Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1942—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Justice (Mr. Boland)

Perhaps I had better explain to the Seanad, as I did in the Dáil, why this Bill has been brought in at this particular time. In the ordinary course, it would not have been introduced during the emergency. Some time ago, however, a Bill was passed extending the Dublin City boundaries. It was passed in rather a hurry and the Howth traders came to me and said they had not got a proper chance to make their case against the passing of that Bill. They said that their interests were affected by it and that it would not be consistent with democratic practice if people whose interests were affected were not given a chance to make their case. I thought that was reasonable and said that, if that Bill were made effective, I would go into the whole question. I did not promise them any relief, but said that, at least, they would not be able to say that they did not get the opportunity to have their case stated. When the Bill was ready, the Minister for Local Government at the time did not intend to name the appointed day for the inclusion of Howth for some time; but when it was decided to go ahead and to introduce the managerial system, the appointed day for Howth was fixed. Then I felt bound to bring in this Bill: it was not done in order to deal with Howth, but that was the occasion for its introduction.

From the time when I became Minister for Justice, the Commissioner of the Gárda Síochána was constantly pressing me to do something about the abuse of the bona fide system, particularly in Dublin and in certain country districts in connection with dances— that is, all-night drinking. I confess that I would not have done that if I had not been compelled to do so by the Howth case. I knew what I was in for; I had some experience of it before, and I think that no wise or discreet person would tackle a Bill of this kind if he could avoid it. My main object was to deal with what had become a glaring abuse. The very name bona fide traveller means a traveller in good faith, and we all know that at least 90 per cent., if not more, of the people who drank during prohibited hours were not bona fide travellers at all.

In the Bill as introduced, I proposed to do away altogether with that system, except on Sundays. On Sundays I thought it was only reasonable that people who would be genuine travellers should have facilities to get drink—people on a journey, or going to football matches, or cycling, or doing something of that kind. Consequently, I had no intention to interfere with the Sunday trade. On other days of the week, I intended to do away with the bona fide traffic altogether. Every one knows what happened: the Dáil objected—all Parties, my own as strongly as any other—with the result that a compromise was agreed to. It was decided to have a complete close-down on drinking between 12 midnight and 6 a.m.: under no circumstances would licensed premises be allowed to open during those hours.

I have been asked in the Dáil and elsewhere why the Gárdaí did not enforce the law and see that only bona fide travellers were served. The position was that, if a person came the required distance—three miles in a country district or five miles in a borough—the Gárdaí could not prove that they went out for the purpose of getting drink, and they were required to prove that. When a person travelled the required distance, it worked out in practice that he was entitled to a drink, as otherwise you would have to ask his motive, and that proved to be practically impossible. I think it was only those people who were known not to live the required distance who would be found to have broken the law. That was never intended. In future, everyone will know that there can be no excuse for drinking in licensed premises after 12 midnight or before 6 in the morning, and that the Gárdaí will be obliged to deal with that. To that extent this Bill is a great improvement on the existing licensing laws.

There were other changes introduced in the Dáil, although I tried to restrict them as much as I could. My idea was not to grant extra facilities, but to stop abuses. I considered the Act introduced by my predecessor improved the licensing code very considerably. That Act was passed after a commission had examined the licensing code and made certain recommendations. Like every other Act, it has been on trial, and anything found wrong in it has to be remedied. This certainly was an outstanding defect—this so-called bona fide system. I expect everyone is aware that in the Dáil the closing hour for the cities and the country districts, on weekdays, has been altered. I resisted the change in the Dáil as much as I could, but when I found that many members in the House were against me, members of my own Party as well as members of the chief Opposition and the Labour Party —when I realised that they were in favour of an extension, I had no option but to agree to an extension.

Deputies especially from the country constituencies urged that the week-day hours in the country were altogether unsuitable. They pointed out that, in the summer, farmers and farm workers generally remain in the fields until 9 o'clock or 10 o'clock, which would be really 8.30 o'clock, and, when they reach the villages or towns, the public houses are closed and they cannot get a drink. It was also pointed out that most public houses in country districts are general stores as well, and that country people might want to get provisions and possibly get a drink at the same time. Even if they do not want a drink, the public house is closed for general purposes. I found I had no option but to agree. I did not want to put it to a division—it might be too risky to do that—so I agreed to compromise, making the hour 10.30 p.m. on weekdays.

My proposal for a compromise with regard to bona fide traffic was to make the closing hour 11 p.m. —that every public house would close at 11 p.m. until 6 a.m.; in other words, that they would open at 6 in the morning and remain open until 11 at night. The idea of fixing 6 in the morning is to facilitate people attending fairs or markets, and there is hardly any danger that people would get out of bed so early in the morning merely for the sake of having a drink. I gave way again, however. I did not carry my 11 o'clock proposal; I was forced to make it 12 midnight.

So far as the weekday closing hour is concerned, I was glad for one reason that it was altered to 10.30, because it lessens the gap between the closing hour, in the boroughs and the bona fide closing hour outside the boroughs. One of the big grievances of the Guards and, indeed, those of us who live a bit outside the cities, is that after the city public houses close, especially on Sundays, there is a rush out to the country districts. The worst elements of the city population went out there and created violent and disgraceful scenes. I think everyone living in the cities is aware of that. I believe that by lessening the gap between the closing hour in the boroughs and the bona fide closing hour outside the boroughs, you lessen the likelihood of these people travelling into the country districts for the purpose of getting more drink. In that way I was reconciled to the 10.30 closing hour and to the bona fide traffic being allowed to be carried on until midnight.

Most of the scenes I have referred to occur on Sundays. The hard drinking, the really dangerous drinking, occurs, in my opinion, from midnight into the small hours. People sit for hours drinking. We know that has been going on to a very large extent. The noisy rowdy element is confined mostly to Sunday afternoons. The public houses in the cities close at 5 o'clock and there is a gap of three hours, as the outside public houses do not close until 8 o'clock. The result is that we have this exodus and these scenes. The only way that I could see of correcting that was by lowering the gap and fixing a later closing hour in the boroughs. I had to do that or else reduce the bona fide hours, and I did not think that would be reasonable.

I proposed, therefore, that the public houses in the county boroughs should open from 1 to 2 and 4 to 7. We had a long debate on the matter. There were all sorts of objections to that proposal so far as Dublin was concerned. In the case of Cork, Limerick and Waterford, representations were made by the licensed trade and by the Parliamentary representatives to the effect that what would suit them would be an opening from 1 to 3 and 5 to 7. That would do two things. It would do away with the big gap between the closing hour in the boroughs and the closing hour for the outside districts, and it would also help to cater for the crowds who would come in for big sporting events, such as the people who attended football matches on Sunday evenings. In Dublin we have a lot of big football matches. These matches are over about 5 o'clock, the hour at which the public houses close. I think that the people who attend these matches are entitled, if they wish, to discuss the match over their drinks. The earlier hour, 1 o'clock, was fixed for the following reasons. The bona fide traffic starts at 1 o'clock—1 to 7 in the winter and 1 to 8 in the summer— and the clubs and hotels are also entitled to serve drink from 1 o'clock. A good many people like to have a drink before dinner, and there is no reason why they should not be considered.

There was an objection to the proposed 1 o'clock opening in Dublin. The assistants, a very well organised body, objected to it. I would like to have all the county boroughs on the same footing, I would not like to have any distinction between them, but in the case of Dublin there appeared to be a difference. A deputation of the assistants waited on me and pointed out that they were all members of the Gaelic Athletic Association and that the hurling section of that association depended on them. I knew that to be true, and I was very sympathetic with their point of view. Consequently, I agreed in the case of Dublin to change the opening hour from 1 to 2. I stuck out for the principle of the split hours, even on Sundays. The assistants do not like it, but the Commissioner of the Gardaí is very keen on it. He asked me not to depart from it and he pointed out that he could see all sorts of difficulties and far more drunkenness if there was a continuous opening of more than three hours.

As regards the closing hour, I was anxious to fix 7 o'clock in order to close the gap between the boroughs and the country districts. I could not see how we were to manage it otherwise than by having a break. The final result was that we decided to fix the hours of opening on Sundays from 2 to 3 o'clock and 4 to 7 o'clock. That is how it stands now.

These were the points which caused the most trouble in the Dáil, and there was more talk about the opening hours than about anything else. A number of other points were dealt with which are really Committee Stage points. There were such matters as the famous Guiney case, in connection with which I was accused of having gone out of my way to facilitate a particular individual. There was also the point about firms which had on-licences, which they did not require and who wanted them changed to off-licences. The time for doing that had elapsed, but we provided for it again in the Bill.

There was further, the matter of compulsory endorsement of licences. I was impressed by the case made by the licensed trade that the justices ought to be given discretion, and I think that in practice that system will work much better. When the Bill is passed, I think there will be more severe fines imposed on people who break the licensing laws, and on publicans especially, than were imposed in the past, because unless a justice was prepared to certify that an offence was trivial, he was bound under the old arrangement to endorse the licence. I have been told by some justices that that influenced them very often in fixing the penalties they imposed, because if they imposed heavy fines they could not very well certify offences as trivial, and in some cases while they were satisfied that heavy fines should be imposed, they did not think the offences sufficiently serious to warrant endorsements.

I look to very much stricter action by justices in dealing with breaches of the licensing laws from now on, when they will have discretion. When they find a glaring case, they will, I am quite sure, have no hesitation in endorsing, but compulsory endorsements, like minimum fines and things of the kind, really defeat themselves very often. It is much better to leave it to the discretion of the justice dealing with the case. That principle has been embodied in the Bill and accepted by the Dáil.

The Bill is not exactly what I wanted. I was disappointed when I found I could not do away with the bona fide business altogether. I did not know I should be up against such strong opposition. I knew I would have some tough opposition to face, but I did not think it would be quite as bad as it was. I agreed to practically all the changes put forward, in deference to the wishes of the House, as I believed it to be my duty to do so. As a member of a democratic Government, when I found that practically the whole House wished to have certain amendments made, I had no alternative but to accept them. On the whole, when the Bill passes, I think the licensing code will be much better than it has been up to this, and particularly with reference to night drinking.

In the Dáil, a great many speakers, mostly from the country, insisted that the Bill was designed for Dublin alone, but that is not so. I contradicted that statement about a dozen times, but it was no good. I was told the same thing by the next speaker. I know, however, and everyone from the country knows, that there have been abuses in the country as well as in the vicinity of Dublin. For instance, when there is a dance on a Sunday evening lasting into the morning, the law at present is that no licensed premises can open for bona fide traffic after 8 o'clock in the evening. At one minute past 12 midnight, so-called bona fide travellers can be admitted again and they can keep on drinking as long as they like. That is made illegal now and on no pretext can people remain drinking, so that the Bill applies both to the country and to the areas around the boroughs. In that respect alone, I should say that it is worth while, in spite of the extra facilities given.

Extra facilities have been given, but I do not think they will do much harm. I have not got a lot of experience in this matter although I am not altogether a teetotaller, but I have been told that a "quick one" does more harm than when one takes one's time with a drink. I believe the net result of this extension will be that people will take more time over their drinks, and that on the whole it will not do a great lot of harm. I am sure that teetotallers will not like to hear that from me, but I believe that to be the case. The extra facilities given are of a minor character. The big thing which has been achieved, although it is short of what I wished for, is a complete shutting-down from midnight until 6 o'clock in the morning.

I hope the Seanad will not make many changes in the Bill. Some Senators have said to me: "We will give you back the Bill in the form in which you brought it into the Dáil," but that would put me in a very awkward position, because, although I fought my corner as well as I could, having agreed to the amendments put forward, I should be in a very embarrassing position indeed if my original proposals were passed by the Seanad. I should be in a very difficult position, and do not know what I should do. I, therefore, ask the Seanad to pass the Bill as it is.

Mr. M. Hayes

I am afraid I am rather in the same position as the Minister in that I lack certain important qualifications for discussing a liquor Bill, although perhaps the Minister and I might have a degree of impartiality on a liquor Bill which would enable us to be better judges than people who have a more intimate connection with the subject. The Minister has given us a very clear and frank statement of the Bill and of its rather peculiar fate in the other House, but the first thing that strikes me about it, apart altogether from what happened in the other House to the Minister's original proposals, is that the Bill is a monstrous example of legislation by reference.

For that, the Minister is not entirely to blame, but if one were an ordinary member of this or the other House, and wanted to find out what the real position in regard to hours either for bona fide traffic or otherwise was, one would have to examine this Bill, together with a number of Acts going back to 1833. I suggest that, before the Bill leaves the House, it may be found possible by the Minister, on Report Stage, to introduce one or two sections setting out clearly in respect of the county boroughs and the areas outside the county boroughs the exact opening and closing hours, so that they could all be found in one place.

I recognise, of course, the difficulty of codifying this kind of law, and I know the Minister is following a precedent in bringing in legislation by reference, but the Minister and his colleagues are, I am afraid, rather more enthusiastic about the bad precedents than the good ones. I suggest quite seriously that we should be able to find one or two sections in the Bill when it becomes an Act in which the exact hours will be set out. I do not know whether they could be set out in a section, or whether they would need a schedule, but I do not think it would be beyond the wit of the Department and the draftsman's office to give us that. It would be a great convenience to the public and also to the trade.

The Bill is not a comprehensive Bill in any sense. It does not deal at all with clubs, theatres or restaurants, and, as the Minister pointed out quite frankly, it fails to deal in a comprehensive manner with the bona fide traffic. Dealing with the Bill in principle, I have frequently said before that we ought to accept on Second Reading any Bill coming from the Dáil, because if we fail to accept it on Second Reading, we lose all our power or influence in respect of amendment. The Bill does remedy certain defects in the working of the 1927 Act and the amendment which the Minister has introduced with regard to compulsory endorsement of licences is, I think, perfectly just and proper. I recognise that the trade in liquor is a legitimate trade, and that nobody should approach the subject with what one might call the prohibition mentality, because you cannot, I believe, achieve moral improvement of the people by drastic legislation.

It may be argued, with regard to the liquor traffic, that there ought to be no restrictions at all. I think that argument has been put forward and the position in other countries has been brought up as an argument in favour of that situation. So far as we in this country are concerned, we must consider our history and our habits, and, granted our history and habits, I think it would be absolutely impossible to turn to any such a situation. There are restrictions upon the sale of liquor, and what we have to do in relation to this Bill is to recognise that there are restrictions, and to see whether amendment of this Bill, or whatever may be proposed in this House, will effect an improvement.

We find that certain restrictions have been in operation, and, as the Minister has indicated, he brought in a Bill designed to impose still further restriction, but the Bill as we find it now in fact gives certain rather important relaxations. What we have to consider is whether we should favour relaxations. I think we should not entirely put them from us, but it is clear that if a certain state of affairs has been in existence over a substantial period, it should be shown that there is a demand for a change and that there are sound reasons for the change. It is in that spirit I should like to see the Bill approached and in that spirit I should like the Committee Stage of the Bill carried out in this House.

Take, for example, the bona fide traffic. Anybody who has ever walked, driven a motor car, cycled around County Dublin, or in any part of the country on Sundays will know that the Minister is quite right in saying that 90 per cent. if not more, of the people who profess to travel in good faith are, in fact, not travelling in good faith at all, but are looking for drink. There are workers, travellers, fishermen, farmers and others who should be accommodated, but the liquor laws generally should be such as would eliminate, or enable the police to eliminate, people who travel from their own districts to get drink in other districts. The situation, even to a person like myself, who does not want a drink at all, is Gilbertian. I remember being in a place with which the Minister is fairly familiar, about 30 miles from Dublin, and the people there on holidays had to go to a neighbouring town to get a drink on Sunday, while people from neighbouring towns came to the seaside to get drink. I think that in seaside resorts the law was broken to the knowledge of the police, and even for years to the knowledge of a previous police force. That situation seems to call for a remedy. I recognise that it is difficult to get a remedy. This Bill does not deal comprehensively with that traffic. The legislation we pass on this question cannot be too drastic. It must be recognised as being just and reasonable, or it will be impossible for the police to carry it out. It must have some measure of public support or it will fail in its object. I am not an expert on the question of the complete abolition of the bona fide traffic as such, or of the extension of the three to five-mile limits very considerably or of some kind of general opening.

Mr. Boland

That was debated in the other House.

Mr. M. Hayes

It was. All my own rearing and all the professions of Sinn Feiners in the early days were against public houses being open on Sundays in the country. When one lives in a country town and looks at what happens, and at the way the law is evaded pretty generally, one feels that it would be better to have a law that could be worked for the abolition of the whole bona fide trade and to let the ordinary person get a drink within reasonable hours and under reasonable conditions. I should like to hear that discussed and argued by people more conversant with the position than I am. To some of us it is something for which a very good case could be put up. I entirely support the Minister in one remark he made. He mentioned the efforts of the late Kevin O'Higgins in the Act of 1927 as being praiseworthy. I listened to that debate from rather a different angle from that of the Minister or his predecessor. There was a very long debate in the Dáil on the question of split hours. In that particular instance the Minister held fast to the split hours and I am told by licensed traders and others, who drink a reasonable amount, and who frequent public houses without going too far, that the split hours were a good thing. I think the Minister is right in standing by that arrangement. From what I have been able to discover since this Bill came from the Dáil I received the impression that even on Sundays, whatever hours we decide on, we ought to have split hours, and particularly if there is to be any extension of facilities on Sundays, that these hours should be continued. That may involve certain inconvenience to the Guards or to the assistants but, from the social point of view, it has been an improvement and should not be abandoned.

With regard to the increased hours on Sundays and on weekdays, the position is rather a peculiar one. There is hardly anything at all to be said in favour of an extension of hours on Sundays or weekdays in Dublin. The hours have been extended in Dublin on Sundays for everybody, because a minority abused the bona fide traffic outside Dublin. If it is looked at in that particular way that principle appears to have nothing to support it. I realise that the Minister has not considered it from the point of view of principle, but rather of the expediency of dealing with drinking scenes outside the city. The 7 o'clock hour was abolished in Dublin when I was a boy, about 1905 or 1906, and the hours 2 to 5 have been working ever since. I feel that a very strong case must be put up before there is a change to 7 o'clock. In order to bridge the gap between Dublin City hours and the bona fide hours outside Dublin and the county boroughs generally the case is rather thin. It should be possible to deal with the bona fide traffic in a more logical and a more comprehensive way than that. I want to be quite frank about this, because it is a matter that we should be frank about, and should do the best we can to come to the best solution. I have heard, from what I call reasonable drinkers, that if there was an extension of the Dublin hours even to 7 o'clock, that would be preferable from the point of view of the ordinary man, and would not lead to more drunkenness, particularly when supported by the split hours. Although it sounds more inconvenient I feel that certain people favoured the Minister's proposal of the 1 o'clock opening and ending, say, at 6 o'clock rather than opening at 2 o'clock and ending at 7 o'clock. The argument that because a certain number of people create abuse, you should give facilities to other people, who apparently have not asked for them, is one that is difficult to follow.

With regard to the opening hours on Sundays I can remember when grocers' assistants had to run away from the Phoenix Park earlier than anybody else in order to be present for the opening of the public houses. If they have to be on duty at 1 o'clock on Sundays it would be a serious drawback to them. With regard to labour conditions generally the modern tendency is that people should not only work a limited number of hours but work these hours at most convenient times. If you are going to make a change, substantial reasons should be put forward for doing so. If one could see that there were going to be social improvements one might be inclined to say that certain people must put up with certain inconveniences, particularly at the moment when only a certain number of hours are worked and when there are more facilities for amusement and for reasonable exercise than there ever were before.

But I do not think that, as the case stands at present, there has been a convincing argument brought forward for the extension of the hours in Dublin either on weekdays or on Sundays. As a matter of fact, if one were to ignore the bona fide traffic altogether and simply take the question of summer time and the general habits of the people—I am not speaking of the emergency now—it may be argued that 10.30 in Dublin now is by no means as late as 11 in the old days. There may have been a change in habits in the last 35 years. But certainly the 7 o'clock closing in Dublin in the old days was very bad and it was regarded as a great improvement to go back to 5 o'clock. I think wives generally were in favour of 5 as against 7 o'clock. It is interesting to note that the commission upon which the hours in the 1927 Act were based did not recommend any change on Sundays. They recommended 10 o'clock to 10 o'clock on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, and 10 to 9.30 on Saturday. It is, I think, something we will have to hear more about in Committee. We shall need to have a case made as to why, when drinking is generally assumed, and I think rightly assumed, to be on the increase amongst young women, for example, more facilities for drinking should be given in the county boroughs. However, the Bill in the main is one for discussion in Committee and we need not spend too much time on the Second Stage.

I should like to say to the Minister that I think his attitude with regard to bringing the Bill back to the Dáil is not the correct one. I have sympathy with Ministers who are embarrassed, but when you have been a Minister for some time you get used to being embarrassed. As the Minister behaved reasonably in the Dáil and accepted amendments put forward when they seemed to have general support, I hope he will do us the honour of treating us in the same way. I suggest that the Committee Stage should be one in which we should do our best to improve the Bill according to our lights and, if there are any amendments upon which we seem to be in fair agreement, that the Minister will bring the amendments back to the other House and argue for them. I think our amendments will largely be rather in the line of the Minister's own thought and, necessarily, I think, when you have two Houses of Parliament, the Minister, if he accepts an amendment here, must go back and put the arguments for it. I do not think that the Minister need feel in advance that he is going to be embarrassed. I think he will find that the Committee Stage will not be as long and not be as disputatious, if that is the proper word, as in the other House, and I hope that for our own honour and good name we will be able to contribute something in Committee to improve the Bill. I think it is the kind of Bill in which the Seanad might easily make considerable improvement, and I hope that in the Committee Stage we will be able to do that and discuss it in a very calm manner.

Speaking for myself, there is a great deal about it which I should like to learn. I am in the position with regard to a number of things that I am open to argument. We have always found the particular Minister open to argument; many people think he was too open to argument in the other House. Anyhow, he need not be afraid of divisions here, because we cannot accomplish very much by dividing on the Committee Stage. It is in that spirit that we ought to approach the Committee Stage and if we do pass amendments I feel sure that the Minister will be able to put them through in the other House with what assistance we may be able to provide him with.

Mr. Goulding

Unlike the Minister and Senator Hayes, I happen to have some inside knowledge of the licensed trade. I have been listening for years to arguments on both sides of the counter for and against various proposals for amendment of the licensing laws. Now too far east is west. A section of the people in this country, if they had their way, would probably follow the Americans in the Volstead Act and abolish the liquor trade altogether. I am afraid the Americans did not find it very successful, and I think it would be a calamity if we were to follow that example. On the other hand, I can sympathise with the Minister because I can see in how many different ways he is being pulled. But the principal difficulty is that because of the misdeeds of a comparatively small number of people we are compelled to penalise the majority. We are all sympathetic with the man who, when he really wants a drink, is unable to get it. But I am afraid that we will have to sacrifice these people to prevent the abuses which not alone have become common in the country, but have been common throughout the country for a number of years—the abuses of the bona fide trade, for example, and illicit drinking. In addition to that we have the question of the clubs, which the Minister has not touched upon at all. Does it not look unfair that a comparatively few people can get together and form a so-called club, and get a licence and with their friends keep drinking all night, while the man who has to pay a pretty heavy licence duty and to incur considerable expense is compelled to close at certain hours? Of course that is rather out of order I suppose, because there is no reference to clubs in the Bill.

Mr. Boland

It is not true that they can drink all night. They cannot legally do that. The hours are somewhat the same as for public houses. If they drink all night, they are doing it illegally.

Mr. Goulding

Of course we know they are not supposed to do that.

Mr. Boland

I want that understood.

Mr. Goulding

I am afraid that it is the case. I do not think we are all of one mind with regard to some of the changes made in the Bill. The licensed traders in the smaller towns at least are not very anxious about the extension of the hours to 10.30 p.m. on weekdays. They say that 10 o'clock is ample for them. They would be indifferent as to whether it was passed or not. Of course I can see the argument on behalf of the workingmen, especially the agricultural workers in the country. I would be prepared to put forward the same argument, but I thought it was covered by the extension of the bona fide hours to 12 p.m. These men who keep old time in the country and who are working late very often find the public houses closed against them when they come into the town. They are, of course, entitled to some refreshment, but the majority of them at least would be over the three mile limit and, therefore, would be catered for by the extension of the bona fide hours to 12 p.m. So far as I know, there is not unanimity of opinion amongst the trade, in the country towns at least, with regard to the extension on weekdays to 10.30 p.m. Some of them say that it is long enough to be working up to 10 o'clock and that they would rather shut down then.

Now, with regard to the split hour, personally, I do not like it. I am speaking as one who has had experience of working behind a licensed trade counter myself, and I can see the objection to it from the assistants' point of view, because when you close down for that hour the assistant is not free for the whole of that hour. He is actually working during that hour, cleaning up, and so on, and, personally, I cannot see that, on Sunday at least, the inveterate drinker—what they call in the city here, I believe, the "long sitter"—will go home as a result of the closing. On the contrary, I believe that he will remain hanging around the corners of the streets during that hour on the chance of going back again when the licensed house opens. If I could believe that he would go home and have a meal during that interval, I could see the advantage of this. I certainly could see the advantage of it during the weekdays when there is always the chance of a man forgetting to go home for his lunch and continuing to drink during the lunch hour, as has often happened.

If I mistake not, the former Minister, in introducing the Act of 1927, had that in view. His anxiety for the split hour was chiefly concerned with the question of men in the City of Dublin and the county boroughs, going for drink during the luncheon interval, continuing to drink instead of going home, and eventually losing their jobs. That, however, does not apply to Sundays, but again, speaking from the assistants' point of view, I think it would be much fairer if the Sunday hours were from 2 o'clock to 6, with no split, because, after all, these men have to be cleaning up and readying the place during the split hour—they cannot go anywhere—and if the closing hour is 7 o'clock, it means that they have to work after that hour in order to have the place cleaned up and ready for Monday morning. That means that their whole evening is spoiled and, after all, these men are entitled to relief and recreation just the same as the licensed trader himself or the ordinary man in the street. I can see the Minister's argument, that it shortens the time during which persons can leave licensed premises in the city and then go chasing out to the country and drinking too much, but, after all, I think, the Minister has brought that down by half—from four hours to two —and closing at 6 would not leave too long an interval, and I do not think it would give these people the chance of taking too much drink.

There is another practice to which I should like to refer, and that is the practice of drinking at dance halls. Senator Hayes, I think, referred to the growth of drinking by young women. Unfortunately, that is spreading throughout the country. Now, I have heard many arguments in favour of and against the provision of drink at dances. I have been told that if you do not make provision for the supply of drink at these dances, the men will bring the drink in flasks, and so on, in their pockets, and the effect will be far worse. There is no doubt that anybody familiar with country dance halls at the moment, where bars are provided, is quite aware of the fact that young girls are drinking, and drinking too much, at these places, and it seems to be the fact, undoubtedly, that this practice is spreading, not alone in the city, but throughout the country places, and there is the danger that if they once get the habit of drinking at these dance halls, they will not stop at merely drinking in the dance halls. I am told—I am not aware of it myself— that in the City of Dublin it is quite common to see young women drinking in the bars of the city. How that is to be checked, I do not know. The argument against it is that if facilities are not provided in these places, the men will bring the drink along with them in their pockets and give it to their friends, which might lead to a worse evil.

All my life I have been listening to this question of the moderate drinker being argued back and forth, and it is hard lines on those who like an occasional drink to be prevented from drinking because So-and-so drinks too much. Personally, I should be very sorry to be in the Minister's position, endeavouring to frame a Bill that would suit all parties. None of us likes prohibition. We believe that that cure would be worse than the disease. On the other hand, we cannot close our eyes to the fact that there is a great danger of drinking habits being carried on again by the younger generation that is rising up, and that is what we have to consider. For the past few years, undoubtedly, drinking has been on the decline. The younger men, growing up for the past twenty years or so, have not been so much inclined to drink. They have gone dancing, football playing, and so on, and they have been very steady. But there is great danger now that we are drifting in the other direction, and if anything can be done to check that evil, even at the sacrifice of the liberty of the more sober citizens, I am afraid we will have to be satisfied with it.

I do not object to the total prohibition of the bona fide traffic after 12 o'clock. It will not affect the country places at all, practically, except for the occasional traveller, who may come along and be inconvenienced by his inability to get a drink, but there is no demand for it in the country towns, generally, and the people are not worrying about it. I do not think I need refer to the other provisions in the Bill. The Minister has made a good attempt to meet all sections of opinion, although, I suppose, he has satisfied none, but I am chiefly concerned about the split hour. I am speaking now from the assistants' point of view, because I think it is unfair to these men, and on Sundays, at least, I do not think it would be of any use, because the men at whom it is intended to strike will not go home but will simply hang around the streets until the house opens again. I do not think there is anything more for me to say. The Bill was drastically amended in the other House, and I am sure it will receive full consideration here.

Mr. Crosbie

I do not think that the Minister need apologise or be diffident about introducing an amending Licensing Bill in this House. I, for one, welcome the introduction of this Bill by the Minister, as I am quite convinced that our licensing legislation is in need of overhaul and reform. I think that it would be also a very great pity indeed if any effort were made to postpone the operation of this Bill, when it becomes an Act, on any excuse that this is not a suitable time for the putting into effect of such an Act. Surely, at the end of 15 years, we have had time to find out whatever faults exist and to see whatever possible remedies there are in our existing licensing laws and, particularly, in our last one, the Intoxicating Liquor Act of 1927. I think that this Bill is just the type of legislation which provides this House with an opportunity of proving its worth. Legislation which concerns the moral welfare and the social amenities of our people will, I am sure, get the greatest and most careful consideration from the various bodies which constitute the Seanad. I hope that the House will give the Bill the closest reading and the most careful scrutiny, and will make every endeavour to have as its first consideration the first principle of the general well-being of our community, irrespective of class interests, vested or otherwise.

In considering a Bill of this kind, the first aspect to come under review is the moral aspect—what is going to be the general moral effect of any enactments which the Oireachtas may make concerning the sale of intoxicating liquor. There is a duty on this House, as there is on any legislative assembly, to give the fullest consideration, in framing laws, to the moral well-being of their people. While this consideration is of primary importance, it must, however, be recognised that there is a very definite limit to the extent by which a legislative assembly can, by law, enforce a state of moral well-being upon the community. It frequently happens, when Parliament produces enactments which err too much on the side of puritanism, or are in their nature too restrictive, that their effect is the opposite to that which is desired. We are all aware of what the effect of total prohibition was in the United States, where, over a period of years, it gave rise to the greatest crime wave and display of moral degradation that it has been the fate of any country to suffer within living memory. In framing a Bill such as this, therefore, it is our duty to try to correlate the moral aspect of the problem with the rights of the individual to enjoy whatever social amenities he is entitled to. We should endeavour to produce an Act which will differentiate between licence and reasonable facilities for human enjoyment, and should not under any circumstances penalise one section of the community as against another. We must safeguard the morals of our young people as far as possible, but should not make our enactments of such a restrictive nature that those young people will think that we are unduly interfering with their personal freedom. In other words, we ought to endeavour to produce licensing laws of such a nature that their enforcement will be made easy because there will be strong public opinion and public approval behind them.

Individuals in this House and outside it, when it comes to the question of licensing laws, hold very strong and divergent views. There are several schools of thought. On the one hand you will find a school of thought which quite definitely holds that if you had no licensing restriction of any kind you would have far less insobriety. Then, on the other extreme, you get people who believe that, short of total prohibition, there should be as many restrictions as it is within the ingenuity of man to devise. In my opinion, both those schools are wrong. I do not think we are such men of iron that we could remain temperate without having any restrictions at all. Neither do I believe that the other extreme would bring about the conditions which are desirable. There is only one cure for the excessive use of alcohol, and that is abstension. There are many societies, clerical and otherwise, who do wonderful work in this respect, and are there to help people on those lines. The views of such societies, of course, are very valuable in framing liquor laws. One of the chief tests as to whether legislation is suitable or unsuitable for a community is the manner in which that community regards the working of that legislation over a period of years, and the manner in which it abides by its provisions. When that test is applied to the Intoxicating Liquor Act of 1927, I think it will be found that that Act was wanting in many respects, and that it did not come through the test with much credit. It has been common knowledge over a number of years that the licensing laws have been more honoured in the breach than in the observance. The most respectable people have treated them with the greatest disrespect. Any disrespect for the law, no matter how trivial, is of itself bad, and must have a bad moral effect on the community as a whole. I have consulted a great number of people on this matter, and I find that people in all walks of life have come to regard a breach of the licensing laws as of no more importance than crossing a busy city street at an unauthorised crossing place.

When it comes to analysing the 1927 Act in an endeavour to find out why it is that such general disrespect for the licensing law has grown up, the task is not such an easy one. I am inclined to the opinion that the 1927 Act was in some respects too restrictive, and in other respects perhaps too lax—too lax in not containing sufficient restrictive penalties for members of the general public who commit breaches of the law, and, by adopting the principle of the bona fide traveller, it invited the general public to pass themselves off as travellers when in fact they were not, thereby breaking the law. I am disappointed that the Minister decided in the Dáil to retain the bona fide trade even on the restricted basis on which he has retained it, because I am quite convinced that, as long as the bona fide trade is retained, there will be people who will continue to pass themselves off as bona fide travellers in order to obtain drinking facilities during prohibited hours. If the Minister insists on retaining this part of the Bill, I would seriously suggest to him that he ought to insert some new sections laying down very heavy penalties for such misrepresentation by members of the public, and make provision to see that the district justices impose those penalties in full.

The 1927 Act was too restrictive in the permitted hours on Sundays. Those hours have been changed very much for the better in the 1942 Bill, but, so far, the Minister has not accepted the principle of a legal opening on Sundays in the rural areas. To my mind, that was one of the weak points in the 1927 Act, and it is one of the weak points in the 1942 Bill. If retained, it will remain a source of trouble and a source of justifiable complaint. An Act which permits licensed houses in the county borough areas to open on Sundays between certain hours, while they are not permitted to open at all in the rural areas, is very definitely what might be described as sectional legislation. Why should the city dweller be given social amenities which are denied to his colleague in the country? I think the Minister would be well advised to give serious and favourable consideration to making good those differences, and on the Committee Stage it is my intention to move some amendments to that effect. I hope that the House and the Minister will be able to reach a solution on that matter which, while it may not satisfy everybody, will go a long way towards it, and will abolish this unfair differentiation.

There are a great many details in both the 1927 Act and in this Bill which, I think, could be more usefully discussed, and discussed in greater detail on the Committee Stage. I am not at all satisfied, for instance, that the restrictions in the 1927 Act and in the present Bill as applied to St. Patrick's Day are in the best interests of the community or could be described as fair legislation as between one section of the community and another. That, however, is a matter which, I think, could be better discussed on the Committee Stage of the Bill. In conclusion, I would suggest to the Minister that he should make every effort, above all, to gain respect for the law, and that his best means of achieving this is to produce an Act which would be easily enforced because it would be backed by strong public opinion in its favour.

Mr. Honan

I cannot commit myself to the same statements as the Minister and Senator Hayes. I have considerable experience at both sides of the counter and I must say that in this licensing Bill, as passed through the Dáil, the Minister has gone a long way to meet every section of thought. I think we can congratulate him on that and say that, generally speaking, the Bill will have the support of the House. One point that occurred to me during the speech of Senator Goulding is that there is a little too much emphasis on the question of drinking by young people, young girls in particular. I have been down the country and have seen girls at occasional dances and I have not seen anything like that taking place in regard to our respectable country girls. It is not because an occasional painted lady comes along and makes a stool pigeon of herself in one of the select bars that we should take that as representing the general condition of affairs in the country. I resent the implication that drinking is going on amongst the young women down the country and in the towns. I think that suggestion should not go forward. It is a very bad advertisement for young girls who may be looking for husbands in the near future. Apart from that consideration, it is not a fact.

My opinion is that outside the city and suburbs of Dublin—and I do not want to discuss conditions in that area —if the licensing laws were completely suspended for one year, there would be less drink taken in the country than there is at the present time. We all know that in human nature anything that is forbidden has a great fascination. I know people who would go out for a drink on Sunday at an illegal hour if they could get it, who would never dream of going for drink if the shop was open on Saturday evening. There is a fascination about it. I do not recommend it. It may suit some people, but I do not think it would suit the Minister for Finance. Undoubtedly there are evils in connection with the bona fide trade that must be put down by a strong hand, but I do say that they exist down the country only to a very limited degree, in seaside places and holiday resorts, maybe, in summer time when people are there from all parts of the country. Generally speaking, there is no such thing as bona fide trade in the country districts. In most of the inland towns down the country licence holders who have the right to open for bona fide trade never open at all for that purpose because there is no bona fide trade there.

Notwithstanding the Minister's protest, I do believe that this Bill was initiated entirely to meet the requirements of Dublin and the suburbs and that the country is brought in incidentally. Of course, as Senator Crosbie said, there will be plenty of opportunities for discussing details on the Committee Stage, but I may mention two cities—Limerick and Waterford— and their position in regard to this Bill. I would appeal to the Minister in regard to these cities—Limerick in particular has a very strong case—to obviate the necessity of closing for one hour during the day. Limerick is quite different from the City of Dublin because every licensed house that I know in Limerick is a licensed grocer's premises. They carry on all sorts of business. It is a great disadvantage to farmers and others who go into the town that at this particular hour they have to be cleared out of the shop and business more or less suspended. It is very inconvenient. I understand that a bona fide customer who lives outside a certain radius may enter the premises, but that is a half-and-half business which, I think, makes for the breaking of the law. I would prefer to have it wholly closed or wholly open. You cannot, before you permit a man to enter your premises, measure the distance of his house and, if it is outside the three miles radius, permit him to enter and refuse permission to his friend, who may happen to live a quarter of a mile short of the prescribed distance. That would create a very difficult situation and the result would be, I think, that the law would be broken from time to time during the day. That again will come up on the Committee Stage. All I have to say is that the licensed trade as I know it have no objection at all to this Bill. As a matter of fact, they have got facilities that they did not ask for but, as they have got them, those who wish to use them can do so and those who do not need not. Generally speaking, the Minister is to be congratulated on the Bill.

Mr. Counihan

While I would like to compliment the Minister on his courage in bringing in this Bill, I cannot think that he has acted with great wisdom in introducing such a contentious measure at the tail-end of the life of this Parliament. I would recommend him to withdraw the Bill and leave it for his successor, when it can be debated with the Fine Gael Minister for Justice in the next Parliament, and when political influence will not have such a great effect on the votes of the members of the Dáil—I do not suppose it will have much effect on the Senators.

The Bill, to my mind, does not please anybody. It is no improvement on the previous Act. If anything, as Senator Hayes said, it is even worse. Much has been said about drink. The majority of the people engaged in the licensed trade are decent citizens and do not deserve to be victimised in any way, but I think the majority of them would be delighted to see the bona fide trade abolished completely. The bona fide trade is the curse of the country, and the sooner the Government and the Minister take it into their heads completely to abolish that trade the better it will be for all concerned. Much has been said about people going to fairs and markets, people who have to go out in the early morning and travel at night. I have as much experience of going to fairs and markets as anybody and of what people suffer in such cases. It is my opinion that there is no necessity for drinking facilities in that connection.

I have a lifelong experience of attending fairs and I would recommend to the Minister—I do not know that he could do it by an amendment in this Bill but it might be done by Order— that he should get the Minister for Local Government to make an Order that in places where tolls are collected at fairs or markets, those responsible for the collection of the toll should provide refreshments such as coffee, tea or some other hot drink at a reasonable price during the opening hours of markets or fairs. About 30 years ago the Temperance Association sent round to fairs, particularly in the South of Ireland, caravans or booths at which refreshments were sold to people attending the fairs—farmers who had to come in long distances, their drovers or workmen. In the early days these booths were not very well patronised. People thought it demeaning to go in and pay 2d. for a cup of coffee. Some of those conducting the stalls used to come along and ask us to come in for coffee so as to popularise the stalls and we all co-operated with them in that effort. I personally often brought in three, four or five farmers and treated them to cups of coffee at 2d. per cup. I think if that system were revived there would be no necessity for opening public houses. I have no objection to giving extended opening hours to accommodate people who want to get drink but I hold that there is no necessity for it in any place. I know that the people who were always tippling at whisky, shout and other intoxicating liquor were much less capable of conducting their business than those who took coffee only. Those who took coffee were in very much better health and spirits at the close of the day.

Mr. Kehoe

Not spirits surely.

Mr. Counihan

That is one direction in which I would like the Minister to take some action. If he cannot make the necessary Order himself, I think he should approach his colleague, the Minister for Local Government, to do so. With regard to the other matters which have been mentioned, I have come into Dublin and gone out of it at all hours of the night and morning, going to fairs and returning from fairs, and I think it is a terrible disgrace to see people staggering out of these public houses at 2 and 3 o'clock in the morning, sometimes to motor cars, a danger to themselves and to the travelling public. I think drastic steps should be taken to prevent abuses of that kind. I have discussed that matter with a publican in the neighbourhood of Dublin, a trader in a certain village where quite a lot of that business is carried on. I said to him: "You are a man who is well off and there is no necessity for carrying on this trade; there is no necessity for opening at 10 o'clock in the morning, closing at 10 o'clock at night, reopening at midnight and keeping your place open until 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning."

He told me that he would be very glad if something were done to stop it and he added: "If I do not do as other people are doing, I will lose the legitimate trade. These people will go to some other place where they can get drink and possibly they will get so much into the habit of going to the other place that they will finish up by staying away from my place altogether, even during the normal hours of opening."

That was the only reason he said that he opened at these midnight hours. That would apply to many other houses which carry on a trade during prohibited hours. For that reason I agree with Senator Hayes that the bona fide trade is the curse of the whole licensed business and the sooner the Minister can devise some means of doing away with it completely, the better it will be for everybody concerned.

Mrs. Concannon

The immediate reaction of the first impact of this Bill on most of us was a feeling of regret that after 21 years during which we were able to frame our own laws and more or less shape our own destiny, such a measure should be necessary. I do not mean, of course, that it is surprising or out of order that the Oireachtas should take thought on the question of the conduct of a trade having such moral and social implications as the liquor trade. I think it is perfectly in order and I think that we should approach the question with a recognition of the fact that the liquor trade is a legitimate trade, that intoxicating liquors were not invented by the devil, that they are gifts of God and nature, and that the evil lies in the way men have made use of their free will to abuse these gifts. I regret very much that women have helped to do this, too, in recent years. That has been made plain by the discussions in the Dáil and already in this House. That is one of the reasons I should like to say a few words about the Bill.

I think it most unfortunate that the manner in which the bona fide privileges were abused should have made it necessary to interfere with the rights of moderate drinkers, people who use drink as it was intended to be used, for their health and because it is a legitimate gift of God and of nature. Unfortunately the bona fide privileges were abused in such away that scandalous things have resulted. The moral effects have been so disastrous that it was necessary for any conscientious Government to take cognisance of them. That is why this Bill is necessary and why we in the Seanad should do our best to make it a good and useful Bill. No Party interests have entered into it to could our vision and all of us will try to help the Minister to make it a good and useful Bill to serve the purpose which he had in mind when he introduced it—to make our people what they should be, sober and self-respecting.

I am not a Pussyfoot; I am not a Prohibitionist. I think that what we should aim at is temperance in the right sense. The guardians of temperance are—perhaps it will surprise Senators to hear me say it—the publicans and the publicans' assistants. They can do a great deal to help the cause of temperance. By temperance I mean that one can take a drink without abusing it, that one can use drink in the way a Christian country should be able to use it. For this reason, too, I think we should take cognisance of the possibility that temperance might be inculcated under our educational systems. It is too bad that there are not in the schools lectures about temperance. I do not mean about prohibition, abolition or anything like that. I mean that we should recognise what is the proper use of drink and that we should train our people in such habits of self-respect, such a recognition of human dignity and human responsibilities that the disgraceful scenes that have made our cities, I am afraid, a by-word in recent years would no longer be met with. I would appeal to everybody to work for this end. It is not a matter of legislation alone, though legislation can do a certain amount. But what you need is the help of everybody to restore our self-respect in such a way that the abuse of drink will be looked upon as a disgraceful thing and not as a fashionable thing, as it is at present, if we are to judge by the actions of some women. This is largely a matter of proper education. It is a matter of education in patriotism as well as in religion. A man who has the dignity and good name of his country at heart will train himself in such a way that he will avoid the abuse of drink. What goes for the man goes far more for the woman. There is an old saying that a nation is what its women make it. If it is well brought home to women that if they get into the habit of drink, they will be imperilling the health and fate of the next generation and of the whole nation, and if they are brought back to the old Irish ways of self-respect and self-restraint, many of the abuses which this Bill is designed to remedy will be no more.

Mr. Campbell

The Minister, in submitting this Bill to the House, and practically all the Senators who followed him, made protestations about their attitude in regard to drink. Senator Hayes does not seem to know anything about it. Senator Honan knows it from both sides of the counter. My experience of it is very limited. Until about nine years ago, I had experience only of temperance drinks and my experience since then has been very limited. I take a drink only when I have to do so. I am opposed to this measure because it increases the facilities for drinking. The facilities available at present are as adequate as the occasion demands. I am sorry I cannot agree with the Minister that this Bill is in any way a good Bill. If he himself examined his conscience in the privacy of his own room, I do not think he would feel very satisfied about the Bill.

The Bill proposes the abolition of the bona fide traffic altogether on weekdays and the continuance of the present arrangement for its operation on Sundays. In addition to this, the proposal is made that, in order not to make it worth while for people to go out from the cities for the purpose of getting drink on Sunday evenings, the trading hours in the county boroughs should be extended and the closing hour fixed at 7 p.m. instead of 5 p.m. at present. The Minister is optimistic enough to hope that that provision will have the effect of putting an end to the abuses and rowdyism associated with the bona fide traffic. I am sorry to say I cannot share the Minister's optimism in this regard. The net effect of the proposed new arrangement will be that the scenes which disgrace the outlying areas of the city at present will, when the new arrangement comes into force, be transferred to the city itself and the last state, in so far as disgraceful scenes and disorder generally are concerned, may easily be worse than the first. I know that the position in this respect is not as bad as it was before the restrictions on transport came into operation.

Many members of this House, particularly those resident in Dublin, including Senator Hayes and the Minister himself, will have a vivid recollection of the scenes which, in their boyhood days, 40 or 45 years ago, disgraced the centre of our city on Sunday nights. I have a lively recollection of those scenes because I was intimately aware of what went on, by reason of the fact that in those days I served Mass in a church opposite a public house which, on every Sunday night, was the scenes of terrific brawls. I am sure the Minister will recollect those happenings, too, because the technique in those days was for the local band to parade around the city and suburbs from 3 o'clock to 5.30. They returned to this particular public house at 5.30, having their clientele well marshalled behind them. They took possession of the public house and about 7 o'clock the musician who operated the big drum went outside the door and best his drum for fully ten minutes in order to empty the house. The scenes which ensued when these people got into the street can be more easily imagined than described. The Protestant church was worse in that respect than we were——

Mr. M. Hayes

Worse situated.

Mr. Campbell

The effects on the Protestant congregation were much worse than on the Catholic congregation because their service commenced at 7 o'clock whereas the Catholic service did not commence until 7.30. The Minister is well aware of what went on.

Mr. Boland

Porter was only 2d. a pint then.

Mr. Healy

The Minister did not belong to the band.

Mr. Campbell

I do not think he did. Those scenes were disgraceful and, having regard to the fact that we are neither so saintly nor so scholarly that we can resist the temptation to enter public houses, when open, I think that the proposed extension of hours is to be deplored. I deplore it more from the moral point of view than I do from the point of view of the assistants, although I have considerable sympathy with the protest of the assistants who will be deprived of their legitimate Sunday evening off. If they have to work until 7 o'clock, there is not much of the day left for amusement. For that and other reasons, I think that the proposal in the Bill to extend the hours of opening until 7 o'clock is to be deplored.

The Bill is not a comprehensive measure, and I should prefer to see it held up until the emergency ends. Nobody knows what the conditions will be when this conflict comes to a conclusion. There may be a change in the habits and the life of the people which will involve a new line-up in connection with our licensing laws. If certain things required to be done in the way of giving licences, say, to Clerys or the airport—I am not suggesting that the Minister did that with any unworthy motive or for political reasons; that suggestion was made elsewhere, but I do not share it—it could be done without going to the trouble of introducing a measure of this kind. It could be done in a simple way without altering the present hours of trade.

The only advantageous change which emerges from the Bill is that anybody found in a public house between midnight and 6 o'clock in the morning can be prosecuted. Up to this, that was not possible, and it is a good thing that even that has emerged from the Bill. I am glad that the Minister has preserved the split hour, although I do not agree with the hours suggested. The split hour will remain a lasting monument to the man who introduced it into the licensing legislation which has operated here since 1927. I have not much knowledge of public houses, but, I have a good knowledge of the drinking habits of the working-class community, if I may put it that way. I was apprenticed to a trade which had a reputation for hard drinking. It used to be said that printers and tailors never worked on Monday as a result of their operations on Saturday and Sunday. I have a vivid recollection as a boy of a certain public house close by where I served my time. The bulk of those who resorted to this public house fed on copious helpings of pig's cheek and cabbage. That is no exaggeration. That was served free to everyone who went in. The result of it was that more than half the wages of those men was left in that public house. They sat there from 1 o'clock in the afternoon until 11 o'clock at night. I think that the Minister, in maintaining the split hour, is continuing the good work of the late Mr. Kevin O'Higgins when he was Minister for Justice. It is something that we can all be glad of.

Reference has been made to the drinking habits of the people. It has been said that the provision of extra amusements and extra facilities for people travelling about has diminished the demand for drinking. I do not believe that at all. I think that drinking is on the increase, and that it is very definitely on the increase amongst young people. I am sorry to have to say that it is more on the increase amongst the ladies than amongst the gentlemen. We have ample evidence of that. I have made it my business to go around to some of those lounge bars and observe what has been taking place in them. I think that what is taking place in both the ordinary public houses and in the hotels in that respect is appalling. In my view, increased facilities for Sunday drinking are likely to create a very bad situation in this city. What is going on is confined, more or less, to what one may call the upper classes, because the ordinary working-class people have not sufficient money to indulge in the luxury of drinking. I fear there will be a very big development in that respect if the public houses in the city are allowed to keep open until 7 o'clock on Sunday nights. I do not want to exaggerate the position, but I know it is very bad. I know, on authority that cannot be contradicted, that from one public house in the centre of the city on Christmas Eve six young ladies, perhaps I should say six females, were carried unconscious into the street. Their condition was witnessed by thousands of people while an effort was being made to bring them to a state of consciousness. It is deplorable that such a thing should happen. I think that any increase in the facilities for drinking will likely have the effect of spreading that sort of thing, so that in the future we may have servant girls, on their Sunday evenings off, brought into these public houses and kept there until 7 o'clock.

I do not want to take up the time of the House in giving my own views on this matter of drinking. A paper has been put into my hand which contains descriptions of scenes that were witnessed in this city on Christmas Eve. I am not going to say that I can stand over what has been published. These descriptions were published in the Irish Catholic. This is one:—

"Looking on at the scenes in Dublin during Christmas Eve was a Frenchman who, according to an Irish Times reporter, said ‘I have never seen anything like it abroad, not even in the south of France at carnival time.’ Shops, public houses, restaurants and hotels were crowded long before midday and, as the day wore on, the interior of hotels and public houses began to resemble the grand stands at the international rugby match. Long queues formed outside all the restaurants. Towards evening only those who had booked tables could get into the better-class restaurants and hotels; one restaurant had been entirely booked out over a fortnight before Christmas.... In one large Dublin theatre many people, unable to find room in the bar, took their ‘refreshments’ into the auditorium and drank them there; the noise in the auditorium was so great that an appeal had to be made from the stage to allow the performance to continue. In a well-known Dublin restaurant people stood on the tables and sang popular songs, loudly applauded by the assembled company.”

People do not usually stand on tables when they are at their supper.

"Most of the revellers walked home, and well into the early hours of the morning small parties could be seen sitting at the kerb, finishing what remained in their pocket flasks. One man, attempting to walk the parapet across O'Connell Bridge, fell into the water. He swam to the nearest steps where he was rescued by his friends."

Mr. Baxter

He was sober by that time.

Mr. Campbell

He was near being drowned. The writer goes on to say:—

"All over the city was a litter of broken bottles, glasses, cigarette packets and pieces of paper. Withal there were few casualties. The ambulance answered many calls in the course of the evening, but none of them was serious and they were all entered into the ambulance record book as ‘collapse, due to weakness' and forgotten. Indeed, many of them had departed, apparently of their own accord, by the time the ambulance arrived."

A writer in the Carlow Nationalist gave the following description of Dublin on Christmas Eve:—

"Dublin was a city of men—and women—staggering around the streets, spewing over the pavements, roaring themselves hoarse with sickening obscenities. True, the name of the new-born Saviour was uttered many times above the din, within and without the taverns; not in praise or in glory, but in the most filthy blasphemy. ‘And this,' said a friend, ‘is the spirit of Christmas as Ireland expresses it.'"

The Connacht Tribune also published a description of the scenes that took place in Dublin during Christmas. Its correspondent wrote:—

"It is no pleasure to me to chronicle incidents which show that a section of the population is behaving in a shameful manner, but the drunken orgies which occurred in central Dublin during the Christmas holidays were witnessed by thousands of decent Irish men and women and there is a general consensus of opinion that to find their parallel we would have to go back to the Dublin of the 17th and 18th centuries. I have known Dublin for many years, and I say with profound regret, and with full appreciation of my responsibility, that never before have I seen so many young people under the influence of drink during the Christmas season—or at any other time. The most deplorable sight was provided by the number of young women who were disgustingly drunk in public. Some of them appeared to be barely in their 'teens, and the majority belonged to the ‘respectable' middle class, although there were not wanting many members of our new political and commercial ‘aristocracy'."

These descriptions were written not by rabid temperance reformers or by people with a prohibition mentality— the people referred to by Senator Hayes—but by responsible Dublin newspaper correspondents. I think I have quoted sufficient to show that this is a very serious problem so far as the City of Dublin is concerned. I think that anyone going into these lounge bars in the City of Dublin will find that the condition of things referred to in these extracts is to be witnessed night after night, not perhaps to the same extent, but still there is increasing drinking going on amongst young women in these bars.

In this connection I would refer Senators to the admirable speech made on the Bill when it was before the Dáil by Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney. The speech is one that is well worth reading. It has been said that there is not much opposition to this Bill. A well-known union—the Father Mathew Union—has sent out a circular in opposition to the Bill. Generally speaking, the opposition to it has not, I must confess, been very vocal. The Father Mathew Union, I understand, is a union composed of about 1,000 total abstaining priests whose work brings them in constant contact with intemperance—and the sufferers through the intemperance of others. They have passed a resolution stating:

"While we, the priests of the Father Mathew Union, appreciate the purpose of the new Licensing Bill to control the liquor traffic for the common good and to prevent abuses, and its bold effort to end the abuses associated with the weekday bona fide traffic, we wish to place on record our grave disappointment at the Bill's many shortcomings and retrograde proposals.

1. The Bill proposes to disregard religious and national feelings by according additional drinking facilities on St. Patrick's Day.

2. It gives an additional hour for drinking on Sundays in the exempted cities—an extension that has never been asked for by the G.A.A.

3. It proposes to abolish compulsory endorsement of licences for grave offences against the licensing laws.

4. It accords the defending publican the right of appeal, while denying this right to the prosecuting authority.

5. It ignores altogether the scandalous abuses of excessive and prolonged drinking facilities in clubs.

6. Instead of reducing the admittedly excessive number of public houses, it provides additional beer and spirit licences for restaurants.

In the interests of national sobriety, decency and self-respect, and for the protection of our youth from grave moral danger, we most earnestly appeal to all members of the national Legislature to remedy these defects in the Bill in its passage through the Oireachtas."

This is neither the time nor the place to indicate the defects we want remedied. That will come on the Committee Stage, when we will have some amendments to submit to the House. The proposal to continue the opening of public houses until 7 o'clock on Sunday nights is a most retrograde one. The whole problem would be better solved by setting up a committee of those interested in the licensed trade and of the different bodies and organisations connected with that trade. I make no charge whatever against the licensed trade as such. They are a body of men for whom I have profound respect, they conduct their business well and, in the main, they treat their employees fairly well. However, under the proposals contained in this Bill, the lot of the employees will not be a very happy one. Their Sunday will be virtually destroyed. They will have to work up to 10.30 on Saturday nights, and then clear up the debris and the mess from Saturday and prepare for the next day's work, so it will be midnight before they get out of the shops and bars.

There is no reason why public houses should be open up to 10.30 at night. The normal life of the city closes down at 10 o'clock, when everyone makes for the bus or queues up for the few remaining trams. It affects not only the interests of the assistants—and they were united in the view that there is no necessity for it—but the interests of the people themselves. The few stragglers who remain in the city after the normal transport traffic has ceased are infinitesimal and would not justify having the public houses open until such a late hour.

I hope the Minister will not hearken to the last word in the Dáil when this measure passed its Final Stage, and when one Deputy said he hoped the Minister would not succumb to but would resist any effort to amend the Bill in the Seanad. The extracts I have given, and my own personal impressions, should be sufficient indication that it would be deplorable to give any extension of the facilities for drinking on Sunday evenings.

Pádraic O Máille

Sílim gur ionmholta an iarracht atá déanta ag an Aire leis an mBille seo. Ní Bill gan locht é, ach níl rud ar bith gan locht ar an saol seo. Tá aon rud amháin ina thaobh—gur fhéach an tAire le toil na ndaoine fháil.

Dubhairt an Seanadóir Ó hAodha ar ball go raibh spioraid ar shon na measarachta go láidir ar fuid na tíre le linn gluaiseachta Sinn Féin. 'Séard atá ag teastáil uainn faoi láthair ná cuid den spioraid sin do thabhairt ar ais sa tír aris. Dá mbéadh an spioraid sin imeasc na ndaoine, bhéadh meas óig an bhfear óg agus ag an mnaoi óig orra fhéin agus ar an dtír, agus ní bhéadh siad ag ólachán ins na tithe ósta mar atá curtha in a leith.

Níl rud ar bith is cinnte ná gur ól na mná beagán sa tsean-aimsir. Do réir an tsean-fhocail: "Ní olann na mná leann ach imthigheann sé le na linn". An beagán a d'óladar, d'óladar sa chúlráid é, agus ní raibh sé le feiceál riamh orra. Bhí níos mó measa acu orra fhéin ná go rachfadh siad amach ag ól i dtigh tábhairne. Caithfimíd meas a bheith againn orainn fhéin agus ar ár dtír.

I was very interested to hear the reports read out by Senator Campbell a few minutes ago. One would wonder if the high colouring of those reports was due to the particular time at which they occurred—as reporters to newspapers, like everyone else, sometimes take a glass or two too much. When they saw a delinquent supposed to be under the influence of drink, their imagination may have multiplied that individual by ten or 12. Whether that is true or not, we must not shut our eyes to the facts given by Senator Goulding and others. I do not agree with Senator Goulding that the practice is as widespread as some people may imagine, but certainly one often sees young women going into public bars and under the influence of drink. I say that no law, no matter how drastic it is, can put down such a practice as that. What we want in the country, as mentioned by Senator Hayes at the opening of this discussion, is a revival of the spirit of Sinn Féin. That spirit of self-respect can be given by people outside the Dáil and the Seanad.

There is a good indication from the discussion here to-day on all sides of the House that the Minister will have the active support of all classes in the country in preserving and maintaining the good name of our people. The Bill may not go as far as some people would wish, but the success of the measure depends more upon the goodwill of the people behind it than upon the actual wording of the legislation. Everyone here is anxious to do away with abuses, and that can be done better by reasonable means than by adopting the drastic means adopted in America, when prohibition was introduced by a well-meaning man who did not understand the realities of the world situation. I think it would be desirable if we could create that type of spirit behind this measure, when it is finally adopted. All decent-minded people in the country want to preserve the good name of the country and want to make this nation what it ought to be, sober and self-respecting.

Mr. Douglas

I do not think that we should spend a great deal of time on the Second Stage of this Bill. If it went to a division, I would vote against the Bill for one reason, and only one reason, and that is that I do not believe there is a demand for longer hours. The Minister may have information that I have not got, but I doubt very much, indeed, if he is wise in extending the hours. It may have been due to what one of his own Party calls his elasticity, but in changing the Bill so that the hours were extended, I believe it was a very definite blunder. For my part, I believe this House ought to send the Bill back for reconsideration, even though we might not ultimately insist, or attempt to fight with the Dáil in a matter of this kind.

I am rather surprised to find certain Senators approving the Bill, more or less, by comparing it to prohibition. I do not think there is, or ever has been, a serious demand from any section in favour of prohibition in this country. I have had experience of America; I have travelled there pretty considerably, both before and during prohibition. I do not believe prohibition was carried in America simply through the enthusiasm of certain temperance reformers, though undoubtedly they played a part; I think it was carried in the interests of the well-to-do people, partly in the hope that it would keep liquor from the coloured races and from the working classes and that in that manner they might get more efficiency.

I heard that as an explanation from people who were perfectly satisfied with prohibition. They said that was all that was intended. They said the Government never intended that the pre-prohibition stocks in any club should ever be stopped. It was quite legal to consume any stocks laid in beforehand and, as long as these stocks were there, they could be consumed—they could, as it were, be like the brook. But there was a definite reaction in America against prohibition, and I believe that anything in the nature of extreme measures here would have exactly the same reaction.

I was very much interested in Senator Campbell's speech. I almost entirely agree with him and share his point of view. I have lived in Dublin practically all my life. Part of the time I lived inside the city, and I have a very clear recollection of what happened between 5 and 7 on Sunday afternoons. I lived for a time opposite a publichouse, which was very well conducted—there was nothing against it—and I have a clear recollection of the arrival of the bands and a very definite recollection of the turn-out. I think we should look at this thing from a rational and a sane point of view. Going back 35 to 40 years, I may say there has been an enormous decrease in drunkenness. The whole position from the social point of view has improved enormously. Up to four or five years ago that was being very largely maintained.

The interesting feature about it is that while you had a decrease in drunkenness, you also had a very substantial decrease in total abstinence. I am making a distinction between temperance and total abstinence. The total abstinence societies have been weakened; they are not nearly as active as they were, and they have not the same enthusiasm. When you get extremes on the one side you invariably develop extremes on the other side. I remember as a young man the concern felt for what turned out to be a temporary phase, the very considerable increase of drunkenness amongst women at the time, not young girls, but amongst middle-aged and elderly women. That used to be a not infrequent thing in the streets of Dublin, but now one practically never sees it.

There has been a very great improvement, but I think things have begun to go a little bit the other way. I think in the last five or six years there has been an increase in drinking amongst young people. I am not claiming that I am competent to judge, and I am not going entirely by what I see. I am told by all classes of people, people who are not extremists in any sense on either side, that that is the position now. That is not in the interests of temperance. It is not in the interests of the health of our nation if you reach a point where there is excessive drinking. It is bad enough amongst young men, but it is far worse when it occurs amongst young women, not perhaps morally worse, but worse from the point of view of the effect on the nation as a whole. I have a feeling—I may be wrong—that the passage of this Bill will bring about a backward tendency. I think it is a mistake to increase drinking facilities.

I have considerable sympathy with a great deal the Minister said in the Dáil. I missed his introduction of the Bill here through causes that were unavoidable. I sympathise particularly with any Minister who wants to get a law that can be carried out. The law that is not carried out is not very much good. I doubt if you will ever satisfactorily enforce licensing laws until you abolish the bona fide traveller. I think he is already abolished, that he does not exist, or at least that there are so few of them that bona fide traffic is negligible. I have in mind now the person who requires a drink because he has travelled a long way and is in need of one. The number of such people is so small that we are really legislating for something that is, to my mind, imaginary. I would not so much mind doing something with regard to opening hours if we were abolishing the bona fide traffic, but we are not abolishing it. We are reducing the facilities, but we are not abolishing the bona fide traveller and, as long as he is legally recognised, you will find it extremely difficult to enforce the law.

I would be prepared, with some reluctance, I admit, to see a certain increase of the hours if we were getting a corresponding benefit from the point of view of the administration of the law and from the point of view of sobriety. But this Bill has been turned into a measure in which the drawbacks out-balance the advantages. I hope we may be able to persuade the other House on this point with, I trust, the assistance of the Minister who, I strongly suspect, has a good deal of sympathy with our point of view. The question of Party politics, fortunately, does not arise in this matter. All Parties have reasonable and unreasonable people in their ranks, but fortunately this is one matter in which there is not likely to be a division on strictly Party lines.

I do not believe you can ever really control the question of sobriety and the social effects of drinking by controlling the licensed trade alone. As we stand, I do not think you can suddenly leave the trade without any control. I should like to see a group of reasonable people, and it is obvious there is quite a number, who are not actuated either by self-interest in the trade or by an ultra-Puritanism, inquiring into whether we have got the right way of tackling this thing and whether any of our particular legislation is really good. I do not know whether the Swedish system would work here. I think it is a most interesting study, and I should like to see the attention of Irish social reformers turned towards an examination of how the system in Sweden, modified, no doubt, would work in this country.

If you had asked me before the war whether any system like the Swedish system was practicable here, I should have said that it was probably quite impossible, but we have now got used to the idea of rationing and the idea of having ration cards and coupons does not horrify us. I had a Swede in my house recently. He is not a total abstainer, and he told me that he did not think anyone in Sweden would now go back on their legislation, though it was very much opposed at the time. In Sweden, you are entitled to a ration, if you want it. It is a reasonable and adequate ration. If you are found drunk in charge of a motor car, your ration is reduced, and if you are found drunk in the streets, it is also reduced, though probably not so much. If you are fortunate enough to have a silver wedding, you get an extra ration. There are various methods by which it can be adjusted. The trade does not have to be restricted. The trader can only be fined—there it is under State control, but the principle is the same—if he goes outside the ration.

The principle there is to accept liquor as something which is not necessarily an evil, but which requires control so that everyone who requires it can get a reasonable quantity, and, in the case of the not so intoxicating liquors, at a reasonable price. The tax on spirits is higher. I am not at all certain whether, on a proper examination here, we should not find that it would be far better to tackle this matter from a different angle altogether, because so long as you try to promote sobriety simply by an adjustment of the hours, there will always be difficulties, and when you try to remedy one abuse, you will find that another arises. I personally do not believe that the gain you will get in Lucan, Howth and other places, much though I should like to see it, is worth the risk involved in keeping public houses open until 7 o'clock on Sundays in Dublin.

It may be said that there is not a great deal of opposition. I do not agree. I think there are extraordinarily few people—we must remember that the newspaper reports of Parliamentary debates are now very small— who know that the hours are being increased. I think the House would be surprised by the opposition, and if we do have a general election, a great many Deputies at any rate will be quite surprised by the interest taken, as soon as it becomes known to the public that this Bill, assuming it goes through, has extended the hours. One point of view probably has been given a good deal of expression. Partly due to the fact that the total abstinence societies, while not dead, are relatively inactive—some of the temperance organisations still exist—it is quite possible that there has not been the same organised effort as was the case formerly.

Most of us who are in Parliament and who remember the last Bill introduced by the late Kevin O'Higgins will remember that we were approached from all sides—I know that I was—and got a great deal of literature and numbers of personal letters. On this occasion I have been approached by only very few. I think we are making a mistake if we simply proceed entirely on the visible evidence of interest. I believe there is ignorance and that people do not know the hours are being extended. I know that people I have met were astonished when they learned that it was proposed to open public houses in Dublin until 7 o'clock on Sunday.

Mr. Foran

The Minister, in introducing the Bill, told the House that his main motive in doing so was the extension of the Borough of Dublin to Howth and the bona fide traffic: I think he told the House that those were the main reasons for the Bill. If these were the motives which actuated him in introducing the Bill, I fail to see why he should extend the hours for drinking. These extended hours are not justified on any ground whatever. There is a new technique in drinking and in the drinking habits of the young people of this city. The modern young woman has entered very largely into industry. She has her own wages and considerably more freedom than her mother or grandmother had, and she is beginning to look around her and to resort to the modern public house or hotel bar. We see ample evidence of that in the police courts. Two days ago, one young woman proclaimed very proudly that she was able to stand up to glasses of whisky. She did not acquire that facility in a day or a week. She was quite young—not 20 years of age—and she was a seasoned drinker. That is a position of which we must take serious note.

This Bill gives greater drinking facilities to people of that class. In the old days, the mother or father had to sit on a high stool and spit on the sawdust; now these people are surrounded by chromium tables, modern spittoons and elaborate outfits in order to keep them there, and, mark you, they do keep them there, because their homes are in no way comparable with the modern saloon bar, and it is a relief to them to get into these places, but too much relief in that direction should not be granted. It ought to be made somewhat more difficult for them to sit in these places when they ought to be enjoying the sunshine and the good air in the country.

The Minister told us that this is not the Bill he wished for. Certainly it is not the Bill he introduced in the Dáil. I suppose he could scarcely recognise it when the Dáil had finished with it. He told us that this being a democratic State and he being a democratic Minister, when he felt there was considerable opinion in favour of these changes in the Dáil, he believed it was his duty to respect those views. I sincerely hope he will show the same respect for the democratic Seanad, and, when we come to the Committee Stage, that he will take a reasonable view of the amendments which will be put up to him. One of those amendments will be that certain parts of the Bill be deferred until after the emergency. He has got what he told us he wanted in respect of the extension to Howth of the boundaries of the City of Dublin and the bona fide traffic. He could certainly put these parts of the Bill into operation, but could hold up the parts which extend the drinking hours in the city. That is not an unreasonable request.

There is another aspect of these extended hours. I do not know to what extent they will be availed of in existing transport conditions. The problem has automatically solved itself, and if one is able to get around County Dublin, one does not now see the queue of motor cars lined up outside the bona fide houses. There never was a bona fide traffic in the true sense of the word. There were pub-crawlers who, when the houses in Dublin closed, took a bus to districts outside the city. That position is solved at the present time because no transport facilities are available for such people.

There is another aspect with which this Bill purports to deal. Numbers of publicans in Dublin have now to close during permitted trading hours because of a shortage of supplies. The supplies of drink have been considerably reduced. In that case what advantage will it be to allow licensed premises to remain open for longer hours, and to impose hardship on their assistants? The position of the assistants has to be considered. Under present conditions very few of them are able to get warm meals in the middle of the day because of the restricted supply of gas. Licensed houses now close between 2.30 and 3.30 p.m. but there is then no gas available for cooking purposes. If they stay in lodgings, and if there are not good fires there, they cannot get hot meals.

That is not good for the health of assistants, who are suffering under the present emergency arrangements. I am making no complaint about that, because everybody has to endure a considerable amount of hardship during the emergency. Why should assistants be kept in until after 10 o'clock at night when the transport services have ceased? Many of them may have to go considerable distances to their lodgings, but there are no travelling facilities available. I think that the advantage to be conferred on a few people who remain in public houses until after 10 o'clock is outweighed by the disadvantage that will fall on the assistants. What sense is there in introducing split hours on Sundays? Can anyone visualise some of the larger public houses in Dublin, into which crowds have been admitted, being able to serve them and then clear them out in one hour? With a limited number of assistants, it would not be possible to do so in an hour. After an interval of one hour, such premises are to reopen until 7 o'clock. There is no demand for that provision. There is no reason why we should impose a provision that has not been demanded by anybody. The public are saying that they are getting something for which they did not ask and that is not going to be of any advantage to them.

Much has been said about the temperance aspect of this Bill. It does not claim to assist temperance, except so far as it puts a stopper on the alleged bona fide traffic. As I pointed out, that problem has already been settled by circumstances over which we have no control. My main object is to suggest to the Minister that the operative parts, which impose no hardship on any section of the community, should be enforced, and that the other parts, over which there is considerable contention, should be reserved for consideration at a future date, perhaps when the emergency has passed. That is a question to which the Minister might devote some attention. I could relate some of my experiences in Dublin regarding the amount of drunkenness that takes place, but I think Senator Campbell has fully explained the situation.

There has certainly been an enormous improvement in the drinking habits of the people but, as Senator Douglas mentioned, I believe we are slipping in that respect owing largely to the new technique in drinking, for instance, when young women can get up and proudly boast that they are able to stand up to glasses of whiskey at bars. These bars are not confined to public houses, but are also to be found in hotels. Young people go there and take more drink than is perhaps good for them. They may be bright young things going in, but they are not bright young things coming out. The Minister should seriously consider these points, and take into account the position of wage earners in the business, to see how their interests will be affected by the Bill. They are a very well organised and competent body. I do not say it in a threatening way, but there may be difficulties about the new hours that are being imposed by the Bill. I suggest that that portion might be left over to a more opportune time, and that the Minister might give the matter consideration between this and the Committee Stage.

Mr. O'Donovan

This Bill, as introduced here, is worthy of passage into law, if only for the one amendment that it makes in the law, and that is the restriction on drinking hours from midnight until 6 a.m. What puzzles me about that provision is as to how the law can be effectively carried out. Some Senators stated that the Bill was not comprehensive. Unfortunately, in dealing with legislation by reference, it is too comprehensive, and one would need to be a lawyer and to have at hand the various Acts of Parliament to which reference is made, in order to understand the real meaning of this measure and to be able to suggest alterations. Even though the present Minister usually circulates an explanatory note with all the legislation he introduces, the ordinary Senator might fail to understand the complications and the implications of the various clauses of this Bill. I desire to confine my remarks to that part dealing with the closing of premises from 12 midnight until 6 a.m. So far I have not heard any Senator refer to the possibility of such closing hours being absolutely enforced. If it is possible to enforce such closing hours, I consider the Bill worthy of support. Senator Campbell stated that he would oppose the Bill. To my mind, that is essential, not alone for Dublin and the vicinity, but for the whole of the country.

What I am perturbed about is whether the drinking of intoxicating liquor will be entirely prevented during those hours by the legislation we now propose to pass. I am referring now to the drinking in motor cars outside dance halls and drinking during dances. If there are to be unlimited licences given for dances and functions of that sort, it will be found that there will be drinking within these prohibited hours. Any person can get as drunk as he likes in his own house; it is his castle and he can do what he likes in it. But, if we are to have drinking in public places irrespective of the provisions of this section, the object of this legislation will be defeated. I do not know whether drinking in motor cars outside public houses at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning is legal or illegal at present. I do not know if it is legal outside dance halls. I believe that motors or taxis can still be hired for these functions and possibly that drinking can still take place. The point I want to make is that this legislation was worth while even if it only included that one section. Perhaps our difficulty is that the legislation before us is too comprehensive and that it is not confined to that one aspect.

So far as I can understand it, the extension of hours in the city is an endeavour to bring about a uniform system throughout the country. It would be very advisable to have uniform legislation for all the borough and municipal areas. Unfortunately, I think we cannot have that. We cannot open all the public houses throughout the country during the hours in which they are allowed to open in the municipal areas. I am afraid we have not reached that stage yet, although we are in favour of temperance. If there is to be an extension of hours, I should like to be convinced that it is with a view to co-ordinating the times in the cities and rural districts. We have been told that that is the reason for the extension from 10 to 10.30 on week days and from 9.30 to 10.30 on Saturdays. The extension from 10 to 10.30 does not seem to make any great difference during the week evenings. As to the extension from 9.30 to 10.30 on Saturdays, Saturday evening is the time in the country when the people go to the towns to do their business and when there should be a greater opportunity afforded them to get their goods, whether intoxicating liquor or otherwise. The argument cuts both ways. You are increasing the facilities for drinking while you are increasing the facilities for the people to obtain the goods they require.

So far as Sunday opening is concerned, we should endeavour to have uniform opening hours in all the municipal areas. Cork, Waterford, Limerick and Dublin should have the same opening hours, whatever hours may be agreed upon. It has, apparently, been agreed that the hours of 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 are satisfactory for Cork. In Dublin the hours fixed by the Bill are from 2 to 3 and 4 to 7. If there is to be a change in regard to Dublin, I think it should be by way of restriction on the opening hours; that the 2 to 3 opening should be left as it is and that the other opening hours should correspond with those in Cork, namely, 5 to 7. The closing for one hour in Dublin from 3 to 4 I think will not be found to be satisfactory. With an hour less in the evening time, namely, from 5 to 7, there will not be the same opportunity for people to get drunk as there might be with the hours from 5 to 7.

I do not see how we can get over having a 7 o'clock closing on Sundays, because the object of that is to prevent drunkenness of the worst type amongst people who, after getting drink in the city, go to outside districts in order to get more drink. Naturally, the Labour representatives object to these increased hours as a hardship, but they may result in an increase in employment. I do not intend to enter into a discussion of the labour side of the question or the difficulties of the assistants, but I do stress that there should be uniform opening hours for the county boroughs. If a person goes from Dublin to Cork, Limerick or Waterford and is found drinking after hours, he could make the defence that he thought the same hours obtained as in Dublin. I think our legislation should provide for opening during the same hours in these places. If it is considered that the hours 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 are the most suitable for Cork, the same hours should apply to Dublin. If the assistants in Dublin object to a 1 o'clock opening on account of hurling and football matches usually being played in the forenoon so that they could not be in at 1 o'clock, then we could let the 2 to 3 opening stand, and also have an opening from 2 to 3 in Cork and these other places. I would say that the opening from 5 to 7 should be uniform, because it will mean a restriction of one hour, at any rate in Dublin.

Dublin is not catering during the emergency for large numbers of people who visit it on Sundays as it did in previous years. Hurling matches and football matches under different codes have been held in the city on Sunday, and practically no provision was made for providing refreshments either by way of food or drink for people attending these matches. Certainly nothing to compare with what was done by the people of Thurles when there was a match there, when every house in the town catered for visitors. The visitors were well catered for both in respect of food and drink. The closing hour in Dublin on these occasions was absolute nonsense. The matches at Croke Park generally finish at 5 o'clock, but many people who were hungry and thirsty had to leave the field before a match was over in order to get some refreshment, and thus had to miss the most interesting part of the game. Many of them could not get anything to eat and what they got in the way of drink, intoxicating or otherwise, was not as effective for their sustenance as if they were provided with food and drink. On that account the 5 o'clock closing for public houses and other licensed premises is ridiculous. The alternative would be the granting of a special licence on these occasions, but that would also raise difficulty. So, as a person who favours temperance, I certainly favour a later hour than 5 o'clock for closing in the city. Senator Foran, probably, will say that 7 o'clock is too late from the assistants' point of view, but if the hour were restricted from 5 to 7, instead of from 4 to 7, I think we would get over any great difficulty of having increased drunkenness as a result.

These are mainly points for discussion on the Committee Stage, and I suppose we should not go too much into them now, but rather should confine ourselves more or less to the fact that this legislation is worthy, and that its object is the closing of public houses and the prohibition of drinking between the hours of 12 midnight and 6 o'clock in the morning. It is not in the City of Dublin alone that things are very bad. This condition of affairs obtained throughout the whole country, and I think it would be a great thing, from the point of view of the whole country, if that were to be made effective.

The McGillycuddy of the Reeks

Like my friend Senator Honan, I can say that I am a "carbery" and have worked on both sides of the counter. My contacts with the Minister have always impressed me with a sense of his desire to do the right thing, but, on this occasion, I feel that, in conducting this Bill through the Dáil, he has fallen down badly. On his own admission, he introduced this Bill unwillingly and with diffidence in the Dáil because, I feel sure, he knew it was a bad measure—just a tinkering with the existing liquor laws. I think it would have been better to have set up a commission of all the people interested, and to have asked them to review and make recommendations with regard to the previous liquor laws, particularly in connection with the experience of the 1927 Act, which we have been using for the last 15 years. If he had done that, he would be able to go to all the Parties in the Dáil and say: "This is the considered opinion of a non-Party commission, and I am going to stand over it." In the upshot, although he set out to remedy some local abuses, which have been rather luridly described by Senator Campbell, he eventually gave way, lengthened the actual hours of consumption, and continued the differentiation between the town and country. Now, the country comprises more than nine-tenths of Eire, and I think there is far less drinking there than in the towns. Although the Minister has made the sale of liquor illegal after midnight, he has continued the discrimination which the bona fide traffic carries with it, as between man and man, during the remainder of the legal hours of closing. I think that what should have been done would be to strengthen the hands of the Gárdaí in regard to the arresting of persons found on premises during prohibited hours.

Now, after reading the various debates in the Dáil, nowhere could I find any concrete reasons advanced in justification of the introduction of this legislation, so I went to the official figures and I found that proceedings against individuals for drunkenness, in 12 months, average seven cases per day throughout the whole country, and of these only 9 were women. I know that figures are very often misleading, but in very many cases, concerning legislation, they are a very good guide; I took the proceedings for simple drunkenness and for drunkenness aggravated by some other offence, and I found that, although I admit there are many offenders who get away and against whom no proceedings are taken, the figures indicate that our standard of sobriety throughout the country is, in fact, very high, and that there is no general transgression of the law which the Gárdaí cannot deal with, except where the bona fide traffic is concerned. As I have pointed out, the average of proceedings, over a period of 12 months, last year, has been seven cases per day throughout the length and breadth of the country, and of these, 9 were women. There has been a gradual decrease down to this figure, and the number of cases in which women have been proceeded against for drunkenness has been reduced considerably also.

Considering all the misleading and exaggerated statements that we have heard, I think that these figures are of particular importance. Either they are of particular importance or they are completely useless as a Government publication. What does this really represent per county? If you knock out the big centres of population, such as Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Waterford, Wexford, Tralee, and so on, you will find that that figure of seven works down to three in the country districts which, as I say, represent nine-tenths of the whole country. Now, what does the figure three per day mean in the Twenty-Six Counties? It means one-tenth of a drunk per day in any county. In my own county, for instance, from Ballinskelligs to Listowel, and from Dingle to Rathmore, it represents only one-tenth of a drunk per day, and that is nothing. Therefore, with the exception of the kind of bacchanalian orgies which Senator Campbell has described as taking place in Dublin, the position in the country generally is remarkably sound, and I hold, therefore, that there was no justification for bringing in such piecemeal legislation as this without previous consideration by some national commission.

I am 100 per cent. with the Minister on the bona fide question. I think that that is a frightful misnomer, as it always has been, and I personally regret that the Minister has given way in the matter of abolishing it altogether. In England, the various hours of opening and closing in connection with the bona fide traffic led to the publication of a remarkable little volume, which is so valuable that I did not bring it here with me. It is known as The Boozer's Guide, showing road-houses and hours of opening, and it purports to show that an intelligent man with a motor car could get a drink at any time during the 24 hours between Land's End and John o' Groats. Now, the sooner that that traffic is done away with in this country the better, and I think that everybody in this House will agree that the very few people who really require alcoholic propulsion to enable them to complete their journeys are negligible. I think that we should no longer have this differentiation in favour of what I call the “parched” traveller, who bicycles along to some place and gets a drink, while next door to him, is living myself—“Seán Citizen” in other words—who cannot go into the public house next door and have a drink if he wants it. I think that that differentiation is an additional reason why the bona fide traffic should be done away with.

So far as the Gárdaí are concerned, so long as this exists, they will have some little difficulty in enforcing the law, but if there are definite hours of opening and closing, they will have little difficulty in doing so. I think the worst aspect of the bona fide trade, as I said before—I want to impress this on the Minister—is that hour and a half from the closing hour of 10.30 up to midnight. Let me give a concrete example. A dance is held in a cinema in a small town; next door to that cinema there is a public house; the cinema itself has not got a licence. The young people dance there until 10.30, and then the neighbouring public house closes. The dance goes on until midnight, but in the meantime all those young people can go off somewhere and get drink for an hour and a half, and that is the very worst time for the young people to get it. I think the bona fide trade should be done away with.

Now let us go from the particular aspects of this matter to a more general outlook. The Bill sets out to remedy local abuses, which have been painted, as I say, in very lurid colours. No proof has been given either in this or in the other House that those abuses cannot be remedied through strong action by the Gardaí. A great many very indefinite statements have been made about "what everybody knows is going on everywhere," but those statements would not carry any weight in a court of law. This House is being asked to pass legislation which is of the very greatest importance. If those statements to which we have listened were really true, I think it would mean that the whole framework of the liquor laws was unsound, and that, as a result, the people of this country as a whole were not prepared to obey them. I do not believe that is the case at all. Everybody seems to have lost sight of the fact that the consumption of alcoholic liquor is not a crime in itself. It is only when an individual loses control of his faculties in public that a charge can be preferred against him. I feel that the figures which I have given the House are a fairly solid contribution to the debate. They show that the whole of this case has been overstated from beginning to end. In my own county— I happened to be at home on Christmas Eve—there was not a single case of drunkenness on Christmas Eve, nor from then up to New Year's Day. Why? Because at 3 o'clock on Christmas Eve every bottle of stout had been finished.

I should like to mention that I have the greatest respect for the work of the Fr. Mathew Organisation, and I do say that some of their objections to this Bill, quoted by Senator Campbell, are very sound. I hope the Minister will give serious consideration to them. I also hope that before the Bill leaves this House the Minister will realise that we have been talking to him in a friendly way, without any political bias. I hope he will realise, too, how unwise he was in trying to deal piecemeal with legislation on what is probably one of the most serious and most important social problems not only of the present day but of the future.

Mr. Kehoe

I think we are all agreed on one thing, at all events, and that is that it is essential that this debate should be conducted as soberly as possible. Incidentally, I notice that it is nearly 6 o'clock, and I beg to propose the adjournment until 7 o'clock.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.

Mr. Kehoe

I cannot help thinking how lucky it is that the tea interval intervenes always at the proper time. When I rose just about 30 seconds before the tea interval, my nerves were so frayed that I saw red, but after copious draughts—not, I hasten to add of liquor, or anything like that—of the cup that cheers, they have resumed their customary condition. I warn the Minister that after this debate my only hope is that the bar will be as empty as the benches.

The tone of the debate was admirable all through. All sorts of minds and all sorts of interpretations were brought to bear, and a good many useful platitudes were uttered. I do not intend to bore the Assembly at any great length, but I should say that I am decidedly against the Bill. I share to the full the sympathy of other members with the Minister in his embarrassment because, after all, when inclination is at loggerheads with red tape, it must be very difficult for the Minister to decide. I feel that if I talked as I would really care to talk on this subject, I might possibly talk too strongly. I think this is a peculiar Bill. It does not seem to be sponsored by anyone. We might extend to it a certain limited consideration on that score. It is something analogous to the case of the Frenchman who was tried before a jury for parricide and whose countrymen on the jury, who are notoriously impressionable—we are led to believe—recommended him to mercy on the ground that he was an orphan. This Bill seems to be an orphan and, for that reason, we may recommend it to mercy, but on no other grounds is it worthy of much thought. To my mind, it takes a retrograde step. That is what I object to. It increases the facilities for drinking. That may be admirable from a certain point of view, for I must confess that I am not a prohibitionist, far from it—and I have given the reasons why I should not be—but, by grace of God, a teetotaller, and I consider myself fortunate in that. Perhaps those who do not approve of teetotalism are equally fortunate. It is a retrograde step.

Now I must resort to a little cliché, much as I object to using them. Senator after Senator got up here in this august Assembly and the majority of them proudly claimed that they had a knowledge of the bar, some from both sides, others from inside and others from outside. I do not know much about outside the bar, but it was my painful duty to stand behind the bar for a few hectic moments of my early career. I know all the vicissitudes of public-house keeping, and it is an honourable and an honoured occupation, not merely in the abstract, but in the concrete.

The publicans are certainly men who have done their duty in the main in every respect. We are not going to argue about the black sheep in the fold or to urge that any drastic steps should be taken on account of them. When I call to mind the grocers' assistants of the golden days of 40 or 50 years ago— I say this in no spirit of flattery or without being influenced by the possibility of a general election—I can say that the grocers' assistants were the finest body of young men in Ireland. It can easily be proved, proved to the nth degree, and proved conclusively, that to their efforts, perhaps more to their efforts than to the efforts of any other body in Ireland, is due the state of affairs that exists and the measure of freedom we enjoy in this State to-day. They were drawn from the finest stock in the country. They came up to stand behind bars, to discharge their duties faithfully and honestly under conditions that would approximate, on present-day standards at any rate, to slavery. We worked—for a small portion of my career I was one of them—from 7 in the morning until 11 at night, and frequently after the doors of the shop were shut you had to work another hour or hour and a half if you had to rack off whiskey before you got out. There was no half-day and they were scarcely allowed an hour for dinner. They had to work from 2 to 7 on Sunday. To ask any body of young men to go back to these conditions would be unthinkable, or to use a notorious phrase, “impossible and undesirable”. The Minister will perhaps know to what I refer, when I say that they were the backbone and the nucleus of the greatest secular organisation that has existed in Ireland in our days and which is still, I am glad to say, thriving. By a mordant irony, those who were responsible for keeping that organisation alive are themselves debarred, except accidentally, from taking part in or watching the principal games promoted by that organisation. I refer to the G.A.A. Incidentally, let me say here now, although it may not be quite in order, that the G.A.A. has not asked in any way, implied or expressed, for a relaxation of the present drinking restrictions. Somehow the reverse seems to be hinted at.

As I have stated, on this occasion we can discuss only the principle of the Bill; when the amendments come up on Committee Stage we can discuss the details, but the granting of increased drinking facilities is a matter that should not be lightly discussed. Senator Crosbie spoke about licensing laws that needed reform. I agree, but reform in what direction? The signpost points in two ways. The morals of our young people, cocktail parties and sherry parties, have been the subject of comment by many people, to an exaggerated extent according to Senator The McGillycuddy. Even though it cannot be proved in law that these abuses exist, I think that most commonsense people know that they do exist and exist to a most serious extent. Reference has been made to the orgies in Dublin on Christmas Eve. I do not know what justification there exists for these reports. I have not been in the city, and what appears in the paper is not always evidence. Dublin may not be alone in that respect. It is a great centre of population, and the things that Dublin does or leaves undone attract more attention than what happens in the rest of Ireland, but that there were scenes on Christmas Eve which called for condemnation cannot be doubted. I have been told on evidence which I regard as in every way credible that clergymen going to midnight Mass stumbled over the bodies of revellers who had fallen in the street. In face of such evidence, to ask one to believe that abuses do not exist or that drinking has not increased is really too much. I think, at any rate, that increased facilities for drinking should not be granted lightly.

Senator O'Donovan spoke of one great point in the Bill, the restriction on drinking from 12 midnight until 6 a.m. That is very good, but it should not justify a relapse in other directions. We speak of ideals in this country and we write a lot about them, but then we are inclined to pooh-pooh these ideals when it is a question of putting them into practice. It should be our aim to work up to these ideals as far as we possibly can. Surely the granting of more facilities for drinking when those already in existence are sufficient is not tending in that direction anyway? Of all the cliches that ever cursed the country—there are a great many of them in use in the columns of the Press, where no doubt they are a necessity—the worst is that you cannot make a man sober by Act of Parliament. Now, a lot of these cliches have the sanctity of usage, but on the other hand, that sanctity is very often vitiated by the realities of fact. You cannot make a man sober by Act of Parliament! You cannot make a man honest by Act of Parliament! Is that any reason why the thug, the robber, and the bester, should be allowed to go abroad unchallenged? Quite the contrary. Laws properly applied offer the only remedy for the suppression of the illegal activities of criminals. We cannot do without a police force nor without the law which enables them to keep the criminal at bay.

It would no doubt be a fine thing, as Senator Douglas said, if the schemes in operation in other countries could be examined and put in operation here, but for the time being we are talking about this Bill. The other schemes would offer an attractive theme for discussion at some other time, but at the moment we are brought down to the particular instance of this Bill. Senator Counihan waxed very sore about the bona fide traffic, and I am in thorough agreement with him. There is no such thing as a bona fide traffic. It is abused; it is laughed at and evaded in every possible way. The remedy for that is not to throw the “pubs” open indiscriminately. That sort of thing may suit other countries where drinking is carried on day and night and where there are cafes. We have not yet been attuned in this country to that peculiar form of freedom and we have got to do the best we can with the facilities that are at hand. Personally I am strongly against granting any increased facilities and unless some very big change is made in the Bill I shall deem it my duty to vote against that portion of it. Senator Mrs. Concannon thinks that drinking is natural and that abuses are unnatural. That is commonsense; no man in his commonsense, even the most advanced Pussyfoot—and in this country a Pussyfoot campaign would not be very profitable—would dream of suggesting that drinking should be abolished, but certainly it should be regulated. I think there has been a slipping back in that respect of late years. I can see that myself. Young people are beginning to drink and increased facilities can only lead to an extension of that undesirable development. In this respect voluntary organisations can do very useful work. Incidentally, I wish to correct a statement made by Senator Douglas. He has a mistaken notion that there has been a relaxation in the activities of temperance societies. I can claim— there may be a little egotistical touch in this—that the Pioneers of which I have been a member for many years, were never stronger than they are now. They number 500,000 strong. If the Minister wants any help I can say to him: “We are coming, Father Abraham, 500,000 strong.” Senator The McGillycuddy claims that drinking is on the decrease. I hope I am not wrong and that I do not misquote him. He referred to statistics.

The McGillycuddy

On a point of explanation, I said that for years there has been a definite reduction in the number of prosecutions for drunkenness in this country which is really remarkable when you look at the statistical abstracts.

Mr. Kehoe

I am glad the Senator differentiates. The statistics may show a decided increase, but I suggest that in this case the statistics are misleading. What is lawful is not always expedient. The law does not always extend its long arm to delinquents in this regard. They have a happy way of escaping. That may be because of their status in society or because they do their drinking secretly, but that drinking by young ladies, if one can so describe them, is on the increase cannot be denied by any man who keeps his eyes open. Whether that has descended from the top to the bottom, I do not know, but the fact remains that such drinking is on the increase. I do not suggest that that could be cured by Act of Parliament, but it is no reason for opening the floodgates.

I cannot feel enthusiastic about this Bill. Drinking is on the increase, and I do not think that the further downfall of these people, if it is to take place, should be facilitated by this House. Senators have read of the scenes which take place occasionally and which are due to excessive drinking. I read in the paper a day or two ago about a brawl in one of these outside districts which would bring a blush to anybody's cheek. If I had my way—perhaps it is as well I have not—this Bill would be relegated to Limbo or pigeon-holed until we attain to some nebulous millennium when men will drink without getting drunk, and when the strong arm of the law will not be needed to guide them. As that is impossible, I suggest that the provisions of the Bill should be drastically modified. Whatever has been said or done elsewhere will not, I am sure, affect Senators here and, in my opinion, this is emphatically a time when we should make our weight felt. So far as the Minister is concerned, the irony of the position is that we are merely pushing an open door. If he wants any help, let me repeat what I said previously— the Minister probably did not hear it as he was in consultation with an able official at the time—that the pioneers are here and "we are coming, Father Abraham, 500,000 strong".

Mr. Cummins

While I agree with other speakers that the licensing laws need revision, I think that this Bill would, if enforced, add to the difficulties of those engaged in the trade. The publicans are confronted with many difficulties at present. Heretofore, there were difficulties of inequality with regard to the hours as between certain branches of the trade in Dublin—clubs, hotels and ordinary licensed houses. I should like to see these inequalities smoothed out, if possible, so that traders would have an equal opportunity with others who engage in the sale of intoxicating liquor.

The law is not so strictly enforced in regard to clubs and such places, and it may be impossible to enforce it if the owners of these premises desire to evade it. I recognise that, in the City of Dublin, new licences and such things are necessities at times, but I do not see why the Minister should have projected the provisions of the Bill into other fields of activity. At present there is a scarcity of supplies in the liquor trade and publicans have to close down for portion of the day. There is also general confusion in the matter of lighting, heating and meals, and I believe that the enforcing of this Bill will create difficulties for the owners and for the employees. If the Bill is passed, it should be a permissive measure. The Minister should be authorised to put certain sections of the Bill, which are essential for his purpose, into force. No amount of legislation will make a nation temperate. That will have to come from the people themselves. In this connection, I should like to correct a statement by Senator Mrs. Concannon, that there should be temperance readers in the schools. In the Catholic schools, at least, temperance readers are in use in the advanced classes, and children passing out from the sixth and seventh standards are fully equipped with the knowledge necessary to make them temperance reformers, if they so will.

We all agree with the proposal regarding closing from 12 midnight until 6 o'clock in the morning, but I should like to point out that that may create difficulty in parts of the country where people come in to fairs at 5 o'clock in the morning. I support Senator Counihan's suggestion that coffee kiosks or coffee houses should be provided in these places, but I suppose that would be a matter for the Minister for Local Government. Some of these people set out at 3 o'clock in the morning and reach the fair, wet and cold, two hours later. The magistrates should be given power to enable these people to be catered for on fair days.

Mr. Boland

They have that power.

Mr. Cummins

That settles that point. With regard to the other reforms, a document reached me from a body engaged in the trade. It was equal to anything that would be issued by the Father Mathew Society. These people are engaged in the trade and they are convinced that the Bill will create difficulties. They give their reasons. They state that it is undesirable to change the existing liquor laws or attempt to make any definite arrangements for the future until the emergency is ended and it can be foreseen what the requirements of the people will be after the war. That is a pertinent and important statement. We are legislating for the new world that will be upon us after the war but we are not sure that the whole subject will not have to go into the melting pot again, so as to secure a new and suitable code of laws. I think that the extension of the trading hours is necessary in country places. People often do their shopping at late hours in these places and in premises which combine the sale of liquor with the sale of other goods. In Autumn, they are working until late hours and very often they drop into the town after work to have a chat with their friends. It is sometimes 10 o'clock or 10.30 when they get there. Even a 10.30 closing may be a hardship in these places. That does not occur in the cities. The people leave the cities at 10 o'clock and I am not sure that the publicans in the cities will welcome this extension. Many of them have to close during the day because of shortage of supplies. They cannot employ additional staffs and the present staffs will have to carry on while the emergency lasts. In country places, however, there is good reason for the extension. I have lived on licensed premises for almost 40 years and I have some knowledge of what the licensed trade is, inside and outside the bar, and the bona fide trade, too. Men come with lorries from places like Galway to the city and they may reach the outskirts of a town like Kildare at 12 o'clock midnight, very cold and wet. They can go into a hotel for a meal but the meal cannot be accompanied by any warmer refreshment than “the cup that cheers.” In cases where men regard stout as part of the food of the day, it would be unwise to debar them from this refreshment in such circumstances while the emergency lasts. I should say that while the emergency lasts it would be unwise to do away with that. They are only getting a percentage of what they got in 1941, and that does not go very far. I have the most profound respect for the members of the licensed trade. They conduct their business as well as any other section of the community. Their difficulties are great and I sympathise with them.

The extension of the opening hours in Dublin, with the exception of Saturday nights, is not such a hardship. On Saturday nights, however, the extra opening hours will mean a distinct hardship both for the staffs and employers. There has to be a general cleaning up after closing hour, so that it will be midnight before 75 or 80 per cent of the staffs, who live outside the city, will be able to get to their homes. It will also be a hardship on employers, who will have to see that their premises are ready for the Sunday opening. This extra opening on Saturday nights would bring us back to the slave conditions that prevailed in the trade years ago. I do not know that there is any great demand for later drinking hours. The last buses leave the city at 10 o'clock, and people who want to travel home by them must be ready at that hour.

I think it is a pity that the assistants and the employers did not come together in friendly council and agree upon the opening hours for Sunday. On that day I think an extension was needed. We know that in normal times 20 and 30 train loads of people arrive in Dublin on certain Sundays to witness the national pastimes. They try to get some consolation, other than football, before 5 o'clock. I think the opening hours should be extended to 6 o'clock. To have the opening hours on Sundays from 4 to 7 o'clock would not, I think, be workable. In the case of most families the tea hour is between 5 and 7 o'clock, usually after 6 o'clock. If people can remain in public houses until 7 o'clock they will miss their tea and not attend evening devotions. We know that in the past scenes used to occur in the streets about the hour when people were going to devotions. We all hope there will be no repetition of them. I do not say that is going to happen if the hours in the Bill are adhered to, but there is that danger.

With regard to the Sunday proposal to have a first opening from 2 to 3 o'clock, I do not think that would work at all. I can speak on this from inside knowledge. If you have a crowd of people in a public house for an hour, and hope to get them out within an hour, I say it cannot be done. You may have a big crowd queueing up to get in; if there is just the bare hour unseemly scrambles may occur. They will hardly be all in when the order comes to clear the premises. Therefore, I say this one hour opening would be quite unworkable. The alternative I suggest is to shove on the present opening hours to 6 o'clock. That need not be done except on Sundays when great events are taking place in the city, and a big gathering of people has to be catered for. The opening to 6 o'clock might be granted on application being made by the licensed trade and those organising the games.

I do not think the grocers' assistants would have any objection to what the Minister has described as the long sitter—that is, the man who remains from 2 to 6 o'clock. If the period were made less than four hours the assistants would be deprived of certain rights they have under the Conditions of Employment Act. If, as suggested, the period were limited to 3½ hours, the assistants would lose rights they are entitled to under that Act. I am sure the Minister would not encourage that. My suggestion to him is to have a clear opening from 2 to 6 o'clock. I do not say these hours would be too long. If adopted, people would be home in good time for their tea and then, like good Christians, would have ample time to attend evening devotions. I think these hours would be much better for both employers and staff than the hours proposed in the Bill, and, if agreed upon, would give satisfaction. If there is a one-hour opening on Sundays I am afraid you will have nothing but confusion, disorder and unseemly scenes, because it will be a physical impossibility to clear the premises within the hour.

It is not my intention to give a temperance lecture, but I am afraid there is a tendency among young people at the present time to visit the lounge bars too often. We know, of course, that the Minister's predecessor, the late Mr. Kevin O'Higgins, advocated a brightening up of the bars. It may be that they are being made too bright and too attractive for some people. We wish the Minister good luck with this Bill. The suggestion has been made that the Bill was being opposed from these benches. That is not so. Our desire is to be helpful. The Bill is a very complicated one. Unless it is put into a better form, its operation may lead to the institution of many law suits. Sections of it have to be read in conjunction with the 1927 Act. I think it might be put into better form than the form it is in at present. My last suggestion to the Minister is that the Sunday opening should be from 2 o'clock to 6. It would be found more satisfactory than the proposal in the Bill. I do not think that the argument about the long sitter has any force in it.

Mr. James Johnston

I fully agree with the statement made by Senator O'Donovan that the Bill is well worthy of support if only for this, that it proposes to wipe out the bona fide trade between midnight and 6 o'clock in the morning. It is hard to understand why that should ever have been allowed, why people should have been given facilities to get drink during the dead hours of the night. I have been listening to and reading about licensing laws for more years than I would like to tell the House. I had some knowledge of the very early days and of the deleterious effects then and up to recently. Evidently the bona fide trade was intended to provide for travellers, as they could not be served outside legal hours unless they had made a journey of at least three miles. That system has been used right up to the present time, and people make that journey especially for the purpose of getting drink. I have witnessed that in the country myself, and there is no question about it. I cannot understand why provision should be made that they should be free to go out to public houses and keep them open for the whole period, possibly all night.

There is another point which I hope the Minister will take note of. I have some very definite knowledge about it and am very sorry to say that the case exists. I am not speaking of the City of Dublin, but of ordinary country towns. There are schools of people sitting in public houses, playing cards and drinking all night long, and fit neither for meals nor for work. Something should be done to stop that, if only on account of the example it gives. Statements have been made by Senators here to-day about young girls —I will not say "ladies"—being drunk in the streets of Dublin and at dances and elsewhere. That is a disgrace. Where were they taught? Did the idea begin in their own heads? Was it not the example of someone else who was a drinker and who thought she would not be a lady—or, in the case of boys, that they would not be men—without taking a drink as well as the best?

Another case I know of from my own experience, is that some of those who are fondest of drink will come in an hour before closing time and have a drink or two until closing time, and then they want to take a dozen before the publican can get them out. The present licensing laws should be more strictly carried out, and very definite instructions should be given by the Minister to those responsible to see that they are carried out. The trouble does not occur in the case of licensed publicans generally but in exceptional cases. The great majority of those who control public houses are honourable and decent men, but there is an odd one who is not, and that is the cause of the greatest crimes in the country, through the excess of keeping public houses open after hours and practically the whole night through.

Another point is that the great majority of accidents on the roads— with motors, bicycles and pedestrians —are due to someone being the worse for drink. When the Committee Stage takes place I hope to put forward some amendments, and I hope that this House will stand firm and insist on its rights to improve the Bill, whether the other House agrees or not.

Mr. Hawkins

The teetotallers, those very fond of drink, the publicans and the shop assistants all agree, I think, that the Bill is necessary, though there may not be agreement on every section. That disagreement could be dealt with on the Committee Stage, without going into it to-night. I heard Senator Cummins suggest that the putting into operation of this Bill should be postponed until after the emergency, as we cannot foresee what the conditions then may be and plan now. That is a very strange statement, coming from a Labour representative who is crying every day for a plan now for after the emergency. He goes on to say that this is a bad time to introduce this Bill, as the poor publicans have not enough stout, porter or whiskey to sell—though they are getting 100 per cent. what they got in 1941. The Senator goes around the country and cries out about the terrible conditions prevailing. I do not assume for a moment that those publicans are throwing this liquor down any sewer. It is all being bought and paid for by the people, so they must be better off and have more money to spend on drink than they had previously. I do not wish to detain the House now, and will hold my remarks over for the Committee Stage.

Mr. O'Dwyer

There are just a few points I wish to make. The first is that, with the closing hour at 10.30 the argument, which may seen to be a very good one, is that summer time is not observed generally, and over a great part of the country 10.30 is regarded as 9.30. That is so, but against that, we have the fact that the closing time in country districts for some years past has been 10 o'clock summer time, and everyone seems satisfied. There was no objection and, therefore, I do not think there is any case for extending it to 10.30, which we know would be very late in the cities.

Another point is the abolition of the bona fide traffic. It is proposed to close public houses completely from 12 midnight to 6 in the morning. That is a very good provision and, if it is strictly enforced, it would do great good. I see no reason why the hour should be 12; I think 11 o'clock would be much better. Everyone seems agreed that the bona fide traffic does not actually exist, that there is very little bona fide drinking and that the few bona fide travellers who may exist are not worth while legislating for. There is a great case for making the hours 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. I think Senator Cummins said that an earlier opening hour would be necessary in the case of men going to fairs, but 6 summer time would be regarded as 5 o'clock in the morning in the country, so I do not think there is a case for an earlier opening hour than 6 o'clock.

On the question of Dublin closing hours, we in the country do not see the necessity for some of the provisions, but we do not understand the conditions in the city and make allowances for that. In the case of the large population in the city, the situation may be so different that these provisions are required. So far as I can see, the opening hours on Sunday, from 1 to 2 and 3 to 7, would be very complicated, vexatious and difficult to manage. Taking all in all, and listening to all the objections, the more reasonable hours would be 2 to 6, and in my opinion 3 to 6 should be sufficient, seeing that there is no opening at all on Sunday outside the borough districts. If it were necessary to keep open until 7 p.m. in order to prevent people going outside to the bona fide districts, I imagine if the bona fide traffic hours were reduced from 8 to 7 it might remedy the situation; and perhaps it would be worth while reducing them, in view of what we have heard about the conditions prevailing in the suburbs.

Another point arises with regard to the provision of special licences for dances or other such functions. It is quite possible that the good provisions of this legislation might be nullified by an extension of that practice, and I think the Minister would be well advised to see that such licences are granted only in exceptional circumstances. There is really no necessity for the granting of those licences and, in such circumstances, I think there should be very strict regulations with regard to hours. I am inclined to think that very often these functions have served only as an excuse for wholesale drunkenness.

Reference has been made to the consumption of drink by women and young girls. Unfortunately, this is becoming a very serious thing. Perhaps in the country districts we do not see it to any great extent, but I believe that in the larger centres of population this type of drinking is on the increase and that there is absolutely no indication of an improvement in the position. From all that I can hear, it threatens to become a very great evil. I have wondered if it would not be right to include a provision in the Bill altogether prohibiting women from drinking in public houses. That might seem to be something of an infringement of the rights of citizenship, but I do not think that any decent woman would object to it. I am sure that no decent woman would like to see members of her sex drinking in public houses.

Another point worth considering, perhaps outside this Bill, is the suggestion made by Senator Douglas to introduce the Swedish system here. The speeches that have been made here in the course of this debate are worthy of Seanad Eireann. They are a clear indication that this House fully realises its duty to the people. Without a doubt the consumption of intoxicating liquor is again becoming a great national evil. It was a terrible evil in other days and for a time that evil seemed to be dying out. Unfortunately, it is again becoming a serious problem. Whether it is due to modern ideas or to the habit of imitating other countries is a matter of opinion, but the evil threatens to grow and it is necessary to eradicate it.

None of us would like to impose undue restrictions on the liberty of the citizen, but the fact remains that a great proportion of our people insist on drinking intoxicating liquors, and I believe it is the duty of the State to see that excessive drinking is prohibited, not only for the sake of the unfortunate people who indulge themselves in that way, but for the sake of the coming generation, who will be affected by their bad example. This House would be doing well if it ensures that the Bill is amended in such a manner as to make it a fit instrument for the promotion of temperance.

Mr. E. Lynch

I rise to reinforce the suggestion put forward by my colleagues for the Minister's consideration, and that suggestion is that some sections of this Bill should not be put into operation. In my opinion, my colleagues have advanced very good reasons why there should be a suspension of those sections of the Bill to which they have referred. I have listened with considerable interest to the Minister's statement and also to the debate. The Bill is, in my opinion, wrongly named. It is called an Intoxicating Liquor Bill, but, if the reasons advanced by the Minister are the sole reasons for the introduction of this measure, then it would be more properly called the Prevention of Alcoholic Abuses Bill, because, from the Minister's statement, and from many of the arguments that have been used here, it is apparently for the purpose of dealing with abuses that the Bill was introduced. It seems to me that there is considerable inconsistency between the Bill as framed and the reasons that have been advanced for its introduction.

The Minister dwelt largely on what he called glaring abuses of the bona fide system, and great play has been made in regard to the improper scenes, the noisy, rowdy scenes, which have occurred. When we come to analyse these noisy, rowdy scenes and examine many of the statements that have been made in relation thereto, we find that the scenes occurred during the period when it was legitimate to sell drink. My friend Senator Campbell dwelt at great length with certain scenes which took place in Dublin on Christmas Eve and he quoted considerably in regard to them.

I think that on examination you will find that it was during the regular licensed hours that these scenes occurred. Therefore, this or any other Bill of this character is not going to affect that issue in the least. We have heard it stated here by Senator after Senator that the consumption of alcoholic beverages is on the increase. Yet, we had Senator The McGillycuddy quoting statistics which indicated that the number of prosecutions for irregularities has decreased. It is difficult to reconcile these statements except there is some laxity in certain quarters, and that has not been alleged. I do not believe that any such laxity exists.

This Bill is not going to effect what its sponsors hope for. When we take into consideration that the hours for the consumption of drink are to be lengthened, is it not only reasonable to assume that where you give more time for people to consume alcohol there is likely to be an increase of the scenes which we are deploring? The Minister and several speakers congratulated themselves that the Bill was going to do away with the bona fide traffic between 12 midnight and 6 p.m. The Minister also stated that he hoped to level out the inequalities between the cities and the country districts. But the Bill does not level out the differences existing between the cities and the country districts, because there is still a certain period between the closing time in the borough areas and the local closing time in the country in which people can “do the bona fide”.

Therefore, for many of these reasons, the Bill is not going to bring about any great change, and by the lengthening of the hours it may reasonably be assumed that there will be an increase in the consumption of alcohol. If there is an increase in the consumption of alcoholic beverages, if there is no increase in the number of prosecutions and if all that has been said about the increase is true, we shall have to look outside legislation for betterment of that state of affairs. If there is this development of drinking, especially amongst females, it is to be noted that it occurs in a time of war and probably of economic difficulties arising from war. In other words, these circumstances of war and its concomitants breed what I might call a national psychosis which probably develops the appetite for drink by reason of nervous strain. If that is so—I do not say it is, but it may be an explanation—this Bill and this type of legislation generally will not affect the issue at all. That development will in time probably pass away, as it has passed away in other countries and in other times, and we shall probably have to look to other times for the passing away of this alleged development in the improper consumption of alcohol.

With regard to the suggestion that certain parts of the Bill might not be made operative as the Bill is largely, if not chiefly, concerned with the borough areas, it seems to me that when, as I have been informed, there is no great public demand for this legislation, which is going to affect vitally the interests of the operatives in the business, a good case is established in present circumstances for the suspension of those sections which involve long hours behind the counters for the operatives. As has already been said, there is a scarcity of beer to be vended. We are told that houses in this city are closed at certain periods for want of something to sell, and there seems to be no necessity to keep assistants standing behind the counters in these circumstances.

A far more important and cogent reason is that the transport services of the city have become extremely limited and they have to cease operations much earlier than formerly. That is proved by the fact that we ourselves have to leave here at 9 o'clock, and there seems to be no good reason why, during this emergency, the normal hour of 10 o'clock at night should be extended to 10.30. The assistants in these bars have to do a certain amount of tidying up when the customers have left, and it is only reasonable to assume that it will be 11 o'clock or nearly 11 o'clock before they are able to leave. It is not desirable that they should be obliged to remain on the premises until that hour, and, in view of the fact that the transport services very largely cease operating at the present closing hour, there will be an absolute scarcity of customers from 10 o'clock until 10.30. All that goes to show that there is a strong case to be made for the suspension, if not of the whole measure, of those portions which will cause a long spreadover of duty for the large number of operatives in this business.

These are, I think, sufficient reasons why the Minister should take the suggestion into consideration. If he feels there is any great necessity for any portions of the Bill—and it seems to me and my colleagues that there is little or no necessity for the Bill—such portions as he feels are necessary, outside those which I have excepted, might be put into operation. I think, however, that, during the continuation of this emergency, when transport services cease early, and for other reasons into which I need not go now, the sections involving a prolongation of the hours of labour of the assistants might be suspended.

Mr. Boland

Several Senators are under the impression that the consumption of drink has increased. I never said that at any stage in this or in the other House. I can say that there has been a very substantial reduction in the amount of drink consumed. I have here a return from the Revenue Commissioners—I will deal with the prosecutions point later— showing the consumption of beer, spirits, wines, cider and perry for the years 1924-25 to 1941-42. In the year 1924-25, the number of standard barrels of beer consumed was 892,376. There is a continuous drop down through the years until, in 1941-42, the figure was 596,818. That is a big drop. In 1924-25, the number of proof gallons of spirits consumed was 971,545. The figure drops regularly until, in 1941-42, it was 641,983. In 1924-25, the number of gallons of wine consumed was 893,327 and that figure fell to 407,289 gallons in 1941-42. The figures for cider and perry went down greatly in some years but they have become very high again. In 1924-25, the number of gallons consumed was 109,815 and, in 1941-42, 228,282 gallons. As a matter of fact, the figure went down to 10,000 gallons in 1939, but it is on the increase now. That shows that there is no increase in the consumption of drink.

What I thought I was going to do, and what I still think I shall very largely have succeeded in doing, is the stopping of abuses which undoubtedly lay in illegal drinking. It was a growing menace. The type of drinking that went on from midnight until the small hours was of the most objectionable kind. There is no necessity to tell me about it. I am a Dublin man and I know the public house to which Senator Douglas and Senator Campbell referred. I lived almost beside it for a number of years. I know all about women drinking there. I worked in the railway at the time and when I walked up Capel Street I remember the condition in which I saw young women of the poorer class. At the time it was the custom to pawn clothes on Mondays. The women's day for getting drunk was Monday and the men unfortunately on Saturday.

No one who knew Dublin 40 years ago can contradict that statement. One reason for the big change is the increase in taxation. It is not so much that there is a disinclination to drink but simply that drink cannot be bought in the same quantities. I saw disgraceful scenes taking place, scenes that were much worse than we were told of here, in which painted ladies were concerned. It was poor workingmen's wives were involved, but that was due largely to the conditions in which they lived, in rickety tenements, which are now disappearing, but not as rapidly as I would wish. The older women brought others out and I saw these women being brought home by their decent young husbands while a crowd followed.

Mr. E. Lynch

The drink was stronger, too.

Mr. Boland

It was stronger and cheaper. I do not agree with Senator Campbell that we are going to have a recurrence of such scenes now.

What I hope the Bill will do is, stop the abuses of the bona fide traffic. Anybody who knows the conditions that obtained in the outskirts of Dublin realises that it is almost impossible for decent people to travel on buses without being insulted or finding themselves in an uncomfortable situation.

Mr. M. Hayes

It is also hard on the bus conductors.

Mr. Boland

They have been beaten up by some of the people who went on these journeys. I am satisfied that there will be no more scenes of that kind. I may be wrong in that, but I believe the reason that such scenes happened was because there was a long interval between the closing down of licensed premises. I would prefer to see the drinking spread over in the whole of the urban areas, so that the problem could be dealt with by the police, rather than having people congregating in small places like Clondalkin and Lucan where extra Guards had to be sent, although the Commissioner found it difficult to provide them. People were prevented from enjoying the scenery in these places, and the lives of the residents of these districts were made intolerable. I believe that a change of the closing hours, 5 to 7, will have that effect. I may be wrong. If so, someone else can remedy the position if I am not here. I assure the House that I had no other motive but to deal with that situation and with night drinking.

Incidentally, only two Senators referred to the arguments I used. I was always a Gaelic player. It is only in recent years that big Soccer matches have been played on Sundays. I know that very large crowds go to matches in Dalymount Park during the season, consisting mostly of Dublin people, and every Sunday the public houses are open while the matches are going on. I do not think it is fair—even if we have a number of Pussyfoots who object to men having a drink—that when these men come out after the match that they should not have reasonable facilities for having a drink. That change is not going to be abused. As to the assistants, I agree that at the period that Senator Kehoe spoke of they had a slavish time. There is no question about that. The position has been altered, however. No matter what changes of hours are made now the assistants have a limited working week of 48 hours fixed by law and there can be arrangement between the assistants and the employers. Surely there is no comparison between present-day conditions with those that existed at the period to which Senator Kehoe referred. That fact has to be borne in mind. The licensed trade is a catering trade and people engaged in the catering business always have to work hardest while other people enjoy themselves. Hotel and restaurant staffs in places where people go for their health, as well as bus drivers, have to work unheard of hours at certain times, but there are maximum working hours.

I know that nobody in this House wants to score points over this Bill. I must say that I was very much impressed by the discussion. There was no attempt by anybody to approach the question in any way except with a view to bettering the Bill. I am satisfied about that. On the whole it was that way, too, in the other House, but there were little differences which I did not like, especially about the assistants.

It is not a question whether the publicans want this Bill or do not want it, or whether the assistants do or do not want it. It is a question of what is in the best interests of the public. That is the way I approached it. I admit that there was no demand for the Bill from the publicans and no demand from the assistants or the G.A.A. It is not a question for the G.A.A. They do not care a hoot as long as people go to see their matches. Why should they move in the matter? As Minister for Justice and as a member of the Government I am quite satisfied that it is a great handicap on people who travel long distances to see football and hurling matches not to be able to get refreshments. Whether we like it or not, it is much more convenient for these people to get a bottle of stout or a pint of porter than to have to crowd into the few restaurants that are open. I believe they can also get sandwiches. I do not care what anybody says to the contrary, if people had to wait for tea, they would often rush away and not get anything. When dealing with big crowds we have no other way to meet the situation.

I am frank enough to admit that my purpose was to wipe out the bona fide trade altogether on week days. I admit that the present regulations are farcical because at least 95 per cent. of these people are not travelling in good faith. What was I to do? Except I was prepared to resign I could not do any more than I did. My own Party and the full Dáil insisted on these changes being made.

I would have resigned sooner than give way on some points, one being on the question of a general Sunday opening. I warned the members of my own Party that if they insisted on that I would clear out. They took the count. I did not feel strongly enough about the other changes, and I do not think the extra facilities are worth talking about. There is no use in magnifying them. I did not want 10.30. I left the hour at 10 o'clock and I thought it was all right, but I heard convincing arguments put forward from all sides, not only for 10.30, but for 11 o'clock. At one stage I felt it so much that I asked if there was anybody going to voice the feelings of what I knew to be a considerable section of the community. Not one Deputy answered my call, but, instead, an ex-Minister stood up and, in a very able speech, asked if it was our business to make saints of the people. He said that that was somebody else's job. I must say that I felt he was quite right. Perhaps if we had transferred some Senators to the Dáil the result would be different. I did not know where I would get the voice of public opinion except in the Dáil. They were elected by the people. Their time has not run out yet. It will be soon out now, but they are still the representatives of the people for another few months. If I were not to get public opinion in the Dáil, I do not know where else I would get it. I would not get it from the publicans. They wanted something which I would not give them. I met them before the Bill was circulated and heard what they had to say. I incorporated some of their suggestions in the Bill, but others I did not. I also met the assistants and heard what they had to say. Then the Bill was circulated. I saw them afterwards and tried to meet them as well as I could. I may be wrong, but I do not think the concessions I made were a sign of weakness. It was ordinary common sense to make them, seeing what the demand was. I did not see why, because I had certain views and because members of the Government had certain views, I should go counter to the views expressed from all sides in the Dáil. Now the Bill is before the Seanad. Some Senator remarked that he hoped I would take the same attitude in the Seanad.

Mr. M. Hayes

I am afraid I said that.

Mr. Boland

What else can I do? I cannot force the Seanad to come to any decision. All I can do is to put my case as best I can. I said in my opening speech that perhaps I would be in an embarrassed position, having agreed, as a result of points put up in the debate in the Dáil to certain amendments, if I had to go back again from the Seanad with my own proposals. Certainly I might feel very embarrassed, but I will have no cure for that if it is done. I do not know what attitude the Dáil will take, though I must say they took an entirely different line there from what has been taken here. That is the position.

As to the point Senator The McGillicuddy raised about prosecutions, it is not a question of actual drunkenness but a question of abuses connected with late drinking and drinking in bona fide houses around the county boroughs on Sunday afternoons. The law at present is that, except a person is a traveller in good faith, after the fixed hour—it is a different hour for different times of the year—he is not entitled to buy intoxicating liquor on licensed premises. But in order to get a conviction the Guards have to prove, if a man or woman is found on licensed premises and lives the required distance away, that he or she came there solely for the purpose of getting drink. That was practically impossible to prove. Therefore, there could be no convictions and consequently we have not got the figures. In fact, however, this abuse of the bona fide provisions was a crying evil. I cannot give actual figures, but some of of the worst cases that the Attorney-General had to deal with, such as infanticide cases, etc., certainly can be traced to night drinking. It is the very worst form of drinking. As to the scenes in the city of which Senator Campbell spoke, some Deputies in the other House referred to scenes which took place in the old days at fairs and markets when the people used to fight and practically break one another's skulls. I said that it was probably better to have a good row and a little blood letting like that rather than the filthy, rotten kind of thing which is going on now.

Although this is not quite the Bill I brought in, I will be perfectly satisfied with having made it possible for the Guards to prove a case against anyone found on licensed premises between midnight and 6 a.m. Even though there are extra facilities for half an hour on weekdays, that will only mean, in my opinion, that people will probably take longer over their drinks. It may be a little harder on the assistants, but they have their 48-hour week all the time. It only means half an hour extra on weekdays and an hour extra on Sunday. I do not like having the extra hour on Sunday, but I did not see how I was to get over it. If a person wants a drink, he should be entitled to get it moderately early. I do not see why he should wait until 3 o'clock. Some people like a drink before dinner, and I do not see why they should not get it. They can get it in a club, and the bona fide trade starts at 1 o'clock. I think that is reasonable. How was I to bring that on to 7 o'clock? I had my eye on the closing of the gap, and I am going to stick to that. I think a break in the hours is very necessary, even on Sundays. For people to sit down in a public house for four hours on a Sunday is not advisable. I think that three hours is enough and that four hours would be too much. As regards clearing the public houses within the hour, they will have to try to do it. So far as I know, the police are reasonable in regard to that. If the publican does not let people in after the closing hour and is clearing the house, the police do not stick very much to that. I think the publicans will be well able to do it.

I emphasise again that it is not a matter for the licensed vintners or their assistants at all, but a matter of the public convenience. That is the way the Seanad ought to approach it, and also the Dáil. There should be no sectional interests brought in. In the other House some members of our Party and some members of the Labour Party who were at loggerheads seemed to me to be sparring for support from those in the licensed trade. That was the only approach to anything like looking for votes at the forthcoming election that I saw in the other House. All the other points were dealt with on their merits. Deputies who made the case for an extension made it well, feeling that a further extension was necessary in the country. They made points that I could not answer. One of my colleagues in the representation of Roscommon, who does not drink, so far as I know, very little at any rate, appealed to me to grant this extension. He pointed out that 10 p.m. is only 8.30 p.m. by the sun, and that people in the country work until that time. If they want a drink after that, they simply cannot get it as it would be 10 o'clock by the time they left the fields. Even if they wanted to get provisions they found that the premises were closed.

Anyone who was present in the Dáil during the debates on the Bill or who read the debates knows that the case for that was well made, and I did not feel that I could oppose it. Having agreed to that extension for the country districts, I thought that so far as possible it would be only right to have a levelling out of the hours everywhere; that it would be desirable if we could do that all over the country. If you have a difference of an hour in the closing time in various places there will be a movement of people from one place to another. I thought that that would be undesirable and consequently I agreed to the 10.30 p.m. closing time all round. But what these Deputies were really arguing for was not 10.30 but 11 p.m.

I must say I am pleased with the way the Seanad has approached this Bill.

The McGillycuddy

Could the Minister give any indication that he will do away with the interval between the general closing time and the 12 o'clock limit for the bona fide traffic, which I regard as being the most dangerous thing of the lot? I have given concrete instances in reference to it.

Mr. Boland

Personally I was against it; I wanted to do away with the bona fide trade altogether except on Sundays. As I have said, I do not know what would happen. I believe the Dáil will not change its attitude towards that matter, but if the Seanad wipes out that I will see what I can do in the Dáil. Anyone who was present in the Dáil or who read the debates will see that Deputies were very strong on that point. I tried to compromise by getting it down to 11 p.m., but it was clear that there was overwhelming support for it. I do not see what I can do, but, if the Seanad does away with that, I will naturally do what I can to get the Dáil to accept it. Whether they will or not I cannot say.

I should like to refer to the point made with reference to holding up certain sections of the Bill for the emergency. I think it is likely that the Minister for Industry and Commerce will object to the extension of the hours in the evening while the emergency lasts, because he does not allow shops to be open after a certain time in order to save light, etc. I am sure he will be inclined to do something like that, if the Bill passes with extended opening hours for public houses. I was hoping that this would be a fairly permanent measure, that it might last for some years, and felt that there was no good in re-opening it again; that the emergency situation could be dealt with by Emergency Orders and that whatever form the Bill might take, it should be designed to be suitable for normal conditions. I am sure the Minister for Industry and Commerce will move in regard to the extended hours. If not, I will ask him to consider it, because I agree that it would be awkward to bring it into operation at present, both from the point of view of transport and of light.

Mr. M. Hayes

The Minister is referring merely to the hours provision?

Mr. Boland

That is all, the hours on weekdays and possibly on Sundays as well.

The McGillycuddy

My other question was whether the Minister would deal a little bit more extensively with the arguments for or against Sunday opening in the country. I have not heard an argument in support of his contention.

Mr. Boland

Well, in the other House, it was put up to me very strongly by Deputies—by Deputy O'Higgins, certainly—to justify the differentiation between town and country, but I was not prepared at all to undertake the onus of justifying that differentiation. I pointed out that I had found this legislation here, that that differentiation had existed for about 40 or 50 years, and that it was not brought in by me, and I felt that there would be very strong reactions against any concession there. As a matter of fact, I am perfectly certain that if we had general opening in the country on Sundays, it would lead to the very same kind of thing as has happened in the case of betting shops. Some years ago we had a good deal of illegal betting, but I should say that it would be only about one in 20 persons who would be prepared, at that time, to go around the corner and place a bet, whereas now, since betting has become legalised, everybody goes into the betting shops, and there has been an enormous increase in betting. I am perfectly satisfied that if we had general opening of public houses throughout the country, it would lead to the same kind of thing.

That is one argument against it, but there is another, and a very strong one, which was put up by, I think, Deputy Allen, in the other House, and which was strongly supported by Deputy Dillon and some other Deputies. Some Deputies had been arguing for Sunday opening on the ground that farmers, who might not necessarily want a drink, might want to buy some groceries in the town, which they had not had time to come for during the week. I think it was Deputy Davin who made that plea, but Deputy Allen said that if that were to be allowed, the result would be that other traders in the town, who found that goods in which they were specialising, such as drapery, pots and pans, and so on, were being sold by the local publican, would say: "We are not going to stand for that, and we will open also," and the result would be that the Sabbath would not be observed at all. That was a very strong argument, and it met with great support, and I dug my heels in, so far as that was concerned, and said that I would not give way. I could not take responsibility for it, and, in any case, I do not know there was any demand for it in the country at all.

Whether the Deputies who took part in the debate on this Bill were speaking on behalf of the licensed trade or the public, I do not know, but I take it that they were speaking on behalf of their constituents, and, although I did not like it, I thought that, on the whole, there was more wisdom in what the whole House was able to contribute to the problem than I had, and I consequently agreed to these changes. As the Bill stands, I think it is going to mean a very big reform, and I do not think the total abstinence people were at all fair in their criticism of this Bill. It seems to me that they were very badly informed and, in fact, that they had not even read the Bill. For instance, they spoke about extra facilities for drinking being provided on St. Patrick's Day, and their criticism amounted to nothing. They actually got some false impression from a report that appeared in some of the morning papers about granting spirit licences, and there was nothing whatever in that. The fact appears to be that they had not read the Bill, and they actually admitted that they were not as well organised as they were when the last Bill was going through or there would have been more informed criticism. However, I think it was not fair of them to treat me in that way, and to make no allowance for what was a genuine attempt at a much-needed reform.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 27th January.

Seanad Éireann debate - Thursday, 14 Jan 1943

Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1942—Second Stage.

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 14 Jan 1943