Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 11 Feb 1943

Vol. 27 No. 15

In Committee.

Mr. Conlon

I move amendment No. 1:—

In page 2, Section 4, paragraph (A), to delete paragraph (a) (as amended in Committee), lines 33 to 37, and substitute therefor the following:—

(a) on any week day—

(i) during a period of summer time, before the hour of half-past ten o'clock in the morning or after the hour of half-past ten o'clock in the evening, or

(ii) during any time which is not a period of summer time, before the hour of ten o'clock in the morning or after the hour of ten o'clock in the evening, or

(iii) during any period, whether it is or is not a period of summer time (subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned) between the hours of half-past two o'clock and half-past three o'clock in the afternoon, or

This question is an involved and complicated one, because this Bill is really an amendment of the Principal Act. The amendment proposes to amend a decision come to by the Seanad on the last occasion that the Bill was before it, and to have the opening hours in county boroughs from 10.30 a.m. to 10.30 p.m. in summer and from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. in winter. As I explained previously I was in favour of 10.30 p.m. closing all round, winter and summer, but I thought we might arrive at some arrangement by which the closing hour in summer would be 10.30 p.m., which really means 9.30 p.m. solar time. The proposal in the amendment does not increase the number of opening hours but makes them more suitable for the general public. Amendment No. 5 has reference to places outside county boroughs and has the same object in view.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Boland)

I think that was agreed to in respect of rural areas and that I was to bring in an amendment dealing with the matter.

Mr. Byrne

Senator Conlon wants to make the hours the same everywhere.

Mr. Douglas

On the last occasion, the Seanad decided at first on 10 o'clock closing all the year round for the boroughs, with a corresponding change in the morning. The same proposal was made for places outside the boroughs and a compromise was agreed to. The Minister agreed to bring in an amendment providing for that change. He has done so, and the amendment appears on the Order Paper. The present amendment proposes to go back on a previous decision of the Seanad and to fix the closing at 10.30 p.m. in summer, and 10 p.m. in winter. I do not think the Seanad should go back on the previous decision.

Cathaoirleach

Shall I put the question?

Mr. M. Hayes

The amendment deals entirely with areas outside the boroughs?

Cathaoirleach

Within the boroughs.

Mr. Boland

It aims at having uniformity in the boroughs and throughout the country.

Mr. M. Hayes

What has the Minister to say to this amendment?

Mr. Boland

My feeling is that I would like to have as much uniformity as possible. The Seanad decided that the closing hours should be 10 o'clock in the boroughs and, outside the boroughs, 10.30 in summer and 10 p.m. in winter. The Seanad came to that decision and, naturally, I have to have regard to it. My own opinion is that, if there was uniformity, it would work. I have always in mind the two-hour gap between the 10 o'clock closing in the boroughs and the 12 o'clock closing in the country. If we had that in the summer time, we might have an exodus of people from the boroughs, which I do not like. That may not be so, but I think two hours is rather a big gap.

Mr. M. Hayes

Would not the public houses just outside the city boundary be open until 10.30 p.m. instead of closing at 10 o'clock and would not that be difficult to administer?

Mr. Douglas

For all practical purposes, the houses a bit further out will be open until 12 o'clock. Therefore, it does not seem to be so unreasonable.

Mr. Boland

No.

Mr. Conlon

From the Minister's remarks, I think he is more or less agreeable to this proposal. He is, of course, leaving it to the Seanad. I have nothing more to say except that this amendment would bring about uniformity. It would be ridiculous if, in certain places around the city, some public houses had to close at 10 o'clock —if this amendment is not carried— and others at 10.30. I think it would make it easier for the authorities to carry out the law if the closing hour were 10.30 instead of 10 o'clock.

Mr. E. Lynch

On an amendment on the Committee Stage, the Seanad decided that 10 o'clock was a reasonable closing hour. The Minister also informed us that there was a likelihood that the Minister for Industry and Commerce would bring in an Emergency Order fixing the closing hour at 10 o'clock because of the difficulties in connection with lighting.

Mr. Conlon

During the emergency.

Mr. E. Lynch

We are in the emergency still and it is likely that it will continue for some time. Furthermore, there was the question of transport in the city closing down at 10 o'clock and the inability of people to get home after that time. All these factors have not altered in any way and the validity of the case put up by us on the last occasion is as good now as it was when the Seanad decided by a majority a fortnight ago to stand by the 10 o'clock arrangement. I trust the Seanad will not go back on the decision which it came to on that occasion.

Mr. Byrne

We have summer time at the moment.

Mr. Boland

We have.

Mr. Byrne

Therefore, the public houses in the rural areas would be open until 10.30 if the Minister for Industry and Commerce does not interfere?

Mr. Boland

I might remind the Seanad that we are hoping that this will be a fairly permanent Bill. The period of the emergency can be dealt with by an Emergency Powers Order, and the question of transport and lighting can be dealt with by an Emergency Powers Order, but we hope that this Bill will be fairly permanent.

Mr. Goulding

I want to be quite clear about this. The hours in the summer time for the boroughs are to be from 10.30 a.m. until 10.30 p.m., and for the houses outside the boroughs from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m.

Mr. Boland

The other way round. At present, it is 10 o'clock in the boroughs and 10.30 in the rural areas.

Mr. Goulding

Then this amendment, if carried, will even up the hours?

Mr. Boland

Yes.

Mr. Goulding

There will be the same hours for the rural areas and the boroughs?

Cathaoirleach

That would be the combined effect of amendments Nos. 2 and 5 in respect of week-day hours of opening.

Mr. Goulding

I think the people in the rural areas are indifferent in the matter, but it would be better to even up the hours. It would be absurd to have a gap of half an hour between the closing of a public house immediately on the outskirts of a borough and a public house in the borough. If this amendment makes the hours the same, I think it would be better.

Mr. E. Lynch

Would Senator Goulding give us any good or valid reason why the difference should not prevail?

Mr. Goulding

The only thing is that most of the boroughs are closer to the country than say Dublin is. They are in the nature of large towns. There is a considerable area of agricultural land in their immediate neighbourhood, and I think the gap between the two would create an awkward situation.

Mr. E. Lynch

What does the Senator call an awkward situation in these circumstances?

Mr. Douglas

We ought to be quite clear about the position. The position is that this House decided in favour of a 10 o'clock closing at night. That was carried so far as the boroughs are concerned. It was then proposed, logically, to have uniformity by having a closing hour of 10 o'clock outside the boroughs. There was some discussion on that. The case was made—which I agreed to as a compromise, but which frankly was not very convincing to me —that there was good reason for differentiation between the boroughs and the rural areas. Therefore, it was agreed, as a compromise, that there was a case for differentiation. It looks now—from the point of view that is being urged, and if the Minister's case is that we should have uniformity—as if we should make it 10 o'clock all round, and adhere to the position that was taken up at first by the Seanad. That is assuming that we are now dealing purely with uniformity. I admit I can see a case for uniformity. That uniformity ought to be in accordance with the decision of the House.

There is not an amendment down to make it 10 o'clock because nobody at that time knew we were going back on what was more or less arrived at but, if it is to be 10 o'clock, when we go back to Report there should be some opportunity to decide—if it is to be uniform—whether the time be 10 or 10.30.

Mr. Counihan

In reply to Senator Douglas' statement that it should be 10 o'clock all round to be uniform, if Senator Douglas were conversant with conditions in the country in summer time, he would not advocate that, because many agricultural labourers work until 10 o'clock in the harvesting and hay-making time and it would be a great injustice to them if they could not get a drink without breaking the law.

Mr. Douglas

I am not advocating it. I am simply saying that, if that is the case, that is the only way to deal with it. I am accepting what was agreed to on the last day.

Mr. Quirke

It was obvious on the last occasion that many Senators were speaking without experience and it is obvious to-day that several Senators are speaking from experience. There is no reason why they should not voice their opinions, having had experience during the week. It must have been a great week for the pubs. There is one argument that I think should be borne in mind, that it would make the law much easier of administration by the Gárdaí if the time were put back to 10.30.

Mrs. Concannon

What I feel about this is our position as the Seanad. We have debated the hours at great length and all their effects. I do not think that, so far, the discussion has revealed any new effects. We came to a decision by a very large majority. I am one of those who voted for the hours 10 o'clock to 10 o'clock, and I was greatly influenced by the effect of the Saturday night drinking hour. It is proposed now to restore the 10.30 closing hour in the boroughs. I intend to vote against this proposal.

Miss Pearse

I agree with those Senators who have spoken against this amendment, and I will, certainly, vote against it, as I did on the last occasion, because it is bringing back that bad hour—which is the only way you can describe it—on Saturday night.

Mr. M. O'Dwyer

I also think the Seanad should adhere to its decision on the last occasion. My principal reason for that is that the present closing hours have been in force for a number of years. I am sure it was very difficult to operate the law when the hours were originally fixed, but the people have got used to the closing hour both in town and country, and I do not see any reason for changing it. If there is a case of uniformity, as Senator Douglas has said, it should be 10 o'clock all round, and, as far as I know, the people in the country are quite satisfied and are able to carry on their business with a 10 o'clock closing hour. Therefore, if there is to be uniformity, it should be 10 o'clock in town and country or, alternatively, if different hours are to be fixed, the Seanad should adhere to its amendment and insist on the 10 o'clock closing in urban districts.

Mr. Byrne

I do not think there is the same analogy. As Senator Counihan has pointed out, the reason why we ask for a change in the country is that in summer time what we call 10 o'clock is 9 o'clock, and in a great many places they follow the natural time and 10 o'clock is only 8.30. Personally, I did not vote on that. I am altogether with the Minister. I am only interested in what the public want and I do not know what the public in Dublin want. We talk about uniformity but, even at the moment, we have not complete uniformity. In Dublin to-day, public houses are closed from 2.30 to 3.30 and, if you were to go to Galloping Green, you could get a drink during those hours.

Mr. Johnston

I strongly support the suggestion to have uniformity. I live in the country and have some experience in this matter, being centrally situated between two towns in County Monaghan. I think it would facilitate the Gárdaí in carrying out the licensing laws if the same hour were fixed for town and country. I strongly protest against any extension of half an hour or an hour at night. That would only give facilities to people to spend more of their money on intoxicating drinks and to injure themselves and their families. I think we should have some concern for the people whom we represent and for those who cannot come here to speak for themselves—mothers and children and those who are dependent on their husbands' earnings. I do not think this House should agree to any extension or to any hours different from those that have been in operation for a number of years. If it were extended to 10.30 it would be an argument for extending it to 12 or having all night drinking. I am not speaking against licensed vintners who manage their public houses well, but I am opposed to those who do not manage them well. Those people who manage their business well do not want extended hours. I have discussed the matter with owners of rural licensed premises and they, certainly, do not want an extension of the hours. It would mean that they would have to stay up, particularly on Saturday night, until midnight to get their work cleared up. They do not want it, and I do not think this House should extend the hours at the will of—I will not say whom.

Mr. Fitzgerald

At the present moment, we know that what is legally 10.30 is 9 o'clock in the country. If the Government learned sense and applied double summer time which, in my observation where it applies, is a most useful thing, that would mean that people in the country, nominally being put out of the pubs at 10.30, would really be put out at 8 o'clock. Once the law says that the sun's 8 o'clock is 10.30 by law, the people in the country would be put out at 8 o'clock or, at least, they would not be put out, because they would not be there; they would be at work. It seems to me that, in this, we have really to think of the rights of the public primarily and, secondarily, of the convenience of the Guards. I think you have first of all to judge what is most suitable in the country and then to consider whether, without impinging too much upon that, you can have uniformity. It seems to me that we have suddenly assumed that the only thing that matters is uniformity and that, no matter what goes by the board, we will have that. It seems to me Senators should consider what suits the general life of people in the country and see if, retaining that, you can have uniformity.

Mr. Boland

The Seanad took a decision and some Senator asked my opinion on it. I intervened when Senator Douglas was asking to have the same hours applied to the country as we had fixed for the boroughs.

Mr. Douglas

I do not think you were asked about uniformity, then.

Mr. Boland

That is so, but I was asked since. I said the case that was made in the Dáil was made for the country public houses, because farm workers would be working late in the fields, and that really no effort was made, as far as I knew, to prove it was necessary in the city. When asked for my opinion here to-day, I said that, from the point of view of the convenience of the Gárdaí, and of the public, to some extent, it would be much better to have the closing hour uniform. I would hold out for the country having the 10.30 closing hour.

Mr. Douglas

That was agreed.

Mr. Foran

I have not much to say now. I said all I had to say during the last discussion of the matter. I would like to point out to Senator Fitzgerald, who argued about the terrible handicap that the observance of sun time would impose on people in the country, that if they were living in Australia and were observing Australian time, they would be put out of the public house the day before. I do not see any point in the Senator's argument at all.

Mr. Quirke

I think that if people are serious in their objection to the extra half-hour in the rural districts, they should go the whole hog and say we should not have public houses open at all. I am in favour of the extra half-hour, and of giving the people who live in the country some freedom, because, so far as the sale of intoxicating liquor is concerned, the experience of other countries has shown that the more restrictions you impose in regard to the sale of it, the more disastrous are the results that follow. It is not, I suggest, in line with the facts to say that it is going to impose a hardship on publicans in the country if they have to keep open until 10.30. My trouble when I am in the country, and I spend a good deal of my time there, is to get to bed before 1.30 in the morning. In the country most people do not finish their work until about 10.30. In this Bill we are pretending to be giving accommodation to them. If so, then I think we should acknowledge the right of the man in the country to be able to get a drink up to 10.30.

We are allowing the people in the cities to be able to get a drink up to what we regard as a reasonable hour. It is up to us, I suggest, to go an equal distance so far as people in the country are concerned. Therefore, we should fix a closing hour that will suit them. If a Bill were introduced to abolish new time in the rural areas, a lot of people in the country would, I think, be in favour of it, and of having uniform hours for town and country. It is a waste of time to be discussing new time and old time for the simple reason that no matter what we say on the matter, or what time the clock in the G.P.O. may show, the people in the rural areas will continue to observe old time. Therefore, I suggest the Seanad should fix an hour to accommodate the people in the rural districts.

Mr. Byrne

We are not discussing the position of the country under this amendment?

Cathaoirleach

This amendment deals only with the hours in the boroughs.

Mr. Campbell

One would imagine from Senator Quirke's speech that this Bill was proposing to impose restrictions on the sale of intoxicating liquor. As far as I understand it, it is doing the opposite, because the aggregate hours during which drink may be sold are being extended. I am inclined to agree with Senator Douglas that if there is to be uniformity it ought to be on the basis of a 10 o'clock opening and a 10 o'clock closing. On the other hand, having regard to the case put by those who have come from the agricultural districts, there may be some point in the case made by Senator Counihan that the closing hour in the country should be extended to 10.30, especially in view of the hours worked by the agriculturists during the summer months. I do not see that that is any reason why the hours should be extended to 10.30 in the county boroughs. Business, industry and commerce close down in the cities between 5 and 6, and surely to goodness that allows adequate time for people to get all the refreshment they are physically or financially able to procure. I do not think any case has been made for reversing the decision arrived at by the Seanad on this matter on the Committee Stage of the Bill.

Liam O Buachalla

We ought, first of all, to be clear on this—that the question of hours in the rural areas is not under discussion on this amendment. Like other Senators, I listened very carefully to the very long debate that we had on this question of hours on the Committee Stage of the Bill. Having done so, I came to the conclusion that there was a great deal to be said for giving the extra half-hour in the country, as well as for fixing the closing hour in the boroughs at 10 o'clock. I have heard nothing here to-day that would lead me to change my opinion. If the Minister, or any other person thinks that serious arguments have been discovered during the week as to why there should be uniformity, or as to why the city houses should not close until 10.30, then we ought to be given these arguments. It seems to me that this debate is one that will bring home very forcibly to the Minister, and to everybody concerned, the necessity for coming to some decision soon with regard to the need for having standard Irish time. I wonder if, in due course, we do come to the conclusion that it is necessary to go back to standard Irish time, will it be possible to do that under the Bill as it stands, or will it be necessary to bring in an amending Bill, or how can it be done. I imagine that a change to Irish time is not a remote possibility.

Mr. Douglas

I think the Senator need not worry about that because if there was a change to standard Irish time legislation would have to be introduced, and there is not the slightest doubt but that that legislation would contain an interpretation covering the various Acts needing amendment.

Mr. M. Hayes

The position with regard to this matter is as Senator Douglas has indicated. We agreed to extend the hours during the summertime period to 10.30 p.m. outside the county boroughs. The proposal now is to extend them to 10.30 during summer time within the county boroughs. Apart from the uniformity argument, nothing has been said in favour of the proposed change. Even the Minister himself seems to be rather lukewarm on the matter. I do not know whether there is any great demand for the 10.30 closing hour in the county boroughs. It means an extension of the hours for drinking. I have never heard any great demand for an extension of the closing hours to 10.30 on week nights or any other night. On the last occasion, the Minister described how that arose in the Dáil. The hours that we agreed to on the last occasion, 10.30 p.m. during summer time outside the county boroughs and 10 p.m. within the county boroughs, would appear to be the most rational, and the only ones that were argued for.

Cathaoirleach

Is the amendment being pressed?

Mr. Conlon

I ask that the amendment be put.

Question put, and negatived.

Cathaoirleach

I think that amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 might be discussed together. The proposals in these amendments deal with the hours in the county borough of Dublin on Sundays.

Mr. Conlon

I move amendment No. 2:—

In page 2, Section 4, paragraph (A), to delete paragraph (b) (i) and to insert in lieu thereof a new paragraph as follows:—

(i) in the case of the County Borough of Dublin or the Dublin metropolitan area before the hour of 1 o'clock in the afternoon or between the hours of 3 o'clock and 5 o'clock in the afternoon or after the hour of 7 o'clock in the evening.

This amendment is similar to one that I moved on the Committee Stage of the Bill. It makes provision for three periods: an opening hour, a split hour, and a closing hour. My proposal is that public houses in the county borough be permitted to open on Sundays between 1 p.m. and 3 p.m., that they be required to close between 3 p.m. and 5 p.m., and to open again between 5 p.m. and 7 p.m. That will give a four-hour opening. It seems to me that these hours are reasonable. On the last occasion I gave my reasons in favour of having the opening hour at 1 o'clock. There are a good many reasons why that should be so. Many other licensed premises are open at 1 o'clock—clubs, restaurants, and fully-licensed hotels— and it would be reasonable to allow the ordinary licensed houses to open at the same hour. I have seen people going into clubs at 1 o'clock, and, as I said on the last occasion, it would be better if they went into ordinary licensed premises which are under control and where they would be amongst strangers. In clubs, everyone knows everyone else, and there is a likelihood of people taking more drink than they would in the ordinary way.

The public houses should remain open for, at least, two hours, as a shorter period would be very confusing to the owners and to the public. The time goes very quickly and there would, otherwise, be a general rush. When a place is doing a good business, it takes a considerable time to get ready for an opening later on at 5 o'clock, and it would not inconvenience the public if the proprietor and assistants were allowed, at least, two hours to have their meal in peace and quietness. The Minister is anxious that the closing hour should be 7 o'clock, and has given his reasons for that, which are accepted, I presume. It is well to have the places open in the city until 7 o'clock, so that the period between that and 8 o'clock, when the bona fide places close, will be too short to make it worth while for those fond of drink to go out there to indulge in more, as would happen in Dublin or the county borough. I feel that this is a better arrangement and I have pleasure in proposing it.

Mr. Byrne

We discussed every angle of this question for a long time on the last occasion and, eventually, came to an agreement—on the suggestion of Senator Foran. I think it is unfair to disturb that now. I agree with what Senator Conlon has said about clubs, and I think the Minister should bring in some legislation in future to deal with them. It would be unfair to change back to 1 o'clock now.

Mr. Douglas

Like many other Senators, I find the whole position rather bewildering. Since the last meeting I have had communications from members of the trade, and have had conversations with several of them. With very great respect to them, I find, as in the case of the Seanad, that they are not by any means in complete agreement. There seems to be a great deal to be said, from their point of view, for three hours on Sunday, and some would prefer three. I was originally of the opinion that, while the case had been made by the Minister for changing the hours, three hours on Sunday was ample, and I confess I am still of that opinion.

There are two proposals before the House—one by Senator Conlon and the other by the Minister. The Minister brought in his amendment because the case with which it deals was put up by a few people. I think his amendment is not much of a compromise, and that the best hours are not down in any of the amendments. The best hours would be 1 to 2.30, and 5 to 7, which would be three and a half hours—a compromise between four hours, originally suggested, and three hours, which is the present position. I have not consulted any members of the trade, but I have read most of the documents they have given to me, and it is my candid opinion that that would represent a fair compromise.

I have no amendment down to achieve that, as I either misread it or there was a typing error in the first amendment proposed by Senator Conlon, to make the hours 1 to 2 and 5 to 7. I had not the courage to propose an amendment increasing the hours proposed by Senator Conlon. I was satisfied to vote for them, so I did not put down an amendment to have the hours 1 to 2.30. I do not feel very strongly on this point. It is the Minister's desire to have the houses remain open until 7 o'clock, and I think that should be tried, so I am not going to oppose the hours 5 to 7.

Mr. Goulding

I was in favour of a 1.30 opening also, as 1 o'clock would interfere with those who play games in the morning. The matches at Croke Park begin at 11.45 a.m. and there would not be time afterwards to get back for an opening at 1 o'clock. I do not think a half hour makes a great difference, but there is another side to the matter. The assistants are supposed to work for four hours on Sunday in order to get the additional weekly half-holiday, and that will not be the case if they work for only three hours.

Mr. Douglas

Is it not three hours at present? If so, they have not been getting the extra half-holiday.

Mr. Byrne

Was not the suggestion made here the last day to make it four hours, and does the Minister's amendment not give four hours?

Mr. Goulding

I would be in favour of giving the extra half hour after 1 o'clock.

Mr. Fitzgerald

Senator Goulding speaks as though he has the idea that it is necessary to open for four hours if the assistants are not to be deprived of the half-day that they have had. I understand that the proposal to put an extra half-hour on to the 3½ is by way of providing an excuse for giving an additional half-holiday.

Mr. Boland

I understand that that is the position. The point made in the other House by Deputy Norton was that that would put them into a bargaining position.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I also have read the documents I have received from interested parties. The public houses have to be open by law up to a certain time. The assistant will have an additional half-holiday by reason of their doing an extra half-hour on Sunday. That means that the owners will not be able to have any holiday at all, if the information I have is correct. In view of that, I would be ready to hear any case to be made, that equity has been reached by the present holidays the assistants have. I think 3½ hours would be better than four. I am not very interested in this national pastime. I was not quite sure whether Senator Goulding was talking about pitch and toss, which is the most widespread game. I am more interested in the convenience of the public than in the vested interests of an athletic association. I do not see why we should be asked to make the public houses open for an extra half-hour on Sundays, in order to add in a half holiday for the assistants. We should exclude that from our minds, and consider instead the most suitable hours for Sundays.

Mr. Byrne

I should like to get that explained. Does not Senator Conlon's amendment propose four hours, and does not the Minister's amendment propose four hours?

Mr. Fitzgerald

Senator Douglas has proposed three and a half hours, and Senator Goulding has completely misunderstood the situation.

Mr. Byrne

The two amendments suggest four hours.

Mr. Douglas

It is quite in order to suggest any hours as a reason why you do not approve of those amendments.

Mr. Boland

There is another amendment which suggests three and a half hours—amendment No. 4.

Mr. Douglas

Would the Minister say whether Senator Fitzgerald is right in suggesting that those business houses must stay open? Surely they are in a position, if they choose, to take only three hours?

Mr. Boland

My anxiety was in regard to the hour of 7 o'clock. I am more concerned with that than anything else. When fixing the hours, I had to remember that the clubs and hotels opened at 1 o'clock, and that the bona fide trade started at 1 o'clock. I thought, therefore, that 1 o'clock was a more reasonable time. The assistants came to see me, and they thought we ought not to open in Dublin, in any event, before 2 o'clock. I tried to have that done, and found it very difficult to get agreement. Even yet, I am puzzled as to whether the assistants were more concerned with getting off to play games or with getting these four hours. I was not a bit concerned with the four hours; I would have preferred to have the three hours, but there would have been a large gap. My original proposal was 1 o'clock to 2 o'clock and 4 o'clock to 7 o'clock. If the general public were to be our concern, I imagine that 1 o'clock would be the right time. However, I should not like to see the game of hurling fading out of Dublin. I have always been very fond of the game, and I know that it was mainly played by young fellows in grocers' shops. That may not be sufficient reason for fixing those hours but, at the same time, those people form a considerable section of the community and I do not want to interfere with their position. Consequently, I suggested 2 o'clock. I forget what the precise hours were, but they commenced at 2 o'clock. As a result of the debate here, we agreed to what I have done. I think it was Senator Foran who suggested it. It went halfway to meet the 1 o'clock demand of the publicans and the demand of the assistants. As a result of that agreement, I brought in that amendment. Naturally, the Seanad can do what it likes about it. I have been asked whether the public houses are bound to open. There is no compulsion; they need not open at all if the owners so desire. They cannot stay open longer than the hours permitted, but they need not open if they do not feel like it.

Mr. Douglas

Then they need have only the three hours instead of the three and a half?

Mr. Boland

It is a matter for themselves. I do not know anything about this bargaining position which has been mentioned. I heard it raised in this House and in the other House, but it did not influence me one way or the other. I am told that if the assistants have to work over four hours on Sunday they are entitled to an extra half-day. If they have to work four hours, the cleaning and so on brings them over four hours and, consequently, they are entitled to an extra half-day. That is not a matter with which I was concerned, but I am told that it is so. In any case it does not arise in the Bill. We are fixing 1.30 to 3 o'clock and those hours were brought in as a result of general agreement. The whole thing is very confusing.

Mr. Campbell

I should like to support the Minister's suggestion. I do so not solely in the interests of those who take part in hurling games on Sundays but also for other reasons. Very large numbers of people go to 11.30 or 12 Mass on Sunday and I suggest that if the public houses were to open at 1 o'clock there would be a drift from the churches to the public houses from 1 o'clock to 3 o'clock, and that would upset the whole arrangements in those people's homes. I think Senator Johnston said that we should take those domestic arrangements into consideration. If the opening hour of the public houses is 1.30, that means that those people will have got their mid-day meal. We all know that the gas is cut off at 1.30. Consequently, the mid-day meal is over at 1.30 or 2 o'clock, and anyone who wants a drink will have from 2 o'clock to 3 o'clock to get it. In the evening also they would have their meal over before going to get a drink. I think the hours suggested by the Minister are the most acceptable that can be devised. There has not been any great case made for opening at 1 o'clock, except that the grocers themselves have some idea that the trade which is at present going to the clubs might be diverted to the public houses, but I do not think the club trade is so great as to make any difference. I do think that 1.30 is a reasonable hour. As I have said, if the public houses open at 1 o'clock, a lot of people will be induced to drift in there and stay until 3 o'clock. I think the hours suggested by the Minister are the most acceptable and we will support his amendment.

Mr. Fitzgerald

That would mean that the second unbroken period would be two and a half hours?

Mr. Boland

Yes.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I think two hours would be enough.

Mr. Conlon

I should like to say something now in favour of amendment No. 4 which I have on the Order Paper. I should prefer the hours from 1 o'clock to 3 o'clock, and I think Senator Campbell is not very complimentary to the people when he suggests that they would leave the church and go straight across to the public house. With regard to the 1 o'clock opening interfering with those who play hurley and other games, I regret to say that, in my opinion, the number of grocers' assistants who take part in those games is very small. I cannot make an exact statement about that, but I know that in the case of one particular house about which I made inquiries, there were ten assistants, only one of whom plays those games. However, there seems to be a general opinion that 1.30 would be more suitable. The majority seem to hold that view. If that be so, I think it would be better to have a break of two hours, from 3 o'clock to 5 o'clock. That would be little enough. The proprietors and assistants and everybody else, having cleaned up the place, would require some little time for their meals. I am speaking now in favour of amendment No. 4. I presume the question will be put as to whether the opening hour should be 1 o'clock or 1.30.

I suggest that the premises should be opened at 1.30 until 3 p.m., and that then there should be a break until 5 o'clock when they would again open until 7 o'clock. I understand that the Minister's attitude is that he would prefer an opening from 1.30 to 3 p.m., and that there should be a break until 4.30. I, however, suggest that the break should be from 3 o'clock until 5 o'clock, as some assistants live a considerable distance from the houses in which they work, and it would be a great rush if they had to return within one and a half hours after 3 o'clock for the second opening.

Mr. Boland

I have nothing to say to the Senator's suggestion. I brought in this amendment, because I believed that there was an agreement amongst Senators on the matter of the hours. I do not wish to express any opinion on the other amendment, although naturally, I would be in favour of the shorter hours.

Mr. Douglas

I should like to say that I shall support the amendment proposed by Senator Conlon. So far as the proposal for a 1 o'clock opening was concerned, I merely wanted to see what was the attitude of the House towards that proposal, and the reason I supported the proposal was that I did not want the clubs to have any advantage as against licensed houses. I do not see why they should have any advantage in that respect. However, as we could not get agreement on the matter, we have to try to reach the best compromise possible. If I felt that a 1 o'clock opening would mean dragging a young fellow from healthy open air exercise to attend behind a bar, I should certainly be opposed to it. So far as I am concerned, I definitely support the last two amendments proposed by Senator Conlon, and I hope the House will agree to them, so that when the Bill gets back to the Dáil there will be a total opening of 3½ hours on Sunday, as against the four hours originally proposed.

Mr. O'Donovan

On the last day on which the Bill was before the House, we had considerable discussion on the question of hours, and we have not so far arrived at complete unanimity. On the question of facilitating those assistants who play hurling or other games on a Sunday forenoon, I think we would agree that the extra half-hour which the 1.30 opening, would allow them is little enough to enable them to participate in those games. There must, however, be some little give and take in this matter and I think, therefore, we should not have a two-hour break after the first period of opening. We are facilitating assistants who play games by fixing the early opening at 1.30. In other municipalities the opening would still be 1 o'clock but we are allowing the assistants an extra half-hour in Dublin to enable them to participate in these games. The break of two hours is necessary for the assistants as well as for the public, especially for those who frequent public houses.

I am anxious to support this amendment even though it means an opening of half an hour less than that desired, by the Labour representatives. I think the difficulty which they foresee can easily be got over if it is understood that the assistants' work will not cease immediately the door closes. The hours 1.30 to 3 p.m. were arrived at after considerable discussion, as a sort of compromise and offer the best arrangement provided by any of the amendments. I wish to support it for the reason that it facilitates the assistants who play games in the forenoon. They are facilitated again later in the day when they have a two-hour break. The only drawback in this arrangement is that mentioned by the Labour representatives, that the assistants will have to work only three and a half hours instead of four hours. I think that they should be satisfied by the fact that the assistants will probably work inside the premises for at least half an hour after the place is closed.

May I say, as I am on my feet, that my impression is that in this Bill we are legislating for about 10 per cent. of the population. As far as 60 per cent. of the population is concerned, they would not be worried in the least if the public houses were closed all day for every day of the week or, on the other hand, if they were opened all day for every day of the week. A further 30 per cent like to be facilitated when they want a drink, but it would not make any great difference to them if the public houses were open all day or closed for a certain period. It is for the remaining 10 per cent. who do not know how to conduct themselves when they get drink that we have to pass this legislation. One unruly person in a bus on a Sunday evening can destroy the pleasure of the remaining passengers, and it is unfortunately necessary to pass this legislation in order to control this remaining 10 per cent. who are unable to control themselves when they take drink. We have to consider them in fixing the hours for night closing and for Sunday closing. As far as the majority of us are concerned it would not worry us in the least if the public houses were opened for the whole week. Some people, like Senator Robinson, may talk about restricting the liberties of the people but, as I say, it would not worry the big majority of the people if public houses were open or closed all the week. We must, however, legislate to control people who are not able to control themselves when they take drink. I think that amendment No. 4 is the most acceptable of those before the House.

Mr. O'Dwyer

I should like to say that I support the agreement which has been arrived at mainly because it reduces the number of hours during which drink may be sold in Dublin from four to three and a half. Even these hours are, in my opinion, too long because it must be remembered that licensed premises in country districts are not allowed to open at all for ordinary traffic on Sundays. There is no reason, in my opinion, why any greater facilities should be provided for licensed premises in cities. As regards the difficulty about the assistants, I think it should be possible for all the associations concerned to arrive at some agreement on the matter.

Mrs. Concannon

I should like to support amendment No. 4, in Senator Conlon's name, if it were quite certain that the assistants would not be penalised under it, as they will be penalised if we deprive them of the opportunity of getting compensation for their Sunday work. Most people are not supposed to work on Sunday, but there was an arrangement by which, if a man worked for four hours on a Sunday in a public house, he would be compensated by getting a half-holiday in respect of that work during the week. I hope it will be made plain that the work done by these assistants after closing will count for that purpose, and that their work will not be confined merely to the opening hours. If that could be secured, I would be whole-heartedly in favour of the amendment.

Mr. E. Lynch

Listening to Senator O'Donovan, I was almost forced to the conclusion that this was a Criminal Law Amendment Bill and not an Intoxicating Liquor Bill. I cannot see anything in the Bill, however, dealing with crime or with obstreperous persons in buses. Certainly, we are not legislating in this matter to control persons who are not able to control themselves. In regard to Senator Conlon's amendment, it reduces the period of opening from four hours to three and a half hours, and, as Senator Mrs. Concannon has pointed out, this alternative is unquestionably put forward to deprive the assistant of the arrangement secured to him by the Shops (Conditions of Employment) Act. It is manifestly unfair that he should be asked to work a very small period of time less than that necessary to qualify him for the compensation which he would get in the following week if he worked four hours on Sunday.

It must be realised that if this amendment is enacted he will be engaged for a shorter period in actually serving behind the counter, but he has to spend a certain portion of the time tidying up in the shop after the customers have left. A certain amount of time is also occupied in getting back to his residence where he hopes to enjoy himself for the rest of the evening in the domestic circle. All these extra times, outside the actual time he is serving liquor, will not be taken into consideration so as to entitle him to some leave by way of compensation in the following week. That factor ought to be borne in mind by Senators when they come to a decision on this amendment. Apart from the time in which the assistant is serving liquor, there are certain other factors and I wonder whether they could be taken into consideration in the making up of the four-hour period. It seems only reasonable that if the assistant is to be brought in for three and a half hours he should get the compensation in the following week, though at the moment he is not statutorily entitled to it. I think that point should be remembered when we are deciding on this amendment.

Mr. Douglas

As regards the point raised by Senator Lynch, I am not perfectly certain, but to the best of my belief, the Minister for Industry and Commerce has considerable powers to make Orders providing for a modification of certain provisions of the Shops Act. I am not quite certain whether he could deal with a matter of this kind by means of such an Order, but the one thing I am quite clear on is this—that the question of just compensation to the assistants for the extra half-hour they will be working should be dealt with on its merits by the Government, if there cannot be agreement between the unions and the trade, and should not be allowed to influence what are proper or desirable hours for the public.

If you are of the opinion that 3½ hours are better than 4 hours, then to say that you must have licensed houses open an extra half-hour in order to meet a peculiar and, to my mind, badly drafted section of another Act, is absurd. We should vote on the merits of this proposal as it stands. That it is beyond the capacity of the unions and the trade to find a reasonable way out of this difficulty, I do not believe. I am of the opinion that it could be done within the Act. If not, the Minister has a fair amount of discretion.

Mr. E. Lynch

In reply to Senator Douglas, I would like to point out that the Oireachtas has statutorily given to assistants and other who work four hours on Sunday certain compensation from the point of view of time during the following week. That is a statutory right enjoyed by workers, a right given them by the Oireachtas. Does it not seem to be a rather sharp practice to ask a person to work just a little less than the qualifying period— in this case three and a half hours? Why not make it three and three-quarter hours, or three hours and 50 minutes, or three hours and 59¾ minutes, just so as to deprive the assistant of a right he has been enjoying? That is why we consider that the period might be left at four hours rather than three and a half hours, or otherwise abolish it altogether.

Mr. Conlon

I wish to repudiate the suggestion made by Senator Lynch that amendment No. 4 was deliberately put down in order to deprive the assistants of any benefits they possess. I think it is enough for me to point out that I have submitted an amendment which suggests a period of four hours. From the trend of the discussion, I have come to the conclusion that the majority of people would prefer 1.30. That being so, I am strongly of the view that there should be this break of two hours. I should like to emphasise that amendment No. 4 was put down without any thought of what Senator Lynch suggests.

I submit we are not legislating for the assistants or for members of the licensed trade. We are trying to arrive at hours which will suit the general public and which will, in a general way, cause the least amount of trouble. So far as the assistants are concerned, they are well able to fight their own corner—in the past they have done that quite successfully. They derive the full benefit of the Act, which provides that they are to work only 48 hours a week and, if any point arises in regard to half an hour, I am sure that the assistants and the members of the licensed trade will be well able to arrive at an amicable arrangement. We ought to be able to decide this matter on its merits, having in view the convenience of the general public.

Mr. Byrne

I quite agree that we should legislate only for the general public and not for any sectional interest. At the same time, I would not like to deprive any section of the community of the rights that they enjoy. I am not quite clear as to Senator Lynch's point. At the moment the assistants work only three hours on Sunday. Do they get half a day in the following week by way of compensation? I do not understand how we are likely to inflict any injury on them, and I should like that point explained.

Mr. Douglas

I think the position with regard to that—it is not a matter of dispute—is that at present they work three hours and do not get the extra half-day under the law. If it were made four hours they would get the extra half-day. Therefore, the suggestion is that we should make it four hours so that they would get it. They have not got it at the moment. While I feel that something might be done with regard to the extra half-hour, I object to being coerced into having longer hours in order to get for the assistants something which they have not at the moment.

Mr. Campbell

I think it is only right to point out that the assistants have not made any representations for a two-hour break. The impression might be gathered from Senator O'Donovan that he was speaking on behalf of the assistants. With regard to Senator Douglas' point, at present the assistants work from 2 to 5. If the new hours come into operation there will be a spread-over of six or seven hours, from 1 o'clock to 7.30. There is a very big difference. Even if they work only an hour extra they are entitled to compensation for that extra Sunday work.

Mr. O'Donovan

I should like to point out to Senator Campbell that I was not speaking on anybody's behalf. I was merely giving my opinion as to what would be just and fair. I hold no brief for anybody, but if I were to speak on anybody's behalf, it would be on behalf of those associated with the G.A.A., those who play hurling and football on Sunday morning. Surely, the hours of workers are not to be regulated by the time that the public house is legally opened and closed? I cannot picture assistants finishing their employment at the closing hour.

I want to emphasise that I would not like to deprive the assistants of any facilities they may have got through legislation. I think some consideration should be given to the actual hours that the assistants work. I was in a court last week, and it was stated in one case there that the assistants were fully half an hour trying to clear a public house. Of course, all we can set down in a Bill is that the door of the public house must be closed at a certain time, and no more drink served. We are not setting down that the opening and closing hours are the hours between which assistants will work.

Mr. M. Hayes

I have been interviewed by the assistants and by the employers, and I have been struck by the reasonableness of the arguments put forward by both of these parties. So far as the question of the hours is concerned, I came to it with an entirely open mind, but I must say that, in considering the question of clubs, and the fact that the assistants considered that they should get four hours, I am in favour of the 1 to 3 and 5 to 7. Apparently, however, that does not find favour in the House or find favour with the Minister and, therefore, cannot be done. As far as the G.A.A. is concerned, I have been in sympathy all my life with the people who play these games—or, indeed, any games—on Sundays, and I would rather have the hour 1.30 o'clock than one, from that point of view, but it has been suggested to me that the number of people who play these games nowadays is by no means as large as it was in my earlier days, or in the days with which the Minister was familiar. That, of course, is a matter on which we cannot get statistical or reliable information, but I have been informed that that is the position.

Mr. E. Lynch

Might I suggest that the views I put forward were based on statistics, and not on personal opinions.

Mr. M. Hayes

Surely Senator Lynch does not want to make my speech for me. I am not basing my arguments on statistics. I am simply making a statement to the effect that, according to information I have got, dealing with two or three public houses in the city, the number of people employed in these houses would be about 16, while the number of assistants in them who take part in hurling on Sundays—hurling being, I think, the principal Gaelic game—is two. As I say, we have not got the figures as to the number of people who play the G.A.A. games on Sundays—and I suppose hurling would be the principal game— and, therefore, we are not in a position to base a case on that. I am in agreement with Senator Lynch so far as that is concerned, but Senator Lynch did not make a case for his point, either. Therefore, I am anxious to meet the views of the assistants, the employers, and the public. I have no particular interest in the matter, nor have I much knowledge of the inside of public houses, but, with regard to this question of the half-day, so far as the assistants are concerned, I understand that the position is that if the assistants work four hours on a Sunday, they have to get a half-day off in the afternoon of the following week, and that question of the afternoon makes a great difference. We should all prefer to get the second half of the day off rather than the first half, but when it comes to this question of the people who play these games being free up to 1.30, it should be remembered that the people who work in clubs begin their work at 1 o'clock. I am sure that Senator Lynch knows that.

Mr. Baxter

How would he know that?

Mr. M. Hayes

Well, perhaps not.

Mr. E. Lynch

The hours are from 1 to 8 in clubs.

Mr. M. Hayes

Yes, but the truth is that, if we consider the matter from the point of view of the public interest, we ought to consider it from the point of view of the hours that would best suit the public, and then leave it to the employers and employees to settle the matter between themselves as to how it will work out. However, if we cannot agree on the 1 to 3 and 5 to 7, I am still in favour of the two-hour break, and in favour of the 1.30 to 3 and 5 to 7 proposal. I feel, with Senator Douglas, that the rest can be settled afterwards between the assistants and their employers. I think that the argument that has been put up with regard to this question of the three and a half hours is rather unfair. Certainly, from the point of view of the public, if there is going to be a break at all, it should be a two-hour break, and I think I was the first person to suggest in this House, in the discussion on the Committee Stage, that we should have 1.30 to 3 and 5 to 7. Senator Foran altered that by making it 1.30 to 3 and 4.30 to 7, in order that the assistants should get their extra half-day off in the afternoon, as contrasted with the morning. That, of course, might lead to extra employment, which might be a desirable thing in public houses where six or seven assistants are employed but, in the case of the smaller houses, where there are only one or two assistants employed—and these houses would constitute the largest number in the city—it would mean very considerable hardship upon the employer himself, working, apparently, in a small way. As I say, I think I was the first person to make the suggestion in this House with regard to 1.30, in order to meet the Minister's case with regard to the 1 to 3 and 5 to 7, and I think that that is the best proposal that has emerged from our discussion.

Mr. Byrne

I do not want to delay the discussion, but as far as I know, there are more of these people playing G.A.A. games now than there were 30 years ago. I know of one house, for instance, where five people are engaged, and they are all playing G.A.A. games. I think the Minister will admit that the only people engaged in the industry who approached the Minister were those who played G.A.A. games, and that they approached him from that point of view. Is not that so?

Mr. Boland

That is quite so.

Mr. Byrne

That was the only reason they approached the Minister. My friend, Senator Conlon wanted four hours, if he got 1 o'clock, and he now only wants three and a half hours if he gets 1.30. I do not care as long as I get the half-hour. Apparently, there would be no objection to the four hours if the Senator got the 1 o'clock opening.

Mr. Conlon

I should like to say a final word. As far as I am concerned, I was not influenced in any way by the number of hours which the assistants have to work. Senator O'Donovan says that he is not speaking on behalf of anybody, but it is quite clear that Senator Lynch is speaking on behalf of the assistants. I am not speaking on behalf of anybody. I am expressing my own views.

I do not know sufficient about the interests of the people who are engaged in the licensed trade to speak on their behalf, but I think that something could be said on their behalf as well as on behalf of the assistants. I think that some consideration should be given to them as well as to the assistants. I forget the number of hours during which licensed premises must remain open, but I think it is 72 hours. The assistants have to get a day off in the week and, in addition to that, a half-day, as well as every third Sunday, as a result of legislation that has been passed, but I do not know how the licensed trader can get a day off for himself at all. At one time, they had representation in this House, but owing to the new system of election they have lost that representation. I do not want to delay the House further, but I wish to point out that there are two sides to every question, and if we are to discuss the merits of one side of a case, then we should also pay attention to the other side.

Cathaoirleach

Is amendment No. 2 being withdrawn?

Mr. Conlon

Yes, I ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment No. 2, by leave, withdrawn.

Cathaoirleach

That disposes of the question of an opening at 1 o'clock, and as both amendments, Nos. 3 and 4, propose an opening at 1.30 p.m., I presume that there is agreement on that hour. May I take it, therefore, that the first part of amendment No. 3, which so provides, is agreed to?

First part of amendment No. 3 agreed to.

Cathaoirleach

Now, as regards the split period: to test what the duration should be, I propose to put a question in the following form, on the second part of amendment No. 3:

In line 42 of paragraph (b), (i), in page 2, that the word "half-past" be inserted before the word "four".

If that question be affirmed, then the split period will be from 3 to 4.30, and so the second part of amendment No. 4, which proposes a split of two hours, will have been disposed of. If, however, the question on the second part of amendment No. 3 be negatived, then I take it that there will be agreement on the second part of amendment No. 4 and that the split period will be from 3 to 5 p.m.

Question put and declared negatived.

Division claimed.

Mr. M. Hayes

May I put this query to you, Sir? If we vote "Tá" in this particular case, we are voting for a split period of 3 to 4.30 p.m.?

Cathaoirleach

That is so. Before putting the question finally, and in order to make the matter clear, I again inform Senators that those voting "Tá" are voting for a split period of one and a half hours, that is, from 3 to 4.30 p.m.

Question on second part of amendment No. 3—"In line 42, paragraph (b) (i) in page 2, that the word ‘half-past’ be inserted before the word ‘four’”—put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 6; Níl, 25.

Tá

• Byrne, Christopher M.
• Campbell Seán P.
• Foran, Thomas.
• Keane, Sir John.
• Lynch, Eamonn.
• Rowlette, Robert J.

Níl

• Baxter, Patrick F.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Colbert, Michael.
• Concannon, Helena.
• Conlon, Martin.
• Corkery, Daniel.
• Counihan, John J.
• Douglas, James G.
• Fitzgerald, Desmond.
• Goulding, Seán.
• Hayes, Michael.
• Johnston, James.
• Johnston, Joseph.
• Kennedy, Margaret L.
• McGillycuddy of the Reeks, The.
• Magennis, William.
• O Buachalla, Liam.
• O'Donovan, Seán.
• O'Dwyer, Martin.
• O Máille, Pádraic.
• O'Neill, Laurence.
• Nic Phiarais, Máighréad M.
• Quirke, William.
• Robinson, David L.
• Stafford, Matthew.

Tellers:—Tá: Senators Campbell and E. Lynch; Níl: Senators Baxter and Conlon.

Question put and declared carried.

Second part of amendment No. 3 declared negatived.

Mr. Foran

I hope the decision is not going to precipitate a general election.

Mr. M. Hayes

That is a question for the Minister.

Cathaoirleach

The next matter for decision concerns the second part of amendment No. 4:—

In line 42, to delete the word "four" and insert instead the word "five".

Upon which I shall now have formally to put a question.

Government amendment No. 5:—

In page 3, Section 4, paragraph (B), to delete paragraph (a), lines 4, 5, and 6, and substitute therefor the following:—

(a) on any weekday—

(i) during a period of summer time, before the hour of half-past ten o'clock in the morning or after the hour of half-past ten o'clock in the evening, or

(ii) during any time which is not a period of summer time, before the hour of ten o'clock in the morning or after the hour of ten o'clock in the evening, or,

Mr. Boland

This amendment has been brought in as a result of agreement. The object is to have the hours outside the boroughs 10.30 p.m. in summer and 10 p.m. in winter.

Amendment agreed to.

Government amendment No. 6:—

In page 13, Section 31, before sub-section (2), to insert a new sub-section as follows—

(2) A person who is at the one time the holder of a six-day beerhouse licence and the holder of a seven-day beerhouse licence shall, on application at any sitting of the justice of the District Court in whose district are situate the premises to which the six-day beerhouse licence is attached, be entitled to have the seven-day beerhouse licence transferred to the premises to which the six-day beerhouse licence is attached, but subject to the condition that, on such transfer being made, the six-day beerhouse licence shall not be renewed and the premises to which the seven-day beerhouse licence was attached before such transfer shall, for the purposes of the Licensing (Ireland) Act, 1902, be deemed never to have been licensed.

Mr. Boland

Amendment No. 7 is in the name of Senator Conlon, but I think the drafting of my amendment, No. 6, is better. I had to make provision for the transfer of licences from beerhouses.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 7 not moved.

Bill, as amended on recommittal, reported.

Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 17th February.