My first amendment is a definition amendment, and is consequential on amendment No. 2. I think that, with the permission of the Chair, it would be much easier if amendments Nos. 1 and 2 were discussed together. I should be satisfied with the one decision.
Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1946—Committee and Final Stages.
SECTION 1.
Is the House agreed that amendments Nos. 1 and 2 may be taken together?
Agreed.
My amendments are as follows:—
1.—Section 1.: In page 2, after line 22, to insert the following definition:—"the expression ‘Circuit Court' means the judge or the deputy or assistant judge of the Circuit Court exercising jurisdiction in the county in which is situate the courthouse in which the sittings of the District Court for the transaction of licensing business for the licensing area are for the time being usually held."
2.—Section 2: To delete the words "the Minister" where these words occur in sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) in lines 23, 25, 27, and 33 and substitute therefor in each place the words "the Circuit Court".
I do not want the confusion to arise on this occasion which arose on a previous one. The purpose of these amendments is very simple. The case that Senator Hayes made a few seconds ago on the Statistics Bill about good measure is very relevant to this Bill. The proposal here is certainly good measure for an Intoxicating Liquor Bill, and it is that which is at the back of my objection to the Bill in its present form. As I have said, my first amendment is merely a definition amendment, and is taken from the Intoxicating Liquor Act of 1927. It is the method adopted in the Principal Act of defining the Circuit Court which is to apply to the area concerned. It is, of course, in regard to amendment No. 2 that the principle at issue arises. I made it quite clear on the Second Reading of the Bill, though one particular Senator tried to make the contrary clear, that, in the case which the Minister envisaged, where you are going to have bog premises— where, in the words of the Minister, you are going "to have miles and miles of sweet damn all"—it is right that proper facilities, a wet canteen, should be provided for the people residing in the middle of that vast space, if they desire to have it.
I am in entire agreement with the Minister so far as that is concerned. My objection is that that is not what is in the Bill. The Bill is very much wider in its scope. It leaves it open to the executive authority of the Minister to decide what is going to be a vast open space and what is not. If the Bill provided that there was to be a licence for the vast open space which the Minister envisaged in the course of his argument, then I would be in entire agreement with him that the proper place to put the power to grant the licence would be in the Bill and not in the court. But that is not the Bill. The Bill leaves it to an executive discretion to decide whether the place is sufficiently lonely, and whether there are facilities or not. It leaves that to an executive discretion, and not to the Oireachtas to decide on the one hand or the court on the other.
In my view the discretion should be a fixed determined thing: that either we should make up our minds here and now on the exact circumstances under which we want facilities to be provided or else we should define the general principles which, perhaps, are defined in rather too wide a manner in the Bill, and leave the practical application of those principles and how they are to be put into effect to those who, under the Constitution and under the ordinary law of the land, have been put in a position to decide such matters.
As I said on a previous occasion, it is right and proper that reasonable and proper facilities in regard to the sale of intoxicating liquor should be provided for a growing city. The town of Crumlin, outside of Dublin, comes at once to the mind of anybody living in Dublin. The law provides that where additional facilities are required for a town such as that, the person concerned has to go to the court and satisfy it that the need is there before a licence is granted. This Bill could quite easily say, in regard to these camp premises, that where there is no alternative facility within, say, two miles—that was the distance taken by the Minister himself—a licence could be issued automatically, but that, where there are additional facilities within two miles of the camp premises, the matter would have to go to the court. In such a case it would be for the court to decide whether it was right and proper, in all the circumstances, to grant the application. I would be quite prepared to legislate here and now that where there is no alternative facility within two miles of camp premises it is right and proper that Bord na Móna should automatically get a canteen licence. If that was in the Bill it would meet my objection. What I am urging is that, where there are alternative facilities within a distance of two miles, Bord na Móna should be put in exactly the same position as any private individual. It should have to go before the circuit judge and satisfy him that there was a need, and if it did satisfy him on that point, then it should get a licence. If, on the other hand, it did not satisfy him: if local interests were able to satisfy him that the need was already being properly catered for, then the licence would not be granted. It would seem to me that that would be a much fairer way of dealing with the matter.
On the Second Reading a suggestion was made by one or two Senators that I mentioned this for the sole purpose of bringing grist to the lawyers' mill. I think those were the words that were used. The Senator who mentioned that has little knowledge of the amount that would be involved. It is far more likely that in a case like that it would bring substantial grist to the newspapers, as Senator O'Dea pointed out, and to the local auctioneers who would be giving evidence in relation to the facilities and so forth. They would be far more likely to get the grist if there was a court application. I do not think, therefore, that we need consider that suggestion very seriously. It might have been made in good faith, but it was made without any knowledge of the procedure involved in making an application to the Circuit Court in licensing cases.
If the Minister had introduced a Bill such as he advocated in his closing statement on the Second Reading, I would have little cause to complain, but, as Senator Hayes said, he has introduced a much wider measure. I am sorry to see that that seems to be a tendency to which we have grown somewhat accustomed. There is a natural tendency that, if you want something, you ask for a little bit more than you expect to get. It would be equally fair to say that, as far as those who criticise measures are concerned, it is their duty to see that the Minister gets only what they think he should get and not what has been, so to speak, his opening bid.
I am not sure if I interpret Senator Sweetman's amendment correctly to mean that he contemplates that the Circuit Court would decide who should receive the licence in the first instance, but that the Minister should continue to have responsibility for the transfer, variation or renewal of the licence. As he is proposing to delete the Minister and substitute the Circuit Court in sub-sections (1) and (2) only, I think that would be the effect.
My reasoning was that it was the initial grant of the licence which was the important principle. There was a suggestion made by the Minister in the other House that if he had to apply at the annual licensing sessions—that is a nominal thing every year—it would be undesirable. I tried to meet him in so far as I could do so. It is purely the initial decision that there shall be a licence in a particular place that I have provided for —that that must be determined by the Circuit Court judge. Once it has been decided that there shall be a licence in a particular place, I am quite satisfied that it should remain for the Minister to say whether the camp shall continue at that place for which there is a need for a licence.
The Senator's amendment goes further. It contemplates not merely that the Circuit Court should be satisfied that it is expedient that a licence should be granted, but also should issue to a person who appeared to be fit and proper a certificate certifying to the Revenue Commissioners that the court approved of the grant of the licence. That concentrates the main objection I have to the amendment on the point that really matters. I have stated that the intention is to give this licence to the camp superintendent or the bog manager, the official of Bord na Móna, who will be responsible for the running of the camp. I think it very undesirable that we should take the risk of the Circuit Court choosing to give the licence to some other person not connected with the board's organisation, or to some other official of the board who for some reason might be an applicant for it. It is very undesirable that there should be any personal interest in this licence at all; it should be held by the official of the board ex officio.
I am in agreement with the Minister on that and, if my phraseology is wrong, I am quite willing to meet him.
The Senator would not have objected to leaving the decision with the Minister if it were in the Bill that the licence could not be given if there were alternative facilities within two miles of the camp. That is not quite the phrase I used. I said suitable alternative facilities. It seems clear that you could not leave it as broadly as the Senator puts it. The alternative facilities he speaks about might be completely unsuitable.
The camp might be a large one, containing 400 or 500 workers, and the facilities within two miles of the camp might be in the nature of a very small public house which could not possibly cater for the workers concerned. In fact, it might be undesirable that the number of workers concerned should attempt to obtain facilities at these premises. I mentioned that where there would be a camp in the vicinity of a town like Edenderry or Droichead Nua, then clearly the presence of a number of licensed premises would ensure that there would be adequate facilities and no facilities should be given to the board to operate a wet canteen. But where the camps are in isolated areas, I think that we should ensure that there are reasonable and suitable premises within two miles.
What constitutes reasonable and suitable facilities is also a matter in relation to which discretion must be exercised. There is no difference whatsoever between putting into the Bill that if the Minister thinks it expedient to operate a canteen at the camp he may do so, and putting in that if the Minister considers there are no suitable alternative facilities he may grant a licence. In either case, the Minister must use his discretion. You could not possibly eliminate from the Bill that element of discretion. I think it is better to leave the Bill as it is and to take the assurance which has been given that these facilities will not be granted to permit the board to operate wet canteens at the camps unless there is an absence of suitable facilities within reasonable distance. If there is an absence of suitable facilities, the board should get the licence, but clearly it would not be practicable to define in precise terms the circumstances in which a licence will be issued. I suggest the Minister is the suitable person to make the decision.
The fact that the licensing laws are administered through the courts introduces here what is in my view a false analogy. The principle on which these licensing laws were framed was that there should be no additional licence except in special circumstances and the courts were to decide what the special circumstances were. In this particular case we are asking the Oireachtas to decide that it is desirable that these facilities should be given at the type of camps I have mentioned and, having decided that, then to establish a simple and convenient administrative machine to give effect to their decision.
I have often heard the Minister better than he was on this occasion. Surely the position is that we are all in agreement that where people are working in a camp at turf they should have facilities for refreshment, to put it quite bluntly, facilities for drinking to a reasonable degree. We are also in agreement that Bord na Móna should be able to afford them these facilities. Now, I think I would be also in agreement with the Minister that you cannot put the conditions under which the licence ought to be issued into an Act of Parliament. In fact, the ordinary licensing law does not put the conditions into Acts of Parliament. It puts certain things into the Acts and it leaves to a circuit judge the decision as to whether the particular licence ought to be issued or not. What is in this Bill is that, granted that we all want these facilities afforded, it should be in the absolute discretion of the Minister, and of nobody else, to grant a licence. That is an amendment of the existing law. It is the introduction, in spite of what the Minister says, of a new principle, that is, that the discretion which somebody must exercise will in this particular instance be exercised by the Minister and not by a circuit judge.
The Minister goes on to say—I have been listening to the same phrase for 24 years—the House should accept the Minister's assurance. Of course it should. Every Minister thinks the House should accept his assurance. Why should this particular Bord na Móna be put in any different position from the ordinary licence holder? All that Senator Sweetman's amendment asks is that the Board should appear before the circuit judge and should say to the circuit judge exactly what the Minister has said to us except that they say it about a specific instance. They say: "Here we have 500 men. We want to accommodate them in this particular way. There is no suitable premises within a reasonable distance. There is premises within two miles or within three miles but it is not suitable for this great number of men and, therefore, in these circumstances, we desire to set up facilities for the men on the camp sites." Surely the circuit judge, to whom we give such a tremendous amount of discretion as between ordinary citizens, is capable of being the judge in that case, too. I do not see why he would not be. Surely there is no necessity to depart from the established principle of letting the court decide. The circuit judge is used to this kind of thing and he can consider the circumstances and can issue the licence.
I understand Senator Sweetman's amendment does not compel the Minister to go up every year, as other people have to go, but, in the first instance, surely it would be better from the point of view of Bord na Móna and the Minister that there would be no clash of any kind between a private interest and Bord na Móna and that, if there was, the person who is continually deciding when there is a clash between interests, namely, the circuit judge, would be the person to decide in this instance as in every other instance. It seems to me that from the general point of view it would be far better that the case that has to be made about individual applicants should be made in the first instance to a circuit judge. Remember, the Guards come into it, and the Guards are an impartial body also, and the Gárda officers realise all the arguments the Minister has given us, namely, that you do not want to have people travelling in groups to a small remote public house, and so on. That is all quite clearly realised by the Gárda and by their officers and surely they would assist Bord na Móna in getting these facilities for their people.
For that reason, it seems to me that, instead of leaving the matter in this form, which is the familiar form in Bills, of giving more and more discretion to the Minister—which, in effect, is discretion to somebody else, to Bord na Móna or to some civil servant—why not leave the matter to a court, particularly in the first instance, in the belief that the court will give as fair a deal to Bord na Móna as it gives to Patrick Murphy when he applies? I do not see why it would not.
I have to intervene having heard Senator Hayes. He is a very simple man. He would have us believe that all the Minister has to do is to go into court and make an application before a justice. Does not Senator Hayes know—do not we all know—that his application would be opposed by the local publican and all the influence and interest and obstacles that could possibly be put in the way would be put in the way of the Minister getting a licence? I do not think this case is unique. I think that there is a certain analogy between the Army and the turf camps. If there is a camp set up by the Army they do not have to go to a justice to set up their canteen. I see no earthly reason why the camp board would not have the right to facilitate their workers by providing reasonable facilities in their canteens.
If a local publican can put up a proposition and offer a better inducement to the workers there, let him do it but let the Turf Board have the opportunity of offering the opportunities to their workers to induce them and, having done that, I believe the board would have much greater control and that the workers would have more consideration when they were using their own canteens. We read that during the past season there were some very unseemly occurrences in parts of the country where these camps are situated. If these things occurred within the camp they could be dealt with there and they could be isolated whereas it causes great inconvenience to the people in any particular town where these men resort in great numbers and perhaps go in for a little over-indulgence.
I think the proposition of the Minister is sound and, while I am in agreement with a lot that has been said about Ministers getting power, I think we are perfectly safe in putting this power in the hands of the Minister or any Minister. The Turf Board know they want these facilities and it should be made as easy as possible for them to obtain them. It should not be left within the power of any local interest or personal interest to make it difficult for the board to get a licence. It is not just as easy as Senator Hayes would have us believe, namely, that all the Minister has to do is to make the application. The local publican would brief a local solicitor and perhaps Senator Kingsmill Moore or Senator Ryan or somebody else and the Minister would have to brief his counsel to meet the argument. We know that would go on. There is no use in Senator Sweetman trying to tell us that it would not bring grist to the lawyers. Of course, it would. Any man owning a licensed premises in the immediate neighbourhood of a camp would certainly make a big effort to prevent the board getting a licence. Then, again, if the Minister is restricted to the two-mile limit, the surveyor will be down with a chain measure. We should cut out all that kind of thing and allow the Bill to stand as it is, seeing that we all agree on the need for these camps, making it as easy as possible for the board to facilitate the workers. The profits from these canteens will accrue to the people working on the bog and we should do everything in our power to ensure that the people get the greatest possible facilities and profit from their own vice, if you like, of drinking alcoholic drink.
I am more simple than Senator Foran but I am not quite as simple as he makes me out to be. If the local publican, whoever he is, has any objection, why should not he be let state it in court? Is not that what he does in the ordinary way? I have no interest in publicans. I have no interest in barristers, either. But why should not the publican be allowed to state his case and would not it be better for the local publican, if he has an objection, to go into court or appear by way of counsel than to be log-rolling with the local T.D. or the local Senator for the purpose of influencing the Minister when it is in the Minister's discretion? The present Minister knows better than anybody the affliction it is to have T.D.s and Senators writing to him about licences, and this is an additional case for him now. It would be far better to avoid that. I quite agree that if the local publican has not got the facilities, he ought to be put aside but, if he thinks he has and if he thinks he has a grievance, then the proper place to state it is in court. I agree entirely with the Minister that it is not practicable to put into the Bill anything about a two-mile limit. I would not bind anybody in that way. I would say "suitable facilities" or use some such phrase and let the circuit judge come to a decision. The argument that it is bringing grist to the lawyers' mill could be used against every Bill we pass. If we do not want to bring grist to lawyers' mills, we should shut down.
We can all be quite clear that no one wants to deny these facilities to the turf workers. We appreciate that there is a necessity for them. It is all a question of the approach. Much as I respect the Minister and the way he does his work, and the ability and discretion exercised by the officials of the Turf Board, I do not believe they should be put above the licensing laws any more than any other group of citizens. They should be obliged to approach this problem in exactly the same way as any other group.
Senator Foran draws an analogy between this and the provision of canteens in the Army. I do not think you can draw such an analogy at all, The Army is accorded facilities in every country that are not the privilege of other groups of citizens. You could, of course, have other groups of workers situated elsewhere and demand similiar facilities for them as for these turf workers, that is, not through the procedure of the court at all but by some such method as this. I was slightly disappointed by what the Minister said on the last occasion, when he left the impression on me that this was, to a certain extent, a temporary provision. I would hope that it would be nothing of the kind. The Minister left us under the impression that the turf would be cut away and then the canteen would be moved on. I suggest that what he is seeking now is power to erect wet canteens in certain areas, which I expect would be permanent institutions—that is, if the board is to do the job I visualised when the Minister was putting the Turf Development Bill through the House. When you cut your turf, you have the other problem of reclamation, which means there will be permanent buildings there for the workers. We must look at that side of the problem. If that is so, it means establishing in particular areas wet canteens which eventually will develop into the ordinary kind of licensed house which we find all over the country. If that assumption is correct, those premises ought to be subject to the ordinary procedure of the licensing laws. It would be much more satisfactory, from the point of view of Bord na Móna, if they had to go before the Circuit Court judge and get their authority, than that they should get it from their own Minister. I am convinced that, for their sake, from the point of view of their reputation, they should get no advantage that is not the right of everybody else in the country. That is the way the others have to get their authority and if they do that, I am sure it will not be denied to them.
Senator Foran suggests that it is difficult to do that. I think the Oireachtas would be very impatient with the decision of a Circuit Court judge who would deny those facilities and I do not think it would happen. That point should not be made as a reason why Bord na Móna should not go to the Circuit Court for authority. The Minister would be acting wisely and for the better conduct of these establishments, by letting it go to the judge. There is nothing at all in the point that lawyers will benefit. After all, there may be two or three lawyers concerned in this altogether, as the camps are located only in certain areas. That is a point with no substance whatever in it.
There is an orderly way of proceeding to do the right thing, a way that is fair and above-board. If you have something to do that you can justify, it would be far wiser—even though there are certain inconveniences to be faced—to go the way everyone has to go, taking no short cuts. I am absolutely convinced that the decision to leave it with the Minister, which means leaving it to Bord na Móna, is not wise, in the interests of the board itself. We would regret it later on, if there were any sort of trouble in any of these camps, arising out of these wet canteens being there, perhaps arising through some people going to their own canteen and having drinks there and others going to the publichouse three or four miles away and taking some of the kind of drink which would not be good for them and then causing a disturbance in the camp. It would not be for the welfare of Bord na Móna then if they had got the permit in an indirect way, a way in which no other group could secure it. In whatever form Senator Sweetman's proposition might be embodied in the Bill, it should be accepted in principle.
If this amendment is accepted, I do not know what it would lead to. We must take into account that the licence is described as an "on-licence". If you go before a circuit judge under this Bill, there are three kinds of licences he can grant—an ordinary seven-day licence, a six-day licence or an early closing licence, which means closing an hour before the usual time. If a licence were granted by him, it would mean that the premises would have to be open during all hours for which licensed premises must be open.
Why?
Because that is a condition of a licence. Anyone is entitled to demand a drink.
The definition of a licence in this case is in Section 1.
That makes the matter worse. It says:—
"the expression ‘on-licence' means a licence for the sale of intoxicating liquor for consumption either on or off the premises."
There is nothing in that to define hours or anything else. The circuit judge under this Bill would have power merely to grant one of the three licences. Then any local publican or any friends of his could go up, at any hour during which licensed premises must be open, and demand a drink— and have the licensee prosecuted if he refused to supply it. I understand that the idea in this case is that these licensed premises would be open only for certain hours of the day, that is, not during the hours when the people would be working. The life of the licensee would be made unbearable. It would defeat the whole purpose of the Bill if such a licence were granted.
The second question that arises is: who is to be the applicant for the licence? Somebody spoke as if the Minister was to be the applicant, and somebody else spoke as if Bord na Móna was to be the applicant. A company cannot be an applicant for a licence. It must be the nominee or a manager of the company. In order to apply for a licence he must show title, if he is applying in the ordinary way. Is it suggested that Bord na Móna should make a lease to him of portion of the premises in order that he may apply for a licence therefor? If not, is it merely that he is to be the nominee of Bord na Móna or a manager? Then, supposing he is dismissed, he might refuse to transfer the licence. There would be a licence in existence and the Minister could not issue a new licence in respect of a premises for which a licence was already in existence and he could not transfer the licence. I can see possibilities in that which would make the whole thing absolutely and entirely unworkable. In order to carry out that amendment you would have to change the whole framework of the Bill, define the various powers, give the licensee power to trade only at particular hours, and make other arrangements by which the Minister could cancel the licence and issue a new licence if any difficulty arose such as I have anticipated.
Senator O'Dea astounds me. That is the only word I can possibly use. I would have thought that the Senator would have appreciated the fact that the Circuit Court judge grants a particular type of on-licence specially defined in this Bill.
On a point of correction. There is no special licence defined in this Bill, such as the Senator refers to.
I am sorry, but, in that case, I cannot read lines 21 and 22 properly. If lines 21 and 22 mean nothing, perhaps the Senator will put down for the Fourth Stage an amendment to delete them. The fact is that this Bill enables an on-licence to be granted and that the words "on-licence" are defined in lines 21 and 22.
The usual definition.
I always understood that a definition was what the words meant. But if the Senator's case is correct, then it is equally correct to say that, if the Bill is passed as it is and the Senator goes into a Bord na Móna canteen and asks for a drink at a time when all the men are out in the bog and is refused, the Senator can prosecute the person to whom the licence is given by the Minister. I do not know whether the Senator makes that suggestion or not. But if the Senator thinks that that is the law, then I suggest that the Bill ought to be amended by the Senator and I will support him if that is correct, so as to provide that the canteen will be open only at proper hours to ensure the working of the camp.
It is not done.
The Senator forgets that that was not my objection; it was his. I have always understood that Senators who had objections were the Senators to put down amendments. However, that does not make any difference to the point about the grant of the licence. So far as the second point raised by Senator O'Dea is concerned, I do not like giving an advertisement to any establishment in the city, but I understand that there is an establishment where one can obtain refreshment called J.G. Mooney and Company, Limited, which is a company in respect of which, I understand, licences are given under the Intoxicating Liquor Acts to managers, as presumably is the intention in this Bill and is the intention which has been stated by the Minister. As I went to some pains on the last stage to try to make clear, there is, in effect, absolutely no difference in the licensing law between the two. It could be done just in the same way here as in the other.
If the Minister makes the point that he wants to be the person selecting the applicant because the applicant is to be the manager of the local turf camp, then I am quite prepared to yield that to him and that can be quite easily met. If the Minister is prepared to meet me, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment I have on the Paper and substitute another amendment on the Fourth Stage which will be a very simple one, which will merely delete the words "the Minster" where they first occur in line 23—in other words, it will be "whenever the Circuit Court is satisfied that it is expedient"—and where the words "the Minister" occur later on leave them there, so that the Minister would have the choice of the applicant, but it would be the Circuit Court who would decide whether it was proper for a particular location to have a canteen. The location of the canteen is the matter in which I am really interested.
I am afraid I do not see the objection of Senator Foran. I feel that if a licence is clearly and obviously necessary for an area because there are not suitable available licensed premises, then it is quite clear that the local licensed trader, if he is a long way away, will not bother about going to a lot of expense and there will not be any opposition. The only case in which there will be opposition is where it is doubtful whether the existing accommodation that is available is suitable. That is the case where there will be opposition to the application of Bord na Móna. If the case is doubtful, then I think that the proper person to resolve the doubt is the Circuit Court judge and not the Minister.
I take it we are all agreed that in the case of these isolated turf camps, there should be wet canteen facilities. We are all agreed that, if there are to be wet canteen facilities, the licence which must be issued should be issued to a nominee of Bord na Móna, the official in charge of the camp. The Bill says that the Minister is to decide that the circumstances are such as to require the provision of canteen facilities and, having so decided, to give a certificate to the person nominated by Bord na Móna to get his licence from the Revenue Commissioners. That seems to me to be the straightforward way to do it. As I understand, what Senator Hayes and Senator Baxter suggest is that, instead of the Minister making the decision, the Circuit Court should make the decision, and they were careful to say that the result would be exactly the same. Why should we do it that way? It is not quite as simple as Senator Sweetman suggests. Putting in the words "Circuit Court" instead of "Minister" would not ensure that result, would not ensure that the licence would be issued in the circumstances which we have had in contemplation during our discussions here, without further and elaborate provisions. It would be necessary to make a much more elaborate provision than that.
We would have to enjoin the Circuit Court to issue a licence in circumstances in which the Oireachtas is of opinion that a licence should be issued, and not merely leave it to be satisfied that it is expedient that a licence should be granted, without giving any further indication of the circumstances in which in our view the licence should issue. I think it is an unnecessarily roundabout way of doing it, solely for the purpose of preserving what Senators think to be an important principle in regard to the licensing law, namely that the Circuit Court should be the deciding authority rather than the Minister. I think that is important only where it is a question of making a choice as between individuals in the matter of conferring a privilege which may yield a profit. In this particular case there is no dispute whatever as to who should get the licence.
There is no question of profit in the licence and, therefore, there is no necessity to call in the Circuit Court to decide as between rival claims. The only decision that has to be made of that character is on the issue of the suitability of other licensed premises in the vicinity of the camp. That is a matter which could undoubtedly be decided by the Circuit Court, but in order to enable it to give a decision, it would have to get from the Oireachtas far clearer directions than the Bill contains at the moment, and it would therefore necessitate a far more elaborate measure. I do not think that is necessary. I think it is quite competent for the Oireachtas itself to decide that there should be facilities at these camps, that these facilities should be secured by means of a grant of licence to the official in charge of the camp and therefore to ask the Minister to go ahead and arrange accordingly. It seems an unnecessary complication to bring in the Circuit Court. If we bring in the Circuit Court we are taking a chance that the purpose we have in mind will not be achieved at all.
Nobody doubts that the Oireachtas is competent to decide it. I agree with the Minister that we are competent to decide it, but the Minister is taking a short cut.
Surely the mover of the amendment did not intend that it should be taken seriously, because it applies only to Section 2 and it leaves the Minister power in later sections to vary a licence or to transfer it. I think that is very anomalous. I am sure that if Senator Sweetman thought there was any chance of his amendment being accepted he would not have overlooked that fact.
The reason Senator Sweetman did not put in any further amendment is precisely that he had not overlooked that point. He foresaw there might be a change in the managers of camps and he did not want the Minister in changing managers to be cluttered up with unnecessary detail.
Amendment put and negatived.
Question proposed: "That Section 1 stand part of the Bill."
It seems to me that the definitions in this section may require some clarification. The first definition, referring to "bog premises", says that the expression "means all the buildings for the time being erected in a bog." All the discussion here so far related to camps which are near a bog or in the vicinity of a bog. I do not like to be the means of bringing grist to the lawyers' mill, and I fancy that this may bring some grist to the lawyers' mill if it becomes part of the Act. Again, the second definition says that the expression "licensed bog premises" means premises in a bog and later on it contains the words "only of the bog premises in such bog". I may point out that the Minister in speaking to this mentioned the fact that it is desirable that the camps should adjoin bogs because the premises were to be in the camps. This Bill refers apparently to licensed premises in camps which are, as far as I am aware, in the vicinity of the bogs but not in the bogs themselves, as many of the speakers have been here to-night. I should like the Minister to look into the matter or he may be in another bog at some future date, if the matter is not rectified. When we went down to visit the bogs on the invitation of Bord na Móna we were in the camps but we were only in the vicinity of the bogs. I think these definitions may require attention before the Bill becomes law. When we went to Clonsast the camp there was not in the bog.
In Clonsast it is.
Mr. O'Donovan
It is contiguous to it but it is not in the bog itself. We saw miles of railway running out to the bog.
That was not in Clonsast.
Mr. O'Donovan
We visited some camps which were not on the bogs at all. One of the camps was away up on the side of a hill.
I queried that wording originally and I think there is a reference in the licensing laws which makes it clear. I was assured that was the proper wording.
Section 2 makes it all right.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
I move amendment No. 3:—
Before sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) The Minister shall not issue a certificate under this section until he is satisfied that provision has been or shall be made in respect of a bog for accommodation separate from the proposed licensed bog premises in which shall be available non-alcoholic refreshments, such as teas and minerals, and also tobacco, to workers on the said bog.
The House will remember that, on Second Reading, I mentioned this matter and I was supported by Senator Honan and Senator Kehoe, who spoke at some length. The Minister then gave us a promise that he would look into it and see that our wishes were carried out as far as possible, though, he said, they could not be carried out absolutely. He stated that he could not insert anything of the kind in the Bill. I understand the difficulty is in administration—at least I have been told so by people who know these things better than I, but I cannot see it. However, as a matter of principle, I raise the point again and I should like to see this sub-section inserted in the Bill. I am speaking for everybody interested in the welfare of the young, especially parents, and particularly I speak for the thousands of persons who are very worried about the provisions of this Bill. I speak for the growing boys and girls and the men and women who think that these licensed premises would be a source of danger to the younger men—in fact, you might call some of them boys.
I can foresee somebody in this House telling us that you cannot make people saints by legislation, but I think that is a very futile argument. We have been all endowed by Providence with a free will and we are either what we ought to be or what we ought not to be of our own volition. There is no question of compelling us. However, the difficulties are there and I hope the Minister will look into the matter and accept this amendment, if he can at all.
In regard to the talk about making saints, I think it is the duty of the Legislature and the people at large, if they cannot make saints or sinners of certain people, at least to help the weaker members of the community and, by the weaker members, I really mean the younger members. We should help them, at least, on the right path and not tempt them on to the wrong path. If a young fellow between 16 and 25 years contracts drinking habits, they are likely to last for his life. Moral and material ruin, with the break-up of families, is a frequent result of those habits. I should be very grateful if the Minister would accept this amendment, which, I believe, is a useful amendment. So far as the suggestion is concerned of the Legislature trying to make people what they should be, we cannot compel them but we can help them. That was very clearly brought out when the Censorship of Publications Bill was going through. That argument was used and the Minister in charge of that Bill resisted it and the Bill became an Act. I ask the Minister, if at all possible, to accept this amendment which, I believe, would be for the good of the community and, particularly, for the good of the young men working at these camps.
I support the amendment of Senator Miss Pearse. Evidently, she wants cigarettes, non-intoxicating liquors, teas and other such things sold in a separate compartment. That ought to be done. There is no doubt that if young fellows have to go in for their cigarettes to places where intoxicating liquor is sold, they will be brought aside and pressed to take a drink. Some of them are likely to succumb to the temptation and to break their pledge, with permanently bad results. Apart from that, there is a clause in the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1927, which states that, where there is mixed trading, no business can be carried on during closing hours without a breach of the licensing laws. It would be illegal to sell cigarettes or teas during closing hours in licensed premises. If the Minister says that he will carry out that provision of the 1927 Act, the amendment may not be necessary, but I suggest that it should be carried out. Temptation should not be held out to young fellows in a bog to take to drink by going into places where drink is sold. They may be teetotallers or they may be temperate but, if they commence drinking, there is likely to be drink after drink and, with teetotallers, the breakdown will be worse than with others. I suggest that the amendment should be carried out, at least, in spirit.
I have great pleasure in supporting the amendment. I have had 40 years' experience of business conducted in premises part of which was licensed. Consequently, I have had unique opportunities of watching the happenings in such places from the point of view of a person interested in the business who is also a Pioneer. I myself have never tasted drink. I must admit that the atmosphere even of a well-conducted licensed premises is bad for young people. Young persons are freely allowed in these places to mix with their elders. The law is such and I have been amazed an infinite number of times to hear older people improperly prevailing upon young fellows of from 20 to 22 years to depart from the drinking of minerals and to imbibe strong drink. I have often lost my temper with such persons. I frequently felt that there was a devilish design on the part of men of mature years to induce innocent young men to take to drink. Quite recently, a father and son came into my premises in the morning. The father called for two glasses of whiskey. In answer to my question, he said he wanted the second glass for his son. I asked his age and he told me he was 16 years. I said: "You, as father of that boy, ask me to give him a glass of whiskey to ruin his career. Do you appreciate your responsibility as a parent?" He said that, if I did not give it to him, he would get it somewhere else and they passed out of the premises. That is not the first time I had an experience like that.
I have had 40 years' experience of the disastrous results to young men from the influence and bad example of older people with whom they came into common association in publichouses. I think that Senator Miss Pearse's amendment would do splendid work and, without attempting to dictate to the Minister on the subject of his responsibilities and duties, moral and otherwise, I think that this is one of the most serious aspects of the Bill. The Minister stated last day that 700 or 800 men were to be congregated at some of those camps. I do not know what percentage of the 700 would be boys or young men. I know that about two dozen from my own part of the country left the care and watchfulness of their parents and plodded their way to Kildare to get into one of those camps.
If these young men are allowed to intermix with older men who are accustomed to drinking, my experience teaches me that it will gradually lead to the ruin of some grand young fellows. Quite recently I was tempted to hit a responsible citizen in a certain town when I saw him deliberately leading a young fellow astray in this fashion. Now, that young fellow cannot get a sufficient quantity of drink to consume although he is not more than 24 or 25 years of age. We must accept a certain moral obligation in matters of this kind, and I trust that, as Senator Miss Pearse suggested, a portion of the camp premises will be set aside for the young men to whom I refer, such portion to be completely independent of that part in which spirituous liquors are sold. That will be the only security for their prosperity, peace and contentment. As one of the oldest Pioneers in the country, I suggest that that is the only safe path for these young men.
I support the idea put forward by Senator Miss Pearse. We should all try to remove the temptation from the path of youth. There may be another way of accomplishing what Senator Miss Pearse has in view. That would be by segregating the men who drink from the men who do not drink. There could be a bog at which there would be a pub and another at which there would not be any. The men who require the drink could go to the bog where facilities were provided and the others could go to the other bog. So far as I know, most of the men who drink could spend all their available money on Sunday in a few hours. I do not know that we are starting off properly by putting a pub in every bog. I hope the Minister will move slowly in that direction. I think that that is a rather rash proceeding. It may be a good thing to have a pub in a bog for the convenience of men who are inclined to drink, but in the case of bogs where men who have wives and families are working, I wonder what will the wives say to the men who drink their money in these pubs.
I am afraid the Minister will be creating trouble in many homes and I suggest that we should save him from it. I am well aware that the turf bogs are the most desolate and depressing places in which a man could work and I agree that we should do everything we possibly can to make the lives of these men who work there, brighter and better, but if we run away with the idea that a "pub" in every bog will settle the matter and achieve what we seek to achieve, we are making a mistake. I ask the Minister to hasten slowly and to think over what I have said.
This is a matter upon which there is no difference of opinion at all. Everybody agrees that it is desirable that accommodation separate from that in which drink will be sold should be provided for the sale of tea, milk, minerals, cigarettes and tobacco. I agree with that and Bord na Móna agrees with it. They have the intention of providing that separate accommodation in the camps licensed under the Bill. My objection to the amendment is two-fold. First, I object to the implication that Bord na Móna will not provide separate accommodation unless compelled to do it by law, because that, of course, is the idea behind the amendment. Secondly, I object to it because it is not possible to frame an amendment which will make it practicable for Bord na Móna to give full effect to it and which, at the same time, will be legally clear.
The construction of these camp premises will not be uniform. There may be necessity for having more than one mess-room or canteen in some premises, and, in others, there may not be room for more than one which might have to be divided. I think, however, there need be no apprehension in the mind of anybody that the board will not be anxious to ensure and will not take steps to ensure that separate accommodation will be provided. Separate accommodation will be provided. It is my intention that it will be so and it is the board's intention that it will be so, and, in their plans for new camp premises, they have made the necessary provision; but I think is undesirable that we should put a sub-section of this kind in the Bill because it would be almost impossible to frame a provision which would cover all the cases, and, at the same time, make the legal obligations of the board clear.
I am sure there are Senators who remember the prolonged debates and elaborate provisions which followed on the decision to enact the segregation of premises to which Senator Madden referred. There were weeks of controversy concerning the provision of the licensing Acts which gave effect to that intention, and it is much better in a case of this kind, where we are dealing with one organisation operating these camps, to leave the matter to their judgement, knowing that their judgment will be the same as that of every responsible person, that they will be fully alive to the desirability of having separate accommodation and that they will have, if they need it, the instruction of the Minister for Industry and Commerce to provide separate accommodation and that there is not the slightest risk whatever that there will not be separate accommodation. In these circumstances, I urge that the amendment be not pressed. I think the Seanad might be satisfied with the assurance I am giving of the intention of the board to provide that accommodation in every camp licensed under this Bill, and I think they can be certain that the members of the board will be as much concerned as anybody here to see that the conditions in the camps are proper in every respect and particularly correct in this respect.
Will these premises be subject to supervision by the Guards like ordinary licensed premises?
Yes; they are subject to the Licensing Acts in all respects, except in so far as this Bill provides otherwise.
The Minister has dealt with a few of the points I intended to make and Senator Crosbie in his query has put the second point of the argument I had in mind. I was anxious to know whether these canteens would be subject to the ordinary licensing laws and whether they would close at the ordinary closing hours and open only during the hours at which other licensed premises are open. What I understand by a canteen is a premises which is open at hours convenient for those who wish to frequent it and closed at all other hours; in other words, a premises which opens at lunch-time, at tea-time and some time during the evening. I do not know whether the reply to Senator Crosbie's query covers the point and whether a canteen would be closed during certain hours and open at other hours during which ordinary licensed premises are not open.
With regard to providing separate accommodation, we are all quite satisfied that such accommodation should be provided and the Minister has said it will be provided. We might think it would be no harm to set it out in the Bill, but we have to accept what the Minister says, that we are pushing two open doors. I could be a little reminiscent about what happens to young people in the matter of drink. I never took drink as a youngster and I know what I had to go through. I travelled with football teams and when they wanted a drink, the order was: "So-and-so and a sucking bottle". The drink I did take was a couple of beaten up eggs and milk and that was the origin of the joke about the sucking bottle. Every one of us who tried to keep away from intoxicating liquor had to put up with a good deal of criticism of a good-humoured kind, but it can always have its effect upon the person who is not sufficiently strong to resist. It is like constant dripping which can wear away a stone—constant criticism can have its effect on many people. I think we are all agreed that this provision is of vital importance in order to save some people from themselves and to save others from the evil influence of their associates.
I support the amendment because I know that hundreds of young people who went to the turf camps went there temperate and I am not quite satisfied that they all came back without having broken their Confirmation pledges. I have seen total abstainers and people who were not total abstainers associating together on licensed premises and when it came to a question of the drink to be supplied, I have often heard said, when a desire was expressed for a bottle of some temperate drink: "I will not pay for that for you." There are young people who have sufficient courage and strength of character to resist any suggestion that it is manly to drink intoxicating liquor, but there are quite a number who could easily be led into the belief, as a result of pressure by their associates, that to be a man it is necessary to stand behind some measure containing either porter or whisky.
For that reason, it is necessary that there should be incorporated in the Bill a provision that would make it absolutely necessary for Bord na Móna to provide separate accommodation for total abstainers. By doing that, you will keep people out of temptation and will save people who have the pledge the humiliation which many of them experience when challenged with not having the courage to take a man's drink. A licensed premises is a proximate source of danger to such people. It is absolutely necessary to see that, so far as canteens are provided at the turf production camps, a separate canteen is provided for those who are temperate.
I should like to support the amendment. The remarks made by the Minister were, to a large extent, satisfactory, but the giving of a licence at all to bog premises is a very serious matter and may involve very considerable temptations and risks in the case of those for whom certain facilities are granted. It seems to follow, naturally, that some safeguards should be provided. The Bill enables one thing to be done. It should also insist that the other should be done in the way of a safeguard for people who do not take drink. Some years ago an intellectual sort of person was found after hours in the public house. I think this occurred somewhere in the West of Ireland. His defence was that it was not for drink that he went in but rather for the intellectual conversation. I am rather inclined to think that that may be a beginning, because in the case of boys, separated as they are from big centres of population and living in the conditions under which they will be obliged to live, to some extent in unnatural conditions, socially the strain on them will be very great, and there will be the natural tendency in circumstances of that kind to go in and mix with the others because the monotony of the place is likely to be relieved in that way. Take the case of two young people who, perhaps, are inclined to be friendly, one with the other. One goes into the place where the intoxicating liquor is sold. The other may be tempted to follow him. Of course, the opposite thing could happen, too. But if one is strong enough, and usually he is, to go into the temperance part of the building it may have the effect of drawing the other in the same direction.
The discussion so far seems to assume that this bog development work could not be continued if facilities in the way of getting intoxicating liquor drink were not provided. It is certainly throwing up the sponge with a vengeance to expect us to accept that principle. Personally, I do not quite agree with it. I should imagine that it should be quite possible to continue this particular work if we had none of these facilities, but since they are to be granted for intoxicating drink I hold that it is not unreasonable to have inserted in the Bill a provision similiar to that suggested by Senator Miss Pearse. I do not think there is anything else that needs to be mentioned by me. Senator Madden is a man who has practical experience of the dangers associated with the use of intoxicating drink. He certainly put the case in very forcible fashion as did other speakers, including Senator Miss Pearse herself. I suggest that the Minister ought to accept the amendment more or less as it stands. It is possible that it could do with some verbal changes. If the Minister were to accept it with these changes, I think he would be doing something that would meet with the approval not only of everybody in this House but of the nation as a whole.
While I am in favour of the amendment, may I suggest that even though it were inserted in the Bill I do not think Senator Miss Pearse would get very much more from its insertion than she has already got from the Minister in his statement. The amendment provides that
"the Minister shall not issue a certificate under this section until he is satisfied that provision has been made or shall be made"
and so on. I think the Senator weakens her amendment by the insertion of the words "shall be." If the Minister is satisfied that provision shall be made in ten years' time he can accept the amendment, and in that event perhaps Senator Miss Pearse would, actually, be getting less from him than she has already got in the undertaking that he has given. I confess quite frankly that some of the speeches made in support of the amendment made me feel that the speakers do not understand the type of people who are working in the camps. Some Senators talked as if the workers ought to be separated with barbed wire entanglements between them.
Senator O'Callaghan suggested that.
I want to say that I am just as interested as any of the Senators who have spoken in seeing that the people working on the bogs should not fall into temptation. But if people want to fall into temptation it is extraordinary how they can get into close proximity to it. While I think that Bord na Móna should do everything possible to make the quarters for the people who do not take intoxicating drink even more attractive than those in the wet canteen, I am sure we all realise that there is nothing in the world to prevent even Pioneers from strolling into the other place if they want to. If they cannot go into the other place, and if we cannot produce people of character who can go into such a place and come out of it as good as when they went in, then I am afraid there is not much hope for us as a people.
Surely, what we should aim at is the cultivation of a strong character in our people that will enable them to go through life with success. Senator Miss Pearse did talk about saints and sinners. The success of people going through this life depends on their ability to withstand the many temptations that fall across their path. I think that we can accept the Minister's guarantee in this matter. I am quite satisfied myself that the officers of Bord na Móna will, as responsible men, not want to see any young fellows coming into their employment and leaving it worse citizens and worse Catholics than they were when they entered it. Another important consideration from their point of view will be this, that the worker who manages to abstain from intoxicating drink will be found to be probably a fitter man for his work than the fellow who takes rather too much. For these reasons, I am sure the officials will be anxious to see that their men will live a life of temperance. As I have said, the Minister has already given an undertaking to Senator Miss Pearse, and I do not think that the acceptance of the amendment would give her anything more than what she has already got from him in that way. I think she can be quite satisfied that the Minister need not come back to this House again if he does not fulfil the pledge he has given in this matter.
I would like to say that I find myself in agreement with Senator Baxter for the first time in my life, certainly for the first time in the last ten or 12 years.
I am afraid that will have to go before a tribunal of inquiry.
I think Senator Miss Pearse has every reason to be pleased with the results that she has achieved in the moving of her amendment. She has got a guarantee from the Minister that I think very few other people would have got. That was given in such definite terms that, in my opinion, she has already achieved what she set out to achieve in her amendment. The Minister has satisfied himself that not only will provision be made, but that it has already been made to have separate apartments for those who take intoxicating drink and for those who take non-intoxicating drink. I should like to say, however, that this debate has quite shaken me in my knowledge of this country. I thought I knew the country well, but apparently I do not. I have been in most of the publichouses in the country and apparently things have been going on in them that I never saw or heard of. If it were not for the fact that Senator Madden is himself an auctioneer I would be looking for the sale of his publichouse. After having listened to his speech I cannot see how any honest man, thinking as he thinks about that business, could continue to own a publichouse. However, that is his own business. I think the amendment has served its purpose and I ask Senator Miss Pearse to withdraw it.
I would like to give my views on this amendment. I wish to support it. I think the Minister should examine his conscience. He will see there is something wrong when Senator Quirke and Senator Baxter are in agreement.
It is only temporary.
I am delighted to observe the support Senator Miss Pearse's amendment has got. I am satisfied, when the Minister has given us an assurance, that he will see it is carried out. This is a very serious matter. Senator Quirke speaks as if he were a very innocent little boy. He is quite agreeable that we should put a licensed premises within the camps in the bogs, where all those men are living. Is he aware that some time ago some of the men working on the bogs were driven mad by drink and they attacked the local barracks? Is that not a fact?
It was not in the bogs they got the drink.
No, but these were men working on the bogs. Will the Minister take precautions so that these men are not served with too much drink in the canteens? Will there be a limit to the amount served in the canteens?
It is the quality, not the quantity.
As one Senator said, God help the poor Pioneers who have to sleep in the same rooms along with those fellows who drink. When they go back home it might be worse than the attack on the barracks. It is a very serious step to have young fellows 16 and 18 years of age living around those canteens. Probably it is their first time to leave home, to be away from parental control. I am opposing this Bill and I say that if we permit a licensed premises in the places where these people work, I do not think we will be doing a good day's work for the country. Instead of encouraging extra licences, I would be in favour of doing away with half the public houses in the country. I would give them to Senator Quirke to auction them off.
What about Senator Madden?
I have great faith in the Minister and anything he promises, I know he will see it is carried out. I appeal to him to see that not alone will there be separate accommodation for those who want tea and minerals, but that there shall be no drunkenness allowed in the camps at any time. That is my principal reason for opposing this Bill—the fear of drunkenness. Whenever an official reports on drunkenness in the camps, caused through drink being supplied by canteens set up by the Minister, I should like that whoever is responsible will be dismissed forthwith.
I do not think Senator Miss Pearse should withdraw this amendment. I think the House should not give her permission to do so. We have got a very emphatic promise from the Minister, but that is not law. The people who will administer this legislation will not be bound by the Minister's promise. It is not embodied in the Bill. If Senator Miss Pearse's amendment is adopted, it will be inserted in the Bill, and in the ordinary way can be enforced. For that reason I do not think the Senator should be allowed to withdraw the amendment; the consent of the House should be necessary.
We have heard from Senator Kingsmill Moore arguments with reference to taking certain things out of the Bill, and the Minister opposed them. Here is a reasonable proposition to put something into the Bill and, instead of doing that, the Minister gives us a promise that is worth very little from the point of view of legislation. We want to have something embodied in the Bill, a definite obligation imposed by law. That is the only way you can do it.
The object aimed at is good and desirable. It is somewhat anticipated by the arrangements already in the camps. Facilities have been given for athletic sports and a dry canteen. We should make this obligatory on the Minister or on any future Minister. We want it embodied in legislation; we do not want merely a promise. For that reason I hope Senator Miss Pearse will not withdraw the amendment and that the House will not consent to its withdrawal.
My promise, as it has been described, is, I suggest, of far more value than the amendment, which is so ambiguous that it would mean nothing. It certainly is of far less value in the matter of securing what so many Senators desire than the declared intentions of Bord na Móna. I would much prefer to place my reliance on the good judgment and the good citizenship of the directors of the board than on an ambiguous amendment like this which, if inserted, may be the cause of legal dispute as to its interpretation. On that ground alone it is undesirable. The Seanad can rely on the good judgment and citizenship of the directors of Bord na Móna, as the body responsible for the proper running of the organisation, that they will make provision of the kind required because it will obviously make for harmony in their camps.
My objection to the amendment is that it is indefinite in its legal significance. Anything of that kind inserted in a Bill always leads to trouble. If we are to have a legal provision of this kind it has to be specific in every respect. That would mean a very elaborate section. As it is not practicable or desirable to have such an elaborate section, it would not be a good substitute to have an ambiguous section inserted and that is why this amendment should be withdrawn. Those interested in ensuring that the camps will be constructed so that there will be separate accommodation for the sale of drink and non-intoxicating drink and tea and other commodities of that kind, will find it is far better to rely on the declared intentions and known common sense and judgment of the directors of the board.
The Minister's argument would apply to every phase of public life. We heard the Minister's promise and his talk about goodwill, judgment and discretion. Now, we can go too far in that direction. I do not see any reason why the Minister should object if we want to make it legal and compulsory on Bord na Móna to provide dry canteen facilities for the people working on the bogs.
Is it necessary to take all stages to-night?
That is a matter for the Seanad.
On a point of order. This is the Committee Stage and we are entitled to intervene as often as we like.
Perhaps the House would like to hear the view of the mover of the amendment?
In view of the Minister's promise and his trust in Bord na Móna, and my own trust to a great extent, I very reluctantly withdraw the amendment, if the House will permit me to do so. But I do it with reluctance and entirely in deference to the Minister and relying on his promise.
Is leave to withdraw the amendment granted?
No.
I am entirely in favour of the amendment and so is everyone else in the House, but I think it is not drafted absolutely perfectly. I see the Minister's difficulties and that is why I asked are we to take all stages to-night.
That is for the House to decide.
It would be possible to leave this particular point over until the Report Stage and perhaps the draftsman could incorporate something which would meet our view.
I think there would have to be very elaborate provision. In any event, the Senator will appreciate that it achieves nothing merely to say the Minister must not do something unless he is satisfied about certain things. That has no meaning. A provision of that kind is of no importance unless there are sanctions of some kind.
I think it is the feeling of the House that they would like something of this kind and I wonder if the Minister would consider bringing in something on Report.
I have considerable sympathy with the object of this amendment but I am not at all happy about the method by which it is proposed to give effect to that object. I think the object briefly is that facilities for drink should not be of such a nature as to encourage teetotallers to forget their pledge. It seems to be the general opinion of the House that there should be separate premises in turf camps for non-intoxicating drinks different from the canteen in which hard drinks are sold. I do not propose to quarrel with that but I do want to suggest that it should be the policy of the Turf Board to provide every possible facility for the consumption of non-alcoholic drinks and I should like to urge that, even in the canteen where hard drinks are sold, there should also be an obligation on the management to provide non-alcoholic drinks so that persons going into the particular canteen would not be under the necessity of either drinking hard drink or going out again. Think of the awkward situation of a teetotaller and a non-teetotaller wishing to stand each other a drink if one can only drink in the dry canteen and the other in the wet canteen. How can they both go together for a drink? They ought to be able to have non-alcoholic drink in the wet canteens and, if he must have it so, let there be separate premises in which only non-alcoholic drinks are sold.
I am not quite sure if it would not be possible on Report Stage to introduce a variation of this wording which would insist on the desirability of the Minister providing facilities for the consumption of non-alcoholic refreshment in the wet canteen and, if possible, also in premises separate from the wet canteen.
I do not know why it is assumed that these precautions are going to be necessary. Why not put in that there must be a roof on the canteen?
Why not?
There should be a roof on the canteen, but is it necessary to make it law?
If there were not it would not be a dry canteen.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 2 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Agreed to take Fourth Stage now.
Bill received for final consideration.
Agreed to take Fifth Stage now.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
We have heard no explanation of the point very properly raised by Senator Seán O'Donovan in regard to the bogs. I must confess that I find myself in agreement with him. Clonsast is definitely in a bog but Shean is on agricultural land. The two camps in Corduff are on agricultural land, on the edge of a bog, but not in a bog. Muckland and Drummond are in exactly the same position, on agricultural land, not in a bog, but situated some little distance from the bog. So far as the camps in certain other places that are near other facilities are concerned I think Senator O'Donovan's point would be even more forcible than any amendment that I had on the Order Paper. That is something that perhaps will be tested through the courts by the use of the lawyers to whom Senator Foran takes such strenuous objection. If it had not been that I know full well how very serious Senator Miss Pearse was in her amendment I would have been rather tempted to have asked, through the Chair, whether Senator Mrs. Concannon believed that Senator Miss Pearse was serious because she had not put down her amendment to Section 3.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered: That the Bill be returned to the Dáil.