Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Mar 1943

Vol. 27 No. 17

Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1942—Message from the Dáil.

The Message appears on the Order Paper.

The Message was as follows:

Dáil Éireann has agreed to amendment No. 3 made by Seanad Éireann to the Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1942; it has agreed to amendments Nos. 1 and 2 as amended in the manner indicated hereunder:—

Amendment No. 1.—By the deletion of paragraph (a) of the proposed new sub-section (1) and the substitution therefor of 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 (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

(ii) during any period 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 (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."

Amendment No. 2—

(a) by the deletion from the proposed new paragraph (a) of the words "if such premises are situate in a county borough, between the hours of nine o'clock and ten o'clock in the morning on week-days, or, if such premises are not situate in a county borough", and

(b) by the deletion from the proposed new paragraph (c) of the words "if such premises are situate in a county borough, between the hours of nine o'clock and ten o'clock in the morning on week-days and between the hours of half-past two o'clock and half-past three o'clock in the afternoon on week-days, or, if such premises are not situate in a county borough", and

(c) by the addition at the end of the said proposed new paragraph (c), but before the apostrophe, of the words "and if such premises are situate in a county borough, between the hours of half-past two o'clock and half-past three o'clock in the afternoon on week-days during any period, whether it is or is not a period of summer time",

to which the agreement of Seanad Eireann is desired.

I move that the Seanad do agree to the amendment made by the Dáil to Seanad amendment No. 1. I appeal to Senators to accept it, as in my opinion no useful purpose can be served by further opposition. As was pointed out in the Dáil, a very peculiar situation would arise through having a differentiation in the hours in the boroughs and the outside areas. A man could be put out of a public house a yard at one side of the boundary at 10 o'clock, and he could go straight into a public house a yard at the other side and remain drinking there until 10.30. In order to facilitate the Gárda authorities, and for various other reasons, I think we should accept the amendment made by the Dáil.

I want to oppose the amendment made by the Dáil. Either Senators were in earnest or otherwise when they were discussing this Bill, and, having deliberately made up their minds that this was a necessary amendment to the Bill, I think they can hardly stultify themselves now and accept the amendment put in by the Dáil. Therefore, I am opposed to the amendment, and I should like to hear the Minister on this matter.

The Minister has not a great deal to say. I have spoken so much on this Intoxicating Liquor Bill generally that I am heartily sick of it. I can say this much—that the whole of the Seanad amendment has not been rejected. The Dáil has accepted one part of it, that is that there will be a difference of half an hour in the closing hour in summer time and winter time. As the Bill originally came from the Dáil the hour was 10.30 all the year round. The Seanad decided to have 10.30 in the country during summer and 10 o'clock during winter, and the Dáil has accepted the suggestion of the Seanad in so far as that is concerned—they propose to have it 10.30 both in the country and the boroughs, and 10 o'clock in the winter, and to that extent they have agreed with the Seanad.

When I introduced the Seanad amendments in the Dáil, I said I proposed to accept them. I made no case for them, because I did not feel that they were desirable amendments, and I was in the dilemma of recommending something with which I myself was not really in sympathy. I saw trouble in the half-hour difference between the boroughs and the country. I did suggest to the Dáil, however, that they ought to accept the amendments. There was a short debate in which five or six speakers on each side joined, and most of them objected very strongly to the change. I agreed that on balance they were right, that it would be better to have uniformity, especially as we were going to revert to 10 o'clock in the winter time. I think that is all I can say on the question of uniformity, but there was another aspect which appealed to me, and one of the Deputies reminded me of it. It was a point I made rather strongly during the passage of the Bill through both Houses—the lesser the gap between the closing time in the evening for the ordinary trader and the bona fide trader, the better, because there would be less inclination for people to go out. That is what reconciled me in the first instance to the proposal.

I thought that one and a half hours difference would be suitable from that point of view. I told the Dáil of the opinion of the Seanad, that the House by 24 votes to 12 was in favour of the change. Nevertheless, my own view was that it was better to have uniformity at 10.30 in the summer on account of the gap between the two types of houses. For that reason, I said I was prepared to accept it. The Dáil, by an overwhelming majority—there were only about seven members in favour of the Seanad amendment— accepted the amendment which was proposed by members of different Parties. I hope the Seanad will agree with the Dáil, because I do not think it will be worth while fighting on the matter at all.

I think it is a great pity that more consideration was not given to the problem of Saturday night in large cities. The Bill will inflict a distinct hardship on a body of young and growing men on Saturday nights. Closing at 10 o'clock would mean that they would have an opportunity of a walk in the fresh air after leaving what is very often an unhealthy, or, at least, a vitiated atmosphere. Now, they will have no opportunity, and it will be at least 11 o'clock or a quarter to twelve before they are able to leave the shops after they have prepared the utensils for use on the following day. It is a great hardship when the great body of workers are out enjoying themselves in the fresh air in the summer time, that those men are confined to the environment and atmosphere I have mentioned.

Many of those men have fallen into ill-health, and the casualties in that way are largely attributable to Saturday night working in the city. This situation will continue if the Bill passes in its present form. That, in my view, is a great pity, but I do not know if any useful purpose will be served by raising the matter now. However, I urge that some consideration should be given in respect of that particular night. According to the Bill, closing time will now be 10.30 on Saturday night, and if it is not too late that proposal should be reconsidered.

I do not think any Bill that ever came before this House has caused so much canvassing. Every morning, practically, Senators have been canvassed——

The Senator has only the right of reply.

I thought we were in Committee now.

There are several good points in the Bill, which will be held up if Senators insist on their amendments.

What strikes me about this question is that the Bill got very fair consideration. The Dáil accepted our amendments in connection with Sunday opening and closing. Whether or not we were wise in these amendments, only practice and experience will show. With regard to closing hours on weekdays in the country, a case could be made which would seem quite convincing from the point of view of the person living in Dublin, that in summer time, in particular, publichouses should be open until 10.30. We inserted that provision. The Dáil made a change which involved uniformity, that is to say, the Bill as it left the Dáil provided that public houses should be closed at 10 o'clock in the winter and 10.30 in the summer, both in the county boroughs and outside them. I am not in agreement with a 10.30 closing hour for Dublin. I think 10 o'clock is a reasonable closing hour from every point of view, including that of the assistants, but if we were to adhere to our amendment at the present time, we could do nothing except to have a conference with the Dáil. If we were to have a conference with the Dáil, it seems to me, seeing that they have accepted practically all that we suggested, we could not refrain from giving to the Dáil what they ask in this amendment apart from its merits.

It seems to me that if we were to have a conference with the Dáil on the two amendments this would be a very small thing to give them for the acceptance of our position generally. I do not think therefore that it would be, so to speak, good practice for us to differ with them on this particular point. If a suggestion were made for a conference and the figures the Minister has just given were shown to us, I do not think that, as reasonable people, we could insist on this one point. Therefore, though I prefer a Dublin closing hour of 10 o'clock all the year round, I am inclined to agree to the amendment of the Dáil on the grounds that if we did have a conference about it we could hardly be so unreasonable as to hold up the Bill on this one point.

I should like to know if there is any definition of "summer time" as used in this Bill?

That is the legal term.

If we have not any definition of that term and it is left to the interpretation of the parties concerned, somebody may say: "This is spring time" or "This is autumn time; it is not summer time."

That is provided for in the 1927 Act.

Summer time is a legal phrase.

Lawyers sometimes make mistakes.

The phrase "summer time" is dealt with expressly in the 1927 Act.

It seems extraordinary that in the absence of any public demand for this extra half-hour, the Dáil should reverse a reasonable amendment sent to them by the Seanad. If there were a public demand for a 10.30 closing, we could understand the attitude of the Dáil. Likewise if the times were normal one could understand the attitude of the Dáil but the times are not normal. The times are most abnormal in regard to transport and every other matter in relation to the consumption of alcoholic liquor. Supplies are short, transport is limited and is becoming more limited. Having regard to all these factors which go conclusively to show that there is no public demand for this extension of the hour, it is most unreasonable that the Dáil should not adopt the amendment sent to them by the Seanad. We can only, I suppose, protest against the attitude of the Dáil. There does not seem to be any possibility of re-enforcing the decision we have already adopted.

Senator Hayes said that nothing would be gained by a conference with the Dáil on this matter. Perhaps nothing is to be gained by a conference, but in view of the fact that there is no public demand for this extension, and that very probably the assistants will be standing idle behind their counters until this late hour, and that they will have to get home by means other than by public conveyances why impose these hardships on them at this particular time? If a conference would in any way bring about a measure of agreement between the two Houses, it might be worth while asking for the conference although Senator Hayes, who has very great experience in these matters, seems to think that nothing could be gained by a conference. The position now is that the extended hour will be put into operation. I suppose the Seanad having made its protest clear—at least those of us on these benches have made our position definitely clear—nothing more can be done about it. We do think it is a shame, having regard to the abnormal conditions of the times, that the amendment we sent to the Dáil was not accepted by it.

It is very interesting to find that there has been such a free expression of opinion in connection with this Bill. Everybody appears to have approached it with an open mind. I spoke in favour of a 10 o'clock closing hour when the Bill was last before the Seanad and I see no reason since to alter my views. I speak chiefly for the City of Dublin. Shops throughout the city have had to close early in order to economise artificial light. That is one of the factors that weighs with me in considering this amendment. Furthermore, the grocers' assistants are a section of the community who are entitled to as much consideration as any other section. We are all aware that transport facilities in Dublin are now very limited and that the buses cease to operate at 9.30 p.m. even in the city. The city has extended greatly during the past ten years. Houses have been erected in the remote suburbs. If a grocer's assistant, for instance, had to travel from the North Strand out to Drimnagh, it would be a very long journey to undertake after 9.30 p.m. when there are no transport facilities. In the old days the grocers' assistants had very long hours. They gained certain concessions through their organisation and, in my opinion, it would be very hard lines now if they had to sacrifice any of these concessions. In my view a 10 o'clock closing hour would be more suitable for everybody and would not inflict hardship on anybody.

The Seanad can congratulate itself on having considered this Bill, when it came before the House, in the light of the public interest. Sectional interests, it is true, were pressed, but on the whole they were not accepted. The Bill was considered in the light of what was best for the greatest number. I think even at this hour we ought to explain our attitude. It is very unfortunate that as the result of legislation which was meant to promote temperance, we should be asked at this late hour to grant an extra hour for drinking on Saturday night—a closing hour of 10.30 p.m. instead of 9.30 p.m. It is a most dangerous hour, it is the hour when the ordinary, decent working man is most subject to temptation. It is not these bona fide people I am thinking of; they want to carouse, and we think too much of them, perhaps. I am thinking of the ordinary working man; whom we would like to save from that temptation, which comes very strongly between 9.30 and 10.30, when the work of the week is over, and when he has money in his pocket and some sense of freedom. I regret that the closing hour was not kept at 9.30. However, we decided on 10 o'clock, and now we are asked to go to 10.30 p.m., and I am opposed to that.

I have heard no new facts adduced which would justify our changing our minds on this matter. The Seanad devoted a good deal of time on the last occasion to the consideration of this case, which Senators marked by their approval or disapproval, as the case may be, in a very strong fashion. The most extraordinary thing about these hours, which are being asked for by the Dáil, is that no one in the whole country—with the exception of the Dáil—appears to want them. I would really like to know at whose instance the proposition of these extra hours or half hours was initiated.

I have gone through the country and have a pretty fair knowledge of it, pace the remark of a gentleman—a Deputy in another place — who said a week or two ago that Senators were out of touch, that they were retired, leisured and cultured individuals, and apparently innocent. I am not surprised that Senators smile at that. If the House would forgive a little egoism, I would treat them to it. It so happens that I live, for my pains, within a mile of a very prosperous town in the south-east of Ireland. It also happens that there is not a Deputy within fourteen miles of it, and it so happens that occasionally I am compelled, by the accident of geography, to do a Deputy's work. People come when they want to push or pull wires to get them out of difficulties and to do the thousand and one things that we are bound to do, in all honour and conscience, for those who elect us. After all, the duty of a Senator or of a Deputy is not merely to record a vote. If that were so, existence would be very easy indeed.

It is true to say that I come into contact with the people as much as any other man in Ireland, and I resent the imputation—whether couched in the spirit of cynical levity or whether it was, as I suspect, mere verbal tripe —that Senators are any less or any more divorced than Deputies from the public in general. It is only fair to say that, and to make that clear, for the honour of this House. I have no objection to tripe at all but, when it comes to the verbal form, I detest it. It so happens that, in the course of my peregrinations through the country, I asked several people their views on these proposed extra hours. That brings me back to the point I have been trying to elucidate. Why on earth did the Dáil decide to have these extra hours? They cannot have been trying to convenience the common people in this instance.

I took five or six people—a commercial traveller, and none of them are pussyfoots, two publicans, an agricultural worker and a town worker—and I asked them casually, not leading them up the garden path, whether they were in favour of the extra hour which was being proposed, or what they thought of it. Every one of them disclaimed the idea of desiring it in the slightest. Therefore, in this case, we are asked to give way to the Dáil and to submit to an imaginary demand, to pay tribute to an unknown body of opinion; we are asked to grant a concession that no one has asked for. I cannot understand how the units of the Dáil, severally or collectively, could have asked for these hours, when there is no demand for them.

We are now faced with a coup d'état. We are told that, if we do not pass this, it will be passed in spite of us. The suggestion is slightly minatory. Our recommendations were reasoned, well thought out and debated here. The only thing I regret is the difficulty in which this would put the Minister, who has been, then and now, so disarming in his manner that it is simply impossible to think of putting him in a difficulty. However, if there be a division on this—I am not inviting the question as to whether there will be or not—I would consider it my duty to vote against the Dáil. It may be said that we are putting the Dáil in an awkward position, but what is our existence if it be one of pure acquiescence in everything that comes from the Lower House? What precisely is the raison d'étre of our existence? I suggest that not only has there been no public demand but that, if we were to take a referendum on this matter—though that would be like using a steam hammer to crush a butterfly—these extra hours would not be asked for by one-tenth of the people.

We are told that, in the case of houses on the border, this is intended to obviate a certain difficulty that may occur. It is said that the hard case makes very bad law, and I do not know whether the "drunks" on the border would justify this one or not. As I have said already, no facts have been adduced here which would justify our stultifying ourselves on this point. Much has been made of the difficulties of the licensed trade assistants. On the last day, I spoke—long, and, I hope, to the point—on these hardships; but these hardships alone would not make a case against this extra hour. The point is, that having discussed this calmly and at length, and having given every possible consideration to it, we put forward an ordered and reasoned amendment. The Dáil now sends it back, and says that it expects us to acquiesce calmly in our subsidence, if not in our extinction. It is hardly fair to expect us to do that; this House must have some dignity left. People may say on this or that point that we should give way; but we may be faced at some time in the future with something which would threaten the Seanad's existence; and if we cannot exert ourselves to the point of carrying on our freedom, I still think we should take up a position consistent at least with the dignity of this House.

My views are practically the same as those of the last two speakers as far as the principle is concerned, but I am somewhat inclined to agree with Senator Hayes that it is not worth while holding up the Bill for this. I have probably more experience than the last two speakers, though it is not a thing to shout about, of public houses and hotels. I say from a temperance point of view it would not matter a row of pins whether you keep them open for this half hour or not. There is another point I would like to have cleared up. I got the impression that the possibility is as far as the hours are concerned that they may not be put into effect until after the emergency. I mean that another Minister may intervene. Is that not so?

It is in his power to restrict, but I cannot say whether he will or not.

But it is very likely.

I cannot say that.

I think this problem may be divided into two parts. Probably the Minister and his advisers are quite justified in saying that in the other county boroughs if you had a 10 o'clock closing hour a man might walk out 100 yards or a mile and get a drink, but I do not think the same applies in Dublin. In Dublin it is a different problem because the boundaries stretch very far and there would be a very long distance to go. I am wondering whether we could get agreement as far as the county boroughs are concerned so that the same hours should be kept, and in the case of Dublin remain at 10 o'clock. I do not know whether that is possible. While I agree with Senator Kehoe that we should not take everything that the other House says if we do not agree with it, at the same time I would rather have some bigger problem to have a row about.

On a point of explanation, I said that my remarks applied chiefly to the City of Dublin.

I am not saying they did not.

I agree with what Senator Kehoe has said. The amendment has been given very careful consideration by the Seanad, and the Bill was debated section by section. After all, half an hour is a great deal of time to be allowed for drinking, and there is another matter which I am sure decided the Seanad. It was said that the 10 o'clock hour had been in force since 1927. Undoubtedly the previous Government had reason for that decision seeing that during the intervening period, and during the period of summer time, there had been no demand for a change in these hours. There seems to be no necessity for an extension to 10.30. I agree that the Seanad was right in restoring the hour to 10 o'clock. One of the arguments has been that there will be different hours on different sides of the border line. That would be a small matter, and would arise only in very few circumstances where there would be public houses on each side of the border, and consequently need not be taken into account. It has been said that we should agree with the Dáil amendment, because we have no power to alter the decision, and will be holding up the Bill. That is one reason why we should adhere to our decision, because it would be well to demonstrate to the country the utility of the Second Chamber.

Ba mhaith liom cuidiú leis an rún a thairig an Seanadóir O Cuire go nglacaimid leis an moladh do rinne an Dáil. Níl se ceart a rádh gur chuir an Dáil cúl le leasuighthe an tSeanaid. Ghlacadar le cuid aca agus chuireadar an ceann seo siar. Más mian linn troid a dhéanamh leis an Dáil ar cheist ar bith ba mhaith liom go mba ceist níos tábhachtaighe ná an cheist seo a bheadh inntí. 'Na theannta san sílim gur fearr gan moill a chur ar an mBille. I think in all the circumstances that it would be wise to accept the proposal made by Senator Quirke that the Seanad agree to this amendment. I agree with the Senator who said that there was no demand from any quarter as far as I know for opening until 10.30 in the City of Dublin, but we were faced with the position here that what we thought to be very fair and reasonable demands were made on behalf of farm workers in the rural areas, suggesting that the closing hour there should be at 10.30. That amendment was accepted and with it there was this further demand for opening in the City of Dublin until 10.30. I agree with the Senator who said that there is a very decided grievance on the part of workers employed by licensed vintners. It is a very great strain on them to have to remain on the premises till 10.30. The injustice is there, but the Cathaoirleach will explain the Seanad's power as regards holding up this Bill. I believe that the 90 days which we can hold it up will shortly expire.

The period for consideration of the Bill by the Seanad has expired, but the Bill was returned to the Dáil within that period.

If we want to engage in a conflict with the Dáil I think we should select a far more important issue than the present one. It is not fair to state that the Dáil has taken our recommendations lightly. They have accepted some of our suggestions. There has to be give and take in matters of this sort. No one in the Seanad wishes public houses to remain open later than 10 o'clock, but this is a question on which we should have, as Senator Michael O hAodha said, a certain amount of give and take. When a clash comes between the Dáil and the Seanad it would be well, if we are going to have a fight, to have it on a major issue. I think that this is not a major issue. In this case, I think that, no matter how strong the feeling may be, we should agree to the recommendation made by the Dáil.

I cannot claim to speak with expert knowledge on this question of the closing hours of public houses. I never really know when they should be legally opened and when they should be legally closed. I can find out only by asking somebody and, occasionally, I do not get very definite or reliable information. However that is by the way. So far as this question of 10 o'clock or 10.30 closing in Dublin is concerned, I must say that I have great sympathy with the demand that 10 o'clock should be the latest hour for closing the public houses. I look at the matter mainly from the point of view of the health and welfare of the publicans' assistants. After all, these are days of great emergency in which we are all under some kind of social obligation to produce the maximum output in the minimum of time. I have no doubt that, if the public tried very hard, they could achieve the maximum input of liquor before 10 o'clock and be able to walk home perfectly satisfied, without the additional half-hour that is proposed. It is up to the general public to accommodate their habits and customs to the interests and welfare of the publicans' assistants in this matter. The whole life of a publican's assistant must be most tantalising. Next to the life of the banker, who is constantly handling money which does not belong to him, the life of the publican's assistant must be the most tantalising. The publican's assistant, who knows the difference between good drink and bad drink, is handling all day some of the good things of this life, while it is extremely unlikely that any customer, at any time of the day or night, will say to him: "Will you have one"?

I have the utmost sympathy with the publicans' assistants from the point of view of the tantalising character of their occupation but, still more, from the point of view of the long hours which, under present conditions, they have to work. It is cruel that they should be compelled to work as late as 10.30, particularly on Saturday evening. That means that they are not really free to get some fresh air or exercise, or even to go home and go to their beds, until about an hour later. I think that the interests of the publicans' assistants have been ignored in this matter and I shall regret if we have to agree with the other House on this question of the closing hour.

I object very strongly to any lengthening of the hours for the sale of intoxicating liquor in any portion of the country. Senator O Maille, who, I am sorry, has left the Chamber, said that this extension was made to suit farm workers in certain places. The amount farm workers have to spend on drink is so small that they need not be considered in this connection. The Senator said that if there was to be a conflict between this House and the other House it should be on a major issue. I hold that this is a major issue, because it affects the lives of many of our citizens. Anybody engaged in the insurance business knows that, if a policy is taken out by a person engaged in a public house, he must pay an extra premium because he is not considered as good a life as a person engaged in another occupation. Whether this Bill can be held up for 90 days or 90 hours, this House should hold it up for the permitted period rather than increase the facilities for the sale of drink.

Have I the right to speak again?

Leas-Chathaoirleach

No.

Has Senator Quirke the right to speak again?

Leas-Chathaoirleach

As the mover of the motion, he has the right of reply.

I cannot speak again?

Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator can ask a question.

Notwithstanding that we have had numerous speeches, nothing of much consequence has been advanced in connection with this amendment. Some extraordinary statements have been made and I am sure that a few more would have been made if Senator Foran had been at liberty to intervene again. Amongst the most extraordinary statements was that by Senator Kehoe, that there was no demand for this extension of hours from the people of the country. Senator Kehoe should be the last man to say that the Dáil does not represent the country. When an overwhelming majority of the members of the Dáil are in favour of a certain course, it must be taken for granted in a democratic country that there is some demand from the people of the country.

I wonder.

I believe that, if the question were left to the people, a majority would vote for the half hour extension. We are gradually being manoeuvred into a position in which anybody who suggests that the public houses, inside or outside the borough, should remain open for an extra half hour is branded as an advocate of drunkenness. Nothing of the kind. Those in favour of the extension may be more temperate than the people who advocate the closing down of the public houses. It is amazing to find a man like Senator Tunney objecting in the strongest possible terms to any extension of hours in any part of the country. Surely, a man like Senator Tunney who advocates—rightly—consideration for the rural workers should take into consideration the fact that it would not be possible for an agricultural worker to get a drink at all if all the public houses were closed at the time which, I think, he suggested— 9 o'clock or 10 o'clock. If Senator Tunney, or any other Senator, were to say that there should be no drinking at all, I would give him credit for consistency, but if a man admits that agricultural workers are entitled to take a drink——

If they have the price of it.

——he must follow that out to its logical conclusion, and regulate the hours so as to permit agricultural workers to get a drink. There is no use in telling the people that they can drink all they wish between 10 o'clock in the morning, and, say, 7 o'clock in the evening. That would be class legislation, because you would not give the agricultural worker a chance to get a drink. For that matter, you would not give a chance to the worker in the city to get a drink. I am not in favour of drunkenness. Few people would object more strenuously than I do to drunkenness. I am not a teetotaller, but if there is one thing that annoys me it is a drunken man. But if you admit that a workman in the city has a right to take a drink, you must recognise that it takes him a certain length of time to get home in the evening after work, to wash himself, and to change his clothes. There is very little time left to him before even 10.30 in which to get drunk.

To my mind, it is an amazing thing that Labour Senators in particular should come along with that kind of argument. I have been circularised— just the same as Labour Senators, I take it—by the grocers and vintners' assistants to the effect that it is a terrible hardship on them to have to work an extra half-hour at night. I suppose it is, but, if people go into the catering business, then they must be prepared to meet the consequences and to supply the demands of the public in their own particular trade. To my mind the extra half-hour does not make all the difference that it is supposed to make according to the statements of certain Senators.

With the possible exception of Senator Hayes, I do not think anybody made the slightest reference to one very important matter in connection with this discussion, and that is the question of the public houses on either side of the boundary. Some Senator —I forget who it was—said that in the City of Dublin people would have a long distance to walk to get from the public house which would have to close at 10 o'clock to the public house which could remain open until 10.30. That depends, absolutely and entirely, on the situation of those public houses. One of them might be a yard at one side of the borough boundary, and the other a yard at the other side of the boundary. In fact, it would be quite possible for both to be under the same roof. I think any reasonable man who will look at the situation which might arise—people rushing from one public house, a yard or five yards or 100 yards on one side of the boundary, to another public house a few yards on the other side of the boundary—will agree that there is a big argument in favour of uniformity of hours.

As far as our powers of delay are concerned, to my mind we would only be making ourselves ridiculous in the eyes of the public by insisting on our powers in this connection. It is not the first time that the Seanad has insisted on its powers of delay, but I would remind Senators that the people did not take their action very favourably in that connection. I would suggest in all reasonableness that Senators should take into consideration that the only thing we can do is to put considerable difficulties in the way of the Minister and in the way of the Gárda authorities and of other people by insisting on what some Senator referred to as the upholding of our dignity. I would appeal to Senators to take the matter more seriously; to realise that certain arguments have been put up since we discussed the matter here on the last day, and to realise the various difficulties which would arise through our holding the matter up still further and refusing to accept the amendment of the Dáil. I would appeal to Senators on every side of the House to take those matters into consideration and to accept the amendment.

The Senator has said that he was circularised by the assistants. Did the employers circularise or canvass him at all?

Senator Foran may remember that I stated here in the early stages of this debate that more circulars had been sent out in connection with this particular measure than in connection with any other measure which ever came before the House to my knowledge. I have been circularised by every side, but I must say that I took very little notice of any of the circulars, and I think, with very few exceptions, other people took the same line as I did. Some Senators got up and made speeches which might be said to be an acknowledgment of the letters received. How much ice that will cut I do not know, but I doubt if it will cut very much.

Question put: "That the Seanad do agree to the amendment made by the Dáil to the Seanad amendment No. 1."
The Seanad divided: Tá, 16; Níl, 19.

  • Baxter, Patrick F.
  • Brennan, Joseph.
  • Colbert, Michael.
  • Conlon, Martin.
  • Hawkins, Frederick.
  • Johnston, James.
  • Lynch, Peter T.
  • MacCabe, Dominick.
  • McEllin, Seán.
  • O'Donovan, Seán.
  • O Máille, Pádraic.
  • O'Neill, Laurence.
  • Nic Phiarais, Maighréad M.
  • Quirke, William.
  • Robinson, David L.
  • Stafford, Matthew.

Níl

  • Byrne, Christopher M.
  • Campbell, Seán P.
  • Concannon, Helena.
  • Counihan, John J.
  • Cummins, William.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Foran, Thomas.
  • Hayes, Michael.
  • Healy, Denis D.
  • Johnston, Joseph.
  • Kehoe, Patrick.
  • Kelly, Peter T.
  • Kennedy, Margaret L.
  • Lynch, Eamonn.
  • Magennis, William.
  • O'Dwyer, Martin.
  • Parkinson, James J.
  • Rowlette, Robert J.
  • Tunney, James.
Tellers:—Tá: Senators Hawkins and O'Donovan; Níl: Senators Cummins and Eamonn Lynch.
Question declared negatived.

I move: That the Seanad do agree to the amendment made by the Dáil to Seanad amendment No.2.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

This amendment, I should explain, is consequential on the amendment which has been negatived. Shall I put the question?

The second amendment is only consequential on the first one, and therefore does not arise now.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

I had already explained the position before the Minister returned. There must be a decision for the purpose of the Message to the Dáil, although the amendment is consequential.

It could be withdrawn.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

No. It is an amendment from the other House. There must be a decision. I suppose I can take it that the amendment is disagreed to.

Question on the motion put and negatived.

Ordered: "That a Message to be sent to the Dáil acquainting them that the Dáil amendments to Seanad amendments Nos. 1 and 2 had been disagreed to."

Top
Share