at that point. The last bus leaves at 11.30 p.m. The last Finglas bus goes at 11.30 p.m. and, if you miss it, you can walk home. It is a pity the Minister did not shorten the period and make it 11.15 p.m. closing, plus ten minutes' grace. The objectionable feature in it is that it lengthens the period until twenty to twelve. All the unpleasantness in the past will now be eliminated.

Mr. Haughey

I want to explain the phraseology of subsection (b). The idea is to confine this ten minutes drinking-up time to the ten minutes immediately following normal public house closing time. Section 2 of the Act of 1927 is the operative section for the purpose of laying down ordinary public house closing hours. Hotels may serve drink up to 12 o'clock, if there is a meal with it. I want to ensure that this ten minutes will relate only to the ten minutes immediately following ordinary public house closing hours and so it says that any period outside the normal public house time shall be deemed to be a prohibited period for this purpose.

Amendment agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Perhaps amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10 can be taken together.

Mr. Haughey

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 5, line 47, to delete "eight" and to insert "nine".

I feel sure that the House will compliment me on these proposals. Deputies will recall that on Committee Stage it was fairly strongly argued that the special provisions in Section 8 of the Bill for a period of special festivity would not be as valuable as they appeared if confined to one period only during the year. Many Deputies suggested that it be broken up and different suggestions were put forward as to the manner in which that should be done. A number of Deputies suggested that any particular town might find it needed one period of one or two days and three or four days in the other period. My proposal is to allow nine altogether in the year and any town or locality can split that period up as they wish. They can have the whole nine days together, or three periods of three days each, or three periods of a day, two days and six days. They can break the nine days up in any way they wish but in not more than three periods.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I think the Minister's amendments do meet the point of view impressed on him. It took a bit of a struggle to get him to change his mind on this matter but if he wants to be commended on this, I commend him.

Mr. Haughey

Thank you.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Haughey

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 5, line 49, to delete "comprising not more than eight consecutive days" and to insert "or periods (not exceeding three) comprising in all not more than nine days".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Haughey

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 5, to delete lines 60 and 61 and to insert the following subsection:

"( ) Not more than three orders under this section having effect in any particular year shall be made in respect of any particular locality and, where more orders than one having effect in a particular year in respect of a particular locality are made, the number of days to which the orders relate shall not exceed nine in all and such days shall be either consecutive days or divided into not more than three separate periods of a day or consecutive days."

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. N. Lemass

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 6, to delete all words from and including "and" in line 47 down to and including "dance" in line 50.

I think we might discuss amendments Nos. 11 to 16 together. I am anxious for the Minister to examine amendment No. 11 in particular because he might not go quite so far with me and I have put up certain alternatives. In reply to a Question in the House on 10th July, I was told that there are 45 ballrooms licensed for dancing in the city. Of these, only six applied for occasional licences in the past five years. Of these six, one ballroom secured two in 1959, one secured one in 1958, one in 1959 and three in 1960 and none since then. One applied in 1962 and failed to get the occasional licence. Therefore as far as occasional ballroom licences are concerned, I am concerned only with three ballrooms out of 45 in Dublin.

The official journal of the Irish County Vintners' Association in a leading article said that a colleague of the Minister has tabled a series of amendments which proposed that dance halls should get licences to sell drink without any restriction until the early hours of the morning. This is the type of misrepresentation I have come to expect from this association. I stopped opening their booklet for a long time because they openly expressed the view that as long as they are all right they do not care about anybody else. This section appears to be designed to deal with one ballroom which is the target of the publican who is now in charge of this particular publication since Mr. Dwyer retired.

Let us examine the position in regard to the effect of the 1960 Act on the three ballrooms referred to. In 1958, 150 such licences were applied for and granted. The number was over 100 for each of the next two years. When the 1960 Act came into operation, 21 such licences were applied for in 1961 and eight were granted. Ten were applied for in 1962 and eight were granted. So the 1960 Act has, in effect, reduced the number of such licences from 150 to eight and this Bill proposes to reduce the number to four.

The difficulty which the Minister had to deal with was the court's interpretation of the 1960 Act in so far as it said that a house dance could be a special occasion to qualify for such a licence. I can understand the Minister's desire to deal with that situation and I think he has effectively dealt with it in Section 9 which says:

An occasional licence shall not be granted for a dance unless it is held elsewhere than in the open air or in a tent, marquee or other such structure, and either it is organised as a special function for the members of a particular association or other like group...

then follow the words relating to "a substantial meal ... served to the persons attending the dance" which I propose should be deleted.

...or it is held wholly or partly on a day that, in the opinion of the Court, is a day of special festivity generally or in the locality of which the place to which the licence relates is situate.

I think the matter is sufficiently covered without the words the deletion of which I propose. It deals with the difficulty that has arisen over the court's interpretation which apparently was not the intention of the Minister's predecessor.

I think the talk we have heard of exposing our youth to drinking all night is a lot of nonsense. There are 45 ballrooms licensed for dancing in Dublin city and of these only three are likely to avail of the facilities I suggest should be available to them. My experience on committees running such functions for political and other purposes is that about 5 per cent. of the clientele who come to such dances come for the sole purpose of getting a drink; in other words, .35 per cent. of the people who go to dances can be said to abuse the facilities quoted.

The whole principle of special occasions is recognised in this Bill and special provision has been made in that regard. However, it is now provided that only four such occasions can arise in Dublin County Borough in any one year but a village that has a ballroom and which may have only a few hundred souls living in it will have exactly the same facilities as the whole of county Dublin. The ballrooms in small centres that were set up during the time of tax reliefs, such as those Deputy Everett was particularly concerned about on Committee Stage will have exactly the same facilities as the county borough of Dublin. One of the amendments, No. 13, suggests that these provisions should be related to the ballroom as distinct from the locality. There is a ballroom in a town just outside Monaghan which gets an occasional licence.

Mr. Tully

The Deputy should not say too much about that.

Mr. N. Lemass

There is one ballroom in Dublin which normally avails of such licences about once a week or maybe once a fortnight. The point about this ballroom is that they have catering facilities and run a large number of wedding receptions. I take it that under the provision in the Bill they cannot get a licence for a wedding breakfast that might be held in the ballroom. Some provision could have been made to cover that type of situation.

Mr. Haughey

Why does the Deputy say that? Is a substantial meal not served at the reception?

Mr. N. Lemass

Quite possibly they will not charge 5/- for it. I referred also to the fact on Committee Stage that during the summer season in Skerries the sailing club extend hospitality to several hundred people all over the country and even from England. They find themselves largely dependent on the income they get from this type of dance because members who are not interested in dancing go along and discuss sailing and have a drink. I made a mistake when I said the admission price of the dance to which I referred was between 6/6 and 7/6. In fact the admission price they charge is 4/- if the ticket is bought before the dance and 5/- at the door.

In the general provisions of this Bill, we agree that special circumstances require special measures but because the special measures are taken, it does not mean we are departing from the principle of uniformity. Even if my amendment is accepted, that broad principle will not be interfered with. That may be, as the Irish County Vintners' Association say, muddled thinking, but it is not nearly as muddled as their effort on Page 15 where Frank Webster, the sales promotion manager of Caltex appears.

Mr. Sherwin

Does that paper sell? The Deputy is advertising it.

Mr. T. Lynch

What is on the front page?

Mr. N. Lemass

"Muddled thinking."

Mr. Corish

They think the Minister is a wow, the best thing that happened the licensed trade.

Mr. N. Lemass

Whether I say anything about Section 10 will depend on how we get on with Section 9. I pointed out on Committee Stage that a large number of charities depend largely for their incomes on this type of dance. These charities are supported also by people who do not go primarily for dancing. They will have a dance now and again but they go to support the particular charity. The dances I have in mind particularly are those for 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 who raise about £900 a year. That is nearly £10,000 raised for charity in this way. It has been made clear by me, by Deputy Mullen and other speakers that the worst displays of wild behaviour occur usually at the very expensive type of dances which attract what has been described as the social set and that the modest efforts have caused very little trouble.

If there is a demand for licensed dances in Bray, I cannot see why that demand should not be satisfied. May be later closing on Sunday will reduce that demand but if licensed dances are not permitted in Bray, there will be the more objectionable feature of hip-flask drinking and the young people about whom we are supposed to be concerned will not know in advance which dances will attract that section of the community who cannot enjoy a dance unless they have a few drinks. Many young people, particularly young girls, avoid dances at which there is a bar because they wish to avoid the embarrasment, perhaps, of dancing with some one who has taken a drop too much. The position in future will be they will not know and will not be able to pick and choose. They may go along and find the dance they are attending is one of those they wish to avoid.

To get back to the Irish County Vintners' Association, on Committee Stage of the 1960 Bill, Deputy Rooney read a letter from the honorary secretary, Mr. T.F. O'Dwyer, which appears in Column 986, Volume 180 of the Official Report of the 23rd March, 1960 in relation to the various motions which were passed, No. (3) of which reads:

As life in the various counties and rural districts is completely different to those in the city, it was unanimously agreed that there should be a later opening for the areas outside the County Boroughs. We feel, as the traditional closing hour is 12 midnight, any earlier closing will result in shebeens, drinking in crowded homes and private cars.

I should like to ask the Irish County Vintners' Association if they suggest that this section we are bringing in now will not result in shebeen, drinking in private cars, and, as I say, hip-flask drink. Of course it will.

There we have a safety valve, a means of letting young people decide between where drink is likely to be taken and where it is not. Now they have no such choice. Although up to now they may have avoided such dances, in future they will find themselves exposed to worse dangers because they are hidden dangers and people who normally avoided the licensed dance may find in effect that most drinking is taking place at non-licensed dances. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider his attitude in that regard on the question of four licensed dances in a year and to be satisfied with the additional provisions he has put down as to what type of dance may be considered for occasional licenses without putting any restriction on the number.

Mr. Mullen

I shall not delay the House very long because a great deal has been said for changing the section. I should like to support Deputy Lemass in his plea to the Minister to do something about the four occasions in Dublin. We can imagine the scramble there would be between the licensed halls in the city as to which would use any one or all four occasions. It is absolutely ridiculous.

All that Deputy Lemass has said, particularly in regard to the journal issued by the National Union of Vintners seems to be quite correct. It appears to me that this organisation has succeeded in getting the Minister to introduce the section because ever since the implementation of the 1960 Act that organisation has been protesting against ballrooms being facilitated in serving drink. I do not object to their doing that; I can quite understand the necessity for them to advocate an arrangement of that kind outside the City of Dublin where the regulations may not be enforced as they are enforced in Dublin. We must have regard to the experience in relation to ballrooms in Dublin.

There is no denying that the licensed ballrooms and the public which they serve are well ordered. The people attending them behave well. There have been no prosecutions down the years. There are two in particular in the centre of O'Connell Street and they have been operating for some twenty years now without complaint by the police. That should be considered.

If the section goes through as it is it will have a considerable effect on the number of people employed in those two establishments. That should be considered. Already submissions in that regard have been made to the Minister and I feel certain he has not quite made up his mind on the matter. I sincerely hope by the time this Bill passes through the Seanad this section will have been changed. In addition, it is undoubtedly true that Section 9 as it now reads introduces a class restriction. It affords an opportunity to people with money to drink to their hearts' content at dances while people who just go to dances and have a drink for the sake of refreshment and cannot afford to pay for a substantial meal will be deprived of that amenity.

It should be remembered that licensed dances are pretty well attended. The dances of the kind described by Deputy Lemass attract very large crowds and that is why the charitable organisations have made money from them. That indicates the demand for that type of dance in the City of Dublin and attendances of between 600 and 800 a night are no surprise particularly at charity dances. While these attendances are high the people present are not misbehaving in any way. If the section goes through as it is those people will be induced to find other places in which to drink. They will go where they can get drink, then go to the dance and take the girls away afterwards and drink wherever they like. That would be very bad. They can make use of the hip flask and no matter what the ballroom proprietor tries to do he will not be able to control it. That point merits consideration.

I have been pressing the Minister for some time now on this point and if he must do what he proposes, let him do it outside the city of Dublin. Let him not bring in the people whose hands are clean, who have been performing a very good service in Dublin not only for visitors but for regular patrons. They should not be classed with the type of people who cannot control ballrooms, makeshift ballrooms, outside Dublin. Further, I ask the Minister to bear in mind the employment aspect. There is every likelihood of people losing employment if this section is carried because if drink cannot be served at dances a considerable number of staff will not be needed. I would ask the Minister to consider that matter seriously.

Finally, would it not be possible to alter the section somewhat and allow establishments to which licences are attached to continue to operate and to serve drinks? The Shelbourne Hotel has a ballroom attached and they are able to serve drinks but the people who frequent the Shelbourne can pay for substantial meals and everybody there is all right. The people who go to the Metropole Ballroom cannot pay for a substantial meal. There is a difference. Could the Minister not introduce a restriction whereby people going to a dance of this kind, where no substantial meal is sold, should not be allowed in after the public houses close or a half-hour before the public houses close, if he wishes to regulate it?

Mr. Sherwin

I know that two types of people go to dances, the type who take dancing seriously and go for the love of it and do not care about drink, and the type who go for a social evening, and who probably cannot dance. Nearly every firm in Dublin runs a staff dance annually and there are thousands of firms in the city. When a staff dance is being run people of all ages and types buy tickets to help the committee. They cannot dance and nobody would dance with them. There is nothing as bad as a person who cannot dance and who gets up to dance. I know that. I was a teacher of dancing. Certain ballrooms cater for the dancer. They are patronised by dancers who are not interested in beer or anything else, but staff dances are attended by people of all shapes and makes. They do not necessarily want to dance; they want to sit down and have a chat. But they want a drink and without that they would not go. Drink helps people to be convivial and it "makes" the evening. The staff dance is killed if there is no beer. The hours might be shorter. To include a substantial meal might make it too costly. The ballroom might not have the facilities for serving a substantial meal. The Minister must remember that nearly every firm, big and small, runs a staff dance every year. Staff dances are run by the thousands. The people who attend them are not the sort of people who go just to dance. They will not dance. The younger element will dance. The Minister is killing that sort of dance. I would ask the Minister to reconsider the matter as I know the dance game.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

The Minister agreed on Committee Stage to reconsider this matter. I expressed the view then that it was not necessary to have drink at a dance in order to make the dance a success. I believe that is so. There is a number of cases where young people are concerned where their parents would object to their going to dances if drink was obtainable. While I ask the Minister to have another look at this in deference to the views put forward on Committee Stage, I want to say that, on balance, I think the Minister should not weaken his section. He might do better to stand over it as it is.

Mr. Haughey

That is my own view also. I have already at some length given my views on this whole complicated and difficult matter. The amendments we are dealing with are amendments to Section 9. Section 9 does not deal with the two ballrooms which Deputy Mullen has in mind. They are, in fact, licensed. They are ballrooms with licences attached. Section 9 is concerned exclusively with what is commonly known as the commercial dancehall. In other words, the premises which has no licence attached to it. When I say no licence I mean no licence to sell alcoholic drink. It is purely a dancehall in the full sense of the word.

I stated clearly on Second Reading and on the Committee Stage what my objection in regard to these establishments is. I think that my approach is correct. As Deputy O'Higgins said, dancing and drinking are two separate forms of entertainment. The tendency which has been creeping in to have drink at every dance is undesirable. I want to restrict the number and types of dances at which alcoholic liquor would be sold. I have gone fairly far in the concessions which have been made. I maintain, in spite of what Deputy Sherwin says, that I am saying the staff dances. As I know these dances, a meal is served at the annual function.

Mr. Sherwin

Not at all of them— the shorter dances.

Mr. Haughey

What I want to cater for here is in regard to a firm, factory or sports club which has its annual dance. It is a special occasion once a year. At such functions a meal is served. They are covered by Section 9 as it stands.

Deputy N. Lemass mentioned a point about weddings. Section 9 deals only with occasional licences for two specific things. In other words, dinners or dances. There are all sorts of other things for which you might get an occasional licence. They are not covered at all by Section 9. A wedding is one of these things.

Mr. N. Lemass

Even if it is in a ballroom?

Mr. Haughey

Yes. You have occasional licences for racecourses. You can have an occasional licence for any function. Subsection (2) is concerned with laying down conditions under which a licence for the sale of intoxicating liquor should be granted for a dinner or a dance. Its operations are confined to only those two types of thing. I have thought the matter over very carefully and I still think the proposal is desirable at this stage. We should introduce these restrictions on this ever-increasing tendency which has become evident in recent years.

We are discussing a number of amendments in the name of Deputy N. Lemass. For the reason I have given, amendment No. 11 is unacceptable and so is amendment No. 12. I do not agree for a moment that there is anything wrong with the section as it stands though in order to be reasonable in this I would be prepared to accept the principle of amendment No. 13, not exactly in the way it is put down by Deputy N. Lemass. If I may do so at this stage, I would be prepared to accept it provided the word "premises" was substituted for the word "locality" and not "ballroom". That would meet the point of view of Deputy N. Lemass—in other words, that in any area the number of dances which would have a licence in the year would be related to the premises and not to the locality. I am prepared to accept that principle. With the permission of the House, I suggest the substitution in subsection (3) of the word "premises" for the word "locality".

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I have no objection.

Mr. Haughey

The effect of the other amendments of Deputy N. Lemass is to increase the number of dances in respect of which a licence would be granted. Twenty-six is suggested. I do not think he seriously means that. Another amendment suggests 12 and, finally, in amendment No. 16 he suggests that we delete "four" and substitute "eight". In other words, he wishes to double the number of special festive occasions on which we would grant licences during the year. I certainly could not contemplate increasing the number by that much. I think four is not unreasonable. It is meant to cater for the special gaia days during the year such as bank holidays and days of that kind. I thought four was reasonable. I certainly could not accept 26 or 12 or anything of that nature.

Substituting the word "premises" for "locality" in subsection (3) will mean a corresponding deletion of paragraph (b) of subsection (7). That would be a consequential deletion because the provision set out in paragraph (b) would not be applicable if we substituted the word "premises" for the word "locality" in subsection (3). With the permission of the House, we could make those changes.

A gremlin, apparently, has been at work in the printing works in amendment No. 7. Deputies will note that in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of amendment No. 7, second last line, the word "applying" appears. Of course, that should be "supplying". In fact, "applying" was what was in the White Paper circulated to Deputies. I wanted to draw the printing error to the attention of the House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The error would be corrected by the office.

Mr. N. Lemass

I should like to thank the Minister. It is quite obvious that he is trying to meet me as reasonably as he can on this matter and I, therefore, do not propose to move amendments Nos. 11, 12, 14 and 15. Amendment No. 13 has been further amended. In regard to amendment No. 16, could the Minister not meet me on that? Now that he has met me on amendment No. 13, could I prevail upon him to split the difference with me and agree, perhaps, to six?

Mr. Haughey

We will make it six, so.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

In what amendment?

Mr. Haughey

No. 16.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 12 not moved.

Mr. N. Lemass

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 6, line 57, to delete "locality" and substitute "ballroom".

Mr. Haughey

We are agreeing to the substitution of the word "premises" instead of "locality". This involves the deletion of paragraph (b) of subsection (7).

Amendment, as altered, agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 not moved.

Mr. N. Lemass

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 6, line 57, to delete "four" and substitute "eight".

Mr. Haughey

We are agreeing to the substitution of the word "six" instead of "eight" in this amendment.

Amendment, as altered, agreed to.

Mr. N. Lemass

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 8, to delete all words from and including "at" in line 16 down to the end of paragraph (b) and substitute "which has been organised for the purpose of raising funds for a recognised charitable organisation, benevolent association, or registered club, the main object of which is the promotion of any outdoor pastime, sport, game, or recreation among its members,"

The arguments here are much the same. I would like to point out, however, that in reply to a Parliamentary Question on the 17th July, 1962, I discovered there were 179 special exemption orders granted to hotels in the Dublin metropolitan area for dances at which meals were not served and 200 special exemption orders granted to restaurants for dances at which meals were not served. We are dealing in this case with 379 such exemptions that were granted in Dublin last year, not eight as in Section 9. Surely this was a very big cut down? The Minister might go a bit further with me in Section 10 than he did on Section 9.

Mr. Mullen

I would ask the Minister to give consideration to this problem which affects the two major ballrooms here. They have submitted to him a way of getting out of the problem, having regard to the fact that a licence can attach to both of them.

Mr. Haughey

I will do the same sort of deal here as on Section 9. We will substitute the word "premises" for "locality" and substitute "six" for "four" in subsection (6).

Mr. Corish

There is a "ready-up" in Dublin.

Mr. Mullen

Would the Minister not make that "eight"?

Mr. Haughey

No; six is very liberal. In fact, it is too much. Consequential on the substitution of the word "premises" for "locality", subsection (10) will go as a consequential deletion.

Mr. Mullen

Will the Minister consider the point I have made?

Mr. Haughey

I am always thinking about the Deputy's points.

Mr. Mullen

Would the Minister consider it further before the Bill goes to the Seanad?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 not moved.

Mr. N. Lemass

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 8, line 26, to delete "locality" and substitute "ballroom".

Mr. Haughey

This is being accepted, subject to the word "premises" being substituted for the word "ballroom". That involves the deletion of subsection (10).

Amendment, as altered, agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 not moved.

Mr. N. Lemass

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 8, line 26, to delete "four" and substitute "eight".

Mr. Haughey

This is being accepted, subject to the word "six" being substituted for the word "eight".

Amendment, as altered, agreed to.

Mr. Haughey

I move amendment No 24:

In page 9, line 23, after "festival", to insert "or one event, at least, on each of five or more consecutive days".

This amendment has been suggested by An Bord Fáilte and I think it is reasonable. It is in connection with these festival clubs. The section generally incorporates the idea that a person, to become a member of the club, must buy a ticket which entitles him to attend all the functions of the festival. As was pointed out, special tours are organised in connection with these festivals. These are five-day tours and they enable a person coming for the festival to take in only five days of the event. This amendment is to enable such persons to be made members.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Haughey

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 10, line 38, to delete "sea-fishing" and to insert "fishing in tidal waters".

I think it was Deputy Cunningham who raised a point about the technical meaning of "sea-fishing". In order to meet that difficulty it is proposed to substitute the words "fishing in tidal waters" for the word "sea-fishing".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Haughey

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 12, line 52, to delete "fifteen" and to insert "thirty".

This is to meet a point raised by Deputy Barron. I am sorry he is not here to commend me for meeting him. This concerns greyhound racing tracks. The suggestion was that the sale of drink should be permitted half an hour before the start of the first race. I think it is reasonable.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Haughey

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 13, between lines 17 and 18 to insert the following section:

"Section 4 (which provides for the grant of new licences in certain cases of increase in population) of the Act of 1902 is hereby amended by the insertion after `part of the parish' of `or for premises situate in a parish in which the increase aforesaid has not taken place if the premises are situate in the city or town and either—

(a) the city or town is within the parish and there is an increase in population in the area comprising the city or town, or

(b) a part only of the city or town is within the parish and there is an increase in population in the area comprising such part,

and the licence is in substitution for an existing licence or licences held in respect of premises situate in the city or town aforesaid and in the parish aforesaid.".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I move amendment No. 28:

In page 13, line 54, after "Act of 1960" to insert "pursuant to an application notice of which was given, pursuant to the rules of Court, to the appropriate county registrar or the appropriate district court clerk."

Has the Minister had an opportunity of studying this? I think it should be acceptable. It is to meet what seems to be a defect in the Bill as drafted. The Bill as drafted does save the position of pending applications. This amendment is to deal with the position where an application is being made for a declaration. As the section stands at present, it would seem to require that the declaration should actually be made before the passing of the Act. The position may very well be that an application is before the courts for a declaration but that a declaration has not actually been made or possibly there might be an appeal from the decision of the circuit court. If the Minister accepts this amendment, or whatever other words his advisers might think satisfactory, it would meet the situation fully in respect of applications for declarations.

Mr. Haughey

I was not clear about what Deputy O'Higgins had exactly in mind. Perhaps if we adjourned the debate at this stage, we could look into it.

Debate adjourned.