The Motion before the Seanad is that the Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1923, be read a second time.
INTOXICATING LIQUOR BILL, 1923.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
This Bill has been a very short time in our hands and a very short time before the country, and there are conflicting interests which maintain that the provisions of the Bill are going to have a very injurious effect. I think the proper course would be to adjourn the consideration of the Bill for a certain time. I do not think there are any great reasons why it should be rushed through the Seanad. One of the reasons why it should not be rushed is that a large number of clubs would be affected without any sort of warning, and their rights would be invaded. Another reason is that the hours for closing would be the subject of great controversy. Certain districts will be very injuriously affected as compared with other districts. In the country the operation of the Summer Time prevents the people enjoying the privilege of the late hour which has been so essential to their comforts. In view of all those facts, I propose that the further consideration of the Bill be adjourned to the next meeting of the Oireachtas.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Perhaps I should indicate to the Seanad the contents of two telegrams which have just been handed to me. One is from the Tipperary Licensed Trade, and it reads:—
"At a meeting of the Tipperary Licensed Trade held on the 7th inst., the following resolution was proposed, and seconded:—That the Licensed Traders, Tipperary, do not object to any arrangements entered into between Dublin Vintners and their assistants regarding hours of trading, but think it unfair that the present Licensing Bill before the Dáil should be rushed on the Rural and Urban areas of the Free State without giving them a voice in the matter, and if passed into law it will create a hostile element against the Government at the present moment."
The other telegram is from the Tipperary Urban Council. It reads:—
At a meeting held yesterday, the following resolution was passed:—
"Tipperary Urban Council request the Senators of the Free State to amend the present Licensing Bill before the Dáil so as to exclude the areas outside the metropolis from the scope of the Act, as the early closing hours if accepted, would be a great hardship on both the workers of the rural and urban areas, and would lead to the establishing of shebeens and other forms of illicit trading, the result of which would be more harmful than reasonable legitimate hours of trading."
I would like to second this proposition, not because of these long, expensive telegrams that have been read, but simply because these telegrams, and many others which have been received, make it quite clear that this is a matter of the greatest possible controversy. I do not know whether the Bill is a good one or not. It probably is, though I am told that the early closing of public houses will result in the formation of shebeen clubs. Whether that is the case or not I do not know, but I think there is every reason for leaving this matter to the next Dáil. Licensing questions are always controversial, and they ought not to be disposed of like this at the heel of the hunt.
I am in favour of this motion, not for altering the Bill particularly, but I think it is one of these things that require a great deal more consideration than it has received. This thing has been rushed and it is premature. It is not by any means very urgent or pressing, and I think we could, with great advantage, postpone it to the new Parliament. That is all I have to say. I have nothing to say on the merits or demerits of the Bill.
I want to draw your attention to what is probably an error. On the back of this Bill it is described as "Passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas. 3rd August, 1923."
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
That was probably intelligent anticipation.
I have read this Bill most carefully, and I am taking one of the points mentioned by Senator Bennett, when he alluded to Summer Time. I must draw the attention of you, Sir, and that of the Seanad to the fact that England has adopted Summer Time for three years, that is to say, this year and two more years. I am only dealing with Summer Time as regards this Bill. In Dublin if Summer Time is adopted it means that if you want a drink, you have one hour and twenty-five minutes before the setting of the sun. The sun sets twenty-five minutes later in Dublin than it does on the other side. In Galway it is two hours and forty-five minutes.
It is not two hours and forty-five minutes; it is about one hour and forty-five minutes.
I stand corrected. I am thinking of next year's Summer Time. It means that a man goes out for a bicycle ride, a working man or, anybody else, and the time in which he can get a drink is greatly limited. The public-houses close before it is dark. I think I should be very much annoyed indeed if I were imposed upon by a law of that sort, and I feel as strongly on that point as Senator Bennett. I think it is not grandmotherly legislation; it is great-grandmotherly legislation, and I am going to say another thing, with due respect to the Minister, that really when you come to analyse this, it is a case of people with cellars legislating for people without cellars. That is really what it amounts to. I have heard this argument on the other side many times; it has not been said by me, but by a very great man and by a greater man before him. I know all about the assistants in public houses, commonly called "pot boys," on the other side, who will not work more than eight hours a day, but that is not my point. My point is that when a man is hungry and thirsty and wants to drink, he does not like being legislated for by people like ourselves who have cellars of sorts, while he has no cellar. Therefore, I suggest to the Minister that for this Summer Time we must remain as we are. We cannot throw out the Bill now; they have asked us to pass it; but for next year I hope he will consider the matter, and in the rural districts deal fairly and squarely with the people who go out to amuse themselves, and who cannot get a drink at the proper time when they ought to have it. If they get drunk the Civic Guard will deal with them, and if they are sober they can go home unthirsty, comfortable and rested
Might we have the Minister's views of the subject?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Probably it would be more convenient for the Minister to speak when the debate is more or less exhausted. He would like to have the views, so far as he can gather them, from the vocal expressions of Senators, but up to the present only about three have spoken.
It is rather difficult to arrive at an opinion about it when we have not heard the Minister's reasons for bringing the Bill before the House. I think that a good many of us might be influenced largely in the way we should decide to vote when we know the pros. and cons. of the case for and against pushing the Bill through. There may be some reason for it that we do not know.
I quite endorse what Senator Jameson has said. I think we should know from the Government their reasons for pushing forward the Bill, which is a very important Bill and affects practically every member of the community, at the close of the Parliament and with such a short time to discuss the measure. I am sure that the Government has been actuated by the best possible reasons, and some Bill may be necessary to bring about what ought to be a reasonable position, but perhaps if we could hear these reasons first it would not preclude us from debating it afterwards.
I quite sympathise with the anxiety of the Earl of Mayo that he should be able to get liquor refreshment before dark. I think that is what he was anxious to do. I hope he will succeed in his endeavours. On general principles I am in favour of temperance legislation and I have always voted for temperance legislation, sometimes very much to my cost. I do not quite understand what this Bill really means, whether it is merely altering the closing hours, or a temporary measure, or whether or not it makes any very important change in the position of the licensed trade.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Well, it is not a temporary measure, and it does make important changes.
As I say, I have always been in favour of temperance. I voted for every temperance Act in every shape and form for many years, but at the same time we must recognise that the licensed trade has certain rights. It pays high licence duty, and it has invested a great deal of money in the industry, such as it is. I am not going to discuss whether it is a good one or a bad one. It appears to be a necessary one, and if we are asked to make very important changes in the conditions under which the liquor trade is carried on I think we ought to proceed slowly. Of course, the Government may tell us that they have urgent reasons for the passing of this Bill. Whatever reasons the Government advances I know quite well that this Seanad will very carefully weigh. Unless there is something of great public importance to be gained by the passing of this Bill I am not sure that I would not be disposed to vote in favour of its adjournment until such time as further consideration can be given to it. After all, it is a very large question, and if we are to go into it now it may be that we shall pass an Act that will prevent real temperance reform for many years.
If we are to legislate for purposes of temperance, I think we ought to consider what has been done by other countries, taking advantage of the experience gained in the United States, such as it is, and in Sweden and other countries, Canada, for instance, where this question has been treated with a considerable amount of skill, and, as far as I can understand, with a certain amount of general satisfaction, in certain provinces at all events. I do not like to be rushed into deciding an issue of such great importance, unless the Government can tell us that there is some urgent public necessity for doing so. Subject to what the Minister may tell us, I would be inclined to vote for the postponement of this measure.
This measure ought, in fact, to have been introduced earlier. From the time that the Provisional Government was set up, almost, we had representations with regard to the anomaly existing here in Dublin, and in that connection I will have to trouble the Senators with a short piece of history. The statutory hours in the city of Dublin were from 8 a.m. to 11 p.m., and when trouble started with the British administration, under the Restoration of Order Regulations, they introduced a 9.30 p.m. closing of premises in the city. When the British left, and when that particular Order was abolished, the statutory hours again became from 8 a.m., to 11 p.m. The result was that in the main streets you had the bigger shops closing at 9.30 p.m., the assistants having got used to the 9.30 closing, and refusing to work longer, and the small places, run by the owner or his wife or relatives, keeping open until 11 p.m., the result being that people were leaving the larger establishments in the main streets and retiring to the smaller places in the back streets, taking full advantage of the statutory hours.
That was the situation in Dublin, and it was represented to us that there ought to be uniformity in the matter, and it was also felt that 12½ hours of the day was long enough for the purpose of the consumption of alcoholic liquor. An undertaking was given that a measure would be introduced, but it was pointed out that this was not the only anomaly or abuse existing in connection with the licensed trade, and that any Bill dealing with hours would have to deal also with a great many other matters. This Bill as it comes up here is not the Bill as introduced into the Dáil. The Bill as introduced to the Dáil was of 12 Sections, dealing with some other matters besides hours, dealing with penalties for certain offences; dealing with forfeiture of licences for the sale or concealment of poteen on licensed premises; dealing also with a very important matter, the sale of methylated spirits, and laying down certain regulations as to the sale of these spirits. A certain amount of ballast had to be thrown overboard in the Dáil.
The attitude taken up was that it was too late in the Session and too near the Dissolution to consider the Bill as it stood. The six Sections in the Bill, as it now stands, represent what was saved from the wreckage. In addition to the wires which the Chairman read, I have received certain representations from various parts of the country, from Cork, for instance, asking for a 10 p.m. closing instead of 9.30, but the conditions in Cork are very much the conditions in Dublin. There is a rather special problem there as regards tied houses which will certainly have to be dealt with in the future, but the conditions are the same. You have a compact population around the place. A deputation which waited on me on this matter were not able to show any case for discrimination. One of the evils of the absence of uniformity in the closing of public houses is that you start a flow of population from the less favoured to the more favoured places.
Let us assume we had a 9.30 closing in the city, in the metropolitan area, and outside the metropolitan area a longer stretch of hours, 10 o'clock or 10.30, the tendency immediately is to send people cycling or tramming outside the city for the purpose of drinking, and coming home late at night with consequent disturbance along the roads or on the trams. That is the experience where a man can walk outside an establishment in the city and walk into another shop with later hours. It leads to abuse and discontent. A uniform closing hour from 9 to 9.30 is eminently more suitable from the point of view of order, and from the point of view of police facilities generally. The Earl of Mayo has raised a point in connection with summer time, and I would like to see that point thoroughly dealt with and thrashed out when the Summer Time Bill is under discussion. The Bill we passed this year for summer time only covers the period of this year, and if we propose to have summer-time next year it would be necessary to introduce another Bill, and that point could then be dealt with, but we are drawing to the close of summer-time, and I do not think that for that short period it is worth consideration in connection with this Bill.
There is the point that farming is for the most part quite generally carried out on the old time, sun time and of necessity, that 9.30 closing in a rural agricultural area would in fact be 8.30. Men leaving work at 6 by the sun, would only have a little over 2 hours to get into the town and have their refreshment. That point can be considered in connection with the Summer Time Bill, but taking this Bill as it stands, and without advertence to summer-time closing, I would ask Senators to appreciate the fact that uniformity of closing hours throughout the country is advisable. The licensed traders here are more favourably circumstanced in the matter of hours than licensed traders elsewhere. They have better and longer hours than in England. In Australia you have the closing hour at 6 p.m. The proposal here to leave them 12½ hours of the day for carrying on their business is certainly not illiberal. There has not been much comment on the Club Sections. I would like to say this, there are clubs that are well and decently run, and there are clubs which, unfortunately, are not well conducted. I am perfectly satisfied that a big proportion of the night crime is attributable to clubs, through people leaving these clubs which have degenerated into all night drinking shops, leaving them when their neighbours are in bed, and when there is opportunity and comparative safety for deeds of outrage and violence.
You cannot legislate in just a geographical way. You cannot pick a list of clubs and say these will sell all night, these others must stop at 10.30 p.m. You have to try and strike a fair mean in dealing with the matter, and 10.30 p.m. for the sale of drink for non-resident members is not an unfair time. They have one hour over the licensed establishments. I can say that clubs will be kept under very special supervision in the future, and that they are very much on probation. The police have got instructions to oppose a renewal of club certificates wherever general circumstances seem to call for that course.
This Bill has been referred to as premature. I cannot visualise any Bill, restricting licensing hours, being brought in at any time in the future that will not be considered premature by a great many people. It will certainly be considered premature by many traders and by many patrons of licensed establishments. I do not see that its introduction is likely to be any more welcome in the next Dáil than it is now. It is not a technical matter or anything very profound. I believe that this Assembly, just as the Dáil, is capable of weighing the matter and coming to a fair conclusion upon it, even in the time that is at its disposal. I invite Senators to proceed with the consideration of the Bill. It has been spoken of as legislation by people with cellars, for people with no cellars. Personally, I have no cellar, and I think very few members of the Dáil have cellars. Yet this Bill has been considered there, has been passed there, and it comes now into an Assembly of people more fortunately situated, people with cellars. It is strange that it is here the hitch and the difficulty should be. It really affects members of this House less seriously than it affects members of the Dáil. There is no hour on which I would get general agreement. It is an easy thing to suggest 10 p.m., but there would be as little agreement on 10 p.m. as there is on 9.30 p.m. No doubt, it would meet certain views, but on the other hand, it would immediately raise friction and discontent in other sections.
I have made very full investigation into the matter and I am not satisfied that there is any hour that would command any greater degree of unanimity, any greater degree of consent, than the hour named in the Bill, 9.30 p.m.
This is referred to as hasty legislation. I want to make this point. It is not hasty legislation in the sense that the Bill was hurriedly prepared, departmentally. There is no Bill that I have brought before either House which has received as much consideration as this one has. There is no District Justice, State Solicitor or Civic Guard Superintendent in the country whose views were not asked and considered in connection with this Bill, and when any new suggestion came up or any new point was made, it was circulated to the others for their comments.
This Bill has been in the course of preparation in my Department for four or five months, and in that sense, at least, it is not hasty legislation. Licensed traders, no doubt, resent the change. They are naturally conservative, and they think the old way best. You cannot deal with a matter of this kind without coming up against some opinion. But the public will adapt themselves to the altered hours, and in a month or six weeks' time the traders will forget that the hours were ever anything but 9.30 p.m. Change is resented; any change would be resented.
You have simply to consider whether the mass sense of the people, the mass judgment of the people, does not heartily endorse the 9.30 p.m. closing, whether the mass mind of the country does not consider that 12½ hours in the day for the sale of intoxicating liquor is entirely adequate. It is recognised by us that the real pinch in the licensed trade is the fact that there are, at least, twice too many licensed houses in the country. It is recognised that legislation of this kind is not adequate and that some Government in the future will have to set up a Commission to tackle this whole question seriously, with a view to elaborating some scheme of buying in licences. The trouble in Ireland at the moment is that there is scarcely enough legitimate trade to go round, and people break the law to pick crumbs from their more substantial neighbours. A very frank statement was made to me, only to-day, that a certain class of house in Munster could not carry on but for their illegalities, and that they would have to close if police supervision became so efficient as to stop illegalities. That is the kind of situation that will confront the Government and Parliament of this country in the future.
This is merely temporary legislation We do think that 9.30 p.m. for the closing of licensed houses and an hour's grace for non-resident club members is a proposal that will be heartily endorsed by the vast majority of the people of the country.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Perhaps I should mention that in addition to receiving these telegrams a numerically strong deputation waited upon me this afternoon from the clubs, their special complaint being that they were compelled to close under this Bill at 10.30 p.m. They suggested that the Seanad would be well advised to come to their aid with a view to having the hours extended to certainly 11 if not 11.30 p.m. I told them that I had no control or voice in the matter, but that I thought it would be my duty to communicate the fact, that the Deputation came to me, to the Seanad. The main argument they impressed upon me was the fact— they were mostly representatives of workmen's clubs, and there were thirteen on the Deputation—that to many workmen these clubs were a substitute for home and that they resented the curtailment of this privilege. I mention the fact to the Seanad and leave it there for them to deal with.
I hope the Seanad will agree to pass this Bill. Pretty fair reasons, but not at very great length, have been given by the Minister for the Bill. To refuse to pass the Bill now, simply because we have not had time for its consideration, would be practically straining at the gnat after swallowing the camel. Sir Thomas Esmonde stated on general principles he was in favour of temperance legislation. It should be made clear that this is not temperance legislation. It does not attempt to deal with the licensing problem or the temperance problem. It is simply a Bill which brings in one or two provisions and I challenge anyone to say, with things as they are in Ireland, that 12½ hours is not ample time for licensed premises to be open. That is the main point of the Bill.
Are we able to determine now whether twelve-and-a-half hours is sufficient for the licensed trade per day or not? That is one of the arguments used against the carrying through of this Bill. Generally, I sympathise fully with the feeling of members of the Seanad against the rushing through of legislation. But this is not a Bill that attempts to deal generally with the temperance problem or I would be totally against pushing it through without full consideration and without an effort to make a proper contribution to the subject. I am glad the Minister has made it clear that he realises that at an early date some Government will have to tackle this problem, possibly by way of Commission first. But I do think that we have reached a position when the temperance societies and the licensed trade both recognise that legislation is required, and I think it should not be beyond the reasonable powers of the next Government to bring in a Bill which, in some parts, would be unquestionably contested, but which would meet with a considerable amount of approval and lead to some improvement in our legislation. Meantime I hope the Seanad will agree to pass this Bill.
I notice the last speaker has a motion on the Order Paper in which he proposes to protest against the hurried rushing through of Bills. I think every member of the Seanad agrees that the Bills that we rushed through were absolutely necessary. There was need for hurry. But even Senator Douglas will not convince me that there is any need for hurry in connection with this Bill. There are quite a number of provisions in this Bill of a contentious nature. I notice that the townships of Clontarf, Glasnevin, and Drumcondra, which are within the city area, and are paying city rates, will not be allowed to have their public houses open at all on Sundays. We have heard something about faulty draughtsmanship. It appears it was faulty draughtsmanship that ruled the people of Clontarf, Drumcondra, and Glasnevin out. They pay rates and taxes. The people on the other side of the river can open. What provision is made to protect these people? I think, taking everything into consideration, the Seanad will be well advised to adjourn the Bill until we have more time to think it over.
The Minister, when the Bill was being introduced, omitted a very important factor—time. He gets up a bit too early for his drink. No reasonable man should start his drink before 12 o'clock. Take off the time in the morning and give it to the evening. Twelve o'clock is too early to start drinking, and it is proposed under this Bill to start at 8 o'clock. Instead of twelve-and-a-half hours, make it ten hours and let it start later in the day. This is not a Bill that should be rushed through at all. The interests that are concerned are very big. The banking interests and the commercial interests are very big, and they ought to get some reasonable consideration. The Bill should not be rushed except you are prepared to alter it by letting the people start drinking later in the morning and add on the hours to the evening.
I listened with great attention to the Minister and, if I might say so, his arguments were largely confined to the important city of Dublin. He did not mention Cork. There may be certain interests concerned in the city of Dublin that are all important, but he said that we were less concerned with this Bill personally than the Dáil members were. I do not think that we ever consider the personal aspect of any Bill that comes before us. I feel that we look at it from a broader point of view and looking at it from that broader point of view, I say the Minister made no case for expedition in connection with this Bill. He said that a lot of ballast was thrown overboard in the Dáil. Surely, when they introduced that amount of ballast they thought it worthy of consideration and they have got a little nucleus, which may or may not be important. Some of the provisions I may say are very useful.
Section 2, which gives power to District Justices to close houses, is a most important provision and ought to be upheld. At the same time, we have the argument that Summer Time was not an injury to the countryman. Senator Fitzgerald suggested that the 12½ hours should begin later. I would go further and say that so far as the country districts are concerned, they could begin at 6 o'clock in the evening. The countryman gets up at 6 or 7 o'clock, has his breakfast and goes to his work, and he has no opportunity to start drinking until his work is finished in the evening. Then he likes his pint of stout. A few men who were working with me the other day kindly worked an extra half-hour, went into the public house on their way home for a pint of stout. They were caught red-handed by the Civic Guard, hauled before the Court and fined 5s. I need not say that it was a technical offence. They had no drink all day, they were perfectly sober, but, nevertheless, they were dragged before a District Justice, to the loss of their own time and of my work. That sort of thing should not be allowed in the country districts. I think the Minister did not quite sufficiently stress the vital necessity of considering the injury done to the country districts. He also referred to clubs. The remedy is in the hands of the Government, and if not properly conducted the licence ought to be withdrawn. I am glad to see that that is the Minister's intention, and that the licences of these ill-conducted clubs will be withdrawn. The Bill may or may not be a good one, but what case did the Minister make for urgency?
No case has been made for urgency, so far as I can see. The only reason adduced is that a half an hour earlier or a half an hour later would prevent certain things occurring and would prevent the migration of persons from one district to another for purposes of intoxication. I think migration will not have any effect because, after all, a man will not go from one district to another in which the conditions are really not any more favourable. What Senator Moran said, and what Senator Fitzgerald said—men thoroughly conversant with the position in Dublin—ought to weigh with us. I am thoroughly satisfied that the Bill will inflict a grave injustice on the country districts. I speak, as Sir Thomas Esmonde did, as an upholder of temperance legislation but, according to Senator Douglas, this is not temperance legislation. Senator Douglas spoke without any appreciation of the position in the country districts. Everybody who knows the country districts knows that 12½ hours' drinking is not possible now— that, in fact, more than two hours' drinking is impossible. For those reasons I maintain that my amendment is necessary.
Question: "That further consideration of the Bill be adjourned until the re-assembly of the Oireachtas," put and declared carried.